The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-29 00:00:00

the h and liockinp.hamqhiro miliec wa. Farther or,•ngti,_
4e, th c,f 1643 would show that James Selby, the attorney at Wavendon,
Was_ the nephew of James Lloyd of Salford : that he should
telear y show, unless the charge of forgery made by the At-
tafney General was estAlished. That Learned Counsel said
At-
that the will of James Lloyd of Monnington, made in 1669,
Was too good, as it proved too much. Now he (Mr. Ser
ma Talfourd) contended it did no such thing, but that it
,!ked the finger of Providence in preserving a record by
iwtt."eh the rightful owner of his property should inherit
To that document his Learned Friend had applied
tobservation that it was a forgery. He defied his Learned
Friend to prove the fact; and for that purpose he should pro.
duce the will from the Prerogative Court of Carmarthen.
He believed that if the will was out of the case, the other evi-
d„,e,rree in the case would
prove the claims of the demandant.
Lae Court could not come to the conclusion that the will was
forgery without the most stringent evidence. It was said
the amount given there was large in comparison with the in-
ttntory of the personal estate. He believed that if wills of that
le were produced, it would be generally found that false in-
:entories were made for the purpose of evading the payment of
the legacy duty. He contended, if such was the case, that it
she Wed the genuineness of the will. It was said the wills had
been loosely kept at Carmarthen ; he admitted that they were;
but that was not the fault of his client. All the parties who
cuuld give information on the subject would be called and
subjected to a severe cross-examination, and it would then be
, for the Court to say whether or not the the will was genuine.
It was said the wax to the will was new. Now he should produce
teveral wills of that date, for the inspection of his Learned
'fiend and the recognitors, and they would draw their own
by conclusions from it. If he were to adopt the course pursued
his Learned Friend, which he would not do, he could make
1241 t a strong case of suspicion against the tenant ; many of the
documents produced by the tenant had been brought forward
1,1,t the last hour. The question of who was the grandfather of
e tenant, must have been of paramount importance, and yet
It the
not to have been considered till the eleventh hour,
rd not then, until pointed out by Mr. Winter, who called him-
elf a farmer, and seemed to have a penchant for finding out the
thPedigree of persons with whom he has no connection. All
;ese circumstances he might put forward as extremely suspi-
:uus against the tenant. If he showed the Jury that James
loyd and Mary Lloyd were brother and sister, he had made
out his case; and that he should be enabled to do so he felt no
manner of doubt. The tenant here had not only the advan-
tages of wealth and possession, but that for which there was
rten great struggles in Westminster Hall, that of say_
lug the first and last word. The Learned Ser-
geant, after combating the objections to the demand-
ant's claim, concluded by expressing his fervent conviction
that the claim of the demandant was well founded, and would
be declared to be so by the verdict of the recognitors ; who,
notwithstanding the threat that they were now performing their
duties for the last time as recognitors, would not hesitate to
Pronounce a verdict consistently with their notions of justice.
William Hamlock, examined by Sir W. FOLLETT, pro-
duced the certificate of the marriage of James Selby with
ttbtrgaret Wells on the lth of December, 1655, at Waven-
don, and the certificate of the baptisms of several of the chil-
i." af that marriage at the same place.
dijthse_,.Arrowsav-GENEam. admitted that the lineal descen-
p of that marriage were extinct.
ercevai
Walsh, examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—Was
thePutY Registrar of the Archdeaconry of Oxford. Produced
ofJohn Chilton, dated the 22d Jan., 1688.
led 'l3Ba-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE—The first know-
ge witness had of any inquiry being made for the will in
Question was about a fortnight ago. Witness was not always
the office; the old wills were kept in the tower of one of the
e urches in Oxford, as there was no fire-proof place in the
°ffice of Deputy Registrar. The clerk, who was in the habit
?f of
for wills, was named Maberly. There was no
book of Administration at the time of the will being made.
Re-examined by Sir Was. FOLLETT—There were several
Leeks on the place where the wills were kept.
Samuel Bailey, the Deputy Registrar of the Archdeaconry
' Bedfl643ord, produced the will of Judith Odell, of the 3d of
dilne,

(Thelial was proceeding when we went to press.)

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
THE FORGERY AT MESSRS. ROTHSCHILD.—SENTENCE.
_At the sitting of the Court this morning, Gotthard Roake,
w ewas convicted at the sessions in July last, was placed at
fthu bar, to receive the sentence of the Court, which had been
'tedi in consequence of a point of law having been reserved
xt,he opinion of the Judges.
ft'''. Justice PARKE said that the indictment against the pri-
tier consisted of four counts—the first, forging a certain or-
Rderor the payment of 601. with intent to defraud Messrs.
othschild; the second, uttering the same, knowing it to be
h.beu ; the third, for forging a warrant for payment of the
-eo
eY; and the fourth, for uttering the said warrant. He
here could
on the third and fourth counts. Of the facts,
alit
could be no doubt, and on the law he entertained none,
was thought advisable to reserve a point for the consider-
ation
non ofthe Judges. The short facts were these :—The consider-
'ea
was was a teacher of the German language at Leicester,
to Aelu place he had quitted. On reaching London, he went
essra. Rothschild with a letter purporting to be from
of Zs. Schaffhausen, at Cologne, who were correspondents
essrs. Rothschild, who had money in their hands belong-
er to Messrs. Sbaffhausen. The letter introduced him as
Du; Francis Sturm, who was on a visit to England for scientific
thposes, and requested them to afford him all the facilities in
eir power, in geiting access to the public libraries, &c., and
that
them on demand to pay him 601. It was proved
when the prisoner presented the letter, he represented
~noself as the Dr. Sturm therein mentioned, but no money
Ca Paid him, as be said he would call for it when he wanted
t_ Two or three days afterwards he received 301., for which
ti gave a receipt, and in the course of a few days after that
l'ee other 30/. were paid to him. It was proved, that when
.-11:12 a letter
who had was presente in their money d at Messrs.
hands, t Rothschihatld s f
the person
rom a cor
Ponden-
O
sing it was paid whatever he claimed, not exceeding the
mount therein mentioned ; and if the person did not require
eoen v/.11.01e, the sum paid was written upon the letter, and they
th steered such a document exactly as they would a bill of ex-
efaege, and equally obligatory on them to pay to the extent
ill the funds in their hands. This indictment was founded on
Itneettiatute 11 George IV., and 1 William IV., c. 66, s. 10,
the question was, whether the document presented was a
IleVatit or an order for the payment of money, on which point
kt "ad taken the opinion of his brother Judges. He did not
selfetlnd the arguments, because having a clear opinion him-
% -11 the subject, he thought it better for them to settle it
eo:eigst thems.dves • and .they had come to the unanimous
4 ~ee'ion that 'tivt prisoner was rightly convicted—that where
did who „ wno was supposed to have a written order or warrant.
draw- right to draw that, and the person upon whom it was
thou 11,0 ad property in his hands to answer that amount, and
izedngut it obligatory upon bim to pay, that it was a warrant,
'rating or request; and as tbere were two counts, the one
retie
ntig it to be a warrant, and the other an order, the
telle-her had been rightly convicted, Had this occur-
Pria„e taken place a few months ago, the life of the
of tilher would, have been forfeited. It was the duty
atone Court, under all the circumstances, to inflict the
)B,4Bevere sentence which the law would allow, and that
kit 'et the prisoner be transported for the term of his
,rttrat.
_1 lire.
sakeuo prisoner, it will be recollected, was convicted at the
be h seslsions, of having plundered the clergyman with whom
Ithield been residing at Leicester, of a large quantity of plate,
Rost: he plsdged in London, the duplicates being found in his
for 1;14'0n. There was also another indictment against him
andering a person at Leicester of 1001.
ROBBERIES AT ST. CATHERINE'S DOCK.—Samuel
GeTer, sen. Samuei Fletcher, jun., Samuel Barker and
14eee,94e Barker, who were acquitted yesterday, were again
Nei," at the bar, charged with having feloniously forged an
Good: en the 17th June last, for the delivery of a truss of
pan with intent to defraud the St. Catherine's Dock Com-
et:44n' 4180 with altering a forged order; !here were two other
le calling the instrument a request instea.:ll of an order.
was a PHILLIPS, after the decision given by the jUr7 yesterday,
lien eel," that it should be necessary to take the opt:iion of af
h'smitlrY, in a case nearly of the same nature, but it :vas o
L404-Icltli3st importance to the trading community that a stop
be Put to such practices as those with which the •
the Pre Were ehar ed. He had not the least doubt that in
rtiirlsentoifndstoaunbgcte. the charge wonld be proved beyond all
lenity The short faots. of the case were these.
Tacit Ist of June a truss, containing twenty-six pieces of
Led merino, was sent by Messrs. Holdsworth, of Halifax, to
'a d.ln. Via Hull, by the Vivid. The truss was marked I. V.
teasei:4lttiod, on the left side of which was No. 1. In the
The t manifest the goods were entered for Mr. Vanburgh.
eotilliu.,ss arrived at the docks on the 6th, and remained there
1144 perable time. On the 11th or 12th four other trusses
directed to Mr. Vanburgh, 72, Leman-street, Good-
;`1, ;;fields- Tire were delivered, and on the 20th an or-
Nei Rned " Vanburgh," and describing the mark on
th..lher truss, was presented, directing it to be delivered to
//e pn°llthate, packer of Old 'Change. The order would
Zl)portle,,(Lto have- been 'written either by Barker (who had an
ase,r"LlY, from being employed as clerk at the docks, to
The taro the marks), or by the other prisoners.
lee ease
examination of witnesses was then proceeded with, and
ase
was likely to occupy a considerable time.

a F3a NEW COURT.
'44 $F NEW
CONDUCT OF A CAB DRIVER.—,John Sullivan.
'jet ti "'nag Dixon were indicted for stealing on the 29th of
praiirooch, a handkerchief, and four shillings, the property
Franc ouch,
Bazil
1)(341;,', ESPINASS.E conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
appeared for Dixon.
1/4 sere Prosecutrix stated that she is fifteen years old, and lives_
k.ight!aht to Mr. Jones of No. 43, Theobald's-road.. On the
hands question she returned' in ari omnibus from a visit. to her
k)1111 and got out in Holborn, when she was very. ill, and
11.0,,,,Nal offered td drive her home. In stead of doing so he
(biZT,t()Nthe stando' riße treet when he nailed out ". Tom"
Zlltalife'r !he. gotinupoawn-ds_ drove, and Sullivan came into the
Vir n. t -r-Pct acted rudely, and made an attempt upon her
h„ hxon drove the cab to t e corner of Chan ds-street,
17lired'hPulled up and some gin was brought, and S.Oliv. au
sht;lejefosurths of
.a glass down her throat against tier
tc,je` hear h`er" out, but it being a
robbed,close cb the passers-by did
and she got out as
Nieeehb
___che found_ sbeswbeas
fell down. She called out
Th' and th:th on, but
t a hr.„ cab was followed.
Nlcla pros
wassubjected to across-examination by the
4ehtt and the Bar, but her answers were satisfactory. . Two
u_..3,71e1l who had hired Sullivan on the same evening to
'itthlo°lllne luggage confirmed a material part of the girl's
kr.
• 'Cbert Sinclair Jones stated that he is a professional