The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-18 00:00:00

BELGIUM.

BRUSSELS, AuG. 17.—The Independent announces
that Government has agreed to sanction the Joint-
Stock Bank which it is proposed to establish at Ghent ;
and that its bye•laws will be very shortly published
under official sanction. The capitalists engaged in this
Bank are, we believe,. chiefly English, and partly the
same who would some years ago have founded an Anglo-
Belgian Bank at Brussels, had they been able to obtain
the consent oethe Ministry of that day.
On Wednesday evening a private in the regiment of
Guides, and a girl whose business was that of a work-
woman, slept at a house of ill-fame in the Rue des Cinq
Etoiles ; and early next morning they were found (lead
in their bed-room. The girl was lying on the bed, her
face downwards and hidden in the bolster. The soldier
was kneeling on the body of the woman, himself strangled
by means of a handkerchief. No external injury was
visible on the girl. The rumour is, that the soldier,
in a fit of jealousy, suffocated the woman, and then
hung himself.

The steamer Soho landed at Antwerp on Friday
morning 112 passengers from London, including Mrs.
Colonel O'Meara and family, Major Howard, Captain
Grindlay, Captain Sterling, &c.
The price of corn has risen very rapidly within a few
days, the last official average being 32f. 34e. the hec-
tolitre of wheat. Thus in six weeks the rise has been
nearly 6f. the hectolitre, or 35 per cent., and the price
is as high as it was in August, 1840. According to the
" sliding scale" of the Belgian Corn-law, wheat can now be
imported free of duty. It is expected, however, that the
present prices will not be maintained, as they appear to
result more from apprehension, and from sympathy with
the rising markets in England, than from any positive as-
certained deficiency in the crops. The recent snatches
of fine weather have been of important service to the
corn, and a large portion of rye has already been got in.
The stocks of last year's corn are said to be still very
ample. The accounts are very favourable from the
Campine (province of Antwerp). A richer crop of rye
than the present has not been made for some
years. All the crops, indeed, promise extremely well,
except the hay, of which a large portion has been
spoiled. Butter is very plentiful this year, but its price
is kept up by considerable exportations.
The Social's de la Grande Harmonic is receiving a
solid testimony of public favour in the liberal subscrip-
tions in course of receipt towards the building of its new
concert-room. The King has given 10,000 francs, Count
Meeus, Governor of the Bank, 10,000 francs, the Duke
d'Areinberg 2,500 francs, &c.
It is stated that the portion between Cologne and Aix-
la-Chapelle of the Rhenish Railway will be opened for
traffic in a very few days. The line from Aix-la-Cha-
pelle to the Belgian frontier will not be complete,'
for some time, owing to the numerous hills. The same
remark applies to the Belgian Railway from the fron-
tier to Liege; but it seems that the works on the dificult
ground between Liege and Ans are so far advanced
that the trains will be able, before the end of the
year to run into Liege itself. This will be a great boon
to travellers ; for the present change of carriage at Ans,
and the hour's jolting in omnibus to Liege, are at least
as fatiguing as the whole journey from Brussels to Ans
in the railway carriages. The journey from Ostend to
Cologne will then offer a singular example of the differ-
ence between railroad and common road speed. About
140 miles of railway will be performed in seven hours ;
while the break of only thirty miles will take between
five and six hours to traverse in diligence.
fsEL(IIAN! UNDl—BauseaLe. Auc. 'l4.
Actual Debt, 2% per Cent.
ltothschild's Loan, 5 per Cent ......... 10114
Loan of Thirty Millions, I per Cent......,,.,
3 per Cent.
Th irty .6 Qv en
(Imo) IOIX,
Lo in of City, 5n2, 4 per Cent .......... 91
Society of Commerce, 4 yi per Cent 9sN
Bank of Belgium, 5 per Cent.... ....... 73X4
Nationa I Society .
Exchange on London (shot t)
—Brussels Papers, Aug. 14.
AUSTRIAN FUNDS.—Vritzsma, Ave. 7
f tve per Cents. Metalliques
Fear per Cents.' 9714
Three p,r Cents.
Dink Shares
154 Zeilun. Aug. 11 i
PRUSSIAN FUN US.-13xamn, Ara. 7.
bills Money.
St. Schuld. Sch., 4 per cent. ......„ ........ 1044 10.1
Prussian English Loan, 1830, 4 per cent....101.N1 101'4
Exchange on London, three months 6 17X
—Prussian State Gazelle. Aug, 8.

A sailor, last week, who was in want of money,
his stock being reduced to sixpence, went to a pawn-
office in Berry-street, pledged his sixpence for three-
pence, and got it truly described in the duplicate ticket,
a " piece of silver plate of beautiful workmanship."
He then took his ticket to a public-house, and sold it
very readily to a pedlar for 2s. Gd., pocketing 2s. 3d, by
his ingenuity.--Belfast Vindicator.

Mr. Thesiger said the plaintiff came forward under
very great disadvantages ; he had to contend with
powerful adversary in the person of the representative of
the Times; but his actual calumniator was unknown.
His motives could not be discovered, neither could his
ratter be examined into. Great, however, as were
the disadvantages under which the plaintiff laboured, he
.(the Learned Counsel) hoped it would eventually be
fount' that he stood upon equal terms with his adversary.
The plaintiff had for many years been an active officer in
the navy, and was allied to a family of great respecta-
bility. Some years ago his father died, and subse-
quently his mother married Mr. Cunningham Graham,
a gentleman who at that time resided in Scotland. Pe-
cuniary circumstances, however, compelled Mr. Graham
to take up his residence in France, where he remained
with his family for some time, but eventually went to
reside at Florence. In the year 1835 the plaintiff retired
from the service upon half-pay, and went to live in
the neighbourhood of his friends at Florence. Being
a gentleman of active habits, he engaged himself to a
merchant at that place, and officiated in the counting-
house, where he remained for some time. Having be-
come known to the inhabitants, he commenced busi-
ness on his own account as a bite!sa7 anal was sh.zrtiv
after joined by two gentlemen of the names of Kerrieli
and M-Carthy, and the business was conducted under
the firm of Bogle, Kerrick, and Co. Their establishment
met with success, and was supported by most of the inha-_
bitants of Florence. The plaintiff was living in affluence,
and enjoyed the esteem and respect of all who were ac-
quainted with him, when the unfortunate circumstance
which gave rise to the present action occurred, by which
his'prospects were blighted, and his happiness destroyed.
In the year 1840 a number of foreigners—some of them
persons of high respectability—entered into a conspiracy
td defraud the continental bankers. The :Theme was to
be carried into eff.ect by means of forged letters of credit,
which were to. be presented simultaneously at the dif-
ferent banking-houses, and by that means a consider-
able sum would be raised. The plaintiff was -totally
unconnected with the scheme, and was perfectly igno-
rant of anything of the kind being contemplated.
When, however, some of the parties concerned were
brought to justice, it was found that some of his
nearest relations had been engaged in the conspiracy—
his stepfather, Cunningham Graham, and his son, Alex-
ander Graham, were active participators in it. As soon
as it became known that those parties were coucerned,
the plaintiff became an object of suspicion, and some of
the conspirators had the audacity to couple his name
with theirs. Under such circumstances the plaintiff felt
that the only course fur him to pursue, in justice to the
respectable gentleman with whom he was connected, was
to withdraw from the concern, and not involve them in
the consequences. He had no opportunity of vindicating
his character in the Tuscan States, and consequently he
returned to this country, and on his arrival he had the
mortification to find that the calumnies had followed him,
and were circulated in the Times newspaper. The Learned
Counsel then read the article complained of, which ap-
peared in that journal of the 26th May, 1840. It was
headed "Extraordinary and Extensive Forgery and
Swindling on the Continent," and purported to be from
their Brussels correspondent. The article went on to
state that a conspiracy had been discovered on the Con-
tinent, by which it was intended to plunder the con-
tinental bankers by means of false letters of credit on the
bank of Messrs. Glynn and Co., of London, that the
-parties as far as could then be ascertained were fourteen
in number, whose names were then given, amongst
them were Cunningham Graham, an anonymous partner
in the house of Bogle, Kerrick, and Co., and Allen Bogle,
son-in-law of Cunningham Graham, and chief partner
in the house of Bogle and Co. ; there was also the name
of the Marquis do Bourbel. Then followed the exami-
nation of some witnesses taken before the authorities at
Florence, and copies of some letters found upon some of
the conspirators, directing the manner in which the
money so raised was to be disposed of. In one of those
letters it said, " That Bogle would get his share of the
money easily, as he would not have much to do in the
affair." The Learned Counsel would ask then, whether
under those circumstances the defendant was justified
in asserting so serious a charge against a person,
who, up to that period, had sustained an umblem-
ished character. What could Mr. Bogle do but
call upon the pt inter and publisher of the paper to state
upon what authority the charges were made, and to
require a full and unqualified contradiction. A letter
was accordingly written to the defendant, and his soli-
citor on the 24th of June, wrote in answer that a commu-
nication had been made to the gentleman who furnished
the article, and requesting that proceedings might be
stayed till his answer had been received. Six days were
given for that purpose, and on the 30th ofJune Mr. Bogle,
being most anxious to vindicate his character, com-
menced these proceedings, and the trial would have
taken place long ago, but had been delayed at theinsti-
gation of the defendant, who had from time to time. had
it postponed in order that witnesses on his behalf might
be examined abroad, for which purpose no less than 15
commissions have been issued. The plaintiff was now be-
fore them, and he trusted that his character would
ulti-
mately be vindicated. Undoubtedly a conspiracy did
exist throughoutihe Continent,and equally true it was that
persons of high character were engaged in it, but the
defendant, in publishing the particulars, when he was
informed that he was in error in connecting the plaintiff's
name with it, ought at once to have given it an unquali-
fied contradiction. Had such a course been pursued, the
defendant's character would have been restored, and he
would have been satisfied. That, however, had not been
done, and therefore he threw himself into the hands of
the Jury, trusting to their judgment, and relying upon
their protection—trusting that by their verdict they
would restore his reputation—restore his peace of mind,
and enable him again to look round upon his friends and
associates.

Hutton Monkhouse, clerk to Mr. Fyson, the plaintiff's
solicitor, produced a certified copy of the register from
Somerset House, and stated that the writ was issued on
the 30th of June, 1840. Before it was issued he received
a letter from the defendant's solicitor, in which he stated
that the gentleman who furnished the article had been
written to, and requested that the writ might not he
served till an answer had been received. Not receiving
any further communication, a wi it was issued on the
30th of June, and the pleas were put in in November.
There were several commissions issued for examining
witnesses on the Continent.

Cross-examined—On the day the writ was served he
wrote a letter to the defendant's solicitors, stating that
it was necessary that the action should be tried as soon
as possible, and for that purpose the venue had been laid
in Surrey, the Assizes having been fixed for the sth of
August. Was aware at the time that the libel com
plained of related to a conspiracy said to have eaxisted
on the Continent. When
.the defendant applied for a
commission to examine witnesses, he (witness) opposed
it. There were fifteen commissions issued for different
towns on the Continent. The plaintiff joined in two of
the commissions which were sent to Brussels and Flo-
rence. That was in February last. Ile believed the com-
mission from Florence was not yet returned. He joined
in that commission which was to examine a person of the
name of Charles Roster.

Colonel Allcock stated that he resided at Florence for
some time, and knew the plaintiff, who carried on a bank-
ing establishment there, in connection with Messrs. Ker-
rick and M‘Carthy. Was not intimately acquainted
with the plaintiff Merely knew him in business, but was
on intimate terms, and associated with the other part-
ners. Ilad seen the article alluded to in the Times.
Ilad no doubt that the plaintiff was the person referred to.
Cross-examined--Ilad frequently conversed with the
plaintiff Ilad met him at the Grand Duke's. Knew of
the forgeries on the continental bankers. Everybody
heard of them. Never heard from the plaintiff that he
was present when one of the forged papers was presented.
Believed that he saw the plaintiff at the bank after he
heard of the forgeries. Messrs. Kerrick and MV:trthy
occupied one office, and the plaintiff another. The cash
was kept in plaintiff's apartment. Witness had a letter
of credit which he drew money upon. When he drew
money the amount was endorsed on the letter of credit.
That continued till the whole sum for which the letter
was given was exhausted. His letter of credit was upon
Messrs. Glyn and Co. He was there long enough to
run through more than one letter of credit. Believed he
destroyed it after it was done with. Had met Cunning-
ham Graham, but never associated with him. Did not
know Alexander Graham. Believed they left Florence
shortly after the forgeries were discovered. Knew a
person of the name of Phillipson there. Believed the
letter of credit now produced he had previously seen in
Florence. It was shown to him by Mr. Phillipson.
This was the case for the plaintiff.

Sir Wm. FOLLETT then addressed the Jury, and said
his Learned Friend complained that the proprietors had
not given up the name of the author of the statement,
but he considered the course they had adopted was the
most honourable and proper for them to have pursued ;
and the defendant's case might also rest upon the alleged
libel itself, for ho should submit that it afforded almost
direct evidence of the guilt of the plaintiff ; and his
Learned Friend did not attempt to deny that Perry, one
of the actors in the conspiracy had, before the authori-
ties of Antwerp, openly accused Mr. Bogle of being con-
cerned in the conspiracy. The letters also were not
denied, but he should be able to prone that they were
actually written, and that they were seized by the
French authorities ; and in those letters the plaintiff
was also charged with being an actor in the conspiracy,
and his conduct was expressly referred to. Why should
the author of the, statement be accused as an anon) -
mous slanderer ? These documents were in the hands
of the authorities ; the contents were known, and
they were furnished to the Times, and published by
that Journal for the information of the public, who were
so deeply interested in the disclosure of such matters,
Mr. Bogle was not a public man ; to the proprietors of
the Times, at-all events he was entirely unknown ; they
could have had uo malice towards him, and it was only
the course of their strict duty that the matters were

made public. The statement was published upon the
authority of a correspondent. in whom they placed con-
fidence, and it would be shown that they were justified in
the confidence they replaced in him. They still believed
the statement to be true, and they were there that day to
prove it to be so. When the complaint was first made
to them, they considered their first duty was to see whe-
ther the statement was false, and if they had found it to
be so, they would at once have admitted it, and have
made compensation to Mr. Bugle; but the the result of
their inquiries led them, unhappily, to form a very differ-
ent conclusion, and they could not help feeling that Mr.
Bogle was really a guilty party in the transaction, and
they were now prepared to lay befor the Jury the proofs
hat had satisfied them of this fact, and hehad very little
doubt that they would also satisfy the Jury. Great
difficulties had been thrown in the way of the defendants
in getting up evidence. They had no means of compelling
the attendance of witnesses who were abroad, and they
had already heard that the plaintiff had shown all
the opposition he could to them ; but, notwithstanding
this, he had no doubt he should be enabled to lay such
a case before the Jury as would induce them to return
a verdict. for the dafendant. Much had been said about
the high connexions, and the former station of Mr. Gra -
ham, but however this might be, it was quite clear that
he and his son had been a party to one of the most in-
famous conspiracies that had ever been disclosed in a
Court of Justice. There was no doubt, therefore, of the
existence of a conspiracy to defraud, and he should he
able to show beyond all doubt that it was first concocted in
Florence, and that Graham and his son were active par-
ties to it, and he was also sure that lie should have verb
little difficulty in proving to the Jury that the plaintiff
was also a guilty party to the conspiracy. The Learned
Counsel then read the whole of the alleged libel, and he
asked the Jury whether it could be called an anonymous
charge, when for the most part it consisted of public do-
cuments and of depositions made before a Court of Jus-

tice, which the Times had done no more than republish.
The Learned Counsel then referred to the different
letters, and said that he should produce others that
would leave no doubt of the fact he stated. In
all these letters the plaintiff was referred to as
having been connected with the conspiracy. There
was no doubt that it was a most serious

imputation upon Bogle, and that he must suffer most
grievously by it, but this was a natural consequence of
being concerned in a guilty transaction ; and if the facts
were proved against him he must abide by the conse-
quences. He would now proceed to lay before the Jury
the circumstances of this conspiracy, and in a matter of
such vital importance in a commercial community he
might be excused for going into some little detail upon
the subject. They had heard that the plaintiff was the
son-in-law of Mr. Graham, and it would not be neces-
sary to enter into any particulars of his previous history,
but to state that he at length went to Florence, where he
established himself with two other gentlemen in busi-
ness as bankers. Messrs. Glyn and Co., London, it
appeared, had a mode of doing business by giving
circular letters of credit to the nkers in the different
towns of the Continent, which letters were signed by
one of the partners, and any person holding one of those
letters was enabled to get money at any bankers with whom
Messrs. Glyn kept an account all over the Continent of
Europe, and the only voucher for the genuiness of the
instrument was the signature of one of the partners, and
no letter of advice was sent. The Learned Counsel then
said that by means of a tracing-machine an exact fac-
simile of a signature could be obtained, and he said he
believed he should be able to satisfy the Jury that the
forged letters of credit made use of in the course of this
conspiracy were signed by the means of such a machine,
so that the forged signature was most accurate. He should
also, he said, be able to show that the forgery was com-
pleted at Florence, and he was afraid by the elder Graham,
and that it was arranged that ten or twelve of the conspi-
rators should go to different parts of the Continent, ob-
taining money in all directions, and they were then to
proceed to England and divide it among them. It would
appear that in 1839 the Marquis Bourbel, one of the con-
spirators with th,e elder Graham, his son Alexander, and
the plaintiff, were at Florence, and the first-mentioned
person, who did not bear a very reputable character, resided
near that city, and he had a banking account with the
house of Bogle, Kerrick, and Co. It would be impossible
for them to prove the conspiracy by the statements of the
parties themselves, but from the circumstances he should
lay before them, he did not think there could be any
doubt that at this time the scheme was first concocted.
It had been shown that the letters of credit that had been
referred to were not left in the care of the bankers ; and
there was, therefore, a difficulty how to get a signature
of one of the firm. It appeared that at this time a gentle-
man namen Nicholson resided at Florence, and he had a
letter of credit for 1,5001., and the bank of the plaintiff was
applied to to advance money upon that-letter in the ordi-
nary course of business ; and Mr. Icktholson, contrary
to the usual custom, left this letter of t: edit in the
custody of Mr. Kerrick, one of the partners. This,
then, would give an opportunity of obtainine(
signature ; and he should show that, in 1839, the
plaintiff, by a false -pretence, that Mr. Nicholson
wanted to draw money upon the letter of credit, ob-
tained possession of it from Mr. Kerrick. He should prove
to the Jury that Mr. Nicholson made no application
of the sort, and after it had been several hours in Mr.
Bogle's possession lie returned it to Mr. Kerrick. Mr.
Graham was ordered to leave Florence, and after he
was gone a small machine was sent to the bank for him,
the object of which machine was to enable any one to
obtain an exact fac-simile of any writing submitted to
its operation, and there was no doubt but that this had
been made use of to obtain the genuine signature from
the letter of credit he had referred to, and which was
afterwards transferred to the forged documents ; and
this must naturally lead to the conclusion that Bourbel,
Graham, and Bogle, were the original promoters of the
conspiracy. What could Bogle want to gain possession
of the letter of credit for, and what object could he have,
when they considered the circumstance of the tracing-
machine, but to obtain a copy from the genuine •
signature. He should show the Jury that after
this Bourbel and the Baron Ageneau, another of the
party, proceeded to London, where they obtained from
Messrs. Glyn and Co. a letter of credit for 150/., and
having drawn back all the money except 51. at Paris, they
returned to London, and they there induced Perry,
another party concerned in the conspiracy, to engrave
a plate for them, aad having previously purchased a
quantity of the same description of paper as that
used by Messrs. Glyn and Co. for the genuine letters, a
great number was struck off, and as nothing was now
wanted but the signature, they set off to Florence with
the forged letters, to get the signature added to them. It
would be proved that upon Bourbel's return to Florence
he was in a private room with the plaintiff, with the
door locked, for several hours, and the circumstance was
remarked as being an unusual one by Mr. Kerrick.
It would be proved that immediately after this, one
of- the party, who went by the name of the
Marquis de Pendry, presented a forged letter
of credit for 2,000/. to different bankers at Bologna
and Trieste, and, obtained the whole amount. The
Learned Counsel then went on to detail further pro-
ceedings of the party, and said that a number of sub-
ordinate agents were employed, who proceeded to dif-
ferent parts of the Continent, and succeeded in obtaining
large sums of money upon the forged documents. The
scheme, however, it appeared, was put an end to by the
proceedings of one of the parties, named Perry, in Ire-
land, who, having received 700/. upon one letter of credit
from a banker at Brussels, presented the same letter al-
most immediately afterwards to a banker at Antwerp,
and this excited surprise, and he and a woman named
Angelina Pipe, who had accompanied him. were taken
into custody, and they were subsequently condemned, the
former to 15, and the latter to 12 years at the galleys.
When this man was taken into custody he made the
deposition that had appeared, and then openly accused
the plaintiff Bogle of being concerned in the conspi-
racy ; and the matter was looked upon in such a light
that a communication was sent to the Charge d'Affaires
of this country at Florence, and Mr. Kerrick, the plain-
tiff's partner, was sent for, and the statement was shown
to him. Mr. Kerrick, as might be expected, was dread-
fully affected at what he heard, as up to that time he had
not the slightest suspicion of the honour of his partner.
He immediately sent for Mr. Bogle and told him the
charge that was made against him, and instead of his
asserting his innocence, or doing that which an innocent
man would have done under the circumstances, he ap-
peared to sink under the accusation, and he at once con-
sented to retire from all connection with the bank. He
was intreated to deny the charge, but lie did not do so,
and lie put it to the Jury whether this was the conduct
of an innocent man. Why did he retire from the
partnership ? Why did he shrink from entering into
any explanation of the charge :made against him if he
were not guilty ? Finding that no explanation
was offered by the plaintiff, the Tuscan Government in-
terfered, and the plaintiff was ordered to leave Florence '
in five days ; and, although another day's delay was re-
-11 quested as a favour, it was refused, and he was com-
pelled to leave Florence at the specified time. The
Learned Counsel then went on to say that after
Bogle had left Florence several letters addressed to Bour-
bel and C. Smith, Esq. (no such person being known),
were received in parcels addressed as private communi-
cations to the plaintiff, which were subsequently opened
with the consent of the authorities, and they were to re-
fer to the proceedings of the conspiracy, and the mode
in which it had been carried out. The Learned Coun-
sel then proceeded at some length to remark upon the
circumstances of the case, and he concluded by stating
that he had the greatest confidence that when all the
facts were laid before the Jury they would be satisfied
of the truth of the alleged libel, and that they would re-
turn a verdict for the defendant.

The following evidence was then adduced :
Mr. George Carr' lyn deposed that he was a partntr
in the firm of Glyn and Co. and described their mode
of transacting business with their letters of credit. He
identified the signature of Mr. Halifax, one of the part-
ners in the firm, and he also proved that no persons of
the names of Perry, Ireland, Coulston, Pipe, or Vandeck
kept an account or had any credit at their house.
The statement of' the man Perry, made under the
commission by order of the Court, was then about to be
put in, when Mr. Thesiger objeeted that this person
having been convicted of an infamous crime, his evidence
was not admissible.

Lord Chief Justic t Tindal expressed his opinion that
the objection should have been taken at the time of the
examination, and tit it wastoo late now to make it. It
should also be proved that it ,vas in accordance with the
law of that country.

•1.... j.

The statement of Perry was then read. It was merely
a copy of that which formed part of the libel.
Several bills of exchange, varyingin amount from 1001.
to 400/., which had been given to the various continental
bankers for cash advanced upon the letters of credit, were
also proved
Mr. Thos. Kerrick stated that he had resided at Flo-
rence for some years. and formerly carried on the busi-
ness of a banker, in conjunction with Mr. Bogle and Mr.
M`Carthy. The partnership commenced in 1837. First
became acquainted with Bogle in 1835, when he first
went to reside at Florence. He afterwards was a clerk
in the house of a Mr. Johnson. Mr. Cunningham Gra-
ham became acquainted with him in 1835, but did not
know his son, Alex. Graham. After he commenced busi-
ness he was in the habit of seeing Graham from time to
time at the banking-house. The house was one of the
correspondents of Glyn and Co. Knew Mr. Robert
Nicholspn, who brought him a letter of credit from
Messrs. Glyn and Co. Several advanees were made
upon it. The first was in November, 1839, and
the second in January, 1840. When the first payment
was made, Mr. Nicholson loft the• letter of credit with
him, and he put it into a tin-box which he kept in his
desk in his office. It was not usual to leave letters of
credit with bankers. Mr. Bugle was aware that he had
the letter. About the end of December, Bogle asked him
for the letter, but did not say what he wanted it for.
He (the witness) asked him whether Nicholson was about
drawing again, and he said he did not know. Witness
gave him the letter, and he kept it about three hours, and
then returned it. Mr. Nicholson had not drawn upon it
when it was returned. Knew a person who called him-
self the Marquis de Bourbel. Was introduced to him
by Bogle, in March, 1839. The Marquis opened an ac-
count with them. He then resided sometimes at Florence
and sometimes at Leghorn. The Marquis left for England
in January, and did not return till April, 1840. Bogle's
room was where the cash was kept and paid, and is
divided by a glass partition. On one occasion, early in
January, he saw the Marquis in Bogle's room : he was
then outside the partition. Witness left the room, and
on his return in about half an hour he was inside the
private room with Bogle. Witness tried to get into the
room, but the door was fastened, and he went away.
Could see throns,,,h the glass door that the Marquis and
Bogle were in close conversation. They remained toge-
ther two or three hours. A person who called himself
the Count de Pendry presented a letter of credit at the
Bank. (Letter produced.) Bogle was in at the time,
and he introduced him to witness. He examined the sig-
nature, and he believed it to be the genuine signature of
Glyn and Co. The Count drew 2001. upon it, end gave
three bills of exchange for the amount On the following
day the Count returned with the letter, and requested to
have the bills back upon his returning the two hundred
pounds, and stated as his reason for so doing that the
authenticity of the letter had been doubted, and he ap-
peared very indignant. Heard Mr. M'Carthy say that
the Count had endeavoured to obtain money upon it
from a person of the name of Phillipson, who had doubted
its authenticity. Witn*iss again examined it with other
letters, and still believed it genuine. The 2001. was
returned, and he took up the bills in the Count's pre-
sence. Never saw him after that time. The first he
heard of this conspiracy was from the English Consul.
On the 9th of May he received some documents from
him, and also from Messrs. Oppenheim and Co. respecting.
it. Finding thatßogle's name was mentioned in the trans-
actions, witness went in search of him. It !wires after
business hours, on a Saturday, found him at his own house,
He then read the documents to him. [The document.
which was a copy of the deposition of a person of the
name of Ireland, was read. The particular portion al-
luded to was that he (Ireland) had heard young Graham
say that Bogle would easily earn his share (alluding to
the conspiracy), as he had had but little to do in the
business.] When witness read the document to Bogle
his distress was very great, and it was painful to see him.
He could not recollect precisely what he said, but he
.:dmitted that he was ruined. On the following day
witne,:s. accompanied by Mr. M`Carthy, called upon
Bogie be,.,;yeen eleven and twelve o'clock. He was
then in god. They had a long conversation, and he
(Bogle) expressed ii3s determination immediately to
leave the concern, and declared that he would ,never
enter the bank again. Witness begged of him to
reflect before he took such a step, but he said he
was determined, and desired him to take the keys of
the bank, which be had possession of. On the following
day he saw him again, when a notice of dissolution of
partnership was prepared. Mr. Bogle called at the bink
once after that time. It was on the 23d of May, and he
then said that he had received an order from the police
to leave the kingdom within five days, and requested him
to intercede with the Minister to get an extension of the
time. He believed that Mr. M`Carthy made the applica-
tion, but was not certain. Saw Mr. Bogle again after
that time, and asked him why he did not go to his
old places of resort, when he replied that he
had not the spirits to do 50. Bogle left the
kingdom on the 28th of May, previous to which a
parcel was received at the house, addressed to the
firm, bearing the Algiers post mark. Upon opening it, it
was found to contain only a letter, addressed " A. Bogle,
Esq." (private.). After he left, two other packets, simi-
larly addressed, were received, and each containing en-
closures as before (the letters and enclosures were pro-
produced). Knew M. de Mesumer, a banker at Rome.
Had a conversation with him on the subject of the for-
geries, and showed him the letters he had received. In
consequence of some remarks he made he took the letters
to the English Minister, by whom they were opened.
Was aware that Mr. Graham's family left Florence on
the 29th or 30th of May. Before they left they sent a
quantity of articles to his premises to be taken care of ;
amongst them was a lathe and the machine now pro-
duced. He took no notice of those articles at the
time, but, subsequently, in consequence of a commu-
nication made by a person of the name of Roster;
he was induced to examine the machine, and found it
was an invention for tracing signatures. When Boyle
left he did not say where he was going to.
Cross-examined—Had visited Cunningham Graham
and his family. Mr. Bogle had the management of the
cash department at the bank. Persons were frequently
in the habit of gossiping there.
Re-examined—Mr. Bogle had the keys of the bank,
and could go there whenever he pleased. When he
was about leaving he asked him why he did not go
tl.rough France, when he replied, that he would do so
only he was afraid of being arrested. The letters pro-
duced arc certified copies of some letters which he saw
at the I'alais de Justice at Paris. Was acquainted with
the Marquis de Bourbel's handwriting. Believed
those letters to have been written by him. He also
knew the handwriting of Cunningham Graham.
Believed that one of the letters he saw there com-
mencing " My dear Alexander" was in his handwriting.
Another letter also, commencing in the same manner..
he believed to be in the handwriting of the Marquis de
Bourbel. _

Sir William Follett proposed to read the letters, in order
to show that the letters set out in libel were copied from
them.
Mr.Thesiger objected, and contended that the originals
must. be produced.
Sir William Follett said, that the original letters were
in the poisession of the officers of one of the Council
Courts of Paris, and it was impossible to obtain them,
and called

Mr. kerrick, who stated that he went to the Palais de
Justice in order to compare the copies of the letter with
the originals, and was told there that it was impossible he
could have the originals.
Mr. Dobree, the solicitor to the defendant, stated that in
August last he went to the Continent, in order to collect
evidence with respect to this action. He went to nearly
all the places where the bankers had been robbed. At
Paris he applied for the originals of the letters produced,
and was informed by the Procureur du Roi and other
officers connected with the Court, that it was impSssible
he could have them.
A long and desultory argument ensued, but eventually '
The Learned Judge permitted the copies of the letters
to be read, but promised to take a note of Mr. Thesiger's
objection. •
The letters were then read. They were addressed to
A. Graham, and related chiefly to the disposal of the
money which should be obtained. One of them con-
eluded as follows :-4, Pray don't forget to
Au
tosednicleylfstOr/e.etot,
the Satirist. Gregory lives at 15, North
and we shall be sure then not to be exposed."
Mr. George Timms. an engineer in the employ of
Messrs. Holzapfel and Co., proved that the machine pro-
duced (which was left in the care
of
o Mr
taking
rioKg earroicekxaebyt
Graham) was used forthe purpose
copy of a signature.
Cross-examined—lt was also used for copying draw-
ings in an increased or diminished state.
George Turner, clerk to Mr. Hughes, an attorney,
stated that he knew Pipe, who sometimes passed by the
name of Coulson. Was acquainted with his hand-writ-
: jog. Believed the letters produced to be written by him.
These letters were then read. They were letters al-
luded to by Mr. Kerrick, as having been received by
him after Mr. Bogle left Florence. One letter was ad-
I dressed " A. Bogle, Esq.," in which were inclosed two
others, one to the " Marquis de Bourbel," and the other
I to "C. Smith, Esq." That addressed to the Marquis
commenced, " My dear B—.—," in which the writer,
after describing his journey and his future movements.
expressed his willingness as things had turned out 60
bad, to assist him, in order that all the losses should not
fall upon him, and hoped that the other parties concerned
Would do the same ; and concluded in these terms
" Keep up your spirits ; all will be right. G-- says

Mr. Saunders, of the firm of Morbeytand Co., paper-
makers, George-street, Mansion House, made some pa-
per, by Pipe's order, in January, 1840 ; the paper on
which the bills of credit were printed w.is 50.112 of the
paper in question.
This was the case in behalf of the.deLnidant.
•
Mr. THESIGER replied.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL summed up, and at ten
o'clock the Jury retired, and after ban absen;, about
half an hour they returned into Court, finding a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages one farthing,
The trial occupied thirteen hours.
PUNTER V. GRANTLEY.
The proceedings in the above cause were resumed this
morning.
Mr. TIMMER appeared'for Lord Grantley, and after
giving a detail of all the circumstances of the -ejection of
Punter, and the right of Lord Grantley to the cottage
(the particulars of which are well known to the public),
called the following witnesses :
George Trekner stated that he had lived in the Grant-
ley family for fifty-four years. Was gamekeeper from
the year 1796 to 1823. Recollected an auction taking
place at the village public house in 1795, when the cot-
tages were put up for sale by order of the parish officers.
One of those ccttages was the subject of the present in-
quiry. It was knocked down to Mr. Head, Lord Grant-
ley's steward. Witness had frequently accompanied his
Lordship to the cottage ; it was in a very dilapidated
state, and be had it repaired. Had frequently accom-
panied his Lordship to the cottage from that period to
the time of his death in 1822 • and during that period
he had ordered it to be repaired several times ; it was
once or twice thatched ; a new staircase was made,
and vines were planted in the garden, all by his Lord-
ship's directions. Never recollected Mr. Head being
overseer of the parish. About thirty years ago there was
a walnut-tree in the garden, which was partly dead, and
he heard his Lordship give Mrs. Punter leave to have it
cut down for firewood.
Cross-examined—Was still in the service of Lord
Grantley. Had frequently talked with him on the sub-
ject of the present action. At the last trial he stated
that he was not in the auction-room when the cottages
were sold. He was not present, but was told the cottage
was knocked down to Mr. Head. Did not say anything
about the walnut-tree at the last trial. He used to be
out very much with old Lord Grantley.
Mr. Sergeant SHE A—He was very good to the poor, I
believe ? Witness—Very good indeed.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA—Always ready with a shilling for
any poor person that wanted One ? Witness—Yes, he
gave a great deal away. I hare, by his directions, given
RS much as a pipe of wine a year to the poor, besides
large quantities of coals and wood. The old gentleman
was a widower. He was very fond of shooting, and
generally on his return, as well as at other times, would
call and have a gossip at Punter's. He was never above
speaking to the poor. When his Lordship went into the
house, of course he (witness) had to remain outside.
Could not recollect how long he used to stop at the
cottage. Sometimes he went there two or three times a
week.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA—Perhaps a little oftener ? Wit-
ness (shaking his head)—Oh, no ; he was a very old
man.---(Loud laughter.) On one occasion his Lordship
desired him to order a hole in the stairs to be mended.
Mr. Seigeant SHEA—Did he not say that the hole
must be mended because he had put his foot into it ?
'Witness—l don't recollect that.

Ann Collingham stated that her aunt fotinerly owned
the cottage in question. In 1792 she (theaunt) was sent
to St. Luke's, but returned in about a year, and went
back to her cottage, where she remained some time, but
again becoming insane, she was removed to the work-
house, and the parish sold her goods. Did not of her
own knowledge know what was done with the cottage.
Frederick Wills,_ late an overseer of the parish, said he
did not recollect the sale of the cottage, but produced one
•of the parish cash-books, in which was an entry to the
following effect, in the handwriting of Mr. Head. :
Received 101. 10s. for house in lane." The date
was 1795. -

Mr. Sergeant SHEA objected to the took being re-
ceived in evidence, and it was consequently withdrawn.

Abraham Punter, an elder brother of the plaintiff,
stated that he recollected his father going to live in the
cottage; and he also recollected hearing his mother say—
Mr. Sergeant SIIEA objected to anything said by his
mother.

Witness recollected Lord Gran tley having the cottage
repaired from time to time. His father was in the work-
house for the last two or three years of his life, and died
there, but his mother resided in the cottage during that
time. Recollected his brother (plaintiff) going to th e
cottage after his father's death. *His mother continued
to reside in the cottage, but was eventually turned out
by the plaintiff, and she then went to reside with her
daughter, Mrs. Edwards. His mother had been dead
about four years.
Cross-examined—His brother Thomas was about the
cottage at the time, and built an additional room to it
for the plaintiff. Witness did not claim the cottage for
himself ; it was Lord Grantley's, as far as he knew.
Daniel Edwards stated that he married a sister of the
plaintiff's twenty-nine years ago ; previous to that he was
in the habit of going to the cottage to visit her for seven
or eight years. At that time old Punter and Ins wife

lived-theiv. Witness lived in the cottage with them for
two or three years after he was married. Never saw old
Lord Grantley in the cottage, but had frequently seen
him near it in the lane. Old Punter was at home some-
times, but the old girl was always master of him.—
(Laughter.) Recollected the cottage being repaired a
second time by Lord Grantley about twenty-six years
ago. About three years before her death Mrs. Punter
went to his house late one night and slept there. After
that she never went back to the cottage. She complained
of having been turned out, and said that John (the plain-
tiff) had come home very rabid, and turned her out. He
witness) believed, however, that he did not turn her out.
Cross-examined—The old woman had a pretty good
temper pf her own.
Mr. Thai.:
as Butcher stated that he formerly lived at
Norcote, a farM v
26 years ago hearing an alarm from
very near the plaintiff's cottage ; recol-
lects one night abom; Y
to the cottage,
Mrs. Punter's grand-dau6:hter ; in consequence he went,
accompanied by some of his st.:,vants,
and
saw the old lady standing in the field ; he was not very
close to her, but she appeared to be
in her
melt-dress
the plaintiff was also there ; he appears to barn a great
passion, and was swearing. Lord Grantley,
Henry Killick, gardener to the late
planted some vines in the cottage garden about 23 years
ago, by direction of his Lordship.
d the stairs at the
William Grants, a carpenter, repure
Grantley ;
cottage many years ago, by directi,,
n of Lord Grant
he also did some work there in 16-0.
David Catlin, thatched the cottage by his Lordship's
directions 28 or 30 years ago.
Charles Pimpfield knew of the cottage being thatched
-
at the expense of his Lordship, once about 30 years ago, and
d time a few years subsequently.
The chips
a secwerenonthered from Lord Grautley's osier beds.
Susan Edwards
d d said she slept with her grandmother.
old Mrs. Punter, whilst she was at the cottage ; left it
t seven years ago ; recollected the plaintiff coming
about
home one night very drunk ; when she (witness) went in
he was kicking up a row, and swore he would mace a
slaughter ; she got out of the window into the field, and
her grandmother followed her, and they then went to
her (witness's) father's.
James Wynne stated that he resided at Wonersh some
time ago; recollected hearing the plaintiff say one nigh:
that Mr. Head had applied to him for rent for the cot-
tage, and unless some one paid it for him, he should be
turned out. He further said, that he had applied to the
parish, and they had promised to pay it for him, and de-
sired him not to trouble himself further about it.
Wm. MU said he recollected the cottage being sold by
the parish in 1795. At that time a person of the name
of Hetherington was living in it, but soon after it was oc-
cupied by old Punter. A few years since he recollected
that the plaintiff contemplated building an oven ; he was
asked how he intended to pay for it, and he said that he
should cut down the fir-tree and sell it. A person who
was present, told him he had better have a little advice
before he did so, or he might get himself into trouble.
A month or two afterwards he again saw him, when he
said he had had some advice about the tree, and had de-
termined not to cut it down, as it belonged to Lord
Grantley, who had bought it Of the parish.
Henry Hughes stated that in the year 1834 he went
with Mr. Harland into a field where the plaintiff was at
work. Mr. Harland told him that his Lordship had sent
him to know whether he would pay a small tr:fle for the
rent of the cottage he was living in. He replied that he
would not pay a farthing ; the property. was key-hold ;
he had got possession, and would not give any acknow-
ledgment whatever. In the course of the same year the
fir-tree was cut down by direction of his Lordship.
Witness received instructions to assist from Mr. Bar-
land. After it was cut down it was carried to his Lord-
ship's wood yard.
Mr. Butcher was recalled,
• and stated that he consi-
dered the cottage was worth about 30/. or 401.
By the Jury—To build it as it was before, with the
old materials, would cost about 301.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL said it could not be put in
precisely the same state ; besides, the materials were
removed.
Cross-examined—To build a new cottage would pro-
bably cost 601. or 70/. The cottage, with a quarter of an
acre of land, would let for 5/. or Gl.
This was the evidence on behalf of the defence.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA then addressedthe Jury for the
plaintiff, and thus concluded,:—The .plaiutiff claimed