The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-05 00:00:00

riner, and he was anxious that they sheuld be restored,
and put along with •the other papers.—And that bag con-
tained papers of which you have, and could have had, no
knowledge, but from his information ? Certainly ; no
knowledge in the World.
Mr. Morgan here interrupted the proceedings. He
wished to make a statement in explanation of something
said of him in the prisoner's statement.
Mr. BODKIN—You bad better net interrupt now.
There is no imputation on your character. At all events,
on will be heard by and bye.
The prisoner—l never made any charge against Mr.
Morgan. .
Mr. Morgan—lt is said, " Mr. Morgan knew all about
it." lam anxious to explain all my connection with—
Mr. WADDINGTON—I must beg it to be clearly under-
stood that I make no charge—that I throw out no im-
putation of any kind against Mr. Morgan. I am not so
instructed.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—You will have an opportunity
presently, Mr. Morgan. At present we will go on.
Mr. Marriner, sworn and examined by Mr. WAD-
DINGToN—Are you a ()Ater, Mr. Marriner ? No.—
What business are you engaged in? lam secretary to
a mining speculation.—How long 'have you known the
prisoner? About two years and a half.—Did you know
him while he was in the employment of Mr. Solari?
Yes.—l believe Mr. Solari is dead? Yes.—When did
he die? On the 18th October last year.—During Solari's
life was Mr. Rapallo in the habit of bringing you Ex-
chequer bills? Yes, he was.—Has he continued to do
so since? Ye..—For what purpose? For the purpose
of raising money to pay the differences on Stock,
or to take up Stock. —Do you mean that he
pledged them with you for money? Not with
me ; they were brought to me that I might
pledge them for money.—Has he brought you a gre..t
number within the last year ? Yes ?—Has he brought
many at a time ? Yes. ; so many as eighty odd at one
time.—For what amount were the bills? For 1,0001. each.
The whole eighty were for 1,000/. each ? Yes.—Tell us
when that was ? I cannot do so without referring to
my books.—You have books in which you kept an accu-
rate account of all bills you received from the prisoner?
Yes ; they are now in the hands of Mr. Maule.
Mr. BODKIN—What is that you are looking at? Wit-
ness; An extract from the books.—Was it made at the
time of the transaction ? No ;it was made a few days
ago. Since this matter has turned up ? Yes.—Then
put it aside. You must refer to nothing that
was not done at the time of the transaction.
Will you (to Mr. Waddington) confine your evidence to
some one transaction, it will be much more convenient
and more regular.
Mr. WADDINGTON—My Learned Friend knows as
well as any one does that in such a case as the present
one, it is impossible for me to do so; he knows that it is
the uniform rule to inquire into any, or all transactions,
that may make out one case. I shall show that he fre-
quently, repeatedly, uttered forged Exchequer bills. I
must go into the whole case if I see fit.
Mr.BonKrst—l do not want you to be embarrassed in
any way, but let me fully understand you right. What
are you now about to inquire into?
Mr.WADDINGTON—I will now confine myself to the 80.
Witness—There were 84.
Examination resumed.—Then Mr. Marriner, of those
bills which he gave you on that occasion, did
yoti afterwards pledge them in the hands of Mr. De
Burckam ? I handed some of them over to him.—Do
you mean the whole of them ? No.—Tell us what part •
of them and when. On the 30th of March I gave 36
of the bills into the hands of Mr. l)e Burckam.—Were
they part of the 84? Yes.—What was the date you re-
ceived them from the •prisoner? The 30th March.—Oh,
it was on the same day as you received the 84
bills from the prisoner ? Yes.—And on that day you
handed them over to De Burckam ? 36 of them. .And
you have the numbers of them there in that book ? Yes,
I have.—Did he afterwards, in June, bring you more ?
No, not in June, it was in October.—Do you mean in the
last October?—Yes. On Oct. 13th he brought me the bills
from 6,404 -to 6,413 consecutively.—Was that all he
gave you on the 13th October? Yes ; ten bills.—For
what amount ? 1,0001. each.— Did you hand them over
to Mr. De Burckam ?—I cannot say unless I refer to the
book ; I think I did.—Refer to your book and see.
Well, we will now go on with the ease as to these ten.
I will lay that before the Court, and I think the Magis-
trate will be satisfied.
Mr. BODKIN—That will be the better course. Mr.
Marriner, are those books in your own handwriting ?
No; they are extracts made by Mr. Mayo, De Burckam's
clerk, and myself, since the transaction took place.
Mr. BODKIN—Then you must not refer to them at all.
You may turn to any thing—any entry made at the
time the transaction Leek place.
Witness—This is the original entry, made by myself
on the 13th October.
By Mr. WADDINGTON—That was on the day you re-
ceived
from Rapallo the Exchequer bills from 6,404 to
6,413? Yes.—And all for 1,0001. each? Yes.—Will
that book show whether you handed them over to De
Burckam or not? Yes.—Did you give them to him for
the purpose of raising money upon them, or for some
particular Stock transaction ? Yes.—For the use of
Rapallo? Yes.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—Did I understand you to say
that Mr. Rapallo brought these bills to you from time
to time for the purpose of raising money ?
Mr. BODKIN—He has not said anything of that kind
yet, Sir.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—I understood him to say so.
Then let me inquire. The prisoner brought you bills
from time to time ? Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. BODKIN—W hat became of
these ten bills you don't know ? No, I cannot say, but
according to Mr. De Burelcam's books—Never mind that,
you know nothing of it of your own knowledge ? No.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—Did you give those ten bills
to Mr. De Burckam ? To the best of my belief I did.—
For what purpose ? Was it for the purpose of being
negotiated, or as a deposit to raise money ? It was as a
security.
Mr. BODKIN—I am sure the worthy Magistrate will
excuse me, but I think that is assuming more to be
proved than has actually been.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—I don't assume anything. I
asked him that question because I understood him to say
he gave those bills to Mr. De Burckam; if I had not un-
derstood that I should not have asked him the question.
Mr. BODKIN (to the witness)—Did you not say that
you did not know whatyou had done with the bills?—l did.
Mr. WADDINGTON—He said that lie remembered that
he gave hint ten bills.
The Witness—l do not wish to attempt to evade the
question.
Mr. BODKIN—I did not say you did. I don't wish to
hint at such a thing.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—I put the question that there
might be no misunderstanding.
Mr. BODKIN—Are you prepared to swear, of your own
knowledge, to whom you gave those ten bills ? I have
no absolute memory with respect to those bills, except
by reference to my books.—Did you know Mr. Solari at
the time Mr. Rapallo was in his employment ? Yes.—
I believe at the latter part of his life he was in bad
health ? He was.—ln consequence of that did tile ma-
nagement of his concerns devolve upon the prisoner ? Yes.
—Did you know Mr. Solari to be the agent of Mr.
Smith of the Exchequer-office ? Not at all.—What
was Mr. Solari ? He was described as a merchant.,
and he also entered into Stock Exchange speculations?
Whether those speculations were upon his own account
or that of other individuals, you don't know ? I do
not.—But you were in the habit of receiving Exchequer
bills on account of stock speculations during the life of
Mr. Solari ? Yes.—Sometimes from Mr. Solari him-
self during his lifetime? Yes.—And since Mr. Solari's
death you have been in the habit of receiving tkem from
Rapallo? I have.—There is nothing unusual I believe
in that state of things is there? It is not unusual in the
City, I believe to raise money upon Exchequer
bills? Certainly not.—lt is every day's practice is it
not? Yes.—There appeared nothing suspicious in this
transaction to you? Certainly not.
Examined by Mr. WADDINGTON—Have the number
of the Exchequer bills that you have received increased
since Solari's death? They have.—Did you ever have
so large a quantity as 84,000/. worth from Solari? I
don't think I ever had.—Now, with respect to these tun
Exchequer bills, as I understand you, you know that
you gave ten bills to l)e Burckam, but you do not know
the number?—Yes.
William Mayo examined by Mr. WADDINGTON—I be-
lieve you are the clerk of Mr. 1)e Burckam? I am.—ls
he a foreigner or an Englishman? An Englishman.
—What is he ? Is he a stock-broker? He is.
Mr. HOWLER—Is he an admitted broker ? I don't
know.—Was Mr.. Marriner in the habit of pledging Ex-
chequer bills with Mr. De Burckam during the last
year ? lie was.—Have you any entry in your books of
the transactions in Exchequer bills on the 13th of Octo-
ber ? Yes.
Mr. BODKIN—Is that entry in your own hand-writing?
--It is.
Mr. WADDINGTON—HOW many did he pledge ?—Ten,
numbered from 6,404 to 6,413.
Mr. BODKIN—Do you recollect whether you saw any.
madethe bills ? I don't know.— All you know is that- you
an entry, but fro m what cause you made that entry
you don't know ? Just so.
Mr. De Burckam sworn, and examined by Mr. WAD-
DINGTON —You are, I believe, Mr. De Burckam, a
broker in the City of London ? I am.—How long have
you carried* on your business ? Four years.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—Are you a sworn broker ?
No, I am not.—Have you been admitted by the Court of
Aldermen ? No, I have not. I have carried on my
business for four years, and my father did it before me.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Have you, during the la two or
three years, been in the habit of making advances to
Mr. Marriner on Exchequer bills ? Yes.—Do youknow
Rapallo ? I know him by sight. I have seen him with
Mr. Marriner.—Do you remember, o
dn t
Exchequer
e 1
lo 1 rs
tuber,
youelr,Alri Marrinerninnoetr
theallvi;nigf
iplleeddgide,
the transaction
entry in your clerk's hand-writing, was it made at t
m.—
in my
.books, and I will swear to the ok at this
lie
time ?. I believe it was.
it to be
Mr. BODKIN—Are you the party that directed •
made? No, lam not.
xc.. haver bills
Mr. WADDINGTON—Did you give ten
to Mr. Maule?—l did.
Mr. IlonLEß—Where do you live, Mr. De Burckam?—
At Upper Clapton.
Mr. Alderman WiLsost—Where is your counting-
house?—ln Cushion-court, Broad-street.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Did you give.several Exchequer
bills to Mr Pemberton ? I did, I gave him 16.—When ?
Last Monday week I gave him 16.
Charles Robert Pemberton sworn—Examined by Mr.
WADDINGTON—You have received several Exchequer
bills from the last witness ? I have. I received 16 from
him, and I now produce them. (The witness here pro-
duced the bills.)
Mr. HODLER—What are you, Mr. Pemberton ?
am the Private Secretary of the Chancellor of, the Ex-
chequer.
Mr. WADDINGTON-.-Did you receive the bills now
produced from Mr. Burckam ?---I did.
Mr. Burckam recalled.

Mr. WADDINGTON—From whom -or where did you
receive those bills? I don't know:of my own knowledge.—
Had you any from Mr. Marriner? I believe all the bills
I gave to Mr. Pemberton I received from Mr. Marriner.
—What did you do with the other bills? All the other
bills I disposed of in a different manner.—Among the
bills handed
6,rio
edbylytoo 3?
you to
Mr. Pemberton, were the bills
.numbered
Mr. WADDINGTON—AS Mr. Bodkin has requested for
convenience that we should confine ourselves to some
particular case, I may as well state now that we are
now about to confine ourselves to the ten bills now pro-
duced by Mr. Marriner.
Mr. BODKIN—IS there anything in these bills which
will enable you to speak of them except the numbers ?
—Nothing except the numbers.
Mr. BODKIN—YOU said that the bills had sometimes
passed through five or six hands ?—Yes, through several
hands. My books will show that.
Mr. WADDINGTON—It appears from the entries that
all these bills are June bills. Let Mr. Marriner be re-
called.
Mr. Mariner recalled.
Mr. WADDINGTON—What is the date and the month
appearing upon the bilis pledged by you with M. De
Burckam ?—The 16th June, 1841.
Mr. WADDINGTON—It appears that it was in the month
of June from M. de Burkam s books, and their dates, and
their numbers are all in June.
Mr. BODKIN declined to ask the witness any more
questions.
Mr. Dudley Montague Perceval called in and ex-
amined by Mr. WADDINGTON.
Are you the Assistant-Comptroller of the Exche-
quer? I am, at present. —How long e. have you held that
office? I was appointed on the 6th of January last.—
The Comptroller-General is Lord Monteagle ? Yes.—
Is it part of your duty, under the Act of Parliament, to
sign Lord Monteagle's name to Exchequer bills? It is.—
Did you sign the issue of Exchequer bills in June last?
A great proportion of them I did. Not the whole of
them. I signed three-fifths of the whole, perhaps.—
Explain the system of marking Exchequer bills, particu-
larly that portion of the process relating to the counter-
foils. I have already heard an explanation of much of
the process, which I need not repeat—that the bills are
engraved in duplicate—that one side constitutes the
counterfoil, and the other is issued as a genuine bill. I
suppose I need not repeat what I have heard described
relating to the scroll ?
Mr. BODKIN—We understand that it is exactly like a
banker's cheque, in fact ?—The witness then *proceeded
to state that the scroll was cut down the middle.
Mr. WADDINGTON—The number of the counterfoil
and of the genuine bill ought to correspond. The wit-
ness—The counterfoil is first numbered by one clerk,
and the Exchequer bills are subsequently numbered by
another to prevent mistakes.—Whose duty is it to num-
ber the genuine bills? I believe any one of the clerks
can do so. lam not sure. I think Mr. Blake, the junior
clerk, commonly numbers the counterfoils, and Mr.
Smith in general the bills.—W hat office did Mr. Smith
hold ? He was senior clerk in the Exchequer Bill
issuing office.--Have you compared the ten bills
now produced, purporting to be Exchequer bills, with
the counterfoils, and do, they respectively correspond
with those numbers ? I compared every one of them
yesterday evening.—And what was the result ? Not
one of them tallied with the counterfoil.
Alderman WILSON—Have you got the counterfoils
here ?
Mr. WADDINGTON—No, we have not. We could not
bring them here without bringing the Treasury books.
They can be brought if it is desired.
Mr. iiiaDiust did not think it necessary.
Examination resumed by Mr. WADDINGTON—Did
some of them vary as to the scroll as well as not fitting
the counterfoil ? I will explain. Here is a series of
four bills 6,404, 6,405, 6,406, and 6,407. There are
three bills in a page. Now, I know from a private mark
at once in what part of the page the counterfoil ought to
come. This bill, 6407, ought to be the bottom bill of thu page.
It will be easy for any gentleman by making the calcula-
tion from 6,000 to 6,407, to satisfy himself of this fact.
6,404 ought properly to be the second bill in the page of
the series, and this bill ought consequently to correspond
with the second bill in that page.—(The wit-
ness here looked over the bills, and seemed
to hesitate a little, saying, " No, I am not quite sure ;"
and then resumed.) This bill, 6,404, is the top bill of
a page. Now, any one may ascertain that the top bill
aught to be 6;403 ; consequently it does not only not
correspond with the counterfoil, but it is not the bill.
Alderman WILSON—It does not correspond with the
part that ought to be opposite to it.
Mr. WADDINGTON—NOT do the counterfoils corre-
spond.—Do the numbers correspond ? No, they do not.
—Have you the genuine bills with you here ? I have
not.—Who has them, then ? Mr. Pemberton.
. Mr. Pemberton recalled, and examined by Mr. WAD-
DINGTON—Mr. Pemberton, do you produce the Exchequer
bills numbered from 6,405 to 6,411 consecutively ? I do.
Mr. Perceval's examination resumed by Mr. WAD-
DINGTON.—Have you examined these bills produced by
Mr. Pemberton with the counterfoils? These six I have.
—1)o they exactly correspond ? They do.—Are they
signed by you ? They are signed by me.—Every one of
tm ? Every one of them, with Lord Monteagle's name.—
They are the same numbers and dates as the counterfoils
They are-6,405, 6,406, 6,407, 6,408, 6,409, and 6,410.
These are genuine.—They are signed by you, you say?
Yes, they are signed by me with the name of
Lord Nonteagle. Look at the counterfoil bills.
What do you say to the signature of these ?
I do not entertain the shadow of a doubt
that not one of these signatures is my hand-writing.—
Can you speak to all ten? I can speak with confidence.
Although a near imitation, it is not my hand-writing.
—lt is not Lord Monteagle's P Certainly not ;it is very
different.
Mr. BODKIN requested to look at the genuine bills and
the forgeries, which were handed to him, after a request
on the part of the prosecution, that he would take care
to keep them separate, which he promised to do,
observing—" I suppose if they got mixed sou would
not be able to separate the genuine from the forged ?
Mr. Waddington. Oh! yes! but we should have to corn•
pare them again with the counterfoils.
Mr. BODKIN having returned the bills proceeded to
cross-examine the witness.— You say you have only been
in office since January, 1841? Only since January, 1841,
—Does Lord Monteagle attend much at the office ?
Constantly, when in town. Does he sign bills him-
self ?—Yes, great numbers. They are, I suppose, placed
before him by a clerk for that purpose?—Just so. By
Mr. Smith ?—Not by him only Are you aware
whether Exchequer bills have been signed in any other
manner than what you have stated ?—From 1834 to the
6th January, 1840, they have been signed either by Sir
John Newport or Lord Monteagle, during the respec-
tive periods they were in office, or Mr. Arthur Eden,
who held the office of Assistant-Comptroller of the Ex-
chequer up to the period when he was obliged
to leave office on account of ill health. You are not
aware that any other person had authority from Lord
Monteagle to sign his name to these bills ? Cer-
tainly not.—No other person could do so according
to Act of Parliament.—You have had a good many be-
fore you lately ? A considerable number.--Ilave you
seen any which do not correspond with the counter-
foil to which is attached a genuine signature ?
I have not seen any which did not corre-
spond with the counterfoils as to the signature,
of which I had no doubt. I have had several bills sub-
mitted to me, and I never saw one on which I could lay my
finger and say at once the signature to this is genuine, the
counterpart to which did not correspond. At the begin-
ning of the inquiry I was not suffiCiently acquainted
with the forged signature to state without hesi-
tation that it was a forgery, but in every
case in which I had any hesitation as to • the
signature, I was afterwards told that the bill
and the counterfoil did not correspond. In answer to
questions from Alderman Wilson and others, the
witness said that, in June, the Supply bills
were furnished in books of 5001. each, and that he had
signed two books of 1,000 bills at the same time. Seve-
ral questions were put to the witness, with a
view of eliciting whether any of the bills which did
not correspond with the counterfoil, had genuine signa-
tures attached to them. It was evident from the wit-
ness's answers that he did not understand the question,
and at last, after stating that it was part of Smith's
duty to place the books before Lord Monteagle
for signature, the witness, in reply to an ob-
servation of Mr. Bodkin, that it was understood
that some of the: bills had been .issued. in duplicate,
and that what lie wished to ascertain was the fact
as regarded that point, the witness replied, that as far
as his judgment went he had not the slightest
reason for
believing that the signature could be gine to any
of the bills which did not correspond with the coun-
terfoils ?
Ald. WlLsoN—Rave you seen any bills which did not
correspond with the counterfoils, the signatures to which
you had any reason to think genuine ? Certainly not.
Mr. BODKIN—As far as your investigation has gone,
all the bills which do not correspond with the counter-
foils are .forgeries. So far as my investigation has
gone, I believe them to be forgeries, not because
they do not correspond with the counterfoils, but
because the signature is not my own.—
I compared 38 of these bills to-day, and 18 yesterday,
and of every one which did. not correspond with the
counterfoil, there is not one concerning the signature to
which I should hesitate to say it was a forgery.
Alderman WILSON—I think there is evidence enough
to show that there has been a forgery of Exchequer bills,
but is it not now time to show that l(apallo had a know-
ledge that they were forged ?
Mr. BODKIN—Just so. I admit that a forgery of Ex-
cheqUer bills has been made out ; but have you traced
the guilty knowledge to Mr. Rapallo ?
Mr. 'WADDINGTON—You must be aware of this prin-
ciple of law, that in • all preliminary investigations the
uttering of forged Exchequer bills or other documents
is alone sufficient to cast upon the party the onus of prov-
ing that he came honestly by them.
Mr. BODKIN would beg to dispute that principle of law.
suatntetriSnVgitlolf qt.ouregsetidonbs of
ills tohs
riexsocrhtanngoet to take
,elu it
nterfeitthit ttle
iMr. WADDINGTON—Your Worships are far too
secu-
rities,conver-
or coin, or receiving stolen goods, was sufficient
to warrant a committal, and that it never was suggested
that it should be proved that the party had the guilty
knowledge—that was to be inferred from the circum-
stances of the case. It will be for a Jury to infer from
the fact of a person uttering such an enormous
quantity of Exchequer bills, and I can make the case in
this respect much stronger hereafter, by showing that a
much larger quantity was forged,—l say, that the fact
of a person uttering so large a quantity of forged bills,
coupled with his statement that he received them from
Smith—taking this statement, coupled with the fact that
obills to a large amount was tittered by him, I
fg
thinkred
there is ample evidence not only for the present
purpose but evidence upon which a Jury would not
hesitate to infer that he had a guilty knowledge. Ob-
serve, he admits in his statement that he knew they were
not the property of the person from whom he received
them, and he gives no explanation of how he could have
supposed that a person in the situation of Smith mid

. T. •
have "the power of supplying him tcr this enormous
amount. He knew that Smith was not a man of property;
ho knew they were not his bills,, and will any
one .suppose thatanother party would authorise Smith to
apply tins amount of Exchequer bills; to stock specula-
tions ? From the whole of the statements it is clear that
the party must have had a guilty knowledge'd the na-
ture of the transaction.

Mr. Alderman Wll.soN—lf you had charged any per-
son with stealing these bills, you might have some
ground for Supposing that IZapallo was the receiver of
stolen property. But what evidence is there here
that he knew they were forged ?
Mr. WADDINGTON—TIiat would be inferred' from all
the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Alderman WILSON thought the case of a party re-
ceiving stolen goods, and of a party having Exchequer
bills in his possession knowing th,.n. -to be stolen, as
being very different.
Mr. WADDINGTort—What I say is, that in the ab-
sence of direct evidence on the subject, the guilty know-
ledge of the party must be inferred from the circum-
stances of the case. Of course, if a person admitted that
he had forged Exchequer bills in his'pOssession—'
Mr. Alderman WILSON—NO, no ; he did not say that.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Ire admits that he had these bills
from Smith, and it is now proved that they are forged.
Therefore. you are to say from all the circumstances of
the case, whether ltapallo knew them to be forged; but
if you stop this inquiry into a most enormous and
gigantic fraud, by requiring direct proof of his guilty
knowledge, the ends of justice will not be met.
Mr. Alderman PuirE—lt would go a, great way in
inferring a guilty knowledge, if I found that he received
bills from the GO'vernment office and made no regular
entry in' his books.
Mr. WADDINGTON—That will be all very, well when
the case comes before a Jury.
Mr. Alderman PIRIE—It strikeS me, however, .that
it would be a very important point to establish now.- -•
Mr. WADDINGTON—There is one thing that I must
remind you, that you are not pronouncing definitively
-upon the guilt or innocence of the party, and really I
think that you can hardly have paid sufficient attention
to the statements of this man. .

Mr. Alderman Pun E—l beg your pardon. I have
read it over very carefully and attentively.
Mr. WADDINGTON—I must say that that statement ap-
pears to me to be pregnant with suspicion, and that the
party who received them must Lave been, not only a
party to the fraud, but that he knew they were fraudu-
lently obtained. How could he 'Suppose that Smith
would have been all this time supkingliim with genuine
Exchequer bills? Surely when you find ~him dealing
with those bills to so enormous an amount—

Mr. BODKIN—It strikes me that whatever may be
supposed on that point we have nothing to do with the
principle. The party seeking to deprive one of the
Queen s subjects of his personal liberty will not make.
that a case of suspicion that the transactions were of an
extensive nature. The case should be looked at as if it
were simply between two individuals. My Learned
Friend, I admit, has not thrown any unfair diffi-
culties in the way of the inquiry. I admit he
has given reasonable evidence, from which it may
be inferred that the documents were forged ; but
there has been nothing stated to show that Rapallo
had any more knowledge of their being forged than
either of the two witnesses from the Treasury, who did
precisely what Rapallo would do himself. I. call upon
you to read the statement of Mr. Rapallo. I can well
imagine how a man in the consciousness of rectitude,
thinking fit to present himself voluntarily at the llome-
office, and subjecting himself to the rigid cross-examina-
tion of the acute arid able legal authorities there, might
have been betrayed into some statements or admissions
which the ingenuity of my Learned Friend opposite
might construe as prejudicial to him. My Learned
Friend dwells on the fact that Rapallo said he did not
believe them to be the property of Smith ; but you must
be aware that these large transactions were matter of
public notoriety in the City, and the general impres-
sion among commercial men was, that they originated
with parties 'at the West end who knew their
agents in the City were conducting these speculations,
and Smith might have been supposed to be the party re-
presenting them. In the same way Rapallo was the
agent of Smith in the City ; taking up the business as
it had been formerly carried on by Solari. Now, looking
sit the nature of the evidence that has been given, I
ask you to lay your finger upon a tittle of evidence from •
which you can infer that Rapallo had any guilty know-
ledge
of these bills being forgeries. Now, my Learned
Friend relies on the evidence as being sufficient not_ only
to commit him, but even to convict him; but I take
leave with great humility and submission to his superior
knowledge, to doubt whether a jury, even from the Trea-
sury or Exchequer-office itself; would be able to
pronounce such a verdict. If that were so, no man
could be safe who engaged in commercial specu- •
lations of this nature. I submit that there is no
proof of knowledge on the part of Rapallo
of these bills being forged. And, Sir, I cannot help
asking you, and I trust I am not making any observa-
tions unbecomi::g the situation in which I stand here, to
look with a good deal of jealousy at the case raised
against this particular person. The bills have gone
through a great number of hands, and there is
no doubt that they generally came from the Ex-
chequer-office itself ; and • a very serious question
will be raised on the part of the innocent holders as to
whether they will be able to recover the amount from
the Government or not. Mr. Rapallo is the only link
by which they will be able to prove their claim upon
the Government, and that they had, in point of
fact, proceeetled from the Government office. You will
look therefore with proper caution and suspicion on this
attempt, because, if it be successful, it will go far to reliee
the Government from the responsibility which
may attach to it for the payment of these Ex-
chequer bills. Under those circumstances, I appre-
hend that you will be of opinion that this is
a case in which you would not be justified in depriving a
man of his personal liberty, more especially when I
advert to the fact that this statement of my client's,
on which the strongest suggestion of criminality
is founded, was made twelve days ago, during the
whole of which time Mr. Rapallo has been at
liberty. In that period his counting-house has been ran-
sacked; his books have been taken from him; and those
which were not discovered, he himself voluntarily
surrendered. He* has been himself on the spot, and has
expressed the utmost willingness to come forward at any
time. After all this I think it would really be too much
to consign a person to prison who has evinced such
readiness to afford every information in his power.
In answer to Alderman 'WILSON, it was stated that
the Government officers had Mr. Rapallo's books, and it
was suggested that they should be examined, in order to
ascertain whether there was any entry of these bills in
the regular course.
Mr. WADDINGTON submitted that that would not
alter the nature of the case in any respect. The fact
of his receiving these bills from a clerk in the Treasury,
without making any inquiry into their authenticity, was
a proof that he knew the transaction to be fraudulent,
and if these entries were regularly made in his books
that would be merely a cloak to conceal the real
nature of the transaction. He said he did not consider
that it was his business to ask whether it was
a regular thing or not. He has frequently
in similar transactions taken the . bills and
asked no questions. But was it possible to suppose
that he would receive at one time 120,0001., and at
another time upwards of 80,0001. of these bills, suppos-
ing them to have been legitimately come by? He hoped
the Magistrates of that great commercial. city would be
of opinion that enough of evidence had been tendered to
put the case in a train of investigation. If it was thought
that Rapallo Should be admitted to bail, he had no objec-
tion, but that was a point which he left to the discretion
of the Magistrates.
Mr. Alderman WILSON thought that the fact of these
bills being regularly entered in the. books of the pri-
soner would be a•strong proof that lie did not think they
had been fraudulently obtained.
Mr. WADDINGTON complained of the aspersions that
had been cast by his Learned Friend on the motives of
the Government, who, he said, were anxious to do every-
thing consistently with justice as regarded the holders of
these bills.
Mr. BODKIN explained.
Mr. Alerman l'VrLsoN said fault had been found
by the Learned Counsel, and he thought great
injustice had also been done..,to the- Magistrates
of the City of London, .. in supposing that
there was any wish on their part to impede the course
of justice. It was, however, the duty of the Magistrates
to see that the liberty 9f the subject was not taken
away unless there appeared to them good-and sufficient
grounds for such a step. Patin''.. Rapallo out of the
question for a moment, it appeared to him that any
merchant might have received these bills from Mr.
Smith, as a person connected with the Treasury, with-
out suspecting; that they were forged or counterfeit. lie
did not see how they could entertain any suspicion of
the sort. -
Mr. WADDINGTON admitted that such was the case.
Agri BODKIN—I submit, Sir, that my client be allowed
his liberty upon bail. Ile went forward voluntarily—
he has attended to his business ever since he made his
statement, and will again .come forward whenever it is
thought necessary. My Learned Friend certainly mis-
understood me, when he says I threw out -reflections
against the Government. I meant no such thing.
Of course, it will be their duty to ' insti-
tute a most strict and searching investigation
into the whole of these transactions. 'What he meant to
say was that these bills had passed through se-
veral hands. They had passed through the hands
of Marriner and of De Burckam, yet they are
treated as respectable men, and are brought forward as
witnesses for the Crown. I look with jealousy to any
selection of witnesses.
Mr. Alderman WlLsosr—Well, produce the day-book,
and satisfy me that these ten bills received by Mr. Ra-
pallo, on the 13th October, were regularly entered in a
knowledge I have
mercantile manner, and it will have munch, andand
yet
tsiiidavee-
rable impression upon my mind.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Supposing such were to be the
for one case, Sir, still in my mind it would not make the slightest
difference. Parties engaged in such a transaction might
and b‘evliitehv
keep
‘ureiadl
t:ygfooolk.dnnmoowemirecadaig.lnieti.ill eh
iris,ci cisaeotiricslgeosufi
cittolymuel
dbi bills,
fancy
mo-
ment that a clerk in the Exchequer could find bills to such
an amount laying about the Ace, ; nor could he for a
the prisoner or any other
moment suppose they couldinflo)erepneuerlt:vnheido,itomussutchhaavne
e
ant to a ulni oan
couldnt,
it. It could not suggest itself to any reasonable mind; the
only other inference there is th4t ;the bills were not
genuine, -and -that was an
amount. It is such an absurdity,
forced itself upon the mind of
person dealing with bills.to
man of no substance.
• Mr. Alderman WlLsost---aßut there might be a third
party behind, or more persons in the back-ground, who
were supplying Mr. Smith..
Mr. BODKIN—Just so, Sir—that was the impression
on the minds of all.
A book was here produced and examined, but no entry