The Sun.
London, England, 1824-09-14 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

Yesterday George Hicks, Gentleman (a Soli-
citor), the Hon. and Rev. Edward Finch, and another, were in-
dicted for obtaining 6,0001. of Joseph Wilfred Parkins, under
false pretences. The charge arose out of an annuity transaction.
The indictment consisted of several counts, charging the offence
in various ways ; but the counts upon which it appeared the
principal reliance was placed were those which charged the de-
fendants with failing to remove certain incumbrances on the
property in question, and on the promise of removing which it
was alleged the money had been obtained from Mr. Parkins.
Mr. Hicks was the only defendant who appeared ; the others,
it was said, have never been in this country for some time pre-
vious to or since the finding of the indictment. Mr. Hicks was
under bail, and gave notice to the prosecutor of his intention to
appear and take his trial. He is a young man, of a gentle-
manly and prepossessing appearance, and conducted himself
throughout the whole proceeding in a most becoming manner.
The usual forms being gone through,
Mr. ALLEY stated the case on the part of the prosecution.
The defendant, together with the lion. E. M. Finch, and
another person not present, proposed to Mr. Wilfred Parkins
to advance 6,0001. on a certain vicarage and rectory in NVar-
wickshire, which were alleged to be burthened with a slight
incumbrance, but which, in reality, never had existence. Mr.
Parkins was ultimately induced to advance 6,0001. in Bank of
England notes. On these grounds the prisoner at the bar was
charged with a conspiracy to defraud. Mr. Alley went into a
minute detail of the circumstances preceding and attending the
commission of the offence ; the principal persons charged with
the conspiracy were the prisoner Hicks, an attorney, Wollas-
ton, and the Hon. Edward M. Finch, brother to a Nobleman.
The two latter were not in custody. Having explained the
nature of the principal charge to the Jury, Mr. Alley proceeded
to call witnesses to support his allegations.
Mr. Joseph Wilfred Parkins having been sworn, was asked
whether he knew the defendant Hicks ? He said he had the
misihrtune to be acquainted with the defendant.
Mr. GURNEY—Fray, Mr. Parkins, abstain from epithets.
Mr. ADOLPHUS-111r. Parkins, I advised you before you
went into the box not to answer more than is asked.-
Mr. Parkins-1 will endeavour, Sir, but Ido not want to be
interrupted (to Mr. Gurney.)
Mr. GURNEY—You will be interrupted,. Sir, when it is
proper. Mr. Parkins resumed—
The witness stated that he was introduced to the prisoner by
a Mr. Woollaston, in the Park. The prisoner informed wit.
ness that Woollaston was an eminent solicitor. After some
cursory conversation the parties separated. Witness met Hicks
and Woollaston several times afterwards, particularly at Hicks.'
house at dinner. Sir Henry Tempest and several others were
of the party. At one of their social meetings, Sir Henry
Tempest urged the witness to adopt the business of lending
money on annuities—said that lie himself had disposed of his
money that way. The witness declared his disinclination to
follow that advice. Two or three days after that period, the
prisoner and Woollaston called on witness, and told him that
the Honourable Mr. Finch had incumbered some church livings
anti two lay estates besides, by several annuities, and wished
to exchange those several annuities for one large one. The
sum of the collective incumbrances amounted to 6,0001.
They added, that if witness would advance the 6,0001 to the
Honourable Mr. Finch, to clear off these annuities, he would
receive a charge on the property of 600!. per annum. flicks
took him to the Enrolment Office, Chancery-lane, and having
examined the books, stated to witness that there were no more
incumbrances on the property than those previously alleged by
him. Witness having confidence in Hicks, gave him a cheque
for 6,000/. on his bankers, to be applied to the clearing of the
incuinbrancee. The cheque contained a direction to the bankers
not to pay the sum of the cheque until the title deeds of the
livings and estates should be deposited with them. Witness
then left town, and on his return having met /licks and Wol-
laston, was informed by them that the bankers refused to ad.
ranee the sum of the cheque; they suggested at the same time
that the motive of the bankers' refusal was a wish to retain in
their hands the 6,0001. for the use of which Mr. Parkins re-
quired nu interest. Witness, to convince them that he had no
tloubt of their honour, gave them another cheque for the same
sum 60001.; the cheque was sent to the bankers; the sum was
sent back to witness, who delivered it (six notes of 10001. each)
to the prisoner Hicks, Wollaston, and Finch. Certain papers
were then produced, which were alleged to be the title-deeds of
the livings and estates; they were executed and subscribed by
.3lr. Finch, in his presence, and retained by Mr. Hicks, wit.
news's solicitor, who declared that every thing was correct.
Part of the annuity was paid : 20001. or 3000/. are now due to
witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY.—The annuity has been
paid up to December last; these payments were made from
the estate of Mr. Henry Finch, who was surety for his brother,
Mr. Edward Finch ; the cheques which he gave on the beakers
are destroyed; never had any occasion to transact any busi.
ness in the way of annuities for Church Livings.—(Mr. Gurney
here handed a paper to the witness.)—Witness : The signature
to that paper is witness's hand-writing—(after sonic considera-
tion)—tt was not his handwriting; the signature is his ; he
never saw it before; does not know how his name happened to
be attached to it; he never sent this cheque to his bankers—
(on consideration)—lie did send that cheque ; remembers that
in the beginning of the cross-examination he swore that the
cheques were destroyed ; now he sees that this is one of them ;
swears that his bankers did not pay the sum of 6,000/. on the
presentation of this cheque; can swear that he was in town
when the money was paid ; thinks lie was; to the best of his
recollection he was ; cannot' positively swear as to a particular
date.
Cross-examination continued.—l paid it myself in Hick's
office. I felt a repugnance to entering into the business, be.
cause it was an annuity transaction. I had bought annuities
before.—(A laugh.)—lt was in June that I indicted Mr. flicks.
I had him taken up on a Saturday. Bail were offered. There
was another indictment, which I removed into the King's
Bench ; but that was abandoned, it
to beinag detectiyea.inaft
Awiiv.
bringwill
en n action ag
urged to do so, but I
believe
e notve threatendid. wway
often
never intended. Can't say whether I threatened or not. I in-
sured Mr. Finch's life this year, and not before. When I said
that between 2 and 3,000/. was due to me, I meant and said for
arrears as well as for insurance. I calculate for the risk of
not swear earltdheant
life. I have actually paid about 2001.
Mr. Parkins was here requested to leave the Court,
The CHAIRMAN now said, that the whole evidence of Mr.
Parkins had been heard, and he wished to know on what
grounds Mr. Alley intended to establish the fraud ?
Mr. ALLEY said he would prove fraud by the defendant's
own letters, and other evidence which he should adduce. If
the Chairman thought the case had not a leg to stand on, lie
would not press it.
The CHAIRMAN said, the Jury had heard the nature of the
evidence already given? but he had no wish to stop the case it'
there was important evidence to be given.
Two letters written by Mr. Hicks to Mr. Parkins, and the
Annuity Deed were then put in and read ; the latter being
first proved by the subscribing witness. The deed contained a I
covenant from the granter of the annuity to shew himself, when
required, at any Insurance Office.
George Keats, of Howland-street, said, I promised the At.
torney for the prosecution to produce the deeds to-day, but I
have not brought them. These are the induction deeds. 1
lent them to Mr. Hicks about three years ago, to show them to
Mr. Parkins. Mr. Finch owes me money. I have the title
deeds at home.
Mr. ALLEY—WeII, go and fetch them.
Mr. Keats—l certainly will not.—(l laugh.)
Mr. GURNEY said, he was not bound, in a criminal prose-
cution, to wait for witnesses.
Mr. Weare, a coal-merchant, examined—l knew Mr. Hicks
ten or twelve years ; Ido nut know Mr. Finch. An annuity
deed was here handed in. The witness said lie had nut yet
been paid.
Mr. Thomas Carr, Devonshire-street, Portland-place, said,
Mr. Hicks has transacted business for me with Mr. Finch; the
annuity has not been paid off.
Mr. Sherranl-1 know 31r. Hicks; I had a conversation with
him respecting the annuity. He said, " I had some dealings
with the fortunate youth l" meaning Mr. Parkins.—(Loud
laughter.)—This was respecting the annuity.
Mr. ALLEY—That is my case.
Mr. Ounsmy then submitted, on the part of the defendant,
that no case had been made out to call for any defence.
After a short discussion between Mr. GultNE V, Mr. ALLEY,
and Mr. ADOLPHUS, it was decided that the case should go
to the Jury ; and
111 r. G tIIINE Y addressed the Jury on behalf of Mr. Hicks,
in a most able and eloquent speech, denying the charge in tub,
not merely as regarded the fraud alleged to be committed by
Mr. Hicks, but as regarded any fraud at all committed
on Mr. Parkins. Notwithstanding that Gentleman's repug-
nance at engaging in annuity transactions, he had received at
the rate of between sixteen and seventeen per cent. since the
beginning of the transaction. lie had received his money down
to last 111idsuinnier ; it was an annuity, depending on a good
life of 32 ; lie had paid 6000/. ; he had received 40001. and the
annuity was still in existence. There was, therefore, nut the
smallest pretence fur preferring this indictment against a re-
spectable individual, because another individual, the granter
of the annuity, had failed in the performance of a covenant, to
had rendered himself liable to action fur a breach of cove.
pay utrsome prior incumbrances. So that because Mr. Finch
nant, Mr. Hicks was to be indicted for a transportable tn.
fence. The Learned Gentleman, then, at considerable length,
went over the evidence of Mr. Parkins, and contended, that
it was impossible, as this distance of time, to rely upon
that Gentleman's accuracy as to particular expressions, and
which particular expressions were the very foundation of