The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-17 00:00:00

EN 'NG EDITI

In a daily newspaper is not a suffic:ent refutatii,nt of I
en official and detached statement like that lateli' Siven
-a the French journals. We pass oe, howev to
more important matters. What is 0--
farce, even in its best point of view j ses
this " statement derived from off , That
England has under its 'Rare some •tedi: -Y
reat colonies, severe s N•sfisn ex-
t sat and in irriportaies, ''lt'c''s,'",rieftially at
war—a maritime war's' e;:s
.k..et'seteigt-binpire, in ter-
ritory and population, which exists on the face of the
eat ; and, not content with this, has just resolved to
interfere I,etween Turkey and Egypt, France and
Itussia, in a was, which requires an extensive naval ar-
mament. And with all these responsibilities nn its
hands, acting, as it must do, wholly by sea, what is the
British fleet in commission at this moment? We
pause with amazement while we write the words—the
navy of' England at this moment in commission con-
sists of " '22 sail of the line and 29 frigates ." Need
another word be said?
(From the Morning Advertiser.)
Amongst the Bills mischievously defeated in the late
Session of Parliament, there are few whose loss is more
to be regretted than that proposed by the Lord Chan-
cellor for regulating proceedings in Chancery. In this
branch of our jurisprudence, more than in any other,
have long been grievously felt the " law's delay,' and
the pecuniary inflictions through which justice has been
administered, and rights established, or rather, retarded
in their establishment. To those at all acquainted—
and wise is not acquainted ?—with the notorious expense
and delay of Chancery proceedings, the good which has
been prevented from accomplishment will be manifest
from the following recapitulation, from a Contem-
porary, of the effect of some of its provisions :—" As
to delay—ln ordinary suits it would have dimi-
nished the delay about Jour years ; in those suits
where a second hearing on further directions is ne-
cessary, sir years' delay would have been removed ;
and so in proportion for every additional hearing that
might be required. As regards expense—The saving
in useless term fees to clerks in court and solicitors,
fees for useless attendances of solicitors in court on
hearings, motions, and petitions, fees to counsel for re.
freshers, expense of supplemental bills and bills of re-
visor, would have amounted to about 30,0001. a year—
more than enough to pay the salaries of two Judges
and a full complement of all the additional officers that
could be required." Yet to these provisions was it
tio. Sir Edward Sugden expressed his determination to
give all the opposition which the forms of the House
might leave at his disposal—and for an opposition so
e 'forced this distinguished Jurist could assign no more
rational motive than the necessity of first providing for
the more satisfactory administration of justice in the
House of Lords and. Privy Council.
(From the Morning Herald.)
We know of no state of society worse than a state
of war, except a state of peace over which war seems
to be always impending. Such is Whig peace. It is a j
peace in which all nations, save England, are armed
to the teeth, and which is continually disturbed by the
alarms, and excited by the preparations of war. As
Whig " RETRENCHMENT" means a prodigal expendi-
ture and increased taxes, so Whig " PEACE " signifies
" wars and rumours of wars." Already has Whig
" peace" engendered three " little wars," and one great
one, and now another greater than any is threatened.
The three ° little wars " were the buccaneering war
in Spain, the Anglo-Gallic war in the Netherlands,
and the Anglo-Indian war in Affghanistan. The first
of these little wars, which the Duke of Wellington
rightly described a 3 a war for the promotion of stock-
jobbing interests, cost the lives of at least 10,000 Bri-
tish subjects, and a waste of public money equivalent
to many years' savings of the starve-pauper system,
which was the Whig-boon to " the masses" for assisting
them, by demonstrations of physical force, to carry the
RSfA. M., Act. Toe buccaneering war also deeply tar-
ni3AFti the fame of British soldiership on the soil
covered with the monuments of its former glory. It
is enough for Europe, and will be enough for posterity
to know, that the general of a Tory Government was
Wellington, and the chosen hero (save the mark !)
of the Whig Cabinet was De Lacy Evans. The
force of antithesis can go no farther. If the British
Legion from the Isle of Dogs was routed by its enemies,
and robbed by its friends, was not its general, who un-
derstood better how to flog the Westminster grenadiers
than to thrash the Carliats, rewarded with the blush-
ing riband of Lord Palmerston ? If he had the oppo-
site of glory elsewhere, had he not honour in Downing-
street. Surely the diplomatist and the general
of the quadruple treaty were worthy of each
other. The war of the Anglo-Gallic convention
was executed by a French army, amounting to 50,000
men, who had undertaken the heroic task of dislodging
four thousand Dutch troops from the fortress of Ant-
werp—an exploit which, after much slaughter, they
eventually accomplished, while a combined fleet of
English and French ships of war threatened the coast
of Holland, and an embargo on Dutch vessels in Bri-
tish ports, without a declaration of war, piratically inter-
cepted the commerce of our best customer. The slaugh-
ter in the trenches, and on the ramparts, at Antwerp,
was the tragical sequel to the " pacific" protocols, as the
frightful destruction of British life in the Biscayan pro-
vinces was the appropriate result of the quadruple
treaty. The Anglo-Indian war is Atfghanistan,
though, by means of the skill of a general educated in
the school of Wellington, and the bravery of British
troops, it succeeded so far as to place upon the
tbloste of Cabal the vassal prince whose quarrel we bad
espoused, seems to have entailed upon England, as we
anticipated it would, the expensive necessity of support-
ing that vassal King by British bayonets. Already, in-,
deed, are things rapidly hastening to that point when
the Anglo-Indian Government will have all its work to
do over again. The next " little war" in India will be
a great one in its calamitous consequences. We do not
place the Whig opium war with China in the category ,
of tette wars. It is great in the enormity of the wicked-
ness in which it had its origin—great in the magnitude of
the operations which it wilt require to make any serious
imnreasioa on the most extensive and populous of the em-
pires of the east. It is a war which is at once a great
blancher and a great crime.
(From the Morning Chronicle.)
The Times 9roves very satisfactorily to itself that on the
chief contests of last Session Ministers were in a minority.
Taking ten divisions (on the chief contests), " Ministers
could muster only 2,472 votes, or 247 on each on an ave-
rage; while the Opposition brought forward 2,517, or 251,n
acts on an average. Can anything be more clear," adds our
contemporary, " than that to all practical purposes the
Whig majority is wholly annihilated ?" How is it, then,
that the Tories could not turn to the proper account these
majorities in their favour? Four times were they vic-
torious on Lord Ssanley's Bill, and yet the Whigs are in
office.
" It is hardly to, be told," says our contemporary the
Examiner, " how many times Lord Stanley beat the
Government—he beat them, and beet them, again and
::gain till he could do no more, and was obliged to give
in. When Miss Kitty, in High Life Below Stairs, is in-
vited to step through a minuet, she confesses her success
in the dance, but at the same time declines the perform-
ance, pleading that she ' has not room for her motions.'
Lord Stanley, like Miss Kitty, had not room for his mo-
tions, in the latter part of the Session, and therefore
dropped Lis Bill in its mid career of victory."
" The times have been

That when the brains were out tho man would die,
And there an end ; but now they rise again
With twenty mortal murders ou their crowns,

And push us from our stools."
No wonder that the Times is in such sad perplexity to
know what comes next. " Every man of business," re-
marks our Contemporary, " will naturally ask himself what
is the next step in this progress ? Clearly it is towards
an absolute minority. But what follows then ? We can-
not tell with any precision, considering the extraordinary
characters and doings of the persons in question." What
is the use of gaining victories if the result is to depend on
the vanquished ? When the Duke of Wellington gained
the battle of Waterloo, he did not stand still exclaiming,
He is &strange fellow, that Bonaparte. I wish I knew what
he would do, in order that I might know what to do." The
leader who followed closely on the heels of Bonaparte,
and gave him no time to rally, is now the leader of the
Tories ; and yet they know not what to do after their
victories. The Whigs are suck strange fellows, that they
do not know when they are beaten, and prevent the Tories
from deriving due benefit from their victories. No one
will tell the latter what is the next step in this progress.
If any one who had not seen an English newspaper for
four or five years were to recommence his reading with
the article in the Times of Saturday, he would at once
say, there is mystification here. This cannot be a correct
account of the present state of parties. There is evi-
dently some concealment of faete material to a true under-
standing of the question. And auch is the case. The
Tories, on all questions for trying the strength of parties,
are unquestionably in a minority, and therefore it is out of
their power to turn the Whigs out.
(From the Moining Post.)
Th. finsmission of the General Assembly of the Church
of Scotind, which met on Wednesday last, have decided
by a majority of 180 to 66 in favour of the appointment of
mmictee prepare a libel against the seven suspended
am:is—tem of the Presbytery cif Strathbogie. The pro-
ceectins of that party in the Church of Scotland which
poses itself to the law of the land, as expounded by the
authorised and constitutional expounders of the law, are
evidently the proceedings of determined man. They do
rut present any of the characteristics of timidity or inde.
cision. This does not prove that these proceedings arc
right; but it does prove that they are formidable. The
non-intrusion party advance in their pretensions as the dis-
cussion proceeds. Hitherto they have only seemed to re-
quire that the communicants should possess an absolute veto
on the nominations of the patrons of livings. They now seem
disposed to struggle for the total abolition of patronage, and
for the right of the congregitious to elect tbeitehepaslatottresr.
We do not dissemble our beiiti n
that upon
ground they wilt be stronger than they over could have
been on the former; and if their object be merely to con-
tendte for victory, that in placing their quarrel upon the
broadest democratic basis they are politically right. But
We own we are at a loss to conceive bow ieligious and pa-
triotic men can have made up their minds to a;pose the
Church and State of Scotland to the danger of well
calamities as are likely to arise from the warfare which
they provoke. They talk of the renewal of the solemn
league and covenant. Can they renovate the feelings and
spirit which gave to that national pledge the gigantic
force which it possessed and exercised? The course
which the Church of Scotland is now pursuing, whatever
may be its immediate result, must end in dividing Scotland
btt-ween the voluntaries and the episcopalians.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUI7'-I}loxmormi, ACC. 14.

(Before Mr. Baron PAURE.)
31-r. William Foster Gearh, the swi-in-law of' Mr.
Frost (who waa convicted of high treason), was elnrged
with basing uttered a forged acceptance on a bill (f ex-
change for 1,057/. 16s. 9J.
Before the Jury were czlled, Mr. Geach applied to have
all the jurors who came from Pontypool and Newport set
aside, on the ground that they would entertain a prejudice
against him, because he had acted as solicitor for certain
parties who had been tried on the special commission.
Mr. Baron PARKE observed that it was idle to suppose
that, in trying this case, the Jury could entertain i,ny pre-
',idle, against Mr. Geach as having been the attorney of
Mr. Frost.

A great many jurors were objected to on both sides, and
it was nearly an hour before a full jury was sworn.
Mr. RICHARD! stated that the prisoner had long been a
solicitor in exten3ive practice ct Pont: pool and Newport,
and that in the year 1831 he opened an account with
Messrs. Williams, the bankers at Newport. who had dis-
counted bills for him to a large amount. Some of these
were regular bills. Others were accommodation bills,
taken up by Mr. Geach himself, either by payments
or by other bills to a larger amount. However,
it was not till the year 1835 that Mr. Geach's dis-
count account became very large, and in the month
of March in that year he wrote a letter to Messrs.
Williams, the bankers, stating that Mr. Edmund Williams,
of Maesruddud, would give his bill for 2,0001., and asking
that his (Mr. Geach's) discounts might be increased from
5,0001. to 6,0001 ; but it was not till the year 1837 that
the transaction occurred which was the subject of the pre-
sent charge. In the month of July in that year, Mr.
Geach asserted that Mr. Edmund Williams owed him
2,500/. and interest on the mortgage of an estate which
Mr. Guest had contracted to buy of Mr. Edmund Wil-
liams, and that Mr. Edmund Williams had accepted three
bills, making up the whole amount of principal and interest,
one of which bills (the bill in question) had been dis-
counted by Messrs. Williams, the bankers, for the pri-
soner. It would be proved that Mr. Edmund Williams
had never accepted this bill, and that the whole of the
alleged transactions with him were a fiction. There was
no doubt that other bills had been paid to the bankers since
the bill in question ; but that would not alter the case, as
the offence was completed by the uttering, and whatever
occurred afterwards could make no difference.

Mr. William Williams—l am a banker, residing at
Newport. We carry on business in the name of William
Williams and Sons. The prisoner, Mr. Geach, was in
the habit of discounting with us. This bill was discounted
by us.

(It was the bill in question. It came enclosed in a
letter. )

The letter was to the following effect :
" Dear Sirs,—Herewith you will receive the three bills
of Mr. Williams, together with a statement showing the
amount. The deeds, &c., you shall have about Thurs-
day next. We are now using them, making out the ab-
stract for Mr. Guest's solicitor. You may have them if
you wish, though it will a little inconvenience me. How-
ever, you will say by return, and I will thank you to send
me my book also.—Your obedient servant,
July 25, 1837. W. F. GEACH.
Mr. William Williams, being cross-examined by Mr.
Serjeant Lcntow, said—The prisoner married a lady
of considerable fortune. A considerable number of bills
came into our hands from Mr. Geach. We are not
aware that all, or nearly all, were accommodation bills.
We shoull not have advanced money to the prisoner
on his own credit. He never asked it. Since the
bill in question was paid to us we have had other bills
to more than equal the amount. Mr. Geach did not
have back his satisfied securities; they were left with
us. He had any that he chose to send for. I never
made any application to Mr. Edmund Williams,
the supposed acceptor of the bill, till the present
year. I did not know that this was a forged bill till the
present year. Mr. Geach was bankrupt in 1838. Mr.
Geach asked us to prove under the fiat. I did not prove
for the bill in question, though I did for other bills.
Mr. Geach promised to pay us, notwithstanding the proof
under his bankruptcy. I proved for two bills, but this was
not one of them. I proved, by affidavit: 2,2831. Os. 7d.
is the balance due to us. I made no application to Mr.
Geach for money after 1837. Mr. Ford's clerk brought
down Mr. Geach in custody. Mr. Ford is our attorney ;
he lives in London. He is only our attorney for this spe-
cific business. We have no attorney in particular. We
employ several occasionally. I have not said that these
two bills were my only claim against Mr. Geach. I never
said that Mr. Ford had advised this prosecution, because
Mr. Geach had set aside his warrant of attorney for some
debt of his own in the Court of Queen's Bench.
Re-examined—Mr. Geach mentioned two parties to
accommodation bills, who were Mr. E. Williams and
Miss Rachel Herbert. This bill was paid by figures in the
account from other bills. Mr. Ford was in the country,
and knowing that he banked with our London banker, we
employed him to try to get payment of the two over-due
bills.

[Four letters written by Mr. Geach to Messrs. Wil-
liams, the bankers, were read.]
The first letter, which was dated the 26th of March,
1835, stated that Mr. Edmund Williams had consented to
give Mr. Geach his bills for 2,0004, and by this letter Mr.
Geach asked Messrs. Williams to increase the limit of his
discounts from 5,0001. to 6,0001., stating that there could
be no risk on anything with his name to it.
The second letter which was dated the Bth of March,
1837, stated that Mr. Edmund Williams wished to have
certain bills renewed.

The third letter, which was dated the 22d of July,
1837, stated that Mr. Williams, of Maesruddud, owed Mr.
Geach 2,5001. and interest since 1832, on a mortgage
of property sold to Mr. Guest, to be paid for on the
2d of November, and by this letter Mr. Geach asked
accommodation till that time, on three bills of Mr. Wil..
liams for the amount ; and by this letter Mr. Geach also
offered to send the title-deeds, and an order on Mr. Guest
for the money.

Tho fourth letter, which was dated the 7th of June, 1839,
was written after Mr. Geach's bankruptcy, and contained
the following passage:—" I will not rest till I have hon.
curably discharged every shilling of principal and interest
due to you "
Mr. Edmund Williams—l live at Maesruddud, which is
16 miles from Newport. I have known the prisoner for
many years. I never consented to give the prisoner my
bills for 2,0001., or for any other sum. The acceptance in
question is not of my handwriting. I never accepted any
bill drawn by the prisoner. I never said that I wanted
bills renewed by any other bills. I never owed Mr.
Geach 2,000/. Ido not think I ever owed him a shilling,
except for what he did for me as an attorney. I never
sold any property to Mr. Guest, or any other man in my
life. Mr. Geach never had my title deeds to make an
abstract for Mr. Guest. My son, who is twelve years of
age, is named Edmund Williams. There is no other be-
aides him and me of that name at Maesruddud.

Cross. examined by Mr. Sergeant TaLrouno---.1 was a
client of Mr. Geach. He had my confidence, and Ido
not know that I have suffered by it. I have not paid any-
thing on this bill. 1 never told Mr. Geach that if my
name was of use to him he might use it. lam quite cer-
tain of that.

Re-examined—l never, directly or indirectly, authorised
Geach to use my name to an acceptance. I employed
Geach in transferring mortgages on which money was
due to me.

Mr. John Maund--I am a solicitor at Dudley. I know
the prisoner. I became acquainted with him in April,
1837. I visited him in May, 1837. I went with him to
the Rock Inn. We taw the last witness. The prisoner
said that Mr. Edmund Williams was a friend of his and a
gentlemen of good fortune, and he added, " He owes me
4,0001." I afterwards went into Mr. Geachss office, and
he came to me with three stamps of about 15s. each, and
he said he wished me to assist him in some interest calcu-
lations. Mr. Geach dictated the principal sums and the
heading, and divided it into three bills. By his own in-
structions 1 wrote the body of the bill in question for one
of the three sums.
The bill was read. It was as follows

" 1,0571. 163. 91 Pontypool, July 27, 1837.
" One month after date pay to my order one thousand
and fifty-seven pounds sixteen shillings and nine-pence, for
value received. ,4 W. F. GEACI-1."
To Edmund Williaq s, HET, Mae.:ruddud, near New-
port."
Across this bill was the following acceptance :
" Accepted at Messrs. Cox, Riddulph, and Co., bankers,
London. " EDM. WILLIAMS."

Mr. Maund, in his cross-examination, said—l advanced
2,000/. to Mr. Geach to become a partner with him; that
has been repaid me, and 300/. fur my services, as was
stipulated.
Re-examined—l had security for the 2,0001.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW (with whom was Mr. Sergeant
TAisourin) said, that Mr. Geach was a solicitor in very
extensive practice, who had married a lady of considerable
fortune. He had no doubt made some personal enemies,
and although there was no Statute of I,i,nitations in cri-
minal cases, yet charges of this kind ought not to be stale,
or brought forward from personal motives, but ought always
to be brought forward at the earliest possible period, and
for the advancement of public justice only. The bill which
was the subject of the present indictment ad been satis-
fied, and had become waste paper, and wash it not too hard
to rake up the ashes of this bill for the purpose of over-
whelming a young man who had already had the mis-
fortune to become bankrupt. If it were to be taken
that this was was not a genuine acceptance, and that
Mr. Gulch uttered it without his being able to show
that he had fair grounds to believe that he might
use Mr. Williams's name. there remained the still more
important question, whether Mr. Geach had any intent
to defraud. It had been said that the inference of
frau' Was an inference of law. For example, if one
person fired a pistol at another, and killed him, it would
be an inference of law that he intended to do so ; but
yet that inference might be rebutted by the surrounding
circuu.stances, as by showing that the pistol went off
by accident or the like. Here was a person in credit
who wanted no other names to enable him to get
money at this bank. The bill was paid in and was dis-
charged without any application to coy one, and it lay
for two years at the bankers' among Mr. Geach's
vouchers, which he might have called for at any time
that he chose. If it was fair argument that if a fraud
be equally a fair inference that if had been committed a frauda
committed no fraud was intended, intended;far ,nToa hshat ht fraude no
sobankers
fhr
ai
atudwd.
bohheuaael
had
been committed in this case was el
called upon. Here was an alleged oangeardy
(seen paid, and Mr. Edmund Williamse
innevleBr37be;ena
bankruptcy in 1838, when all tahvr transactions of Mr.
aa thatup the
ee
a se,sai conductd
Geach must have been gone into,
remained in the conntry.d yet ,tilt. Geach had
othfaet
guilty man ?
Mr. Baron PARKE, in summing
upon the questions whether the acceptance was a forgery,
and that the prisoner knew it to be so, there could be no
doubt if the jury believed the evidence of Mr. Edmund 1
Williams ; and with respect to the intent to defraud, he I
had no doubt that thy' jury would take the law from him.
which was this, that a person is guilty of the offence of
forgery, notwithstanding that be may himself intend ul.

timately to take up the bill, and may suppose that the party
whose name is forged shall be no loser. It, in the present
case, the jury were satisfied that the prisoner knew this
acceptance to be forged, and uttered it as true, and be-
lieved that the bankers would advance money on it, which
they would not otherwise do—that was ample evidence of
an intent to defraud, and evidence upon which a jury ought
to act. It app2ared that bill had since been paid
that would make no difference if the cffenee had been once
completed at the time of the uttering:.
The jury retired for about half an hour, and then re-
, turned into court and pronounced a verdict of Guilty, but
recommended the prisoner to mercy.
Mr. Baron PARKE—On what ground, gentlemen?
The Foreman of the Jury—On the ground that the
thing occurred some time ago.
A Juror—We don't think he intended to defraud.

Mr. Baron PARKE—If you are not satisfied of an intent
to defraud, taking the facts of the case into your considera-
tion, the facts subject to the propositions of law that I have
stated, you ought to acquit.
Mr. Geach—The foreman says that they are not antis-
fie,l on the intent to defraud.
Mr. Baron PARKE-It was not the foreman ; it was
another gentleman. The question is, gentlemen, whether
you are satisfied that by this mode the prisoner meant to
get false credit at his bankers, so as to get bills discounted
that he would not have got discounted without.
The Foreman—We are satisfied of that.

Mr. C. Bellamy, the Clerk of Arraigns—" How say you,
gentlemen, is the prisoner guilty of this felony, or not
guilty ?"
The Foreman—Guilty, but we recommend him to
mercy.
Mr. C. Bellamy—Hearken to your verdict as the Court
bath recorded it. You say that the prisoner is guilty—
that is your verdict, and so you say all.
A verdict of guilty was recorded.
Mr. Geach was again indicted for having uttered a
forged promissory note for 1,0001., which purported to be
signed by Miss Rachel Herbert.
Mr. Geach conducted his own defence.
It appeared from the evidence, that Mr. Geach had paid
this note in at his bankers', together with another promis-
sory note of the like amount, which purported also to have
been signed by Miss Herbert, and it was proved by that
lady that her signature had been forged.
The Jury, after near an hour's deliberation, returned a
verdict of Guilty.
The trial was not over till midnight.
SATURDAY.

At the sitting of the Court, Mr. Geach was called upon
to say why sentence should not be pronounced upon him.
Mr. Geach—My Lord, I shall not make any objection
in arrest of judgment, but I wish to address a few observa-
tions to your Lordship in mitigation of punishment. In
the year 1831, 1 enteted into business as a solicitor, and
by industry and perseverance I acquired a considerable
practice. In the years 1830 and 1831 there was a great
depression in the iron trade, and in the town of Pontypool
and its neighbourhood there was great embarrassment
and distress among the tradesmen. I assisted them with
discounts, and also as surety under composition deeds, and
in this way I became embarrassed myself. In an evil hour
I had recourse to these bills, but with no intent to defraud
any person. The whole circumstances rebut such an idea.
This is not like the case of a man going to a banker's un-
known and in a false name, for this money was used to
liquidate the liabilities I had incurred. At the time of my
bankruptcy, after an examination by counsel, which lasted
twenty-three days, and two days more the commissioners
took to read over the evidence, the commissioners would
not adjourn my examination sine die, although asked to
do so by the other side. And although my pecuniary
transactions, while in business, amounted to more than
half a million, there was only about 2001. unaccounted for.
I have had no bill transaction for two years, and I was
trying to get into business, in which I should have, no
doubt, succeeded, if this had not come upon me. Since
my bankruptcy, I have not tried to shield myself by a cer-
tificate, because I did not mean to avail myself of it, in-
tensing, as soon as I got into business, to offer all my cre-
ditors the best security I could give them ; though a gen-
tleman in court has a power of attorney, which would give
me my certificate at once, upon asking for it. I have been
convicted of an attempt to defraud in law. Ido not say
that the verdict is wrong ; but although by a fair construc-
tion of law lam found guilty, yet as the intent, in fact, is
negatived by the jury, I hope it will have its effect with
your Lordship in mitigating my punishment. I hare now
only to thank your Lordship for the patience with which
my case was heard ; and also for certain licence which
was allowed to me, which would not have been allowed
to counsel.
Mr. Baron PARKE—William Fester Geach, it is with
pain that I pass the sentence of the law upon you. It is
no answer to the crime committed by you that you intended
that the bankers should be no losers. The sentence of the
Court upon you is, that you be transported beyond the seas
far the term of 20 years.
Mr. Geach is of gentlemanly appearance, and about 35
years of age. It was understood that he is the son of
Mrs. Frost by her first husband, and that Mrs. Geach is
the niece of Miss Herbert, who is a lady of wealth and
benevolence. It was also understood that Mr. Geach
himself had been in extensive practice, and formerly lived
in style, keeping his carriage, coachman, footman, &c.
William Pritchard and John Williams were charged
with having maliciously set fire to a wood, the property of
the Duke of Beaufort.

It appeared that the wood, which was situate at Trelleck,
was set on fire on the 18th of March, and that 150 acres of
underwood and young oaks were destroyed before the fire
could be extinguished. There was no evidence against
the prisoner Pritchard, except that of his being near the
spot. The evidence against the prisoner Williams was
his confession before Mr. Oakley, the Magistrate, in whicn
he stated that Pritchard had proposed to him that as they
had no money they should go and set fire to the wood, that
they might be employed to put out the fire, and that, after
he ( Williams) had refased, Pritchard said he would do it
alone, when he ( Williams) consented to accompany him
and keep watch, which he did, while Pritchard set tire to
the wood.

Mr. Baron PARKE directed the acquittal of the pri-
soner Pritchard, leaving the case to the Jury as to Wil-
liams, and observed that in cases of :his kind malice might
be inferred from the act itself.

The Jury, after consulting together for some time, found
the prisoner Williams Not Guiltx.
Mr, Baron PARSE—What I after his own confession ?

The Foreman of the Jury—Yes, my Lord, we do not
link it was malicious.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT— We R WICK, Arc. 14.
PARRoTT V. OAKES.

This was the second trial of an action of trespass brought
by John Parrott, a butcher, of Birmingham, against his
landlord, for an illegal distress.
From the statement of counsel, and from the evidence,
it appeared that the plaintiff occupied a house belonging
to the defendant, and there was an account between them,
a supply of meat, by the butcher, being against the rent.
Pending this account the defendant sent persons to dis-
train for rent on the night of Saturday, the last in July,
1839, and these persons distrained the butcher's meat
among, other things. The defendant had about six weeks
before made a distress for rent, and sold out on that occa-
sion, and he insisted that the plaintiff was tenant from
week to week only, but the phintiti insisted that he was
a yearly tenant. 'I he only questions in the cause were,
whether the plaintiff was a weekly or yearly tenant, and
whether the distress ..vas illegal as to the fresh meat in the
plaintiff's shop?
Chief Justic,!! TINDAL told the Jury that the butcher's
meat was not liable to distress, as, if taken in pledge for
rent—the original meaning of distress—it could not be
given up in the same state (in the month of July), in which
the distress was made. As to the question whether the
plaintiff was a weekly or yearly tenant, he left it to the Jury
upon the evidence, which his Lordship read to them.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on both points,
damages 501.—viz., 151. for distraining the raw meat on
Saturday night, and 351. for distraining on the plaintiff as
weekly tenant when he was in truth a }early tenant.
John 111. Gennis, aged 25, and 7homas 31' Cortan, aged
29, were indicted for forging the stamp of the Birmingham
Assay-office, and forging an impression of the same, and
also for having a forged stamp in their possession.
Guilty of having the dies in their possession.
The Counsel for tl.e prosecution said they abstained
from indicting the prisoners for having stamped the Queen's
head on the plate, as by some omission in the late acts for
altering the criminal law, that offence was still capital.
Benjamin Bradnock,. aged 62, and Sarah Purchass,
aged 56, were indicted for forging Bank of England notes
at Birmingham, and for having such forged notes and the
plates for forging them in their possession.
The man pleaded guilty to that and to three other simi-
lar indictments. The woman was tried and found Guilty,
the evidence being that they were both caught in the fact
of striking off the impressions on 5/. notes.
The woman was recommended to mercy on the ground
that she was acting as servant to the other prisoner, and
under his control.

Both were sentenced to fourteen years' transportation,
the law having left the Learned Judge no discretion as to
the punishment.
Robert Morley, aged 38, was found guilty, on three
separate indictments, for le:oniously marrying three wo-
men, viz., Anne Rennie, Mary Sweepson, and Eliza Mil-
ner, his first and lawful wife being still alive.
The Learned JUDGE sentenced the prisoner, upon two
of the verdicts only, to be transported for fourteen years ;
seven years for each offence.

WESTERN CIRCUIT— IA ..TICLLS, JUNE 13.
AFFECTING CASE OF MURDER.
Edward Garrett was indicted for the wilful murder
of Edwin Garrett, near Bath, on the 23d of July last.
Mr. Hodges conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Stone defended the prisoner.
This case was one of the most painful ever witnessed
in a Court of Justice. The prisoner, when placed in
the dock, suffered the most dreadful mental anguish ;
during the greater part of the trial his head reclined
upon the bar, and he was scarcely visible ; his counte-
nance was far from indicating that lie could commit
any crime of atrocity, and his whole bearing
was such as to induce all to sympathise with
him. The tale, as stated by the witnesses, was one
of woe and misery ; the man was peaceable, honest,
industrious, but bent to the very earth by want and
indigence ; he was a shoemaker, and had a wife and
three young children, all of whom he tenderly loved ; he
sew them go crying to bed, because he had no food to give
them, and this taking place night after night drove him
to distraction ; it tore from the father his better feelings ;
or rather, we shouid say, plunged. him. into such a gulf
of misery and despair as to rob hint of his senses, and
in this moment of oppression and perplexity, too much
for human weakneis to bear up against, he seized the
means of destruction that happened to be within his
reach—a bottle of laudanum—poured part of it down
the throats of his darling infants, and then swallowed
the remainder himself, not having the fortitude to the
himself a!oce, without taking with him the wretched
beings «ho owed their birth to him. He was a kind
and most affeetioaate lather. The world bad 4oue