The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-23 00:00:00

EVEN f G, MA RC EI 23, 1845.

a few words with respect to the evidence
adduced before it. Some Hon. Member seemed to be of
opinion that the House wished to screen Members so
acting, and that they were not alive to the enormity
of their conduct. Now, after what had taken
place this session, he thought this an unhappy
moment to make such an objection, as there
never was a time when the House had shown
more jealousy in regard to these matters.
than the present, and a desire expressed to proceed
against persons guilty of bribery under the Act
which originated with the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government.—(Hear.) Why, Committees this
session had acted rigidly in the spirit of that Act,
and some Members entertained the opinion that they
acted with too much rigour.—(Loud cheers.)
It might not, perhaps, become him to speak of the
Committee over which he presided; he might
simply say it did its duty and no more.
He did not think that acting upon the princples which
had guided the decision of the Committee, there
would not be found ten members who had been
returned at contested elections who would
be able to keep their seats.—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the Harwich election, it had been
said that several of the electors had signed a" round
robin" for the purpose of " drawing the purse-
strings" of Mr. Attvvood : but that fact was de-
posed to only by one witness, with respect
to whom—and he believed he was express.
ing the general opinion of the Committee_
had:this statement rested solely upon the evidence
of that witness, he certainly should rot
have acted upon it. He certainly thought that
with respect to Harwich a marked improvement
had I 'taken place, and every precaution ap-
peared to have been taken to prevent brib.,ry
at the late election. Some persons had thought
that the Committee had not availed themselves suf.
ficiently of the powers given to them by Lord Rus-
sell's Act, but it was because there was nothing before
the Committee to excite anything like suspicion of
the existence of general corruption, that they did not
think proper to carry out the full powers of the Act.
He did not think that such a case had been made out, as
to induce the House to suspend the issuing of the writ,
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that
it appeared to him, that there had been in this case,
either gross harshness, or the most corrupt
bribery, he did not know which. He
thought that a Committee ought to be appointed to
inquire into the circumstences of the ewe. But, in
the mean time, he did not think that there existed
any sufficiently constitutional reasons for withholaing
the issue of the writ.

Lord CASTLEREAGH said it was too bad,
after a Committee, who had had great responsibilities
thrown upon its shoulders, had reported acclrding to
the evidence brought before them,they should be
subjected to attaks in that House If the Com-
mittee had decided summarily, itwas the duty
of the House in defence of its own honour to alter
and amend the law, and not throw obloquy upon the
Committees themselves.

Sir W. MOLESIVORTII, as a member of the
Harwich Committee, must declare that he did not
think that there was that amount of bribery proved
before the Committee to justify the disranchisement
of the borough, and he should, therefore, vote for the
issuing of the writ.

After a few words from Captain HARRIS,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the issuing of the writ 195
For the amendment .. 64

Majority against the amendment —l3l
On our admission to the gallery we found
Mr. IJUME, on his legs, objecting to the issuing of
the writ.

Mr. WAKLEY rose also to object to the issuing
of the writ, and was

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

PRUSSIA.

The Cologne Gazette of the 20th publishes the
following decree of the King of Prussia, dated Ber-
lin, the 18th, convoking the States of April 2 :
" We, Frederick William, by the Grace of God—
When on the 14th of this month we convoked our faith
ful States for the 27th of April next, in order to adopt
with them the measures for the regeneration of
Germany, which we desired to propose to our faithful
allies of the Germanic Confederation, and which are also
necessary for Prussia, we could not have supposed that
at the same time great events occurring at Vienna would
essentially facilitate, on the one hand, the execution of
our projects, and 013 the other hand, would render their
prompt execution indispensable. After these important
events we believe it right to declare before all, not only
before Prussia, but before Germany (if such be the will
of God), and before our assembled people, what are the
propositions which we have resolved to make to
our German Confederates. Before all, wo demand
that Germany be transformed from a confederation
of states into a federal state. We admit that that
supposes a reorganisation of the Federal Constitu-
tion, which can only be put into execution by the
union of the princes with the people, and that in
consequence a previous federal representation must be
formed of all the states of Germany, and be convoked im-
mediately. We admit that such a federal representation
renders constitutional institutions of the German states
necessary, in order that the members of that representa-
tion may sit side by side with equal rights. We demand
a military system of general defence fer Germany, imi-
tate° in its essential parts from that under which our
Prussian armies have conquered innumerable laurels in
the wars of liberty. We demand that the German army
be united under one single federal banner, and we hope
to see a federal General-in-Chief at its head. We
demand a German flag, and we hope that in a
short time a German fleet will cause the German
name to be respected on near and distant seas.
We demand a German Federal tribunal, to settle
all political differences between the Princes and
states, as also between the different German Go-
vernments. We demand a common right to all natives
of Germany, and a complete liberty to establish in the
German countries. We demand, that, for the future,
there shall be no barrier raised against commerce and
industry in Germany. We demand a general
Zollverein, in which the same measures, the
same weights, the same commercial rights,
shall draw still closer the material union
of the country. We propose the liberty of the press,
with the same guarantres against abuses for every
part of Germany. Such are our propositions and
our wishes, the realisation of which we shall use our
utmost efforts to obtain. We rely with the
fullest confidence on the co-operation of our German
confederates, and all the German people; we shall
fortify, by their incorporation into our states, pro-
vinces which do not lorm part of them, when, as
we suppose, the representutives of those provinces will
partake of those wishes, and that the Confederation will
be disposed to agree to them. We hope that the
realisation of our intentions will put an end to the
anxiety which, to our great regret, at this moment
agitates Germany, paralyses commerce and industry,
divides the country, and threatens to deliver it
over to anarchy. We hope that these measures
will strengthen Germany in itself, and make her
respected abroad, in order that in her united strength
Europe will find the firmest guarantee for a durable and
prosperous peace. But in order that the accomplishment
of our intentions may experience no delay, and that we
may develope tha propositions which we judge necessary
for the internal Constitution, we have resolved to hasten
the convocation of the. United Diet, and we charge the
Minister of State to make the convocation for Sunday,
the 2d April.-

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, March 22.
(Before the Chief COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE GEORGE ROM .

This insolvent, whose case was reported in this jour-
nal a few days back, again appeared. In his proceed-
ings in the court he described himself as " managing
clerk," but in certain printed prospectuses he was termed
" manager of the Heir at Law Society."
Mr. Nicholas appeared for Mr. Wilson, to claim
notice—Mr. Dowse, as on the preceding oocasion, for
the complainants Emerson and Beanland—Mr. Sargood
was for a Mr. Gough—and Mr. Duncan was counsel for
the insolvent.

The insolvent was examined by Mr. Dowse at some
length. Of the money received for Emerson. 1041 was
charged as commission, and the balance of 1251 3s. 9d.
was to be set against proceedings in law and equity. He
said the trustees of the society would account for the
money, but it was not in the hands of bankers. Mr.
Beanland was another applicant to the society. He had
advanced 151. and a fee to a barrister of 21. 4s. 6d. The
acity (the insolvent said) had agreed to give a Mr.
Barker 500/. as " standing counsel." The money of
Beanland had been swallowed in expenses.
Mr. Means claimed notice for Mr. Wilson, who
had entered into an agreement to act as attorney at
a salary.
The insolvent said he did not consider that ho owed
him anything.
It was, after some discussion, agreed that Wilson
should be inserted a disputed creditor.
A point was raised whether the description of " ma-
naging clerk" was correct, when the insolvent had, in
other documents, been described as " manager."
After hearing Counsel,
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER decided that
the description was bad. The insolvent had held him-
self out to the world as a "manager," and in his des-
cription termed himself as " managing clerk." The
petition could not be sustained. The Court dismissed
the petition.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HARRIS.)
IN RE WILLIAM BROWN.

The insolvent, a baker in the Waterloo-road, had
been twice before an applicant. He had contracted a
debt of 50/., with a flour-factor named Boulter, by re-
presenting that ho was possessed of property, that he
had lenses of houses which realised a handsome income.
He had a family of eleven children to support, and the
Learned Counsel who appeared in his behalf (Mr.
Sargood) appealed to the merciful consideration of the
Court.

Mr. Commissioner llAitnts told the insolvent that
parties, by their ow•n misconduct, often brought misery
on their families. Judgment, four months.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)
IN RE GEORGE CROUCH.

The insolvent, a parcels booking-office keeper, whose
case was reported on Monday, appeared for adjudi-
caion.

The Learned COMMISSIONER, in ordering his dis.
charge, reminded him, as a caution for ;his future con.
duct, that he had had " a very narrow escape."

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
110.14 E CIRCUIT.—Lewes, March 22.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and a
Special Jury.)

NEWTON V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-COAST RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, wh., being
under age, sued, by his father, as next friend, to recover
compensation from the Brighton Railway Company for
having falsely imprisoned him.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Wines were for the plaintiff.
Mr. IL Gurney, with Mr. Bramwell, appeared for the
defendants.

Sergeant SHEE, in opening the case, said the plaintiff
was a young gentleman, 19 years of age, the son of Mr.
Newton, a member of the bar, and of very respect-
able connexions, and whose name was upon the list
of the Commander-in-Chief to receive a commission in
the army, and he brought the present action to recover
damages for most unjustifiable and, as he should sub-
mit, illegal treatment which he had received from
the defendants, through one of the persons in their
service. The circumstances under which the action
was brought were these:—ln October last, Mr. Newton,
the father of the plaintiff, was staying at the Steyue
Hotel, Worthing, and on Sunday, the 17th of that
month, the plaintiff having been invited by his father to
go and see him at Worthing, took a second-class return
ticket at London, which would entitle him to go back on
the second day. Accordingly, after having passed the
Sunday at Worthing together, Mr. Newton and his son
arranged to proceed together to town by the twenty
minutes to eight train on Monday morning, and they
proceeded to the staticn at Worthing with that intention.
It appeared that they were rather late, and when they
arrived the train was about to start. Mr. Newton, the
father, however, succeeded in getting in to one of the
carriages, and the plaintiff also endeavoured to get
into one, and he admitted that at this time the train
was in motion. While in the act of so doing, one of
the persons employed at the station, named Joseph Wood
cock, called the plaintiff towards him, and, as he sup-
posed his intention was to put him into another carriage,
he went up to him, when Woodcock seised him, and
held him until the train went away, and be then in
sisted upon his accompanying him into the station,
where he demanded his name and address, and on th.--
plaintiff giving him his card he was allowed to depart.
The Learned Sergeant said that if the matter had ended
there, probably no further notice would have been taken
of th• matter; but after all this had happened, and
while Mr. Newton was on his way back to the hotel,

where he intended to breakfast, preparatory to starting

by the next train, Woodcock again- met him, and in-
sisted that he should accompany him to the Town Hall.
The plaintiff demanded his authority for Filch a pro-
ceeding, when he was informed that if he did not go
quietly, he would be taken by force, upon which
he accompanied Woodcock to the Town Hall,
where he was kept in charge of a policeman for
nearly two hours, and was then marched through the
town, accompanied by two policeman, and conveyed to
the magistrates' office, where he was charged with vio-
lating the by-laws of the company, by attempting to
force his way into one of the carriages while the train
was in motion, and the magistrates, after hearing the
evidence and looking at the by-laws, and referring to
the Act of Parliament, dismissed the charge. The
plaintiff upon this made a communication to the com-
pany upon the subject of the indignity he had suffered,
and after several letters had passed between them, the
defendants, through their secretary, justified the act of
their servant, at the same time informed tke plaintiff that
there was no doubt of his having committed an of-
fence under their Act of Parliament, and expressed an
opinion that he had been dealt with very leniently by the
magistrates. He concluded by stating that he did not deny
that the defendants were, perhaps, justified in stopping
the plaintiff from getting into the traia under the cir-
cumstances, and of that act he did not complain; but he
did say, that when the plaintiff had been allowed to
depart, and was walking quietly along to his hotel, that
the conduct of Woodcock in again interfering, and his
subsequent proceedings, were quite unjustifiable, and
gave the plaintiff a right to demand damages from the
company for this illegal act on the part of their servant.
Mr. Bennett, landlord of the &eyrie Hotel, proved
that be remembered the plaintiff's father being at his
hotel in October last, and also the circumstance of his
son corning to meet him on the 17fh. He had occazion
to be on the platform of the railway station the next
morning, as the twenty minutes to eight train had
started, and he ssw young Mr. Newton on the platform,
apparently in conversation with Woodcock, the station-
master, and they both walked into the station together,
and he saw no more at that time, but he shortly after-
wards 'saw Mr. Newton going away from the station.
As witness was walking towards his home, Woodcock
came up, and asked him if he had seen Mr. Newton, and
he told him he had just gone round the corner, and in a
short time he saw the plaintiff and Woodcock walking
together up the steps of the Town-hall, and Woodcock
told Mr. Newton to go in, but he did so in a courteous
manner.

By Mr. R. GURNEY—Witness was waiting in the
Town-hall, on the morning in question, purposely to see
Mr. Newton before he left the hotel, as he had not paid
his bill.—(A laugh.) Mr. Newton did not leave the
hotel in that way, but " escaped" through a window,
and he followed them down to the railway station, to
try and get his money. They were a little too quick for
him, and he was obliged to go to London, to sea Mr.
Newton about his bill.

Re-examined—Mr. Newton came down to Worthing
a day or two afterwards and paid his amount.
Jenkins, the superintendent of the Worthing police,
deposed that Woodcock came to the station, accompanied
by the plaintiff, and he gave him into custody for oh
structing an officer of the railway in the execution of his
duty, and attempting to force his way into a first-class
carriage while the train was in motion, and the plaintiff
was left in his charge. Woodcock at the same time
handed him the plaintiff's card with his address upon it,
and told him that it was some time before he could get
it from him, and that at first he had given another
name. The plaintiff remained at the station-house for
nearly an hour, when he was taken by a policeman in
uniform to the magistrates' office, which was about two
hundred yards off. Woodcock then gave his evidence,
and produced the by-laws painted upon a board, and
the Magistrate, after hearing the case, dismissed the
plaintiff.
By Mr. GURNEY—At the time the charge was given
witness had been informed that Mr. Newton had left the
hotel without paying the bill, and also that one of
.t
he
parties had jumped through the window of the station,
and also that they had not paid the cabman who drove
them; and he, therefore, thought that he would take
care of the plaintiff.—(A laugh.)
Sergeant SUES then put in the letters to which he
had referred, and said that this was the case for the
plaintiff.
Mr. GURNEY submitted that there was no case at all
to go to the jury. He referred to the pleadings, and
said that the defendants were charged with a trespass aNd
false imprisonment of the plaintiff, to which they had
pleaded a justification, the plaintiff having committed an
offence under the Act of Parliament, for which they
were justified in detaining him, and the defendant, by
his replication, admitted the justification, but pleaded'
that a fresh trespass had been committed by his subse-
quent arrest. He submitted, however, that this was all
part and parcel of the original transaction, and that the
evidence only made out the original plea, which admitted
the defendant's justification.
Sergeant Smaas said he contended that the defendants
had condoned the original offence by suffering the plain-
tiff to depart, and that his subsequent arrest was alto-
gether illegal.
Mr. WILLEa, on the same side, urged that the statute
clearly intended, by the nee of the words " then and
there," that a person offending in the manner describe:l
should be at once taken into custody, and be sail that
if the definition given to the statute on behalf of the de-
fendants was the correct one, it would give an indefinite

power of arrest, and a person might be apprehended in
London a week after for such an offence.

Mr. GURNEY was about to reply in support of his ob-
jection, when ho was stopped by
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, who said it was unnecessary,
as it appeared to him to be quite clear that upon the
pleadings the plaintiff was bound to prove a distinct
trespass independent of the one which it was admitted
the defendants were justified in committing, whereas he
had only niade out the original one. It appeared clear
that the company had made a rule for the management
of their railway, which the plaintiff had attempted to
break, and their servant was therefore justified in de
taming him until he could be taken before the nearest
magistrate, and this was all that was proved to have been
done.

Sergeant SHEE reminded the Learned Judge that
Mr. Newton had left the railway station, and was
alone when he was met on the second occasion by
Woodcock.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Yes, but there is no doubt
that Woodcock was aftcr him, fur the first thing he does
when he meets Mr. Bennett, is to ask if he had seen Mr.
Newton?

The plaintiff was then nonsuited.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Leicester, March 21.

(Before Mr. Justice ATAULE and a Special Jury.)
SAILEY AND ANuTILER V. BIACAULEY.

Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Mellor for
the pkintiff ; Mr. Huinfrey, Q.C., Mr. Waddington,
and Mr. Macauley for the defendant.
The plaintiffs are stationers and advertising agents in
London. The defendant is a surgeon practising in
Leicester. The action was to recover 9721. ss. 6d. and
interest. In the year 1845 the Midland Union Railway
Company was projected. The defendant was one of the
provisional committeemen on the 17th of October in
that year, and so continued till it became defunct. He
was also one of ten who formed a committee of
management. When the panic came the Midland Union
Railway scheme was abandoned, and its liabilities hav-
ing been ascel tsined, it was found that if each of the
pruvisienal committeemen now paid 1601, all charges
could be defrayed. Some did pay, and others (lid
not. A sub-committee was then formed, of which the
defendant was one, Mr. Griffiths. of Birmingham, being
its legal adviser; the principal object being to compel
payment from some of the reluctant committeemen, and
in compliance with its request, the present plaintiffs
allowed themselves to be put forward as the suing par-
ties. Under threat of such proceedings, some paid,
others determined to go to trial, and as the proceedings
against some who stood out were ultimately abandoned,
the Messrs. Bailey paid 221. Bs., the amount of their
costs. The sum of 9721. ss. 6d. was therefore composed
of three items, namely, stationery, advertising, and coats
paid in suits abandoned. As mare committeeman, the
law (slid the Learned Judge) was now clear that a
man was not liable ; but as a sub-committeeman ho
might have pledged his credit jointly, or severally, to the
Messrs. Bailey, to indemnify them from loss in bringing
actions against the refractory committeemen.
The jury found for the defendant.
The Ju iges proceed to Oakharu on Thursday, where
there is an unusually large calendar for the small o.a.tnty
of Rutland. In the list there is one for murder, one for
stabbing, and charge of riot and assault, &c.

WE STE/UV CHIC Ul T.—Exeter, March 21 ..

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr, Baron PLATT.)

Jane Jenkins, who was found guilty yesterday on an
lictment charging her with having forged a marriage
certificate, and who was not sentenced, in order to enable
the Learned Judge to consult Mr. Justice Wightman on
a point taken by her counsel, Mr. Slade, in arrest of
judgment, was placed at the bar.
Mr. Baron PLATT said that he had considered the
objection taken by Mr. Slade, that the indictment was
bad, for not averring that the forgery was done with in-
tent to defraud any one. He had examined the Act of
Parliament, and availed himself of the wisdom of Mr.
Justice Wightman, and neither of them had the least
doubt but that it was unnecessary to allege any intent
to defraud. The offences predicated in the former part
of the clause under which the prisoner was indicted
are those effected by forging documents in order
to sustain a claim to wages, and, when used, no
ono can say that forging with such an intent is an
innocent act; it is within the meaning and intent of the
Act of Parliament, and therefore the indictment is abun-
dantly sufficient to support any judgment that may be
awarded on it. The Learned Judge then said, that he
had considered that portion of the Act which awarded
the punishment, and found that he bad power to miti-
gate the punishment of transportation to imprisonment;
and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, as
the prisoner had been seven monthe in gaol, he thought
that justice would be satisfied by passing a sentence of
imprisonment for one month, without hard labour.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Cambridgc, March 22.
(Before the CHIEF BARON.)
George Jarvis, aged 21, was convicted of having felo.
niously stolen a pair of cloth boots, the property o
William Clements.

The prosecutor begged to reconsmend the prisoner to
mercy on account of his previous good character and of
this having been his first offence.
The CHIEF BARON—Why did you prosecute ? Had
you refrained from prosecution, you might yourself
have shown him the mercy which you now ask for him
from me.

The prosecutor replied that it had been his wish to
let the prisoner go, but ho had informed the constable of
his loss, and the constable had insisted that the matter
should be brought before a magistrate, who had thought
it right to commit the prisoner.
The CHIRP BARON—I feel very strongly on this
point, and taking every fitting opportunity for making
my views on it known. I think that it becomes a
prosecutor in the case of an offender of tender years,
or just entering into life, to consider whether
he will not best discharge his duty to society
by overlooking a first offence. Public justice does
nut require that every man shall be punished for
every offence which he may commit, and a magis-
trate may, nay ought, to ask a prosecutor, before a
charge has been pressed so far as to leave the magis-
trate no choice, whether he will persist in pressing his
accusation. I commended on a recent occasion at Bed-
ford a constable. who had had the good sense and hu-
manity to seek out the prosecutor of a trifling charge
against an offender, not theretofore known as such, and
ask him whether he intended to persevere on it, instead
of doing his utmost, for the sake of the small reward, to
bring the case to the assizes. In that case the prose-
cutor had been subjected to losses, and was compelled
to proceed; but it continually happens that prosecutors
are urged on by the constables to prosecute when they
would rather yield to the suggestions of humanity, and
extend indulgence to a first offence. This is done for
the sake of the few 'Atm' pence which are allowed for
the attendance of constables. I have now no choice,
and must do my duty.
The prisoner having made no answer to the demand of
the officer, whether he had anything to say why judg-
ment should not be passed—
The CHIEF BARON said—l think that no man does
credit to his own views of his duty to society who, for a
petty loss, cuts off from him by whose act he is a loser—
if that act is a first deviation from the paths of honesty
—all chance of returning to society without the stigma
of a conviction fur felony impressed on him for ever.
That this has been done in many cases, as in this,
through the meddling officiousness of constables, greedy
for the small gain of the addition made to their ordinary
payment when they go to assizes, is clear; and I invite
the attention of magistrates to the fact. The verdict of
the jury cannot be disregarded; and I trust that when
the prisoner comes out of prison, he will justify by his
conduct the kind recommendation of his master. The
sentence of the Court is, that he be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour for six weeks.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A great deal of interest was caused by the accusation
of a person of very respectable appearance and address,
named John Dobbin, charged with having been concerned
in forging a will.
Mr. Wontner appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Humphreys for the prisoner.
Mr. Wontner said he appeared at the instance of Mr.
Richards, Deputy-Lieutenant of the county of Pem-
broke, against the prisoner, who was concerned with
Captain Peregrine Bowen, half-brother to the testator,
in forging a will, purporting to be the will of W. Mus-
grave Bowen. Captain Bowen had been some time ago
exainined before the Lord Mayor on the charge, but he
put an end to the case, as far as he was concerned, by
hanging himself in the Giltspur-street Compter.
lled-
ington, the officer, subsequently apprehended the pri-
soner, who was suspected of having forged the signature
" John Bell," as attesting witness to the will, which
purported to bequeath considerable property to the late
Captain Bowen, to the prejudice of Mr. Richards, the
sole legatee under a will lodged in Doctors' Commons.
The following was the
principal evidence adduced :
A clerk in the Prerogative office produced the authen-
tic will of W. Musgrave Bowen, dated 2d September,
1845. Tho probate was granted to W. Richards, Esq.,
sole legatee, and the property was subject to an
annuity. Ile also produced the will alleged to be
forged, purporting to bear date March, 1846, and
bearing the attesting signatures "John Bell and John
Wood.',
Mr. G. Sterling, clerk to Messrs. Walker and
Grant, of King's-road, stated that ho was attesting
witness to the first will, which was signed by the
testator in his presence, and in that
of William
Walker.
Mr. W. Richards :4 am a deputy lieutenant of
the county of Pembroke, and executor of W. Mus-
grave Bowen, deceased. He left England in Sep-
tember, 1845, and sent me this will of that date,
in a letter, wishing me health and happiness. I
was acquainted with him from my earliest youth.
Ile was the son of a Aentleman of some property,
who had children much older by a former wife. My
father brought him up, and he was very much attached
to me and my sister. Ile had a predilection for the sea,
and went to China in 1845. lam perfectly acquainted
with his handwriting, and this will is all, with the ex-
ception of the attestation, in his. The will of March,
1816, is not in his handwriting, neither is the signature.
It appears to bo written in a feigned hand. I believe it
to be all in the handwriting of Peregrine Bowen, except
the name of " John Bell." By it the whole of the pro-
perty purports to be bequeathed to Peregrine Bowen;
and the postscript, which says he considered himself
obliged to Mr. Richards as his representative, but ho
had no idea of cutting off his brother Peregrine, seems
to be an imitation of his handwriting. lam familiar
with the phraseology of the postscript.
Miss Harriet Richards, sister to the last witness, con-
firmed his statement in all the essential points.
Mr. W. Holland, agent to the London and North-
Western Railway at the Edge-hill station, said—The
prisoner is a clerk at that station, and I am iu the daily
habit of seeing his handwriting. I believe the signature

pro• - MIR .00

" John Bell," to the will of March, 1346, to 1 je in his
handwriting.
William Brown, a mariner, said—l was e7.:amined at
Doctors' Commons in the case of Bow en against
Richards. I was acquainted with Peree,tina Bowen,
and issued notices at inz4 desire to discover, two persons
named "John Bell" and " John Wood." -After I issued
the notices I received a letter signed ".John Bell" by
post, and I produced it at Doctors' Commons, where it
was deposited.
Joseph Iledington said—l went to the Edge-hill
station, and saw the prisoner collectit ig cheques. I fol-
lowed him after he finished his business, told him Iwo
an officer from London, and that. he was charged
with having forged the name of "John Bell" to
a fictitious will. He said it was a very hard
thing fur a man who was quite innocent and
knew nothing at all about it to be taken into custody. I
went with him to his house, and I found amongst hie
papers two letters addressed by Lieutenant Bowen lo
John Bell. I was outside the office at Doctors' Cont.
mons when Peregrine Bowen went there on the 2d eof
last month, and I accompanied him to Liverpool in tb
same carriage. When he arrived at Edge-hill statioi°.
Peregrine Bowen gave a letter to the cheque-taker for
the prisoner, and when I apprehended the prisoner I
asked him for that letter, and he said he did not know
what became of it.

Patrick Coulon, of the r 'avenue police at Kilbeggito,
stated that he was under the prisoner for more than lei%
years, and knew his handwri► ing. He considered "Joist
Bell " in a letter produced, and •" John Bell" in the will.
to he his.

Jaincs Ryan, also of the revenA te• police, gave similar
evidence. _ .

Mr. J. Jones, superintendent of the London and Nr Arth
Western Railroad, said—l have known the pris over
eighteen month or two years. I have seen Lieutenant
Bowen frequently with the prisoner, and I heard the
prisoner often speak very highly of Lieutenant Bowen.
I once heard the prisoner say he had seen seetuity for
Bowen to a loan society, and had dclie more for him
than for his own brother.

Mr. Humphreys very closely cross-e:Kamiaed all the
witnesses, but admitted that the case was, one for a jury.
The LORD MAYOR said he should ceinainly send the
prisoner for trial, and directed that the deTositioas
should be mate out.