The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-17 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

John Long, son of a former proprietor of Long's Hotel,
Bond-street, was brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged
by Lord Lisburne with having annoyed him in the fol-
lowing manner :
Lord Lisburne said he was at present residing at No.
30, Bruton-street, and he had to complain of tne de-
fendant, who brought a note to him, which he begged
to hand to the Bench.

The note appeared to contain a demand on Lord Lis-
burne for the payment of tavern bills, amounting to 621.
10s., incurred by the late Lord Lisburne, at Long's; and
the note endod by the writer offering to get a person to
discount a bill for 2001, or 3001. at three months' date
for good interest. The note was signed, " John Long,
No. 66, New Compton-street."
Mr. HARDWICK inquired if his Lordship knew any-
thing of the prisoner?
Lord Lisburne replied he had known the prisoner
some years ago as a waiter at Long's. The practice of
the defendant was to annoy him with applications when-
ever he came to town. The defendant would send him
a note, and continue to walk before the house or hotel at
which he was staying until his object was accomplished.
He (Lord Lisburne) had written to the defendant, say-
ing that the defendant had no claim on him; that it was
his father who had kept the hotel, and if his father had
any bill against the late Lord Lisburne he ought to have
proved his claim against the late Lord Lisburne's estate,
and shared the fate of the other creditors. The de-
fendant, however, would lot cease his importunities for
payment, and as this conduct has lasted for three years,
it had been found necessary to take the present step
against the defendant.
Mr. HARDWICK inquired if his Lordship had cautioned
the defendant against annoying him ? Lord Lisburne
said he had repeatedly received begging letters from the
defendant, and had often warned him to cease his system
of annoyance.
The defendant, when called upon to explain his con-
duct, said—" With due-submission to your Worship, I
only applied to his Lordship for payment of the balance
of tavern bills owing to my father by his Lordship's
father, principally for dinners of which his Lordship
there was in the habit of partaking. Lord Lisburne has
given me at times 1/. and 21. in part payment of the
balance of 65L 10s., and has promised to pay the rest."
Lord Lisburne—l gave you the money, not as pay-
ment of the alleged debt, but as charity.
Defendant—Your Lordship stated, when I saw you
last, that you were very short of cash, but as soon
as you returned to the country you would send me
some money. Here are my sister and myself in it
state of great destitution, while there are noblemen
at this moment owing us thousands for bills run up
at my father's hotel. I have never annoyed Lord
Lisburne in any way. I only asked him to pay for
dinners which he had a share of. I appeal to him as a
man, as a peer of the realm, as a man of honour, to say
whether he did not promise to send me some money
when he got into the country. There are thousands and
thousands of pounds owing to me and my sister, and yet
we are in a state of great privation.
Lord Lisburne—l do not owe you anything. You have
no claim on me; otherwise I would discharge it.
Mr. IlAnDwicK told the defendant if he had any legal
claim he must pursue it in a legal way. Unless the
defendant promised to cease his system of annoyance it
would be necessary to attend to the application of the
complainant.
The defendant said he would not apply to his Lord-
ship any more, he would trust to his Lordship's sense of
honour to pay him.
Lord Lisburne was satisfied with this promise, and the
defendant was liberated.

CHARGE OF FORGING A WILL.
WORCESTER, APRIL 14.—A very unusual charge was
brought for hearing to-day before the Mayor and Ma-
gistrates of this city. The accused parties are Richard
and Hannah Farley, husband and wife, in business at
Gloucester, who were charged with uttering a forged
will, with intent to defraud the heir-at-law of a certain
estate in the parish of Aston Ingham, in the county of
Hereford, of the property. The case excited a good
deal of interest. Mr. Daniell, solicitor of this city, ap-
peared as attorney fur the prosecution ; and Mr. Lewis,
of London, for the accused. The facts may be thus
briefly stated:—
In the year 1841, William Welsh, died in the county
of Monmouth, being then possessed of the Aston Ingham
estate, and it is alleged by his eldest son William, that
he died intestate. William Welsh, the son, accordingly
entered into possession of the farm and received the
rents, but the accused, Richard Farley, set up an ad-
verse claim to the property in behalf of his wife, who
was a daughter of the deceased, and alleged that a will
had been made in her favour. The heir-at-law denied
the existence of such a will, and made repeated attempts
to get a sight of it, but without success. At length the
accused, insisting on the validity of their claim, effected
a sale of the property to a client of Mr. Lewis, who
thereupon set about investigating the title, and yesterday
was fixed for a meeting at Worcester, for the purpose of
producing the will for the inspection of the heir-at-law
and his attorney. Accordingly the document was then
produced. It purported to bear date in September,
1830, and to devise the estate in question to Mrs. Farley.
There were three attesting witnesses, of whom only one
is now living.
The first witness examined was William Welsh. the
eldest son of the testator, who deposed to his father's
death some five years ago, at which time he was pos-
sessed of the Aston Ingham farm. Soon after his
father's death he entered into possession of the farm, and
the tenants attorned to him ; but the accused, Richard
Farley, distrained upon some of the tenants (there were
three) for rent, on the ground that the old man had
made a will leaving it to his daughter Hannah, whom
Farley had married. The original will set up by the
Farleys was then produced in Court, it having been
taken possession of by the police superintendent who
took the accused into custody, and the witness swore
positively that neither the body nor the signature to the
will were in his father's handwriting.
The will on inspection proved, as before stated, to bear
date in September, 1830, and the water-mark on the
paper on which it was written was of the same year
(1830). Mr. Daniell said, he had been instructed that
the date of the will was anterior to the date on the paper
made by the paper-maker.
It appeared on Welsh's cross-examination that prior
to the death of his father the Farleys had been in pos-
session of the property in question for some fifteen years.
The next witness was James Welsh, a brother of the
heir-at-law, and of Mrs. Farley, who being examined as
to the signature to the will produced, said he did not
believe it to be in his father's handwriting. He also spoke
to a determination which he said his father had repeat-
edly expressed not to make a will, but to let the pro-
perty descend to the heir-at-law.
Cross-examined—He (witness) could neither read nor
write. He remembered attending at the office of Mr.
Jackson, solicitor, of Ross, some time ago, with Mr. and
Mrs. Farley, but he had not then seen the will, nor given
any opinion as to the signatures.
These were the only witnesses who were examined for
the prosecution, but Mr. Daniell intimated that he had
others which he should produce if allowed time to co so.
Mr. Lewis then addressed the Bench, and alleged that
the will was a bona fide document, and had been duly
executed by the testator, William Welsh. He then pro-
ceeded to call witnesses to prove his statement.
Ann Jones was first put in the witness-box. She
stated herself to be the wife of Benjamin Jones, of
Newent, in the county of Gloucester, and deposed to
the execution of the will by the testator. The testator
then lived at Newent, and asked witness to "see him
sign something." Accordingly, she went with him to
Mrs. Farley's, where she found Benjamin Grubb and
Charlotte Farley. After the old man had signed the
paper, it was witnessed by herself, Grubb, and Charlotte
Farley, all of whom signed their names as witnesses.
The witness did not at that time know what was the
nature of the document which she signed. It was written
out by a carpenter named Nurden, who, before it was
signed, read it over to the deceased. It was about six-
teen years ago when this Wae done.

Cross-examined by Mr. Daniell—She had never seen
the paper or will again until yesterday. She had been
examined at Cheltenham relative to this w ill by Mr.
Augustus Newton, barrister ; and also by Mr. Wyse,
attorney ; but the will was not produced then.
Hannah Yend, sister to the deceased, was also exa-
mined as to the handwriting to the will, and she believed
the signature was in her brother's handwriting. On her
cross-examination she admitted that she had not seen
her brother for ten years before his death. nor had she
been in the habit of receiving letters from him.
The possession of the will having been by the neces-
sary evidence traced from the accused by the wife of the
police inspector, to whom it was given up by Mrs. Par-
ley, when she and her husband were taken into custody,
the caie was remanded for a week, and the will im.
pounded in the meantime.
The prisoner's attorney intimated his intention of
taking immediate proceedings in Chancery for proving
the validity of the will. The prisoners were liberated on
their personal undertaking to appear when called upon.

THE RECENT HORRIBLE DUEL

IN AMERICA.

(From the New York Commercial lave' tiser.)
The horrible affair at Richmond, of which we spoke on
Friday and Saturday, has terminated fatally to one of the
parties. Mr. Pleasants died of his wounds on Friday
morning. The Washington correspondent of the Balti-
more Patriot gives the following account of the combat :
The quarrel had gene on in their newspapers to such
an extent that Mr. Pleasants thought himself called
upon to bring the matter to a crisis. He therefore sent
a request to Mr. Ritchie to meet him at a specified place
and hour across the river from Richmond, with side
arms, Mr. Ritchie sent word back that he could not con-
sent to settle the affair in that way. Mr. Pleasants then
sent him word that the matter must be settled, and in
that way.
Mr. Ritchie then prepared himself with a revolver uf
six barrels, two duelling pistols, and a horseman's short
sword, and repaired to the place designated at the time
named.

Mr. Pleasants arrived, with two (or four, there is a
doubt about this) common pistols and a sword cane. A
friend of Mr. Eleasants' approached Mr. Ritchie, and
said to him that he thought the difficulty' might be
settled if the latter would do one thing—acknowledge
that he believed Mr. Pleasants to be a brave man. Mr.
Ritchie replied that once he could have done this, but
now, Mr. Pleasants having called him there, he could
not make such an acknowledgment.
Soon after this Mr. Pleasants approached Mr. Ritchie,
considerably in advance of the two friends who had ac-
companied him to the spot. As he approached at a
rapid pace Mr. Ritchie fired smeessively his two duelling
pistols, resting each on his left arm, drawn up in an
ankle for that purpose. He then presented his revolver
and fired either four or five of its barrels. After he
had fired first upon Mr. Pleasants the latter drew and
fired thrice without effect, all the time rushing up t,-)
Mr. Ritchie, and when near enough he struck him with
his sword cane, when the scabbard flew off, and Mr.
Ritchie struck up the blade or spear with his short
sword, in doing which he received the point in the cor-
ner of his mouth, cutting upward a slight gash.
Mr. Pleasants then fell, having received five wounds
—one ball raked across the back of his left hand, carry-
ing away all the muscles and tendons leading to the
fingers—another passed through the fleshy part of his
left arm, half way up from the elbow to the shoulder.
Another entered the left breast, and ranged round under
the arm. A fourth entered the left groin, and proved
mortal. The fifth wound was in the right high—either
by a ball or thrust from the short sword.

So has ended the earthly career of the gifted, the
high-minded, the generous, whole soulk d John Hampden
Pleasants ! His loss to the community in which he
moved, to the editorial fraternity of which he was ever
a sparkling, brilliant member, and to the thousands of
his ever-delighted and instructed readers, will be most
deeply felt, as his sanguinary exit will be sadly mourned.
For many years he has been one of the most vigorous,
original, and brilliant political writers in the country.
He was a man of strong impulses, and, in the excite-
ment of the moment, sometimes committed editorial
errors, or did his opponents injustice ; but that man
lived not who would more readily or amply atone fur
indiscretions or injuries of this nature.