The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-21 00:00:00

name appeared in thin traverse action, the cause would
not have occupied 10 minutes in investigation. When
they had heard the defendant's case, unless they had
allowed their minds to be prejudiced, and they had
taken for granted that the reports which bad been
circulated, to pander to (the worst appetites of
the public, were true— if their minds were free
from such prejudice, he should be able to present to
them a clear case for the defendant. One observation
his learned friend bad made in concluding his remarks,
which he (Sergeant Wilkins) might venture to say had
unfortunately escaped his lips, because he did not think
him a man who would stab the helpless, and to wantonly
and wilfaily accumulate the difficulties that others had
thrown in that poor man's way. When his friend closed
his observations by saying that if the defence set up
were true, that Palmer would have added to his cata-
logue of crimes that of forgery, he (Sergeant Wilkins)
thought that was an inadvertent expression he would
not repeat, and as a man, a lawyer, and a gentle.
man be could not justify. He should call before
them Mrs. Palmer and different members of the
Palmer family, who would tell them that the signature
to this bill was not in the handwriting of the defendant.
The learned sergeant, after some other remarks called
the following witnesses.
Mr. Smith, an attorney, practising at Birmingham,
was then called, and stated that he had acted for her,
for some years, as her solicitor. He was well acquainted
with the handwriting of Mrs. Palmer, and he felt cer-
tain that the signature was not in Mrs. Palmer's hand
writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. E. James—He had heard that
William Palmer had been brought up from Stafford on
habeas corpus, as a witness for the defence, and he was
now in the neighbourhood of the court. He had seen
Mrs. Palmer write frequently in connection with matters
relative to her son 'Walter's bankruptcy.

Several documents were handed to witness which
bore the name of Mrs. Palmer. Some of them he iden-

tified as having her signature, others he was doubtful of.
Mrs. Sarah Palmer, mother of Mr. Palmer, deposed
she was a widow residing at Rugeley. She was upwards

of 60 years of age. The acceptance of the bill in ques-
ttion was in her writing. On Saturday last was the first
ime she saw the bill. She first learned of the accept-
ance of such a bill on the 12th December.'
_ _ _

Sergeant Wilkins—The bill then would have been 17
months' old.

Mrs. Palmer, examination continued—She never
beard of the existence of the bill before that day. No
application had ever been made to her before this for
the payment of the bill. She never gave any one autho-
rity to sign her name to it. About three years ago she
accepted two bills for about 7001. for her son, lint she
had security for it. She never accepted a bill for 1,0001
from him.

Cross-examined--The was bill accepted three years
ago. She accepted one drawn by a person named
Buxton ; that is one with ray signature, not
one like this, a forgery ; that was accepted
for his accommodation, but she did not then think
she would have had to pay it. Buxton's bill was
accepted about seven or eight months ago. She had
not a fresh security for that bill ; she had security from
her son on real property at Stafford to the amount of
5,0001. or 6,0001. It was for advances made at different
times of money. She never accepted more than four
bills. She did not know then it was for Buxton. She
had paid 2601. on that bill, but she had not been sued.
The others were about 7001. In Dec., 1852, she did
not give a check to plaintiff for 1,0001. She had
banked for many years at the Rugeley Bank. She also
banked at Lichfield. Did not give a check for 1,0001

in December for her son to Padwick or Sergeant. Her
son George had the management of the money for her
son William. She did not know if she gave him a
cheque for 1,0001. She had been told of the notice to
produce a cheque for 1,0001. The money came out of the
Lichfield bank. The whole of the money, 5,0001. or
6,0001., she advanced for her son William came out of
the Lichfield bank—Messrs. Palmer and Green, who
had now failed.

Examination continued—She might leave paid 2001.
some six weeks ago. Her son William was still in her
debt, but she held some property as security. She could
not say how much as she did not transact her louiiness,
but through a solicitor. She never knew or heard that
a claim had been made upon her for 1,0001. When she
paid the 2601. she did not know it was on account of a
bill drawn for 1,0001. She could not say that she had
not had not advanced 1,0001. to her son. The bill in
her hand at that moment was not in her handwriting.
The learned counsel then placed some papers in the
witness's hand, and she selected three as genuine sig-
natures.

Mr. G. Palmer, a solicitor, son of the last witness,
was then called, and examined by Mr. Grey. He was
sure the bill in questio• was signed by his mother.
Miss Sarah Palmer, deposed that the signature on
the bill in question was not in her mother's hand.
writing.

Cross-examined—Two bills handed in were in her
mother's writing, to her belief. She heard her brother
William ask her mother last summer to accept a sma 1
Lill for 5501., which she did, it was for a grocer.
Rev. Thomas Palmer, brother of the accused, at Coul -
ton Elms, Derbyshire, deposed the signature to the bill
i❑ question was not in his mother's handwriting.
Cross-examined—The two bills produced he believed
to be in his mother's handwriting. A packet of receipts
was put into the witnesses hand, which he said were in
his mother's handwriting.

Re-examined—Looking at the general character of
the bill in question, he should say it was not his mother's
handwriting.
Mr. Straubridge, manager of the Rugeley Bank, de-
posed the signature to the bill for 2,000/. was not in
the defendant's handwriting ; he should not pay a cheque
on that signature without confirmation.
Cross-examined—The acceptance to one of Wright's
bills produced for 350/., ha believed was the hand writ-
ikng of the defendant, the "r" in Sarah and Palmer were
never connected in a genuine signature of the defendant.
Mr. Lander, solicitor, Rugeley, of the firm of Lander,
Gardiner, and Co., deposed that he believed the signa-
ture was not in the defendant's handwriting.

Mr. Jag, Gardiner of the above firm gave similar evi-
dence, as did Mr. Joseph Cope, clerk to Mr. Geo. Pal-
mer, and Mr. WW. Barnett, of Pames, near Bir-
mingham.
Mr. Nethercliffe deposed he had compared genuine
sigdatures of the defendant's with the one in dispute, and
said it was not Mrs. Palmer's handwriting. There was a
similarity about the capital letters to her writing, but
the S was rather carefully and slowly done. The P
was a little shakey. The "r" in Sarah and also the "r"
in Palmer were not the running-hand "r" like Mrs.
Palmer's, but the round text schoolboy-hand. This
was written slowly, with the pen frequently taken off in
the word Palmer no less than five times, and not joined
again ; in all the genuine ones the letters " almer
showed no join between any of the letters. It wanted
also the freedom of a genuine signature. It was close,
compact, and slowly done.
This was the defendant's case.

The plaintiff then called
William Palmer, who, amidst much excitement, en-
tered the court in custody of an officer. The prisoner is
a person of ordinary height, and rather corpulent. He
has round and rather expressive features, with a

light complexion. He wears little whiskers, and hair
which is of a very light auburn. His eyes are also of a
light colour, but very expressive. He entered the wit-
ness box in a perfectly cool and collected manner, sur-
veyed leisurely the crowded audience, to some
of whom he nodded in a familiar manner,
appeared to fix his attention on some person located near
the learned counsel who conducted the plaintiff's case.
The prisoner was then sworn and answered the follow-
ing questions put to him by the learned counsel in a
low, yet firm and distinct voice,'betraying not the least
hesitation or trepidation, or at all moved by the gaze of
the audience, collected together to obtain a glimpse of
an individual who has so lately obtained so much
notoriety.
Mr. Edwin James, to the witness, handing him the
bill of exchange—ls the signatire " William Palmer,"
as the drawer of that bill, in your handwriting ?
Palmer—Yes.
yeu applied to Padwick to ad.
Mr. E. James—And
vance you money on ft ?
Prisoner--I did.
Mr. E. James—Who wrote Sarah Palmer'e accept.
, ante on it?

Prisoner—Anne Palmer.
Mr. E. Janes—Who is she ?
Prisoner—She is now dead.
M. E. James—Do you mean year late wife
Prisoner - Yes.
Mr. E. James—Did you see her write it ?
Prisoner—Yes.
Mr. E. Janes—Then there is an end of the case, my
lord.

Mr. Justice Erle to the witness—You may retire.

The witness was then removed in custody of the officer.
Mr, Edwin James said that in consequence of the
evidence they had just heard, he retired from the case.
He trusted his lordship and the jury would think that,
under all the circumstances the plaintiff had done right
in having this investigation, and that hi now honourably
retired from the case.
I Mr. Sergeant Wilkins as counsel for the defendant