The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-05 00:00:00

PROSECUTION FOR FORGERY.

At the High Court of Justiciary, Edinbuigh,
on Monday and Tuesday, John Porteouk mill-
master, aged 54, was placed at the bar, charged
with the forgery of his deceased brother's signa-
ture as acceptor to a bill for £750, of which he
was the drawer. The bill was dated 23d of June,
1862, and was payable five years after date. It
was uttered in November last, in security for a debt
owing by \the prisoner to Messrs. Gibson and
Walker, grain merchants, and, if genuine, became
due on the 26th of June last. The alleged accep-
tor of the bill, William Porteous, died two months
afterits date, and evidence was led to prove that
for three months previous to his death he was para-
lysed, and, according to the witnesses for the prose-
cution, quite unable to write his name. The de-
ceased left his estate, worth about £lO,OOO, to,this
sister, Mrs. Pairman, passing over the prisoner with
a legacy of £2OO, and to his other brothers and
sisters leaving nothing. For some time before his
death he lived in his sister's house, and, owing to
the state of his health, saw nobody. The disposi-
tion of the testator's property naturally caused dis-
satisfaction on John's part, and he made a claim
for about £2,000 for cartages to his brother, which
Mrs. Pairman compromised for £5OO. The pri-
soner appears to have long been in embarrassed cir-
cumstances, but nothing was heard by Mrs. Pair-
man of the bill till November, when she at once
pronounced it to be a forgery, and caused a letter
to be written to the authorities charging her brother
with that crime. He was not, however, apprehended
till January. In March, at the
urgent solicitation
of the prisoner's family, Mrs. Pairman caused bail
to be found for her brother, but for some time re-
sisted the application, endeavouring to bring her
brother to a confession of his guilt. The prisoner
was liberated, but still refused to acknowledge the
crime, until at length, on the 11th of April, he
wrote a letter stating that he regretted that he had
ever used or signed his brother's name. A great
deal of communing was held, in meetings of brother
and sister on Bruntisfield Links, as to providing
the prisoner with money to leave the country, and
at one of the interviews the prisoner told his sister,
as she now alleged, that he had not signed the bill,
but had seen the signature forged, and had been
ill-advised by a bad set. The sum of £4O was
given to the prisoner's family for himself and son
to go to Ireland ; but he still delayed going, and at
length Mrs. Pairman handed to the authorities the
letter of contrition, which was used against him at
the trial. In defence it was alleged that the stamp
of the bill was dated May, 1862 ; that shortly after
its pretended execution it had been spoken of and
shown by the prisoner to some friends ; that the
bands ;
aebdoubtad chiefly affected his
the date of the bill he
that from the mo-
ment the bill was uttered the prisoner had stoutly
maintained its genuineness, and that he had refused
all proposals to confess, to leave the country, or to
evade the trial. The prisoner's daughter accounted
for the letter of the 11th April by saying she had
urged her father to make pretence of confession to
please her aunt, who had promised if she got a
confession not to make a bad use of it, and to relieve
the family. Her aunt had long refused to get bail
for her father, but she had urged the point, as her
father was wanted at home very much. Her aunt
had frightened her into the belief that her father was
guilty, and she urged him to confess. At last, when
she could not prevail on hint to do so, she said it
would be enough if lie would only write his brother's
name on a slip of paper, and then write a letter to
say he was sorry he had ever signed his brother's
name. It was in this way her father wrote the let-
ter of the 11th April. A good deal of evidence was
led as to the genuineness or falsity of the signature.
The Solicitor-General addressed the jury for the
Crown, pointing out the extraordinary character of
the transaction, in forging a bill at five years' date.
Mr. Young, for the defence, denounced the proceed-
ings taken against the prisoner by his sister, who
wanted to wring a confession from him, and save
the costs and risks of a civil action threatened by