The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT. —GLOUCESTER, April 3.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
FORGERY BY A SOLICITOR.
Dennis Trenfield, attorney, was charged with
forging a bond for the payment of money, with
intent to defraud Robert TimLrill and Edward
Dupre, at Winchcomb, on the 17th Feb. 1854.
Mr. Cripps prosecuted ; Mr. Cooke defended.
The prisoner appeared in a very precarious state
of health, and was allowed to sit during the trial.
He wore a bandage under the throat to cover a
wound, which had been caused by an attempt to
commit suicide while the prisoner was in London
early in the present year. The prisoner up to the
present year had practised the profession of an at
torney and solicitor at Wincbcomb in this county,
and had always been considered a man of repute
and high character in his prifession. In the begin-
ning of the present year he became embarrassed in
his circumstances, and in consequence of what hap-
pened then, parties who had dealings with bin
looked to their securities. Mr. Edwards, lately
steward to Lord Suclely, held a bond for 2001., on
which he had advanced that sum on the represen-
tation of the prisoner in 1854. The parties purport-
ing to. sign the bond being Mr. Timbrill, son of
Archdeacon Timbrill, and the Rev. Mr. Dupre.
Both these gentlemen admitted that they had bu•4i-
ness with Mr. Trenfield, but declared the signatures
to the bond were forgeries. Hence the present
prosecution.
Mr. Edwards, a retired farmer, of Hale, deposed
that in Feb., 1854, the prisoner applied to him to
advance a sum of 2001. He said he wanted it for
Mr. R. Timbrill, a son of Dr. Timbrill. He also
mentioned the name of Mr. Edward Dupre, a
clergyman living at -Temple Guiting. Witness
agreed to advance the money, and about a week or
fortnight afterwards he met the prisoner at his
office, and gave him a cheque for 2001., receiving
es security the bond produced. Some time after
the prisoner came to his house, and wanted to see
the bond. After looking at it he returned it 'o wit-
ness, saying, " Oh, it's all right." Witness had re-
gularly received the interest up to Feb. 1857.
Cross-examined—When the prisoner first ap-
plied to witness to advance the money, he said it
was for Mr. Timbrill, aid that Mr. Dupre would
join him in the bond. I knew Mr. Dupre and was
satisfied. He said the ytaing man (Mr. Timbrill)
was in difficulties. Prisoner had paid me interest
on other moneys, but had also paid me this sepa-
rately from other moneys.
The bond was put in as evidence, and read. It
was in the usual form, and was attested by the pri-
soner.

Mr. F. H. Harvey, clerk to the Winchcomb
Union, and in 1854 was clerk to Mr. Trenfield—Tlie
body of the bond produced is in my handwriting.
I don't recollect filling up the bond, but have no
doubt that I filled it up by Mr. Trenfield's direc-
tion. I had been his clerk about eleven and a half
years and the signature of the attesting witness was
Mr. Trenfield's. I believe the signatures " Ro-
bert Timbrill" and " Elward Dupre" are in the
handwriting of Mr. Trenfield.
Cross-examined—Recollect Mr. Timbrill staying
some time at Mr. Trenfield's, when the sheriff s
officers were after him.
The Rev. E. Dupre, of Temple Guiting, proved
that the signature, Edwd. Dupre, to the bond was
not in his handwriting, and that he had never au-
thorised any one to sign the bond. Never heard of
the existence of the bond until the present year.
Cress-examined—Mr. R. Timbrill is my brother-
in-law, and got into difficulties with his Cambridge
creditors. Mr. Trenfield, about 1853, was in diffi-
culties. Remembers being at the Gray's inn Coffee
House some time in 1853, when some money was
handed to Mr. Timbrill by Mr. Trenfield. Did not
sign any bill or note for 3001., as surety for Mr.
Timbrill, at that time. After that meeting at the
Gray's-inn Coffee-house I had received some small
sums from Mr. Trenfield, which I handed over to
Mr. Timbrill. In April, 1854, handed over 351., as
a balance of 4001., to Mr. Timbrill. I went to an
insurance office in London to insure Mr. Timbrill's
life in 1853. If Mr. Trenfield had asked me to sign
a bill for 2001. for Mr. Timbrill I should have done
so. One day, when I met Mr. Trenfield in the
street, at Winchcomb, he said to me, " I think I
shall be able to release Mr. Timbrill from his diffi-
culties, for I have borrowed 2001. from Mr. Ed-
wards." From recollection I think this was some-
where about 1854. Ho never said anything about
a bond, or of having put my name to it.
Mr. Robert Timbrill, of Beckford, deposed—l
am a son of the Rev. Dr. Timbrill. The signa-
ture to the bond produced is not mine, and I never
authorised any person to put my name to it.
Crosi-examined—l got into difficulties at Cam-
bridge like other young men, and applied to Mr.
Trenfield to relieve me from my difficulties. I was
living for some time at Mr. Trenfield's house. Was
!n Wiltshire in September, 1853, and correspond-
ing with Mr. Trenfield, and applying to him for
loans of money. Looking at the letter produced, I
suppose I applied to him for a loan of 4001. I
don't know what my debts were. My father knew
what all my debts were. I got 2001. from Mr.
Trenfield—not quite 2001. (Reading a letter
handed to him.) By this letter I suppose I had.
Can't tell how much sh,.rt of 2001. I had before the
meeting at the Gray's-Inn
.Coffee-house, Sigma' a
note for 1001. at Mr. Trenfield's office in 1853.
Went to Worcester in 1804 in the name of Wilkin.
Did not sign a note for 3001. in 1853 to the best of
my knowledge. Have paid the 1001. note since
Mr. Trenfield's difficulties.
Cross-examined—l did receive some money at
the Gray's-inn Coffee-house, which was sent by my
father.

Proof was then given of the payment of the
cheque for 2001. given by Mr. Edwards.
Policeman Smith proved that he apprehended
Mr. Tienfield in London. He was in a bad state
of health, and could not be removed for three
weeks. His jaw was broken, and there was a
bullet in it. [The prisoner had attempted to com-
mit suicide while at au hotel in London.]
In the defence Mr. Cooke did not deny that th 3
names of Messrs. Dupre and Timbrill had been
put to the bond by the pritoner, but he submitted

tat the prisoner considered hehad sufficient autho-
rity, in his endeavour to settle the affairs of Mr.
Timbri!ll, to pnt their names to the security
without h.tlY
specific authority from the parties
themselves.
The prisoner, having received letters
from both Mr.
Dupre and Mr. Timbrill, was well
acquainted with
their signatures ; but he had made
no attempt to imi?'ate them. The act uo doubt
a most indiscreet one, but he not having had a final
settlement with Mr. Ti.*brill had not had the op-
tli:4l bond, as was intended
portunity of paying off .
in
to be done when that settlen:ent took place. It
would be a question for his lords:111P
how far a per-
son in the prisoner's position was authorised.
es to the
affiixing the signatures of the two p.,7`rtl
bond.
His lordship, in summing up, told the ji:27 it
was for them to decide as to the fraudulent intent
of the prisoner in the transaction.
The prisoner was found guilty, and being called
up, in answer to the usual question, said—l hope,
my lord, you will be favourable to me. I hope,
gentlemen of the jury, you will recommend me to
mercy ; pray do.
Baron Channell, addressing the prisoner, re-
minded him that a few years ago this was an offence
punishable by death, but although that was not
now the case, it was one of a very serious character;
more especially when committed, as in this case, by
a person occupying a position in life like him. As
an attorney and solicitor, people put great confi-
dence in him; and he believed that, with regard
to the great body of gentlemen belonging to that
profession, that confidence was not abused. But,
1/4 unhappily, many cases had lately occurred in which
persons in the position of trust and confidence had
been guilty of that of which he (the prisoner) had
just
been convicted. When cases of this descrip-
tion were proved, and proved as clearly as in this
instance, against persons of the character of the
prisoner, it was necessary that they should be
severely punished. His lordship then sentenced
him to ten years penal servitude.
The prisoner groaned, and was then assisted from
the dock.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—DIVIZES, APRIL 3.
The learned judges attended divine service at St.
John's Church yesterday morning.
The courts opens(' at one o'clock.
(Before Mr. Justice Crowder.)
John Darson, who bad pleaded guilty of burgla-
riously entering the mansion of the Earl of Suffolk
and stealine, a number of valuable paintings, was
sentenced to seven years penal servitude.
James Lidderdale, a surgeon, on bail, was in-
dicted for the manslaughter of Im. Mason, at Tit-
combe, near Great Bedwyn. He pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Cole and Mr. Coleridge prosecuted ; Mr.
Slade, Q.C., and Mr. Poulden defended.
The prisoner was surgeon to the Great Bedwyn
district of the Hungerford Union, in which the pa-
rish of Titcombe is situated. On Dec. 26 last the
deceased, a labouring man about 60 years of age,
was seized with a disease of the prostrate gland, and
on the 27th the prisoner was sent for to attend
him. Mr. Lidderdale did not attend until the fol-
lowing morning, when he g:ve him some medicine
and left, instead, as it was contended by the pro-
secution, of affording relief by passing a catheter
into the bladder. The deceased was not visited
again for three or four days, and he still complained
of great pain from retention. At that time the pri-
soner did attempt to pass a catheter, but failed.
He left more medicine, and then went away. On
Jan. 2 a daughter of the deceased went to the pri-
soner and told him that her father was still in a
very bad state. He made one or two visits after
that, but made no attempt to afford relief. The last
time ho saw deceased was on Jan. 8, and on the
12th another urgeon named Medhurst was called
in. Mr. Medhurst, however, declined to interfere,
and on the 13th Mr. Shield, the surgeon of the
Hungerford Workhouse, was directed to attend.
He got the deceased out of bed, placed him against
the wall, and attempted to pass a silver catheter,
but it caused so much bleeding and irritation that
he was obliged to withdraw it He then introduced
an elastic gum catheter, and drew off three or four
quarts of urine. The deceased was got back into
bed, and after drinking a small quantity of gin,
was seized with a convulsion and died.

Mr Shield was examined, and gave it as his opi-
nion that deceased died from the shock of passing
the catheter. Ho could not have lived 24 hours
under any circumstances. There was, he said, gross
negligence in leaving such a case three or four
days ; and he gave it as his deliberate opinion that
the prisoner ought to have used a catheter when he
was first called in.

Mr. Carden, surgeon, of Salisbury, who assisted
the last witness in making a post mortem examina-
tion, said he found the prostrate gland as large
as his fist, and he had no doubt retention of urine
Lad ing on for a considerable time. He diet
n agree with the last witness that death arose
from the shock of passing the catheter. He had
never heard or read of such a case. There were on
record instances of death having arisen from draw-
ing off the urine. He would not have used a cathe-
ter if the deceased was, as Mr. Shield had stated,
in extremis.

Mr. Slade made a powerful address on behalf of
the prisoner, contending that as the death of the
deceas.d was caused by the act of Mr. Shield, the
charge of manslaughter against the prisoner could
not be sustained.

The learned counsel then called Mr. Medhurst,
who said he perceived no symptoms of danger when
he visited the deceased the day before his death.
He was not then suffering from retention of urine.
The catheter ought to have been passed when the
deceased was in a remmbent position.
At this stage of the proceedings, the foreman of
the jury was seized with an epileptic fit, and there
being no chance of his resuming his duties, his lord-
ship directed the jury to be discharged.
Mr. Cole, after consulting his learned friend, Mr.
Coleridge, said he would withdraw from the prose-
cution. Ho hoped the investigation, even though
it bad gone no further, would be productive of a
beneficial result.