The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-26 00:00:00

WILLIMOTT V. OGILVY.

His Hosoun stated that he had read the whole of the
papers in this case, and he was now prepared to pronounce
judgment, but as the Court felt that the psrties would be
anxious to be present, he should postpone giving his de-
cision to Thursday.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE RING V. PATRICK QUINAN.

In this case, which was not concluded yesterday, when
we went to press, the Jury found the defendant—Not
Guilty.

THE ICING V. PATRICK QUINAN.

This was an indictment for perjury, arising out of the
differences between Sir Waste! and Lady Briscoe, and was
similar to the case tried yesterday, in which this defendant's
wife was then defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declined to produce any evi-
dence, and the Jury returned a verdict of—Not Guilty.
THE ICING V. FORD AND A LDRIDGE.
This was an indictment against George Samuel Ford
and James Aldridge, charging them with having conspired
together to accuse William Ford of felony and forgery,
and to extort from him a large sum of money, under the
pretence of concealing the felony, and refraining from pro-
seeming the said Wm. Ford ; a second count charged the
intent to be to induce William Ford to quit the realm ; a
third count charged them with writing a libellous letter.
The defendants bad pleaded—Not Guilty.
Sir J. SCA RLETT said, the prosecutor, Mr. Wm. Ford,
had had the misfortune or indiscretion to frequent a gam-
bling house in St. James's•square, of which the defendant
Aldridge was the proprietor; the other defendant, Mr.
George Samuel Ford, was an attorney, in Pall Mall. The
Learned Counsel having detailed with minuteness the de-
tails of the case, called the following witnesses :
William Ford, the prosecutor, stated that before Ja-
naary, 1831, he was acquainted with the defendants. Geo.
Ford was a solicitor in Pall-mall, and had often been em-
ployed by witness, but in January, 1831, they were not on
good terms. Mr. John Aldridge kept a " Subscription"
house in St. James's-square; witness was upon speaking
terms with him. During the night of Sunday, the 23d
January, 1831, or early on the Monday morning, witness
was at Aldridge's house, and from there went home; on
going home at four o'clock in the morning he found a
letter, and in consequence of reading it, he instantly went
back to Aldridge's, taking the letter with him. Two gentle-
men, Mr.Strutch and Mr. M'Cahe were also at Aldridge's ;
witness read the letter to Aldridge, and asked him if he had
authorised Ford to write it ; he denied having done so, and
he denied, at first, having seen Ford that day, but after-
wards he said he had given Ford instructions to make in-
quiry respecting a forged draft; and he said, however, that
he had not made use of the witness's name in the conver-
sation with Mr. Ford. Ile denied having suspected wit-
ness, and said he was the last man in the world he would
have suspected_ About nine o'clock the same morning,
witness saw his attorney, Mr. Reynolds, of Golden square,
upon the subject, and instructed him to see Mr. Ford,
and to ascertain by whose authority the letter was written.
When witness was at Aldridge's, on the Monday morning,
he, Aldridge, said there was but one course to pursue, and
that was to make an affidavit, then he could recover his
money from his hankers, and then he could have fair play
through Pearson and Co.'s Solicitor, Mr. Gates. On
Tuesday morning witness called on Ransom and Co. and
saw one of the firm; he gave them his address and re•
quested their assistance in tracing the notes which had
been given for the supposed forged check. On the evening
of the same day witness went to Aldridge's house and saw
him ; Aldridge made some advance towards him, but wit-
ness would not shake hands with him. Nothing more
pissed on that day. Some time afterwards he went again
and saw Aldridge, and a Mr. Somers together. Aldridge
and Somers appeared to have been sparring and" tusling"
by their dress being disordered ; Aldridge appeared to be
angry. Several persons came Into the room and Aldridge
rushing past them struck witness a blow, exclaiming that
he, witness, was a forger, and that he could prove it.
The let er was then read. It adverted to a forged check
of 1781., was signed by the defendant Ford, addressed to
the prosecutor, and dated Sunday, January 23, 1831.
It stated that the writer had been employed by Mr. J.
Aldridge to investigate the circumstances attending the
forging, presentation, and payment, of a check for 1781.,
drawn on his bankers Messrs. Ransom and Co., on the
10th of January instant, and the result of the investiga-
tion he deeply regretted to say was calculated to place the
prosecutor's conduct in a most questionable light ; that
much consideration had been given by Mr. Aldridge and
himself. (the writer) as to the course to be pursued, not
because there was the least doubt as to the party, but as
to the consequences; and it requested the prosecutor to
call upan the writer to pledge himself that no offensive
measures should be adopted towards the prosecutor going
and returning ; that the writer's inett uction as to the course
to be pursued on the following day were decisive ; that the
writer was aware of the opportunity which this comutu-
nicatian afforded the prosecutor; but his answer as to the
course he should pursue was waited for, requesting him
to bear in mind that both the writer's instructions and
duty prohibited his sending a similar communication, and
that the morrow morning would produce consequences
which would be irremediable.

' The witness was then doss-examined by the ATTORNEY
GENERAL for the defendant Aldridge. Witness was of
no profession or trade ; he resided in Maddox.street,
Bond-street, fifteen months ago, and for the last thirteen
months had been a prisoner in the Fleet. Was not a
married man. Was in the Fleet prison from an arrange-
ment made by Mr. Ford. Had been in the Kings Bench
twelve years ago, and was there two or three years. He
had been three months in Coldhath-fields for an assault on
Captain Foster. That arose from witness's letter to Capt.
Foster, on behalf of a friend, being disregarded, and
witness horsewhipped him. lie had kept horses,
carriages, and servants. 'Was very frequently at
Newmarket and Doncaster. Had lived so for the
last eight or nine years, excepting the thirteen months
that he had been in prison ; was in no business or profes-
sion during the last eight or nine years; had no landed pro-
perty—had funded property; he depended greatly on his
success in betting. Never followed any trade, but bad
been c died a coal-merchant ; did not follow that trade, and
did not lead it.—(Laughter.) Had been made a bankrupt
by Mr. George Ford, who was then his attorney ; he
did not fail for a large sum—it was under 5,0001. Had
not the knack of imitating hand-writing ; might have done
so in a joke after dinner, but did not recollect it—(A pa-
per produced.) lie thought that was the hand-writing
of Mr. Gurney, a friend of his; the lower part of it be
thought was his own writing, but could not tell. He re-
collected writing after Mr. Gurney and trying to imitate
it, but it was many years ago, and done by way of a joke.
Mr. Strutch was at Aldridge's house very early on Mon-
day morning, the 24,th January, 1831, when the prose-
cutor came in with a letter, and very indignantly asked
Aldridge it he had authorized the writing of the letter;
Aldridge seemed confused and hesitated, but at length
denied having authorized the writing of it. Some violent
conversation oceurredlibut he:could not recollect what it was.
Cross-txamined by the • ATTORNET-GENERAL......YOU
were nearly asleep I suppose?
Lord TENTERDEN—it is not a place for sleeping, gen-
tlemen ought to be wide awake when they go to such
houses.

The witness in continuation said, he beard Aldridge say
he had instructed his attorney to make inquiry respecting
the forged cheque.

Mr. JOHN REYNOLDS, attorney for the prosecution,
stated that on the 24th of January, 1831, he took du, let-
ter to the defendant Ford and asked him on what ground
he made such a charge against Mr. W. Ford, the prose-
cutor, observing there could be no objection to his giving
every information upon so serious a charge. The de-
fendant Ford said he knew the writing of Mr. W. Ford,
and on comparing what he called the forged check (which
be produced) with a check (which lie also produced),
written by Mr. W. Ford, he said he bad no doubt the
forged one was drawn by Mr. W. Ford. He asked him if
there were any other grounds for the charge but that, and
stated that Aldridge denied giving authority to write. He
expressed his surprise, and said that be would
send immediately for Mr. Aldridge, which he did ;
Mr. Aldridge came in a few minutes, and said he had given

Mr. Ford full authority to :inquire into it, and to write
the letter. Witness observed to Mr. Aldridge, that he
had previously said he suspected another person of having
written the draft ; Aldridge then looked at the forged
cheque, and said he had no doubt of its being Mr. Ford's
writing, and that he could swear to the figures.
Mr. Richard Gurney knew the defendants ; saw the
defendant Ford respecting the forgery in January, 1831,
at his (witness's) office. The defendant knew witness to
he a friend of the prosecutor, and so did Aldridge; wit-
ness was a subscriber to Aldridge's house, and was in the
habit of attending there.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. POLLOCK at con-
siderable length addressed the Jury for the defendant.
His Lordship having summed up the evidence, said if the
Jury believed that the defendants charged the prosecutor
with the forgery, of which they knew him to be inno-
cent, then in law, they were guilty; but, if on the other
hand, they charged him with an offence of which they
had a reasonable ground for supposing him guilty, then
their verdict should be for the defendants.
The Jury then retired, and found both defendants
Guilty on the first count.
THE KING v. STEPHEN LUSHINGTON, ESQ.
This cause was next called on. It was an indictment
against Dr. Lushington, for a libel upon Mr. Walker, an
attorney, and it was charged that the defendant, in the
Mirror of Parliament, what purported to be his speech
in the House of C inmons, upon a debate, in which (allu-
ding to Mr. Walker) Ise called the prosecutor a pettyfog-
ging attorney, who had been guilty of perjury and at-
tempted extortion.

Mr. CAMPBELL was opening the case for the prosecu
tion when our reporter left.

LITERATURE.

FAMILY LIBRARY, No. XXXII.
LONDON, 1832.

The present number of this miscellany con-
sists of the second and concluding number of the
Sketches from Venetian History. It is embel-
lished with a sketch of the proud " Queen of
the Adriatic," which though it necessarily, from
the very nature of the view, makes sad havoc
with all the laws of perspective, yet conveys the
best idea, we have yet seen, of Venice. In ad-
dition to this, there are four other striking em-
bellishments of detached portions of the city,
which are exquisitely engraved by Finden from
designs by Prout, whose Venetian sketches are
incomparably the best of the day. Of the lite-
rary department, suffice to say, that it is judi-
ciously selected and abridged from the larger
works of the old Venetian historians (Guicciar-
dini particularly), and carries down the history
of Venice to the year 1798, when by the infa-
mous treaty of Campo Formio, the republic was
transferred to Austria—we hope not for ever.