The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-19 00:00:00

CONSPIRACY TO FORGE A WILL.

The trial of John Oldershaw, Joseph Sills,
the elder, Joseph Sill 4, the younger, William Wragg,
Mary Wragg and Sarah Radbourne, charged with
conspiracy and perjury to pass off a forgery as
the will of John Jackson, EN., of Stapleford, in Not-
tinghamshire was continued this day, Mr. Temple
addressing the jury in defence of the prisoners except
the two Sills. The facts of the case were fully stated
in the Sun, yesterday. The counsel for the defence
remarked that the prosecution had adopted a sin-
gular course in endeavouring to prove that the will
in favour of Sarah Rlabourne was a forgery. They
had travelled out of the county of Nottingham to
Yorkshire to establish their case, and had dragged
to the bar six persons who ought never to have
been proceeded against in a criminal court. The
right course to adopt in the first instance was to
institute civil proceedings. The prosecution might
have filed their bill in Chancery, an action of eject-
ment would have followed, and such action would
have been tried in a civil court. The validity of
the will in question would in such case have been
put to the test, the whole of the persons then in the
dock might have been called as witnesses, and they
would have told their own story, but, unfortu-
nately, their mouths were closed. Their testimony
would in a civil action be opposed by evidence
tending to show that the will was not a genuine
document, and the jury, after comparing the state-
ments on one side and the other, would have had
an opportunity of arriving at a right conclusion.
Instead, however, of pursuing this straightforward
line of conduct, the prosecution commenced opera-
tions by preferring a charge of forgery against the
accused before the magistrates of Nottingham, but
the affair signally failed, as the bench dismissed the
case. Notwithstanding this defeat further proceed-
ings were instituted against the prisoners. Being
unable to gain their object, the prosecution, as he
had before said, travelled out of the county of Not-
tingham to prove an offence, if any existed, which
he disputed. They arrived in Yorkshire, cast their
net over the whole of the persons capable of giving
any account of the execution of the will in ques-
tion, and then asked the jury to give a verdict
of guilty against them. The case for the prosecu-
tion, the learned counsel contended, had entirely
failed, the charge against the prisoners had not been
substantiated by the evidence.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against the
two Wraggs, Oldershaw, and Sarah Radbourne,
but Acquitted thetwo Sills.

His 10-rd ship, in sentencing the prisoners, observed
that he considered it extremely wrong for them to be
indicted for a misdemeanour only and in his opinion
it was a defeating )f the ends of justice. They
ought to have been charged with forgery in the
county of Nottingham, for not only were they
guilty, in his judgment, of the enormous crime of
forgery, but of conspiracy also. They were not
persons in the poorest classes of society, possessed
of no education, and afflicted with poverty, and
consequently more liable to temptation in com-
mitting crimes ; but they were individuals in a
higher station of life, and therefore there was no
excuse whatever fur Om. They had endeavoured
by forgery and conspiracy to get a large estate into
their possession, but had signally failed, for it was
clear that neither Sarah Radbotutne nor any of them
had any title to it. He had some doubts in his
mind whether he ought not to have directed a
charge of forgery to be preferred against them, as
the evidence which lad been adduced was sufficient
to prove such an offence. The result of a convic-
tion for forgery, ins-mad of conspiracy and uttering
only, the punishment would have been much
greAter—transportation, or, at least, penal servi-
tude. They, however, had been found guilty of a
misdemeanour, and igreeing with the conclusion at
which the jury had arrived, he felt it to be his duty
to pronounce the lighest punishment which the
law allowed, natneY, that they be severally im-
prisoned and kept a; hard labour for two years.
The two Sills were acquitted, but before they
were allowed to leav the court, his lordship inti-
mated that there was a probability of some other
charge arising out of this will transaction being
preferred against them. -