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 Sills, the younger, William Wragg,
Mary Wragg and Sarah Radbourne, charged with
conspiracy and perjury to pass off a forgery a 5
the will of John Jackson, Esq. , of S tapleford, in Not-
tinghamshire, was continued this day, Mr. Temple
addressing thei jury in defence of the prisoners excel,*
the two Sills. The facts of the case were fully stated
in the Sum 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 Radbourne 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 ,t°,
institute civil proceedings. The prosecution might
have filed their bill in Chancery, an action of eject-
ment would have followed, and such action week',
have been tried in a civil court. The validity ca
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 the/
would have told their own story, but, unforttr
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 co paring the state-
ments on one side and the other, would have in"
an opportunity of arriving at a right conclusiet
Instead, however, of pursuing this straightforwar"'
line of conduct, the prosecution commenced opera"
tions by preferring a charge of forgery against that
accused before the magistrates of Nottingham, b,ll
the affair signally failed, as the bench dismissed ti°
case. Notwithstanding this defeat further proceee-
ings were instituted against the prisoners. DeirM
unable to gain their object, the prosecution, a10.n,4:
had before said, travelled out of the county of rlh
tingham to prove an offence, if any existed, wine._
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 (Peg;
tion, and then asked the jury to give a verdict
of guilty against them. The case for the proseeni "
tion, the learned counsel contended, had entire I
failed, the charge against the prisoners had not been
substantiated by the evidence.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty
against tlie,
two Wraggs, Oldershaw, and Sarah Radbourne'
but Acquitted the two Sills. ed
His lordship, in sentencing the prisoners, observ_
that he considered it extremely wrong for them to i!
indicted for a misdemeanour only and in his opinions
it was a defeating of the ends of justice. in
ought to have been charged with forgery ill I'
county of Nottingham, for not only were the);
guilty, in his judgment, of the enormous crime 0,1„
forgery, but of conspiracy also. They were no
persons in the poorest classes of society, possessed
of no education, and afflicted with poverty, and
consequently more liable to temptation in conk'
mating crimes ; but they were individuals in a
higher station of life, and therefore there was no
excuse whatever for them. 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 Radbourne nor any of them
had any title to it. He bad some doubts in his
mind whether he ought not to have directed II
charge of forgery to be preferred against theist
the evidence which had been adduced was sufficient
to prove such an offence. The result of a convic-
tion for forgery, instead of conspiracy and uttering
only, the punishment would have been raw.
greater—transportation, or, at least, penal se%
tude. They, however, had been found guilty 4:u
misdemeanour, and agreeing with the conclusion at
which the jury had arrived, he felt it to be his di%
to pronounce the highest punishment which ta
law allowed, namely, that they be severally inr
prisoned and kept at hard labour for two years.
The two Sills were acquitted, but before tof'
were allowed to leave the court, his lordship it;
mated that there was a probability of some etri
charge arising out of this will transaction being
preferred against them.