The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-11 00:00:00

THE WILLS FORGERIES.

CRIMINAL COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY, Mr. Justice WILLIAMS,

and Mr. Justice MAULE.)
Shortly after ten o'clock, their Lordships took their
seats on the bench, and William Henry-Barber, Joshua
Fletcher, and Georgiana Dorcy were then placed at the
bar for trial.

Before the indictment was read over,
Mr. WILKINS said he had an application to make to
the Court, on behalf of the prisoner Barber. Although
he had pledged himself yesterday not to challenge the
jurors, he had now an affidavit which stated that justice
could not be done to the prisoner, unless he had a sepa-
rate trial. In case the Court granted this, Barber would
call the other prisoners as witnesses on his behalf, and
their evidence would be very material to his defence.
Mr. Baron Gttarmv aJced the Attorney-General

whether he had any objection to the proposed course.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Could not consent to it, he
believing that it would greatly embarrass the prosecution.
Mr. Parry (who was with Mr. Wilkins) referred to
the trial of Hardy and others, as affording a precedent

for the application.
Mr. Baron GURNEY said he thought the application
could not be made as a matter of right.
After some discussion, the application was refused.
The indictment having been read over at length,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to address the jury
on behalf of the prosecution. He entreated the
patient attention of the jury while he stated the facts
which were necessary to enable them to under-
stand the evidence which would he brought in support of
this charge. The accusation was connected with an
offence of a novel description, and it affected persons
who had hitherto moved in good society, and maintained
a creditable name. It would be idle to conceal
that the matters to be brought before them had already
been the subject of much publication, but he trusted
that they would forget all that they had either heard or
seen with reference to the transactions which were to be
the subject 'of inquiry that day, and he had no doubt
they would faithfully and fearlessly discharge their duty.
The case was this. One of the prisoners was charged
with publishing a forged bond, and the others were
charged with being accessories before the fact. Tu
speak in more popular language, the offence charged was
that of procuring, by false and fraudulent means, the
transfer of a sum of money from the unclaimed tock
which was transferred to the Commissioners for the Re-
duction of the National Debt. He desired to state, with
as much calmness and simplicity as possible, facts which
would undoubtedly be proved in evidence, and he should
abstain i'rota any comments, except such as weie
necssary to enable the jury to understand the bearing of
the entire case as respected the individuals charged. He
could not forbear from stating that if, in his judgment, it
had not been essential fur the ends of justice that the
prisoners should be tried together, he would have ac-
ceded to his Learned Friend's application. Having
orked, however, together—whether honestly or other-
wise, he thought it impossible to judge of the conduct of
the others ; neither did be think that the defence of any
one of the prisonerS would be at all affected by their
being tried at the sante time. It was necessary to state
that by a law, which was passed 30 or 40 years ago, it was
provided that if stock had remained without any claim-
ant for ten years, it should, at the expiration of that time,
be transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of
the National Debt ; but care was taken that the claim of
any one who was entitled to it should nut be prejudiced
by that circumstance. There were three prisoners be-
fore the jury ; a fourth was included in the indictment,
who died iu the year 1841. William Henry Barber was
an attorney, who had been in practice in Bridge-street,
Blackfriars, before this charge was brought ; Joshua
Fletcher was a person eho had certainly never been
suspected of anything of this description until the in-
quiries which took place before the Lord Mayor ; the
other prisoner, Georgiana Dorey, was the wife
of a respectable tradesman in Oxford-street ; and
the charge against them was that Susauah Richards
deceased, published a forged bond with a view
to obtain possession of some stock by that means, and
that the said prisontirS in" some way or other lent their
assistance in obtaining that stock. In the year 1826
there was standing inilie.Bank of England, in the saute
of " John Stewart, of Great Marlow, in the county of
Bucks, gardener," a sum producing 511. per annum in.
the Long Annuities. It appeared that Mr. Stewart re-
ceived the last dividend on ehjs stock on the sth of April
preceding his death, and that he died on the 13th of
March, 1827. The tlividends remained unclaimed
down to the 11 th :of October, 1836, when, in
pursuance of the Act of Parliament, it was
transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction
of the National Debt. John Stewart-was head-gardener
to a gentleman of the name of Strode, residing at Great
Marlow. He was born in Scotland, and lived there till he
was twenty years old. His history could be pretty well
traced. From his own statement, it appeared that he
had no relative except a brother ; he had no sister. Ile
had nut heard of his brother for many years before he
died. None of those who knew him ever heard him
speak of a sister, nor was there any trace of any such
person ever having been in existence. Now, to prevent
claims from being made which wore unfounded, care
was taken that the stock transferred to the Commis-
sioners of the National Debt should not become matter
of public notoriety. Clahns of this sort were not guarded
by the vigilance of opposing individual interests on the
other side, and it was necessary, therefore, to be very
cautious. Still some .persons must be aware of a trate
section which was publicly and formally done. Mr.
Stewart having died in. 1827, and the stock having been
transferred in 1836, his death became known to Barber
and Fletcher. Fletcher went down to Great Marlow,
and stayed a short time -at the Greyhound Inn,
kept by a person of the name of . Hyatt.
Inquiries were made by him in the name of G. Jones.
24, Little Guildlord-street, Russell-square. lie was in
strutted that there was no doubt of the identity of Fit t-
cher as a person who made inquiries of a number of old
persons respecting John Stewart, under this false name.
Several witnesses would identify him as that person.
But he would be still better identified by a letter which
he wrote on the 25th of June, 1840. to a person whom
he had seen, named William Winsor. The Learned
Counsel then read a letter dated June 25, 1840, and
giving the address 24, Guildford-street, Russell
square, London, referring to a promise which Winsor
had made to furnish Fletcher with information respect-
ing Mr. Stewart, arid requesting that he would send any
which he had obtaitied: It was stated in this letter, that
the writer had discovered that Stewart had lad a sister
living about 12 years-,since in America. The letter was
signed G. Jones.". The house to which it was addressed
was that of Miss Uawkes, who, at the request of
Georgiana Dorey, bad consented that letters for
Barber and Fletcher' inight be directed to her
house, whence they would be forwarded to some
tither place. Shortly' after Fletcher had been at Great
Marlow, the prisoner Barber went down. The name
which he gave was that of " Clarence Peckham, Esq.,"
and he believed it would be clearly established that the
prisoner Barber was the person who went there under
that name. He gave, as his residence, " 52, Nelson-
square," which was his real place of abode. One of
the witnesses went up to London and saw him
at 52, Nelson-square. The object of these inquiries by
Fletcher and Barber was apparently to find out the con-
nections of John Stewart ; to discover what was his
history ; where he had lived, and where he came from ;
and it would be for the jury to judge whether the in-
quiries were made for the purpose of bringing forward a
false claim, and being enabled to give to it the appearance
of consistency and truth. They would find that while
Barber was at Great Marlow, he spoke of the visits paid
by Fletcher, under the name of Jones, and he mentioned
Jones as being his friend, and as belonging, in fact, to
the same firm. Now the next set of circumstances
which he had to introduce to their attention,
referred to the conduct of Mrs. Richards, de-
ceased—the mother of the prisoner Georgiana
In the month of June, 1840, Georgiana Durey, who
was not then married, was living with her mother in
Rathbone-place, with.a person of the name of Wybrow,
who would be called as a witness. Mrs. Richards re-
moved from Rathbone-place to No. 1, Southamp-
ton-terrace, Camberwell. She v ent there as Miss
Stewart, in which name letters were addressed
to her,and she was visited almost every day by the pri-
soner Fletcher, who inquired about the lodging for her
under'the name of Stewart. This old lady obtained
letters of administration us the sister of John Stewart.
The stock was transferred back again under the name
of Elizabeth Stewart, and the dividends were paid a few
days after the administration was perfected. On the part
of the prosecution it Was alleged that Fletcher and
Barber knew perfi bily well that fraud was going for
ward, and it would be for the jury to say whether it was
riot concocted fur the purpose of obtaining possession of
the stock. Shortly atter Elizabeth Stewart had taken
the lodging at Camberwell, Fletcher went with her to
the office of a proctor of the name of Hunt,
and on the 31st of July, 1840, she made an
affidavit for the purpose of obtaining letters
of administration. There was a very wholesome rule at
Doctors' Commons, that when an individual came for-
ward claiming to administer the affairs of a deceased
party, some time after death, he should give some
reason for the delay.. And, accordingly, this affidavit
was wade to account for the delay in this instance. The
Learned Counsel • then read the affidavit, stating
that Elizabeth Stewart was the only sister, and next of
kin of John Stewart, and that she was residing in New
York at the time of his death, and was not aware of the
fact until the month of May in the previous year, when
she returned to this country. It was eunsidered, hew-
ever, that sufficient information had not been given.
The duty of 451. was paid, being advanced by Fletcher,
hut it was necessary there should be two sureties to join
Eliz. Stewart before she could obtain letters of administra-
tion. Fletcher gave the name of 'thus. Griffin, 32, Duke-
street, Grosvenor-square, tailor, and Mr. Pitt, or his
clerk, procured some other person to be surety, thinking
that there could be no danger in so doing. The bond
was executed before the surrogate, and upon its being
executed, the letters of administration were granted. In
addition to the affidavit for the purpose of satisfying the
registrar there was a certificate of the baptism of John
Stewart and of Elizabeth. Stewart ; but the baptism of J:
Stewart was of the year 1761, and it was represented to
have taken place, not in Scotland, but in the parish of
Marylebone, Middlesex. The certificate of Elizabeth
Stewart was also of the same parish. There could be no
doubt that John Stewart, to whom this stock
had belonged, came from Scotland, and docu-
ments would be put in, which were found
after his death, showing his personal history. It was
quite right that he should_ state that Barber was acting
avowedly in the capacity of attorney to the parties.
It would be for the jury to say whether he
had any guilty knowledge of this transaction.
The Learned Counsel then read the remainder of the
document, explaining why Miss Stewart had not before