The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-19 00:00:00

WI ?; APRTL_IO, _ 1'34&.

- -
mongery to the Barbadoes, to the amount of 2431., for which
he had not been paid. This transaction bad been ruinous in
its consequences to him, as he was only a yoiinfr, tradesman,
and could not afford to lose so large a sum. He had been
obliged to sacrifice his wife's property, to satisfy his own
creditors.
The insolvent underwent a long examination respecting
his connexion with the British American Association. He
stated that he believed the Duke of Argyle and the Marquis
of Downshire were responsible as directors of the concern.
Two creditors in person appeared to oppose ; but in conse-
quence of the advanced period of the day the case was ad-
journed till Friday. •

THE WILLS FORGERIES.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
Shortly after ten,.o'clock Mr. Justice 'Williams took his seat
on the bench, when the prisoners William Barber, Joshua
Fletcher, William Saunders, Lydia Saunders, and eorgiana
Dorey, were placed at the bar.
At the instance of the Court, the witness Christmas was
called, and re-examined—ln the autumn of 1842 I told
Fletcher that there were unclaimed dividends on 3.5001.

in
standing the name of Slack. 1 did not mention it to any

body else.
'lite witness Wheeler was also recalled, at the request of
Mr. NVilkins, and said, that the prisnier Fletcher kept an
account at the Bank of England, from 1839 up to the tune of

his apprehension.
Mr. JAMES, Counsel for Mrs. Dorev, said, that Mrs. Dore`
now wished to withdraw her plea of Not Guilty, and to plead
Guilty. Perhaps he was not exceeding his duty, in asking
the jury to recommend her to mercy.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he could not interfere with the

jury. lie was sure they would do what wss right, and that
the verdict in the first case would not influence them.
The plea of Not Guilty was then withdrawn on the part of
Mrs. Dorey, and a plea of Guilty was entered.
Mr. GREAVES then rose to address the Court on behalf of
Fletcher. He contended that, in point of law, there was no
proof of any joint acts here, and that his client ought to
have a verdict of not guilty on this ground. The Learned
Gentleman quoted the case of the King v. Messingham in
proof of his position. Where there were separate acts they
must be proved separately, and a joint procurement must be
preyed where there was a joint charge.
Mr. BALLANTINE followed on the same side.
• Mr. Justice WILLIAMS could not stop the case. The pleading
guilty of one of the prisoners did not vary the case. It
seemed to him that the argument came to this, that unless
the whole of the parties were present at the uttering of the
forged will there could be no procurement or incitement.
Mr. STONE said he did not think there was any evidence
against the prisoner Saunders to go to the jury.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he was of opinion there was
some es idenee for the jury.
Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury on behal, of Barber.
He said, it appeared to him from the state of the Court, that
the interest in this case was unabated. After passing a corn-
p'iment to the jury for the attention which they devoted to
this m st important case, and to the ability and skill of the
Learned Gentlemen who prosecuted in this case, lie said that
he asked for nothing for
.his client but justice. He was
thoroughly convinced of the innocence of his client, and he
therefore did not appeal to their mercy. He was glad. for
the sake of Mr. Barber, that his Lordship refused the appli-
cation made on behalf of the other prisoner, for if it were
granted it would delay the time at which his client was to
be restored, if not to his former station and position, at least
to the smile of frendship. His Learned Friend had stated
this case with great fairness, and he trus'ed he would con-
tinue to conduct it to the end in the same way. There were
six counts in the initictment,which must fall to the ground
as far as his client was concerned. He had been charged
with forging the will, but not a tittle f evidence was ad-
duced to establish that fact. If Mr. Barber had been guilty
of an immoral offence he ought to be pusished, but if he
didnothing inconsistent with his duty as an honest attorney,
he was sure the jury would not hesitate in acquitting him.
His Learned Friend had told them how unclaimed dividends
were to be transferred, but he did not say how difficult it
was to have this effected; that each case has to be strictly
nvestigated by skilful solicitors, who (he said it in their
iown hearing) followed his client, Mr. Barber, with a desire
for conviction, which he could not account for on any other
supposition than that they wished to make some amends for
their own neglect of duty. He believed they were more
anxious for the conviction of Barber, than for the conviction
of all the other prisoners together; but in spite of their
emissaries, and spies, and tamperings, he was sure the jury
would send him from the dock as stainless as any one of them,
though he might not have a bed to lie on, or a penny in his
pocket. Why was not the confession of Mrs. Dorey brought
forward? The jury would draw their own conclusion from
this fact. His Learned Friend said that the will in this case
was suspicious, that it bore suspicion on the face of it.
Was it, indeed ? Was it not before Mr. Freshfield,
who had so much experience in those matters ;
and he did not suspect it to be fictitious. It was before
Doctors.-commons and there they had no suspicion. of its
being forged. Why then was Mr. Barber to find out that
the will was forged ; on the cc ntrary he had less reason to
think it forged than the others ; he had not so much interest
in the matter as Mr. Freshfield. He would be able to show
to them that greater pains were taken to impose on Mr. Bar-
ber than on the proctors or Mr. Freshfield. Fletcher intro-
duced a lady whom he called Miss Slack to him ; she was
in appearance a respectable woman, arid was dressed in mourn-
ing. Mr. Barber went to Mr. Wills, the proctor, and ap-
peared everywhere in the most open manner in the character
of an attorney in connection with this will, and not a single
lie, not a single attempt to deceive was prcved against him.
tie acted in the most open and honourable manner. There
was a great difference in viewing transactions after an accu-
sation was brought and before it was brought.. When once
an accusation was brought every person wondered that sus-
picions were notexcited before. Mr. Fletcher was a member
of a respectable profession. He was a rich man. Mr. Barber
was his attorney for many years, and in this case he did not
do a single act which was not necessary to be done as an
attorney, and in the most open manner. lie did many things
openly which he might have concealed if he wished. He
was the attorney of Fletcher, and nothing more. He was
never seen communicating with Fletcher ; lie was never at
his house, nor was Fletcher at his. It did not appear that
Mr. Barber had the least acquaintance with Mrs. Dorey, or
Mrs. Saunders, or Mr. Christmas. He thought it was clear
that the statement made by Mr. Barber was made in cosse-
quence of the representations Made to him. It was evident
that this was the else when he said that there was an entry
of the death of Anne Slack at Somerset House. There was
no such entry at Somerset-house ; and was it possible to con-
ceive that lie would have told such a lie to Captain Foskett
when it could be so easily detected if he believed it to be a
lie?; It was clear that he got the information from others,
and believing it to be true, he stated it to be
the fact. He communicated with Captain Foskett and
gave him every assistance that he ought to give. The let-
ters which were signed by Mr. Baiber to Captain Foskett
were written by his clerk, and only signed by Mr. Barber.
Was this the conduct of a man who was playinga knavish
part? It was said that Barber wanted the signature of Miss
Slack, in order to forge it. How could that be so, when the
signature to the will was quite different from the signature of
Miss Slack? There was next the forging of the registry.
This was not necessary at Doctors' Commons, nor at the
Bank, nor to obtain the probate of the will. The only object
for which it could be forged was to deceive Mr. Barb-er. He
put an advertisement in the Times newspaper, asking for the
legal representatives of Miss Slack. Was it probable that a
person implicated in a wicked conspiracy, as Mr Barber was
said to be, should take such a node of effecting his object as
to put an advertisement in a paper so widely circulated as the
Tines? Throughout the whole of the case Mr. Barber ap-
peared in the most open manner as an attorney. He had told
them that Mr. Barber, if acquitted, would leave the
dock penniless. Others had their thousands, but
it did not appear that he had put a sixpence into his
banker's hands. They made inquiries as to the money the
others had in the bank; they did not allege that Mr. Barber
had any money. It was not pray, d that a single 5/ note or
a 101. made its way into Mr. Barber's pocket. He (Mr.
Wilkins) had been called a daring evidence. If he was so
called, because he did not • respect persons or circumstances
when the interest of his client was concerned, he was con-
tent to be so called. He did not care that he had such a
man as Mr. Freshfield as. an opponent, and he did not hesi-
tate to say that Mr. Freshfield had given evidence that
would follow hint with disgrace to the grave. He
came prepared with a well ,ligested 'statement to procure
the conviction of a man who stood a few months ago as high
in the profession as he did. When he pressed Mr Freshfield
he owned that he wilfully suppressed a portion of the evi
dence. What object could he have in doing this but to hunt
Mr. Barber to perdition, and to do this by the suppression of
evidence that would have been in his favour? It was evi-
dent that Mr. Freshfield die not believe Mr. Barber to be
guilty, for if he did he had Forrester athis elbow. His Learned
Friend said that the issue must be wh, .ther there was any guilty
knowledge. There let it be. He was willing te test the issue on
that ground. And what proof was there that his client had any
guilty knowledge in this case? Not the least. They could
not look through the windows of the souls of men, and see
what was passing there. They must judge of men and their
motives by their actions, and he begged of them to judge of
Mr. Barber by this test. They had been told to temper jus-
tice with mercy. He did not want to depreciate the value of
the attribute of mercy, for he knew how much they all
stood in need of it. But here he took higher ground.
He would not condescend to steal a verdict from their pity,
and to send his client from the dock with his peth clouded
with suspicions of a questionable acquittal. \o; he asked
for justice at their hands : and if lie were in any way instru-
mental in restoring his clierit to society, he should feel amply
repaid for the anxiety and trouble he endured on his ace
count, and with his latest breath ' he would thank
his God that he had been instrumental in rescuing
him from destruction. The Learned Gentleman then
went over the evidence, commenting on it as he went
along and showing that there was nothing to
throw the least suspi.ion on Barber. He was a shrewd
man ; and if it was his intention to put the stock in the name
of Miss Slack in his own pocket he would have acted in a
manner very different from the way in which he had acted.
Mr. Barber was not a par y to Miss Slack being brought for-
.ward, but. Captain Foskett was, for he said he would rot re-
commend Miss Slack being made a party to the inquiry then
going on, and if he had acted otherwise Miss Slack would be
in possessions of her money, and this case would never have
come before them. The conduct of Mr. Barber was perfectly
open. All the documentary evidence against Barber came
from his own office. He !ad never been seen at the house in
Francis-street. The supposed Miss Slack was introduced to
him at his own office. He told the people at the Bank that
she was Miss Slack, because Fletcher told him so, as Phil-
pott identified her from the representation of Barber. The
Learned Gentlemen then referred again to the evidence of
Mr. Freshfield, which he read over at length. He com-
mented in strong language on the suppression of the fact
that Mr. Barber felt very indignant when Mr. Freshfield
told bins he was himself suspected. If Mr. Barber
felt a consciousness of guilt he would have acted
like a guilty man, and made his way to the
nearest railway station to go to a foreign. country. But no,
truth and honesty were bold. He remained ; and the very
documents referring to this transaction were found tied up
in a professional manner, were found in his office after he was
" taken to the Mansion house. It was quite consistent also
that he should refuse the name of the person who instructed
him, because he knew what was due from a professional man
to his client. He had now gone through the whole evi-
dence ; and, in conclusion, he begged of them to reflect
what were the advantages and privileges they derived from
society, in order that they might well weigh the
verdict they were to give. He entreated them not to listen
to public clamour, and to give a verdict according to reason,
and truth, and justice.
The Learned Gentleman occupied more than four hours in
addressing the Jury.
Mr. GREAVES then addressed the jury in behalf of the pri •
saner Fletcher. Afterbegging the jury to discard from their
minds the verdict in the former case, he sought to impress on
the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to
identify Fletcher wish this transaction. The principal
evidence against him was that of Mr. Apslev and his wife,
who deposed to the inquiries he made at king's Langley
respecting Miss Slack; but there was nothing unreasonable
in supposing that under the circumstances they were mis-
taken, especially as they did not seem to be very certain
respecting his identity. -'There was no evidence to show that
either Mrs. Dorey Or Mrs. Saunders knew Fletcher before