The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-15 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE •SUZY.

Sta,—With reference to the late accident at the
Joint Terminus of the Brighton, bover, and Croy-
don Railways, in the Kent-road, we consider it ne-
cessary shortly to state, that although we are the
Contractors for the whole of the works at that station,
our Firm was not concerned in the erection of. the
Iron Roofing to which the accident occurred, nor
were any of our workmen employed thereon.
We shall be obliged by the insertion of this eapla-
nation.—We are, Sir, your obedient servants,
GRISSELL and PETO.
Lambeth April 13.

SOLICITOR.GENEHAL SiIIP,—:(FrOM► A, uotTespou.
dent. )—A- general impression prevails ill LituzioWe Inu that
Mr. John Stuart, Q.C„ at the Chancery bar, will have: the
SolieitorAieneralship conferred upon ii a gentle.
man of the most unassuming habits, of great experience end
ability, and; by his courtesy and highly honourable principlo
and conduct, is a favourite with the bar.
VISIT off' THE DUCHESS OF KENT TO GERMAIcr......
Ills Serene Highness, the Prince of Leinengen who arrival
at Windsor on Thursday. ev.enipg,,,viith, his iorilitionev
:Piince Albert, having accorapallied the Prince' Consort froaa
Ostend to. England in the, 'Priucess .Alice .Government
steamer, wll remain in this . country' upon a- to her
Majesty for !bout a. fortnight. At the. 'end, Of the present
month7liis
.Serene Highness :will accompany •his illustrious
mother, the ;Duchess of Kent, to the Continent, whet* her
Royal Highness is expected to retnain-for about three weeks
or a month. It is -stated -to be time intention:of her Royal
'Highness, upoa leasing England, to-proueeektO',Paris, and
thence to Germany, after a. brief: soputkin-ftlii Fcenth
capital. .The Royal Duchess is expected: to ptir a-visit to
her brother the King of the Belgtans;:darttli her aisseace
from, England, returning v Mend, in o* of
• i

• rtiftE,'WrlLLS FORGERIES.

t on being examined, were found to exhibit in every respect a
profossional appearance. Mr. Mil, the stock-broker, admitted
that Mr. Barber was a member of the same literary Society
as himself., That Society was composed of persons of known
*,bility anal integrity. NVas character to have no influence
upon their deci,non, or wcre literary men likely to be engaged
in a transaction of this nature? if Mr. Barber had suspected
that this was a f.l..:ery, would he have signed his own name
at the Bank? Believing the person who call: . herself Miss
Stewart to be Miss Stewart, he snapped his fingers at Messrs.
Pickering, and acted upon her instructions. When 301. was all
that he was to have for his services, if he were a guilty man
he was certainly the maddest guilty man ever heard el. Would
he have paraded his name before the public for such a paltry
sum 2 In referring to Mr. Barber's writing to Mr. Strode, he
observed, that Barber gave hie OW7I name, and that this ren-
dered it very improbable that he sl wild before have given the
Parr:. of Peckham, as the inconsistency would probably have
been discovered by Mr. Strode, and would have excited sus-
picion in his mind. In commenting on the letter of Mr.
Barber, in reply to that of Messrs. Pickering and Co., he said
that if that letter failed to convince the jury of his innocence,
nothing which he could do would have that effect. If this do-
cument did not prove innocence, he (Mr. Wilkins) was no
judge of human character. He made an application to
Messrs. Pickering and Co. for the payment of a small balance
of wages due to the brotherof Miss Stewart. The Bank had
believed his identity, and he now made this claim in the firm
belief of it himself. Was this the conduct of a man, who,
in the meridian of existence, was exposing himself
to the risk of ignominions punishment ? It appeared
that the legacy duty had not been paid. It was very common
for attorneys to leave the duty unpaid for eighteen months
or two years, the Government not insisting on earlier pay-
ment. It not being paid in this instance showed that Barber
was a needy man ; but had he been a guilty one, it would not
have been left unpaid. This delay of payment would of
neeessity provoke the inquiry which he must be anxious to
shun. It appeared that Griffin who, there could be no doubt,
was a guilty party, had received 51. from Mr. Fletcher and
5L from Mrs. Dorey.
Mr. Jess—Mrs. Dorey's mother.
Mx Wtmurts thanked his Mend for correcting him. No •
thing would be further from his wish than to do anything to
njure the case of that unfortunate woman, for whom,
whether innocent or guilty, he felt sincere pity.
He had now gone through the whole of the evidence. He
would not trouble them with many more remarks. What,
then, was the case against Mr. Barber? Supposing they had
any doubt respecting the testimony of Hyatt, there was not
a tittle of evidence to show that Barber appeared in the
transaction until long after the bond was executed. Mr.
Fletcher was the party who took lodgings for Miss Stewart,
who gave all the directions, and who took the leading part in
all the proceedings. If Mr. Barber did not visit Marlow
till October all the difficulty vanished. He had explained
the difficulty arising from the name " Peckham." He
would call witnesses who would prove that Mr. Barber was
no ordinary character. His literary pursuits were altogether
inconsistent with his being guilty of this charge. With a
vulgar mind these pursuits would have no weight ; but to
those who knew how literary tastes rarified and ennobled the
mind, that would appear worthy of great consideration.
Mr. Barber appealed, however, to their sense of justice. He
asked no pity—he asked them not to be guided either by
clamour nor by sympathy ; but he appealed simply to their
sense of justice. The noblest sacrifice which could
be made was that of prejudice to truth. That sacri-
fice• he called upon them to make. _ln propor-
tion to the destitution and misery of the prisoner, he asked
them to weigh well the considerations which he had ad-
vanced. In the meridian of life, th% prisoner was deserted
by those from whom he had been accustomed to receive sym-
pathy and caresses. Mr. Barber looked to them alone for
his character. There he stood, a withered man ; but at their
hands he felt confident justice would be done to him, and this
would be some compensation to him for being deserted by
false friends. He trusted that the jury would, by their ver-
dict, rescue him from obloquy and disgrace.
The Learned Counsel spoke for about three hours and a
half. The prisoner Barber appeared to be deeply affected by
his appeal to the jury, at the close of his address.
Their Lordships and the jury then retired for a few mi-
nutes, and on their return,
Mr. GREAVES applied to their Lordships for permission to
defer his defence of the prisoner Fletcher: until Mr. 'Wilkins
had gone through the evidence which he intended to bring
in defence of Barber, on the ground that until that period
it would be impossible for him to understand in what position
he was really placed.
Their Lordships declined to grant the application.
Mr. GnitAVES then proceeded to address the jury in de-
fence of Fletcher. He commenced by adverting to the diffi-
culties with which the jury had to deal in a case of so
complicated a nature as the present, and pointed out that the
evidence wt s not to be considered in the same way as evi-
dence in ordinary cases, where it applied to only one person
or to one state of circumstances. But here the evidence was
of a most varied nature, part of which could not be consi-
dered as having any reference whatever to his client; and
the parts which did apply he begged them to look upon in
the light of evidence affecting a man who, up to the present
time, bore an irreproachable character. The prosecution, he
admitted, was most fairly and candidly opened, but he
begged the jury not to allow themselves to be swayed too
much by that opening, for men were really likely to suffer
themselves to be carried away by that which appeared fair,
open, and candid. He contended, notwithstanding the observa-
tions of the Learned Attorney-General, that the ends of justice
would be best obtained by a separate trial. His Learned
Friend, in opening the case, had said it was an indictment for
forging a bond, but had abstained from stating why he thought
it forgery. The Learned Gentleman then defined what he
considered forgery, and proceeded to argue that his client
was not liable to any charge of the nature of forgery. It
was quite a fallacy to hold this in the light of a pro-
secution for forgery of a bond, when it was clearly
a prosecution for obtaining money from the Funds under
false pretences. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
address himself to the evidence adduced for the prosecution,
and contended that the evidence which had been brought to
prove that John Stewart was a native of Scotland bad failed,
and there was nothing adduced which should lead to the
belief that John Stewart was not born in Marylebone.
There had been no such direct and plain evi-
dence of his being a native of Scotland as was
in the power of the prosecution to give by show-
ing that his accent was that of a Scotchman.
With respect to the part of the evidence referring to the
lady named Stewart, he submitted that there was no proof
whatever of his client ever having known that lady, save by
the name of Stewart. Letters came to her in that name,
and his client had no other means than they
furnished of ascertaining her name. The evidence of
Emma Hartwell was conclusive in this respect,
and he submitted that this was a most important considera-
tion in favour of his client. The Learned Gentleman dwelt
at considerable length on this part of the subject, and con-
cluded that the evidence in this part of the case must be
construed in a favourable light to his client. One of the
charges which had chiefly been brought by the prosecution
to fasten on his client was, his having incited and stimn-
lated the old lady to commit the forgery of the bond.
It was a strange thing to charge a man with inciting another
to forge a bond, when there was no proof whatever that he
thought such a bond necessary at all. Why should he make
the woman forge the bond, when he did not consider such a
bond requisite? Besides, there was no proof, he submitted,
that his client had incited the old lady to commit the alleged
forgery ; at least there was not enough of evidence to warrant
the jury in coming to the conclusion that Fletcher was
an accessory before the fact of the forgery, for that was the
charge brought against him, and not that he was a principal
in that alleged crime. As to the question of transfer of Stock,
he would not advert to it ; because there was no proof that
his client had been to the Bank on such business. But with
respect to the conversion of the notes into gold by Fletcher,
his having openly put Mrs. Stewart's name upon them showed
that he was not conscious of any guilt in the transaction.
After dwelling at some further length on the minor points of
the evidence, the Learned Gentleman concluded by request-
ing the jury, if they had any doubts whatever on the ques-
tion of the guilt. of his client, to give him the benefit of those
doubts, and by assuring the Court and jury, that he left the
Case in their hands, with the most unbounded confidence in
their sense of justice, in whatever decision they might
come to.

General) should be able to vindicate that right, alter wit-
nesses had been called for the defence, in common with any
other prosecuting counsel. If any one had a right to corn- ,
plain of his having a reply it was Mr. Graves and Mr.
James, who had called no witnesses. His Learned Friend
(Mr. Wilkins) had said his client had deserved a separate
trial, and it seemed to him (the Attorney-General) as if he
was challenged to show why all the three prisoners were
tried together. It was because, if they had been tried
separate, each counsel would have laid the blame on another
prisoner, and would have much confused the jury. Accord-
ing to the speeches of his three Learned Friends, every
prisoner was to be exonerated. Mr. James had said that.
birs. Dorey was imposed upon by Fletcher. Mr. Graves
stated that Fletcher was deceived and duped by Mrs.
Richards, who was dead ; and Mr. Wilkins declared
that his client had been made the scapegoat of
both parties. The best mode, therefore, of inquiring into the
case was by.trying all the prisoners together. It was essen-
tial to the ends of justice that it should be so. A jury would
be a useless machine if they did not divest themselves of
everything not connected with the case. It was his opinion
that unless these three persons had been tried together it
would have been impossible to have obtained substantial
justice. Now, with respect to Mrs. Dorey, his Learned
Friend, Mr. James, had claimed exemption, on the' ground
that she was a tool in the hands of Fletcher, and because she
did not understand the circumstances of the case. Was
she so very young and inexperienced as not to under-
stand the meaning of forgery? She had admitted, how-
ever, in her confession, that there had been a former bond,
which she had signed, and for which she had received 501. or
60/. Then, with respect to her visits to Camberwell, it was
not alone the going there and asking for the " Old Lady,"
which he had urged as a proof of guilt. It was the going and
asking for Mrs. Stewart, when her mother's name was Rich-
ards ; the calling her Miss Stewart, when she knew she was
a married woman; and also her stating that she was her
niece, when she was perfectly aware that she was her
daughter Was that the conduct of an innocent person ?
She had also admitted that her mother had got 4001. or 5001.
from that transaction. With respect to Fletcher, he did not
go into the evidence against him to any extent, as it was
very voluminous, and ample justice would be done to it in
the summing up by his Lordship. As to Barber, his clerk
had volunteered that there were four cases of a suspicious
nature against him—the one under trial, and three about to be
tried. The jury couldj ridge for themselves whetherthe evidence
to character was borne out by these admissions. There was one
fact very strong against Mr. Barber. It was alleged that he went
down to Great Marlow, on the 13th of October, 1840, to ascertain
whether there was a sister to Mr. Stewart living there ; but
how came it that a letter was found at his (Mr. Barber's)
chambers dated the 9th of October, four days before, signed
Fletcher, stating that he had discovered that there was a
Miss Stewart living. What occasion, then, for Mr. Barber
to go down to Great Marlow on the 13th, to find out a fact
which, according to that letter, had already been ascertained ?
He thought that a very suspicious circumstance. With
these few observations the Learned Gentleman left the case
in the hands of the jury, feeling assured that, after hearing
the summing up of the Learned Judge, they would return a
verdict according to their just sentiments.
The Court adjourned at a quarter to seven until ten o'clock
on Monday (this day).

CENTJUL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

C(,?-i-EINUATIOZ; OF THE TRIAL OF BARBER
ILL-ETCHER, AND MRS. DOREY.

The Judges—Baron Gurney, Justice Williams, and Justice
Manleee-took their seats on the Bench precisely at ton o'clock,
when the prisoners, -William Henry Barber, Joshua Fletcher,
and aeoryiatia Dorey, were placed at the bar.
The.Ar roaeray-Giescanae said before his Learned Friend
(Mr. Wilkins) proceeded to open the defence of Barber, and
in order to make the casefor the prosecution at once perfect,
he wishedto put iniOtiedccuments which he had had occasion
frequently to ailide.te.end the sigaaturea to each of which it
rasa areestary, the jury. should be satisfied were identical.
These were three documents from Doctors' Commons, and
four from the Bank, and they were all signed by Elizabeth
Stewart. These instruments having been handed to and
examined by the jury,
Mr. Wxuwes rose and said, he had the honour to appear
before them on that occasion, as counsel for Mr. Barber, and
he did not use that word honour lightly, for despite all the
denunciations of the press, and all the calumnies that had
been heaped upon him, he thanked God he had the courage,
knowing well his innocence, to state that he had the honour
to appear there that day, as She advocate of William Henry
Barber. And if them was any drawback to that feeling, it'
there was any, depreising circumstance on his mind at
that time, it arose from the consciousness which.
he deeply felt,:. of his inability to do full justice
to Mr. Barber's case and character. Never since he
had the honour of belonging to the profession, did
he enter upon a dutYwith so much fear and so little of self-_
complacency. He trembled, not on account of any demerits
of hum whom he had to defend, but of the obstacles which
the prosecutors had thought proper to throw in the way of
Mr. Barber, in proving his innocence. He had to contend
with the first forensic talent of the land, with such talent,
that his heart sank within him, and this more especially
when once or twice when answers were given by the wit-
nesses, he had heard expressions of applaaae.
Baron GURNEY—SureIy not. I did not hear any such
thing.
Mr..Wrisutsts—Perhaps his Lordship did not hear them,
but he (Mr. Wilkins) and his friend Mr. James heard them,
and, with every respect to the Bench, he should say that ap-
plause was nicest discreditable to those who uttered it. But ,
had be nothing else to complain of ? He had asked at the
beginning . of. the cute for a separate trial, and the Court
would, not toncede it, except at the instance of the Attor-
ney-General. Withoutrunniaig the risk of being charged
with adalation to one whom all the young members of the
profession looked up to as a father, . he must say
that there was no man whom he more honoured than that
eminent man. But all his respect would not hinder him
doing his duty independently, and stating that he had been
reftised that request on groandsthe most inconsistent with
reaSon, and the most uafounded in truth, he had ever heard.
?.arned Friend had asserted it was necessary to the ad-
ministration of justice they should be tried together, for they
had all been working together. But that was the very
reason why ho should hay. hail his request granted, for by
those with whose guilt it was tried to mix him up, could his
innocence have been best established. What was the first
step taken by Mr. Barber when made a prisoner in his own
office and taken to the Mansion House? Was it not to send
for'Fletcher? • Did he not when asked by the Lord Mayor
if he had counsel, immediately reply that he wanted
no „counsel ; .he wanted nothing but evidence to clear
himself, and to that end he sent for ,Fletcher. To that
end he had sought a separate trial now, and that trial had
been enost unfairly refused. Did not these things show the
difficulties under which Me. Barber had laboured 2—he
who commenced life as a poor boy, and had worked his way
up fo a respectable station in life, as every industrious man
was sure to do, and Who was now immured in a gaol, with
the • only consolation left to him, which was that of his
innocence. In order to complete the destruction of that man
there Was arrayed against him not only all the legal talent
he had spoken of, but evidence froM almost every part ofthe
kingdom ; and all his papers and books, which were neces-
fiery to. him, withheld from him. He asked not the jury far
their pity, under these circumstances, but for their sympathy.
And, satisfied was he, that even with all these difficulties, he
should clearly and absolutely prove his client's innocence.
Firit, to call attention to the speech of his Learned Friend
the Attorney-General. First, he besought them to give their
verdict according to the evidence, and he (Mr. 'Wilkins)
ebbed that prayer. He must, however, first of all say, that
lie had observed lately, and that with dismay, a growing ten-
dency on the part of the bench to dictate to juries, which had
produced consequences of the most injurious character to the
best interests of justice. Me therefore besought them to give
their verdict according to the evidence, and that alone. :Now
all that the witnesses hid said was, that Stewart had no sister,
to their knowledge. That was all they ventured to swear to.
Then came the journey of Fletcher, in May, to Great Mar-
low ; and on the 25th of June he went to Mr. Strode, to say
he had discovered that Stewart had a sister. Did Mr. Strode
or Mr. Coxwell, or Mr. Hyatt, or any other of the witnesses
write to contradict this ? Not one of them did so, The
Attorney- General said about the same time Barber went to
Marlow. He (Mr. Wilkins) put into the witness (Hyatt's)
hands a bill which he admitted he had drawn out. He had
sworn that Mr. Barber was at his house in May or June, and in
his own handwriting the bill WAS dated the 18th of October.
Noiv he (Mr. Wilkins) would prove that not for one day in
May or June was Mr. Barber away from London ; and he
would prove that on the 18th of October he was at Marlow.
Ha would prove thit in May or June Mr. Barber had no oc-
casion to go down to Marlow, and that in October he had
business which called him there ; and this journey was taken
after he had written to Mr. Strode, after he had written to
Mr. Coxwell, and after Messrs. Pickering, the lawyers, had
expressed themselvei dissatisfied with what had been laid
before them. But it was said he went down in the name of
Clarence Peckham, FSsq. But he had given his right address
in Nelson-sqiutre, and he had a clerk of the name Peckham,
who, in his absence, might and would have opened any
letters ; and, therefore, had Mr. Barber been a guilty man,
he was taking about as direct a course to have himself found
out as man well coulddo. What did the witness Myatt say to
-Barber? Did he not say he was coming up to London in a
week? To be sure he did, and Mr. Barber asked him to call
and have a bit of dimmer with him. He did call ; and there,
staring him in the face, was a large .brass plate, with the
words spon it, Mr Barber, Solicitor." Did it stand to
reason that a clever, acute man like Mr. Barber would have
done co simple an. act as this? Why, it was well known that
there were many men who made an honourable and legiti-
mate livelihood by tracing out properties and friends, and
getting large rewards for their information from the,
parties 'benefited by it. To this end secrecy, especially in
the outset, was often not merely desirable, but absolutely ne-
cessary, If this seeress, was observed at first, was it foie
lowed up ifterwarda ? Why, Mr. Barber had written to Mr.
Streife. stating that there was a sister of Stewart, and not
merely stating this, but demanding from him the arrears of
wages due to her_ deceased brother. He wrote the same to Mr..
Coxwell--she deelsired the same to Messrs. Pickering.. Would
he dared to have done this had he not himself believed the
faa ? Would. he. have been stupid enough to have done
this had he not himself been convinced of the fact? None
of the evidence which detailed all Fletcher's proceedings
Touched Mr. Barber in the slightest degree. No, nor did the
statement of Griffitt EVery document prepared was pre-
paced Iv the order of Fletcher, and Barber was no party to
it ; , and even when the. other security was required, that wee
not'obtalned for, or by, 'or at the instance of Barber. Now,
with 'ail the energy sihich had been shown in this Prosecu-
tion, he defied them to bring evidence to show any intimacy
between Fletcher and Barber—that ever Fletcher broke breid
-With Mr. Barber,-or -named the thre.shold of his house. Mr.
Fletcher from 'lB3B -t0.1840 had been'a client of Mr. Barber's,
bringing to him business of such acharacter as made him a
valuable•one, but a client only had he been. Only as
his legal agent had Mr. Barber become mixed up in these
matters, and it had all been carried on in the usual and
ordinary course. The very evidence now brought forward
wage all aken• from Mr. Barber's office. There all the docu-
ments and paperseleere—and there they were .found lying on
his desk open-like to others, and with other papers, and the
words " Stewart's• affairs" endorsed in large letters upon
them. But nearly all these documents had been prepared
and executed teibre ever Mr. Fletcher applied to Mr. Barber
in the matter, and Mr. Barber on receiving the papers found
they had all been correctly prepared. This clearly showed
that Mr. Barber was the party imposed on, if imposition had
been practised; ' But the Attornev-Gerieral had admitted
that the certifleateseof baptism would have misled any one
that WAS igmorantnf Stewart's family and history. These
'were the very -words of the Learned Attorney-General.
Why, Mr. Barber was ignorant, wholly ignorant, of
Stewert, his family, his history, or his affairs, and
he had been- misled,- as any other man might have been.
But did Mr. Barber- conceal these certificates or auv one of
the papers ? Not one. What did the murderer do after he
had committed his dreadful crime? Did he not conceal the
instrument of his deadly work? To be sure he did. That
was hie first thought, his first effort. Did :fir. Barber, the
guilty Mr. Barber, conceal the evidence of his crime? He
concealed nothing. The clever, the shrewd Mr. Barber, as
the Attorney-General had truly called him, concealed nothing.
There were the
papers lying in his office, open to the observe-
lion of his clerks, of his clients, of every one who entered hie
office. Did this look like guilt or like innocence? Would
not these papers have been destroyed the moment they had
answered their purposes had Mr. Barber been the conscious
partner to a fraud? The words "Stewart's administration"
was endorsed in large letters upon them, and this fact itself
was proof strong to the jury of Mr. Barber's innocence.
Now, it Mr. Barber bad been a guilty party in the affair,
would he have .gone with Miss Richards to the Bank to
receive the stock? He was not required to do so ; there was
no necessity that ke should do se, and the clever and inge-
nious Mr. Barber never would have done so had he been a
party conscious of wrong. But the Attorney-General said
this lady was not. Mies Rickards. He (Mr. Wilkins)
said she was. There was assertion . against asser-
tion, and the one., was quite as good as the other:
They would remember that a day or two after this occurred
Mr.'Hill, the broker, sent for Mr. Barber, and on his coming
told him that he haul paid him 3/.. 2s. 9d. too much. Had he
been engaged in a fraudulent transaction, what excuse would
he have pursued under these circumstances?'
Would he not
immhuedtietely and aid the
have put-his hand In- his pocket
ead oft hat he
money :0 Undoubtedly he would,
he world
and told
. gave him Miss Stewart's addrgeonsseaht
dnaettlyhehhasa-de
him to go to her. If he- had
diecovered, from the appearance of Miss Stewart,
been imposed upon, and had unwittingly been
• to a fraud. Why did Mr. Hill identify 'Miss Stewart at party a
• Bank? Because lie knew Mr. Barber to be a respectablette
mill. And' why' did Mr. Barber identify her? or the
same reason. Eiery man was the creature of circumstan
You would. say: that it would he a foolish' thing for
any,man to sign a paper without knowing its contents? Yee
t he Judges themselves. froguently did so; depending on clerks
and others, who they believed to be respectable and trust-
Worthv men. So Mr. Barber identified Miss Stewart, be-
lieving her to be a•reepectable person—and Mr. Hill subse-
quently 'did the same thing. Both acted in the same manner,
and their conduct was to be accounted for in the same way.
He nnw came to a very important fact, which his Learned.
Attarnet;General admitted, and which ought to
weigh with the jury. A large sum of money was drawn
from the Bank. Mr. Barber's property, even including his
furniture, had been sold since this charge was first brought;
and but forahe assistance of a few friends he would not have
had money to defend himself on this occasion. The whole
amount he had received on account of this transaction was
Was it likely, he would ask, that Mr. Barber would
tir :i'learrred such risk for so small an amount ? He thought
consideration; was entitled to great weight. Great stress
1a iii made to the clerk of session,
in Scotland. to •
hispotter flat plitatate Jane for Janet, it being stated in
his part he did:':ket ire Scotland was Jane in England. FQr
men was 04 fact! .1cnt,"?.71 at that moment whether or not
exrit e close of his address the Learned
Attorney-Generil-
done in this case.
ATfteerthsoatinwe
wish that justice would.be
he (Mr. Wilkins) heartily
said, "Amen I" furtherat remarks the Learned
Counsel proceeded to comment length on the evidence
brought in support ofthe proosecf
wuthiointtin the order in which
it 'KM -given. In speaking
Place before the
proctor and the -stirregate, he said that tkuthat which had
ar.pilr., and he
deceiaied them
~ had deceived
stood in the same position as they Mr mph, Parkes stated that on going with Mr Birch' jee°e-
tci Mr. Barber's, three :days, after the charge was'
made, he
tbund a number of *Os raulsed "Stmart'spapecopwitick.,

Mr. E. JAMES then proceeded to address the jury for Mrs.
Dorey. He asked them, looking at the confession which his
client had made, whether that document showed a guilty
participation in the subject-matter of the present charge.
The criminal law of the land was clear on the subject, and it
was also compatible with common sense, and with natural
justice. It was not only necessary to prove participa-
tion in the crime charged, but also participation in
it, with felonious and guilty knowledge at the time that
the crime charged was intended to be committed. That was
the law of the land on the subject, and as such it was laid
down in a recent case by Mr. Justice Patteson, in the
clearest terms. He alluded to the case of the Queen v.
Crews, 8 Carrington and Payne, 541, where the party ac-
cused was criminal ; but as it was not proved that
ho had a guilty knowledge of the intention to commit
the crime at the time, Mr. Justice Patteson decided
that guilty participation was not proved. There was
therefore the highest authority for his position, that guilty
participation could not be proved unless guilty and felonious
knowledge of the intended crime at the time was also proved
It was necessary, therefore, to look at the precise part which
his client had taken in the matter. The Learned Gentleman
then referred severally to what he considered the main points
of the charge against his client, viz., her getting the letters
in the name of Jones—the visits to her mother—her asking
Griffin to be a bondsman—and her payment of 101. to Griffin.
and he contended that in not one of those acts had she any
knowledge that she was participating in any crime of fraud
or forgery. He did not appeal to any sympathy. The jury
might feel for the position of his client. He relied on the
justice of his case, and relying on that he now left the case in
their hands.

James Morris, a gardener and beadle, residing in Nelson-
square, was then called, and proved that Mr. Barber carried
on business at the house No. 52, in that square. He had not
noticed a plate with Barber's name on it till within a year
or so ago.
Robert Peckham examined—Was managing clerk to Mr.
Brunnel, of 5, Belgrave-buildings, Gray's Inn. Had been
In the employment of Mr. Barber for seven years up to the
Ist ofJanuary last, three weeks after Mr. Barber's arrest.
There was a diary kept in the office of the business trans-
acted. It lay on the table for the daily insertion of entries,
Aa nf
tde was
tahsa open to o
ft he
ui
gun sps et t on o,f
fl
rt. h k
Fletcher
e cl ers inc
at
ihl
ee
do ffice.
fre-
quently at the office, and often daily. Fletcher became a
client of Barber's in the autumn of 1838 or 1839. Witness
was on very intimate terms with Mr. Barber, and never saw
anything like close intimacy between Mr. Barber and Flet-
cher. Mr. Barber always treated Mr. Fletcher with great
coolness. In the year 1839 witness left the employment of
Mr. Barber for another situation, but returned after a short
period to his old employment. There were six cases within
his knowledge in which unclaimed dividends had been re-
covered. One was a case in which unclaimed dividends to
the amount of 1,5001., standing in the name of Mr. George
Robins, were recovered through the instrumentality of Air.
Barber.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GFNERA.f..—Heard
from general report that Mr. Barber had two children, but
rhiaedd
.n
Witness
lge a fa
tt
hh
eart
wi t
asw asch
iseof.
waMrerh.
oßarbetnranwa..snnohtemar
em-
ployment of the Apothecaries'
Company, and was' in their
employment thirty years.
J. Macnamara, who had been a cleconserk intiMuern.
ceßawasrber'ealincffiiteed.e'
was next examined, but nothing of
Several witnesses to character were then called for Mr.
Barber.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
GUILDHALL.

Mr. Thomas Holcroft, son of the dramatist, was
charged by Captain Polhill with detaining some
manuscripts containing his autobiography.
Sir PETER LAURIE, the sitting magistrate, said he
had no jurisdiction in the matter, and he hoped the
parties would come to an amicable arrangement.
Captain Polhill stated that his acquaintance with
Mr. Holcroft commenced behind the scenes at Drury-
lane. Mr. Holcroft attending the theatre as a re-
porter, managers were desirous to propitiate the press,
and a pleasant intimacy sprung up between them.
About two years ago Mr. Holcroft called, found him
engaged in writing, and inquired what he was about.
He told Mr. Holcroft he had written his life, but it
required editing. Mr. Holcroft looked at it, said it
was very amusing, and kindly undertook to prepare it
for the press. The manuscript was received by him,
and he had kept it ever since. On the Ist of Fe-
bruary the captain, after repeated applications to
know when the work was likely to make its appear-
ance to the world, and having waited two years,
wrote to Mr. Holcroft, requesting that the manu-
script should be returne'l. Mr. Holcroft replied, that
he had not bound himself to prepare the work by any-
specific time; that he had, had much business on his
hands; that he had marked a number of passages for
amendment and consideration, and that he was will-
ing to return the manuscript on payment of 501. for
the labour he had bestowed on it. This sum Captain.,
Polhill thought was not due, under the circumstances,
and he claimed to have his property restored to him.
Mr. Holcroft replied he had bestowed considerable;
attention on the manuscript, and he considered him-
self entitled to 501., or he would engage to complete
the redaction of the work in two months for 100/..'
This surely ought to satisfy the captain, a-
ginal understanding was that they should share the
amount the publisher might agree to give.
Captain Polhill denied there was any contract. His.
proposition was, to refer the value of Mr. Holcroft's
literary labours to a third person.
Mr. Holcroft declined to have his labour ancE
talents subjected to 'valuation in this way. He was
willing to finish the work, which he could do in sill
weeks, provided he got 1001. for his trouble.
Sir PETER, who had previously been informed, in.
answer to a question by Captain Polhill, that tho
book would contain an account of all the captain's:
experience in the green room, on the hustings, and int
the House of Commons—expressed his anxiety to.
read the book. He thought the matter might be re-;
ferred to the arbitration of Mr. Jerdan, of the Lite.
rary Gazette. He recommended Mr. Holcroft t(
finish his editorial task, adding that there could be Iv t
doubt the captain and he would satisfactorily adjus
their differences, and that he (Sir Peter) would, i
necessary, act as a friend between them. This,cours
was assented to by both parties, who thanked the
worthy magistrate for his friendly offices, and theta
withdrew.

Mr. Choones examined—Had been a solicitor for the last
40
years. Mr. Barber had been a clerk in his office for sixtn
years, during the latter part of which time he was. ear-
ticled clerk. His character for honesty and propriety was
unquestionable, and it was in consequence of his good cha-
racter and services to witness that he became articled to him.
Mr. C. Brady, surgeon, knew Mr. Barber between nine
and ten years, during which time he bore a high character
for honesty and propriety of conduct.
Mr. 111‘ Namara, pleader in the Inner Temple ; Mr. G. Pil-
chard, surgeon ; Mr. Johnson, and a considerable number of
other respectable gentlemen bore like testimony to the good
character borne by Mr. Barber.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, and said that much
had been urged by Mr. Wilkins which had nothing what-
ever to do with the case. His observations on the right of
the Crown prosecutor to reply, were quite beside any ques-
tion before the jilry. On every occasion ht (the Attorney-

'WV frolic Lowrom Ytottr-nAir StORNINCI; A.PAIL i!t_l4

fendants to the Vine-street station-house, where Mr.
Lumley made his charge. The defendants were re-
lemed on ball.

Mr. Robinson, the treasurer, said llanwell threw
down some bills. When the defendantswere in the
treasury they were asked what was their object in
ad•pting this course ? lianwell replied the object was
obvious ; it was to compel Mr. Lumley to engage M.
Salvi. The defendants said they, had undertaken to
distribute the bills at the request of Mr. Price, of No.
85, Jermyn-street. The defendants further admitted
that they had left some bills on the seats of the gal-
lery stalls. They said it was by accident the printer's
name had been left out of the bills. Witness knew
nothing about M. Salvi, nor hadlhe ever heard any
subscriber ask why he was not engaged.
Mr. Chambers, at great length, contended for the
right of the public to express in a theatre their appro-
bation or disapprobation of the performances or per-
formers, provided they did so in a peaceable way. He
considered that the distribution of bills such as those
given out in the theatre was not such an act as could
by_ any possibility lead to a breach of the peace. It
was in the recollection of the public that certain pro-
ceedings had takenplaee in the case of M. Tamburini.
There the parties who interested themselves in the
behalf of that eminent singer were, persons of high
and illustrious rank ; but no steps had been taken on
1 that occasion to charge them with a breach of the
peace, or to lodge them in the hands of the police for
doing what he contended they had a perfect right to
do, and what was far beyond the conduct of his
clients. The defendants were desirous of having an
opportunity of hearing an eminent man, such as they
understood M. Salvi was, and they had a just right
to make their wishes known, and to call upon the
manager to say why the public was not to have the
advantage of the talent of this individual. The
Learned Counsel, after reprobating the continental
system of introducing police •in places of public
amusement, concluded by declaring that nothing had
been offered in evidence to warrant the inference that
a breach of the peace was meditated, and that there-
fore the lessee was not justified in giving the defend-
ants into the custody of the police.
Mr. HARDWICK admitted the general right of the
public to indulge in any spontaneous act of applause
or disapprobation in a public theatre ; but could
not agree in the doctrine that, because one or two, or
' half-a-dozen persons might choose to say that they
would hear a particular singer or performer only,
that therefore they were justified in clamouring so as
to disturb the enjoyment of the mass of the audience.
Mr. Lumley, the lessee of her Majesty's Theatre,
pointed out the words " Memorable Tamburini de•
monstration,u in the bill, and obsetived -that on the
occasion referred to, not only great disturbance oc-
curred, but considerable destruction of property
ensued.

Mr. HARDWICK was of opinion, looking at the
particular character of the bill, and concurring that
the object of the parties in giving it publicity, was
to force the lessee to do that which he might not
think it to be either his interest or the interest of the
public to do, that the case was one which ought to
be submitied to a jury, He should, therefore, hold
the defendants to bail in 1001. in their own sureties,
and two sureties of 50/. each, to answer any indict-
ment for conspiracy which Mr. Lumley might choose
to prefer against them at the sessions.

plainaut was justified in the course he had adopfe I to
suppress the nuisance, there could be no doubt that
the defendant was entirely wrong in taking the law
into his own hands, and he should therefore require
him to pay the amount of the damage.
The defendant, with manifest reluctance, produced
the amount, and was discharged.