The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-10 00:00:00

appears evidently to lie, -that there is a vio-
lent
~and daring party which is 'animated with
p. strong. feeling of rancorous suspicion. against
King Ferdinand, and which has declared opmi.
war against the present • Ministers of ' Spain.
The King has addressed a Message to the Cortes,
in which he calls their attention, " in the bitter-

ness of his heart," to the outrageous .manner in
which the Royal Authority had been ttampled
under foot at Cadiz, under pretence of zeal for
the Constitution. The answer of the Cortes is
firm and conciliatory, and studiously impresses'
upon the nation the sentiment that the rights of
the Crown and the personal consideration of the
Sovereign are essential to the rights and liberties
of the people.

OLD BAILEY, DEC.' 8.

ALLEGED FORGERY OF A WILL.

THOMAS SAXLEBYE, a man of most respectable and vener.
able appearance (seventy years of age), was this morning put to

the bar to take his trial before a London Jury, upon an indict-
ment charging him with making and forging, and afterwards
uttering as irue, a certain will and testament, purporting to be
the last will and testament of * Thomas Robinson, deceased,
(who had died intestate and possessed of great personal pro-
perty), at St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf, in the city of London,
with intent to defraud Thomas Robinson, the Rev. William

Herne and wife, William Sweeney, and wife, and others, the
surviving next of kin of the said Thomas Robinson deceased,
on the 20th of September last.
There appeared as counsel. for the prosecution Mr. ADOL-
PHUS and Mr. BRODERICK; and fora the prisoner •Mr. Ser-
geant Hum.ocx, Mr. PARK, Mr. CURWOOD, and Mr.
FINDALT..
The prisoner having
.been arraigned, and pleaded " Not
Guilty," and the Jury having been sworn,
Mr. BRODERICK opened the indictment, which comprised
several counts, and -
Mr. ADOLPHUS proceeded to detail the circumstances to the
Jury. -The crime imputed to the prisoner, he said, was that
of intending, by forgery, to deprive those entitled by law to the
succession of theproperty of which the late Mr. T. Robinson
had died possessed of their right. it was 'neither his duty nor
inclination, he said,' to lead the Jury one step towards a con=
elusion in this case, or to offer a remark in aggravation of the
facts which he should submit to their consideration in evi-
dence. The circumstances which led to the present proceeding
were these :—ln •the year 1815 there lived at Hull a gentleman
of the name of Thomas Robinson. He was a bachelor, about
28 years of age, possessed of very considerable property, from
15 to 20,0001. - Being a bachelor, he lived with • his mo-
ther-in-law. This lady was a widow at the time his father had
married her, but she was not his mother. Upon the death of
his father, Mr. Thomas Robinson succeeded to all his pro-
perty, with the exception of an annuity of 2501. per annum,
which *as charged upon the estate during the life of his mother-
in-law, and which she ,enjoyed. About the beginning of May,
1815, this Gentleman was seized with a disease which, .in the
' end, terminated his existence.. Immediately after his death,
his mother-in-law made the most diligent search, in every part
of the house, in the expectation of finding a will. For a long
time it was suppdsed he, had died intestate ; but at length a
paper was found, on which were written, in the hand-writing of
the deceased, a memorandum, stating his desire " that all the
property of-which he should die possessed should be dedicated to
Mrs. Eliz, "Robinson, his late father's relick." This paper was
sent up, to Doctors' Commons, and attempted to be proved as the
will of the deceased, early in the month ofJune,l3ls. Upon this
document it appeared that a suit was instituted ; but, as it would
be,-proved, after some time a notice was served upon Mrs.
Robinson's proctor, Announcing that the Court had decided'
that this paper could not in any sense be considered as a will,
arid that, unless a will or some testamentary paper were pro-
duced on or before the sth of September, a decree would be
issued, declaring that the deceased had died intestate, and that
the next of kin would be admitted to the' a.dministration of the
effects. By this decree, the- mother-in-laid, who was not the
next of kin, would of course be deprived of the possession of the
property, and all her views and hopes with respect to the suc-
cession 'would be fiustrated. In this state things remained
until almost the last moment prescribed by the notice in -ques-
tion, namely, until the -3(1 of September, when there came from
the hands of Mr. Saxleby, the prisoner, a paper, which had
been set forth in the indictment, and which was to this effect :
" The whole of my property I wish to give to my mother-in-
law, if she survives me. With respect to my uncle (who, it
would seem, had been guilty of some bad conduct, I hope she
will be good to hint when she finds it necessary.
(Signed) I " TIIOMAS ROBINSON."
This paper, so opporthnely -produced, was the paper which
the prosecutors charged to be a forgery by Mr. Saxlebye, utter-
ed by him at Doctors' Commons, for the corrupt purpose of
gaining the property.described for the mother-in:law.
Several witnesses were then called to prove that the signature,
" Thomas Robinson," was not' in the hand-writing of the de-
ceased; but, 'on cross-examination, they almost- all completely
neutralized their evidence by hesitations, amounting to admis-
sions that it might be in his hand-writing. One of these wit-
nesses was observed, during his evidence, to keep his eye on the
attorney for the prosecution, Mr. Rushworth, who, stood up op-
posite to him. Mr. Baron . Garrow ordered Rushworth to sit
down. _ _ _ . _

The prisoner, on being called on for his defence, put in a writ-
ten paper ; in which he reiterated the statement made in his
deposition produced from Doctors' Commons ; stated his per-
fect readiness on all occasions to meet his accusers, and added,

that he had now surrendered to take his trial.
A great number of witnesses were then called, who not only
swore positively to the alleged forgery being the hand-writing
of Mr. Robinson, deceased, but distinctly contradicted the evi-
dence of many of the witnesses for the prosectition—Troved the
friendly connexion which subsisted between the deceased and
Mr. Saxlebye, and the fact of his having been with the de-
ceased alone on Sunday, the 30th of November. In addition
to this, several persons of high respectability bore testimony to
the unimpeachable honour and integrity of the prisoner in all
his transactions in life.
The Jury now declared themselves satisfied, without hearing
any further evidence.
Mr. Justice BAILEY perfectly concurred in the propriety. of
this decisiOn ; and said that, on comparing his notes with the
speech of the Learned Counsel whoh ail opened this case, he observ-
ed that there was not a proposition which he had advanced which
he had not failed to support by evidence, or in which he had not
been satisfactorily contradicted. He wasunwillingtointerrupt the
Counsel for the prisoner, however, as he was desirous that it
should appear, not that the unfortunate man had merely escaped
from the consequences of this indictment, but that he was en-
titled to be reinstated in the same honourable situation of life
which he had held previous to his being placed at the bar.
The Jury said they were satisfied of the perfect innocence of
the prisoner, and immediately pronounced him—Not Guilty.
Mr. SHELTON, the clerk of the Court, now stated that there
was an indictment for perjury. against the prisoner upon the
same facts. After Siime hesitation on the part of the prosecu-
tor to proceed with this indictment till a future sessions; the
prisoner, by the recommendation of the Learned Judge, having
been in custody when the bill was found, demanded to take his
trial then' to which Mr. Baron Garrow, however late the hour,
expressed his willingness to attend. ,
. -Mr. BRODERICK, for the prosecution, now stated that he
should decline calling any witnesses, and the Jury having been
charged, they again pronounced a verdict of—Not'Guilty.