The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-01 00:00:00

THE WILLS FORGERIES.

MANSION-HOUSE.-(THIS DAY.)
This morning having been fixed for the re-examination
of the persons charged with being concerned in the late ex-
tensive wills forgeries, the Court was crowded m soon as the
doors were opened. The Lord Mayor took his seat upon the
bench shortly after eleven o'clock, and almost immediately
afterwards William Henry Barber, Joshua Fletcher, Thomas
Grilin, and Georgian Dorey, were brought up in the custody
of } orester, the officer. The male prisoners were placed in the
dock, and the female prisoner was accomodated wit 4 a seat
at the table.

Mr. Freshfield, the solicitor, attended on behalf of the pro-
secution; Mr. Parry appeared for the prisoner Barber; Mr.
Humfrev, the solicitor, tier Fletcher, and Mr. Wolff, the clerk
to Mr. plower, of Hatton-garden, for Mrs. Dorey.
Mr. Freshfield intimated that he did not intend to offer any
additional evidence.

. Mr. Parry said, he understood from Mr. Freshfield that it
was not the intention of the prosecution to offer any fresh
evidence. He had stated on a former occasion that he be-
lieved the prosecution .was suppressing .a case which,
if made public, would raise a strong presumption on
behalf of Mr. Barber. It had not been stated at the time
that Mr. Barber was not in any way connected with that
case. He now, however, stated, anti he trusted it would go
forth to the public, that Mr. Barber was not in any way con-
nected with the transaction to which he had alluded. He
wished that case to be brought forward, because it would ap-
pear that another solicitor had been entrapped in precisely
the same manner in which Mr. Barber had been entrapped.
A solicitor employed by the Government had been entrapped
—the standing counsel of the Bank had been entrapped—
the matter had been carried before one of the highest tri-
bunals in the country, and such had been the consummate
art displayed, that all parties had been deceived. With that
case Mr. Barber had not been in the remotest degree con-
nected. Mr. Barber's solicitor had been employed' in tracing
out the facts, and had communicated all the information he
could obtain on the subject to the prosecution, but Mr Fresh-
field had not thought it right to bring the case forward.
The last fortnight had been consumed in making these in-
quiries, and there had not been time to prepare Mr. Barber's
defence; he therefore asked for a remand over the ensuing
Sessions:

Mr. Fresh&ld denied that there had been any desire on
the part of the prosecution to suppress anything. With re-
gard to the case of Mary Hunt, Mr. Barber's then solicitor
was in possession of all the circumstances of that case two
months ago. If Mr. Phillips, who had been called for the
proscution, was aware of circumstances favourable for the
defence, whose fault was it that those circumstances had not
been elicited upon cross-examination? With respect to the
supposed case of forgery to which Mr. Parry had alluded,
the evidence amounted to this, that a person residing at a
house, in the name of a person who had made an affidavit,
denied that she had made such affidavit. That was all the
evidence in the case. His own supposition was, that a for-
gery had been committed ; he believed he knew by whom that
forgery had been committed, and that individual was dead.
Mr. Barber was not in any way connected with the case, and
he could not see how it could possibly assist Mr. Barber to have
that case gone into. If the request for a remand had been
founded simply on the circumstance that there had not been
time to prepare the defence, he should not have objected to
it, nor did he object to it if it could be proved that delay was
necessary.
The LORD MAYOR thought he should hot be justified in
consenting to a further remand, unless he had the consent
not only of the prosecutors but of the other prisoners.
Mr. Humfrev, on -behalf of Fletcher, would not oppose the
application under the circumstances.

Mr. Wolff; on the part of Mrs. Dorey, gave a very reluc-
tant consent..

Mr. Parry then called Mr. Brumall, the solicitor to Mr: Bar-
ber who was then examined by Mr. Parry—and deposed that in
order to conduct Mr. Barber's defence it was necessary to call
witnesses from various parts of the country; that he had not
had time to subpoena one half of them, and that there was
one most material who was he believed keeping out of the
way, in order to prevent his being subpcenaed.
Mr. Freshfield having expressed his acquiescence,
The Low) lleLtroit remanded the prisoners till the 23d
March.

The depositions of the witnesses in the case of Mary Hunt
having been read, the prisoners were taken back to the
Compter in custody of the Foresters.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY).
The House sat to-day to hear appeals The Peers present
were Lord Brougham, Ldrd Cottenhatn, and Lord Campbell.

BYRON V. COOPER.

The further arguments in thispart-heard tithe case were re-
sumed, and occupied their Lordships the whole day.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
- The Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn-hall to-day.
" WASTELL V. LESLIE.—JUDGMENT.
• The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which was heard before his Lordship some time since
upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of
-England. His Lordship said that the principal question in
the case was, as to the mode in which the testator's debts
were to be provided for, whether they were to be paid out
of the corpus of the estate, or out of the income, so as to
fall upon the tenant for life. The Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land decided that they were to be paid out of the income,
and from that decision the present appeal was brought.
Now in his Lordship's opinion whether the debts were to be paid
out of the corpus or the income of the estate depended upon
the nature of the property, And the terms and construction
of the testator's will. The will was to this effect ;-,--The pro-
perty in question was an old established lunatic asylum at
Hoxton. The testator becoming embarrassed in his circum-
stances, made over his property to trustees, in the first place to
pay his debts,lbut reserving to his widow 7001. a-year, after, his.
death. 137 his Will he charged his real estate with the pay-
ment of his debts, and in the event of that not being suffi-
cient, then the personal estate was to make up the deficiency.
He then disposed, of the 7001., and he gave two lega-
cies' one of 3,000/. to Amelia Smith, and another.
of 5001. to Jonathan Smith, his son ; and he also gave two
' annuities, one to Amelia Smith of 8001., and the other to
Jonathan of 1001., directing that they should be paid out of
this property; and he then devised this concern to, trustees,
the defendants in the suit, upon various trusts. The first was to
pay out of the property his debts and legacies, and for that
purpose to raise, by way of mortgage, and in no other xnan-
! net, the sum of 4,000/. He directs the trustees to car*" on
t the concern, and'also to employ 'Mr. Wastell, who had h.'-
. therto conducted it, At the same salary ; but, in the
event of his not choosing to do so, they are
'to procure another competent person for that pur-
-1 pose. .He directs the usual accounts of the concern,
as hitherto taken, to be continued, and the expenses to be
provided for out of the profits, and the surplus to be handed
ever to the trustees, who are to invest it ; and out of the in-
terest and profits of the concern the two annuities are to
be paid, and the surplus was given over to Wastell.
for life, subject to certain annuities on certain events to his
' two granddaughters, the children of Wastell. Now, under
these circumstances, the question at issue depended upon the
nature of the property, and the rule adopted by the Court
in .'such cases. The rule ,of the Court was, where
property. was of a permanent character, yielding an
annual income, in the • case where it was charged
with debts and an interest given for life to any individual
and remainders over, the tenant for life kept down
the interest of the debt, and the debt itself was placed upon
!the
,corpus of the estate. , The question then was, whether
'this property was permanent or not. His Lordship was of opi-
linen that It was. It was an old establishment yielding 4,000/.
a-year ; it had gone on for a long time doing so, and there was
no reason to suppose that it would fail. Then the next question
lwas whether there was anything in the will to induce the
Court to depart from the usual course in cases of this kind,
it did not appear to his Lordship that there was ; and upon
'the whole, after a most careful consideration of all the eir-
icumstances of the case, his Lordship, considering the jadg-
'meat below to be correct, ordered it to be affirmed, and the
appeal dismissed with costs. .

,VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the whole
:day with unopposed petitions and short causes of no general
interest.