The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-12 00:00:00

Trio! her's. This (the gown produced by Forre,,ter) is
hat remains t.t. it. 1 gave it to 2u:rester.
Cross-examined by Mr. GREAVES—I was not ex-
anain,d before the Lord Mayor. I was applied to to give
evidence in March.
Cross-exatnined by Mr. J.ixEs.—The Saunders live in
Bristol.
M-. D. M'Pherson—l am a schoolimast:T at Cul-
lendar, in Scolland, and was session clerk there
in the year 1840. I remember receiving a letter
purporting to come from a person named Stewart. I
think I received three letters, but only retained one. I
think I must have destroyed the others. The letter
produced is the one I have kept.
Mr. Grattan was re-called, and state] that he be-
lieved the letter to be in Fletcher's hands riting, but he
could not be certain. Had he received such a fitter he
sheuld have acted upon it. It appeared there was some
disguise about it, but it was the character of Joshua ,
Fletcher's writing.
The letter was then put in and read. It we.; signed
" E. Stewart," and was dated Nov. 10, 1840, 1, South-
ampton row, Camberwell, and alluded to a previous letter
dated Nov. 3, requiring the marriage certificate ofJohn
and Elizabeth Stewart, 1756, inclosing a Post-oftic.:
order for 2/.
Mr. M•Pherson recalled—That was the third letter I
had received.
Mr. G REAVES —What did you do with the others ?
Witness—l believe I must have burned them.
Mr. G REAVES—Do you recollect what you did then at
all ? Witness—No. I received the first about a fortnight
before this letter came. My attention was directed to
the subject last January. 1 searched all the placts
where I usually keep papers.
By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I searched all placed
thoroughly where the session papers are kept. The
paper produced is my answer to one of those prior let-
ters. It is the answer to the second letter. It is di-
, vete& Mrs. Stewart, 1, Southampton-ten ace, Southamp-
ton-row, Camberwell, and the post mark is 9th Octo-
ber, 1840.
Mr. Barnes—l am solicitor to the Registrar-Gener*l
for Births, Marriages, and Deaths. In consequence of
these cases I went to Mr. Barber's offices with Mr.
Bircham on the first day of the examination at the
Mansion-house. I went to the office of Barber and
Bircham, and was present when this letter was found.
It was in a tin box up stairs with the parchment letters of
administration in the case of Stewart. The statement
of Mrs. Stewart was one of the papers ; also a letter of
Aug. 15, 1840, from Mr. Pott, Doctors'-commons, and the
proctor's bill of costs in the administration of J. Stewart.
They were all delivered to Mr. Freshfield. (The letter
of M'Pherson was then put in and read. It was dated
the 2d of October. It acknowledged the receipt of the
letter, and inclosed a certificate of the marriage ofJohn
and Janet Stewart. The letter stated that the writer
could not comply with the request which had been made
to him to alter the documents, as by the laws of Scot-
land he should be liable to punishment, and to be de-
nuded of his office.)
Mr. Barnes, cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS —I
found these documents tied up in the usual manner in
which they would be tied up in an attorney's office.
e4Mr. M'Pherson recalled—The desire of the writer of
the second letter was that, in the certificate of the mar-
riage of John and Janet Stewart, I should change the
name Janet into Jane, and the reason given
was, that Jane was the word used in England
for Janet. On receiving the first - letter, I
had written to state that I had found the entry of the
marriage of John and Janet Stewart, and then came the
letter asking for the certificate, and suggesting that I
should make the alteration. The name- of Stewart is
common in the parish of Callendar, and several parishes
around. It is the name of the family of the Earl of

Moray.
Cross-examined by Mr. GREAVES—The date (4' the
certificate was January, 1756. Ido nut recollect the
words of the letter.

By Mr. Baron GURNEY—Applications are ffequently
made to me for certificates. 1 never on any former oc-
casion recieved 21. for one.

Edmund Keine—l am clerk to Mr. Potts the proctor.
I remember Fletcher coming to our office in July or
August, 1840. He was accompanied by an old lady.
He gave instructions for letters of administra-
tion for the effects of John Stewart deceased.
I asked him who he was recommended by. He said he
knew Mr. Potts. He did not mention his own name.
He said the female was the sister of deceased. There
is a printed affidavit entered at the Stamp-titee, in
which there are blanks for the name of the person
deceased. I made inquiries of him to fill up
the blanks. This was done in the presence of
the elderly female. She took no part in it. I
prepared the usual document showing the relationship
of the propoied adminiAratrix to the deceased. The
document produced is the one which I fillei up from the
instructions of Fletcher.

Cross-examined by Mr. GREAVES—I never saw Flet-
cher before, but I saw him three times afterwards. I
have been at the Mansion-house, but I etas not ex-
amined. Mr. Potts, my employer, was.
(The Stamp-office affidavit was then put in and read.
It purported to bs the affidavit of Elizabeth Stewart,
sister of John Stewart, deceased. The property was
sworn as under 1,5001.)
Examination resumed—l told Mr. Fletcher that a
bond must be entered into, and that sureties would be
required. He gave me the name of Thomas Griffin as one
of the sureties. Fletcher was told an affidavit would be
required to account for the delay. I accordingly pre-
pared this affidavit from Fletcher's instructions. (The
affidavit which purported to be the affidavit of Elizabeth
Stewart was read. It stated that deponent had been
residing in New York, and had not heard of her brother's
death until the month of May preceding.)
Examination resumed—Mr. Fletcher asked me if I
could proctre another surety, and, al I thought there
was no risk, I consented to procure a surety to join with
Miss Stewart and Griffin. The duty paid was 451. I
prepared the bond. I afterwards prepared another affi-
davit, the first one being insufficient. I prepired the
second one from instructions received from Mr. Fletcher,
and afterwards from Mr. Barber. I accompanied Mr.
Pott, with the administratrix and iFletcher, to the Sur-
rogate. I afterwards accompanied Fletcher and the lady
to the Prerogative office. My brother-in•law was to be
the joint surety. The lady signed the bond. Griffin
was not there. On the 3d of August I paid the duty,
and therefore should say the bond must hare been com-
pletely executed before that date. I brought my brother-
in-law to the office, and saw him execute it. I lodged
the documents with the clerk of the seal. He then sent
to me, and objected to the sufficiency of the affidavit.
The registrar declined to receive the first affidavit. A
letter was written to the administratrix on the subject,
and requiring further instructions. I again saw Fletcher,
and received instructions to prepare the second affidavit.
Fletcher said he understood there was a box in the pos-
session of the clergyman of Great Marlow, and the
clerk of the seal directed that application should be
made, to ascertain if the box contained any will.
Fletcher said he understood there was no will. The affi-
davit was drawn and again objected to, and Mr. Fletcher
sent Mr. Barber. He was informed what was required,
and from him we received instructions. This is a draft
of the affidavit objected to by the registrar, and after-
wards perfected in red ink. These ara the written in-
structions I received from Mr. Barber. The draft of the

affidavit is signed by Elizabeth Stewart and Thomas
Griffin. I required the signatures to Le placed to the
draft because it was a peculiar case, and in order tht.t
the parties might be cognizant of the faAs, and beeau-e
the rogistrara will no', in general look at drat', atlda, its.
Fletcher brought back the affidavit signed as approved.
I submitted it to the clerk of the seal and the registrar.
I received it back with the objections from time to time,
and at length it was perfected. App ica.ion was ma le
to the adwinistratrix to apply to the clergyman of Great
Marlow in order to ascertain if there was any will. (The
letter of Mr. Pott to Mrs. Stewart on this subject, which
was found at Barber's, was put in and read.) Fletch-r
called again, and was informed of the circumstances, and
promised that application should be made. On a pre-
vious occasion he had said be would send his solicitor,
Mr. Barber, a very shrewd clever nun. After that Mr.
Barber called. The circumstances were explained to
him, and he said he would furnish us with the necessary
instructions. Mr. Putt said he was happy to
see a professional man, and asked who Mr.
Fletcher was. Mr. Barber said be was a man of
high respectability and large prospects. Mr. Barber
called a second time and brought the written instritc!ions
and the letter, with the burial certificate. The affidavit
was then prepared, laid before the registrar, and sworn.
This is the affidavit. There Were also some certificates
of baptism brought by Mr. Barber, and annexed to the
affidavit. (The certificates of baptism were put in and
read. One was the baptism of James, the son of Robert
and Jane Stewart, 1761, and the other of Elizabeth,
daughter of Robert and Jane Stewart, born 1765. Both
were from the parish of Maryieboni,. The affidavit of
Elizabeth, Stewart was then put in and read. It stated
that Elizabeth Stewart had not heard of her brother's
death until she heard of it from a Mr. Jones, who had
come home with him from America.) I never heard
Fletcher mentioned by any other name than that of
Fletcher. The eldeily woman and Griffin came
together to swear the affidavit. I do not remember
that Barber came upon the occasion of the swearing the
affidavit. The administration was sent to Mr. Barber.
Cross-examined by Mr. GaE4vEs—Fletcher accom-
panied the old lady the first time she came to the office.
I have been speaking rather from what is my ordinary
practice in cases of administration than from any recol-
lection of what passed. The affidavit was read over to
Griffin. He appeared to understand it. He asked no
questions. There were many persons present when the
affidavit was sworn. The clerk of the sealis the attesting
witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wil.xiss —I did not see any
thing of Barber until after the second affidavit was re
quired. I should not have supplied Fletcher with a
security if I had not believed him to be a respectable
man. 'The transaction appeared to be conducted in a
proper manner. I did not go to Mr. Barber's office at all.
Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES—Giving a bond is a
mere matter of form.
At the conclusion of this witness's examination, the
Court was adjourned till this morning.

D rTuesday
, inwteheek afenneurneul seufalmsacsetnereG
presentedrenv eist:
i son of Mr. Greaves, of Droitwich. This interesting
Solomonw
child was wall known in this county as a regular at-
tendant with the Westwood troop of Queen's Own. Yeo-
manry, when on duty, wearing a corporal's uniform,
riding a diminutive pony, and haviatr, all the trappings
pertaining to such an officer in the Yeomanry. He was
buried with military honours, having been followed to
his early grave by a guard of twelve privates of the regi-
ment to which he was attached.— Worcester Journal.
ACCIDENT ON TIIE RIVER..-..TWO LIVES LOST."...
On Tuesday evening, between nine and ten o'clock, a boat.
in which were four young men and two females, was upset a
short distance from the Thames Tunnel, and two of the men,
named Roberts, aged 22,.and.James Green, aged 28, were
drowned. The others were saved. The party were returning
from Greenwich fair.