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

TH.E WILLS. FORGERIES.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Continued frOna our Afternoon Edition of Saturday.)
Mr. GnEAVEs then proceeded to address - the jury in de-
fence of Fletcher. He 'commenced by adverting to the diffie
collies with which the jury had- to deal in a case of so
complicated a nature as the present, and pointed out that the
evidence was not to be considered in the same wey . ae 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 be 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
admitteAl, 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 beet 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 Tight 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,
anercoritended that the evidence which had been brought to
prove that John Stewart was a native of Scotland had failed,
and there was nothing adduced which should lead to the
belief that Jelin Stewart was not born in Marylebone.
There had been no such direet 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 lie 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 stimu-
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 net 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 same 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.
Mr. E. James,then proceeded to address the jury for Mrs.
Dorey. He askedthem, 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
justice.
ntLeein Itthow" .crime
teas also compatible with common sense, and with natural
it, with felonious nd
riot only
charged, but
alsoto ppraoret-eieippaatrtioicnipta.h-
the crime Charged was
case
intendedteg ulairlgtye 'ktnotsbwel knowledge
maittt thee d. timeprh a t thatwas
ebsvubjleiert,
the law of the lend ona iota:was h laidth e
down in a recentand as
se
. P. sucha
tt e
clearest terms.- He alluded to .
Crews, 8 Carrington and ed to the case of the Queen le
was criminal ; Payne,bu 541,. where_ the party ac-
cused.
he . had a guilty knowled e
asof ith was not proved that
the crime -at . the time, • qale. jtuste-i, intention to commit
that guilty ' participation wee, not e Patteson decided
therefore the highest authority for' hieprov9d. There was.
participation could not be proved unless guilty
that guilty .
knowledge of the intended crime at the time Zaral felonious
It.was necessary, therefore, to look at the precise ,psao4.7d .
Ws Tillt had taken in the matter. The Learned Gentleman
tlien-referred severally to what he Considered the main lxdutsa
'of the clearge.itgainst his client, viz:, her getting the letters
in the trame.ofJonese—, the visits to her mother—her asking
' Griinn:tp he A. liondemen—and her payment of 101. to Griffin,
and 'he contended that in not one-;of those acts had. she any
'knowledgethat 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
theii hands.... • -
... _ . .
_,.. e
residing in elson-
James ;Dorris, a gardener and beadle, .
square, iysii then called, and preyed 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 of January 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,
and was open to the inspection of all the clerks in the office.
After the 25th of August, 1840, Mr. Fletcher called 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 Mr.
Barber.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Heard
froin general report that Mr. Barber had two children, but
had no knowledge that it was so. Mr. Barber was not mar-
ried. Witness's father was chief warehouseman in the em-
ployment of the Apothecaries' Company, and was in their
employment thirty years.
J. Macnamara, who had been a clerk in Mr. Barber's office,
was next examined, but nothing of consequence was elicited.
Several witnesses to character were then called for Mr.
Barber.
Mr. Choones examined—Had been a solicitor for the last 40
years. Mr. Barber had been a clerk in his office for sixteen
years, during the latter part of which time he was an ar-
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. M'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.
Tha ArromemY-GesettAL 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 jury. On every occasion he (the Attorney-
General) should be able to vindicate that right, after wit-
nesses had been called for the defence, in common with any
other prosecuting counsel. If any one had a right to com-
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
Mrs. 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
everythinginot 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
Friend,
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
601. 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 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 j ury couldj udge for themselves whether the 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 Menday (this day).

SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS.
MR. W. COULSTOCK, APPELLANT, THE MAGISTRATES

OF THE CROYDON DIVISION, RESPONDENTS.

This was an appeal against a decision of the bench
of magistrates at Croydon, refusing the appellant a
license to retail spirit. at the Railway Tavern, in the
Addiscombe-road, near to the Brighton Railway Ter..:
minus. The case occupied the Court from ten in the
morning till eight at night, and from the circum-
stances connected with it created- a great deal of in-
terest. _ _

Messrs Wollidger and Knapp were for the appel-
lant; and Mr. Montague Chambers and Mr. Taylor
appeared on behalf of the Croydon bench.
The grounds on which the license was claimed.
were, that it would be a great accommodation to.
parties travelling by the railway, who had occasion.
to alight at Croydon, and the Directors of the.
Brighton Railway expressed their opinion to that
effect. A number of witnesses were called, who
stated their opinion to the effect that the granting of
a license would be really an accommodation to the
public, and that the house was required. Evidence.
was given to show that the house was commodiously,
fitted up, and in every way calculated for the recep-
tion of visitors, and to give them the accommodation
required. It should be stated that a great many of
the witnesses were railway clerks, and persons ac-
quainted with Mr. Coulstock.
Upon the other hand it was contended, in support
of the decision of the bench, that the house in question
was not required ; and it was also urged that there
was another licensed house, the William the Fourth,
kept by Mr. Laing, within a very short distance, and
that two houses were not necessary. The petition of
the other licensed victuallers of the town was also put
in against the license, and it represented that, owing
to the decrease of traffic occasioned by the railway,
they were at present only with difficulty able to get
a living, and that it was impossible for another li•
censed house to be required for to be advantageous to
the public.
After a great many witnesses had been examined
on both sides, _ _

'The COURT decided upon allowing the appeal, and
directed the license to be granted forthwith.

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,
ana he has kept it ever sinee. On the I:st-4 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 returned. Mr. Holcroft replied, that
he had not bound himself to prepare the work by any
specific time; that he had had much busine.s 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 50/., or he would engage to complete
the redaction of the :work in two months for 1001.
This surely ought to satisfy the captain, as their ori-
ginal understanding was that they should share the
amount the publisher might agre6 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 and
talents subjected to valuation in this way. He was
willing to finish the work, which he could do in *six
weeks, provided he got 100/. for his trouble.
Sir PETER, who had previously been informed, in
answer to a question by Captain Polhill, that the
book would contain an account of all the captain's
experience in the green room, on the hustings, and in
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 to
finish his editorial task, adding that there could be' no
doubt the captain and he would satisfactorily adjust
their differences, and that he (Sir Peter) would, if
necessary, act is a friend between them. This course
was assented to by both parties, who thanked the
worthy magistrate for his friendly.. offices; and then
withdrew.

CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.
Yesterday, a dwarfish looking personage, of the
tattle of Joseph Bellamy, described as "one of her