The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-20 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—SHREWSBURY, Auo. 17.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN this morning took his seat
at nine o'clock ; but in consequence of only two
special jurymen 'appearing, the commencement of
business was delayed till ten o'clock, the parties be-
ing anxious for a full Special Jury. Mr. Baron
Vaughan inquired for the summoning officer; but it
appeared that he was gone out to summon a Jury
on a commision of lunacy. A third special jury-
man having appeared, a tales was then prayed, and
the following interesting trial proceeded :

DOE, LEM. LLOYD, V. EVANS.
Mr. CROSS opened the pleadings, stating that
this was an actien of ejectment to recover the pos-
session of the manor and estate of Hendwr, in the
county of Merioneth.

Mr. TAUNTON (with whom was also Mr. CAMP-
BELL and Mr. RICHARDS), in commencing his ad-
dress, stated he attended them on behalf of Richard
Walmsley Lloyd,Esq., a young gentleman only a few
years of age, to recover the possession of a manor
and estate, called Hendwr, situated in the county
of Merioneth. He preferred his claim under the
will of Mrs. Catherine Lloyd. The property now
in dispute belonged formerly to a gentleman named
Giwn Lloyd, a person not only of considerable pro-
perty, but of an ancient and respectable family. He
died in 1774, having been in possession of the
estate in question during the whole of his life. He
had married in the year 1746 Miss Sarah Hill, a
member of that highly esteemed and respectable fa-
mily, the Hills, of Hawkestone, in this county. By
her he had no issue; and when he died a monu-
ment was erected to his memory, in which. his mar-
riage was commemorated, and hi was stated to
have died without issue. On his death he was suc-
ceeded in the possession of his estate by hie. two
maiden sisters, Catherine and Mary Lloyd. Cathe-
rine died in 1787, when in possession of the estate
(having received the rents, and (lone other acts suffi-
cient to prove leer seizin), leaving a rill, ,l.)y which
she bequeathedber moiety of the property to J. Lloyd
as tenant for life, with remainder to R. IL Lloyd,
with remainder in tail to the sons of that Richard
Hughes Lloyd ; and the present lessor of the plaintiff
claimed as the son of the person last mentioned.
These estates for life to John Lloyd and Richard
Hughes Lloyd did not expire till December, 1825,
because John Lloyd, the first tenant for life, did not
die till that period, and on his death the remainder
in tail came first into possession ; and it was not
possible for the plaintiff to assert his title till the
estate was vested for life. As soon, however, as
it did vest, ,the present ejectment was instituted.
The lessor of the plaintiff claimed as remainder man
under the will of Catherine Lloyd, not the whole,
but the undivided moiety, as Catherine Lloyd could
only give away by her will her portion of the pro-
perty. Having thus briefly stated the claim of the
plaintiff, he (Mr. Taunton) thought it necessary to
state against whom this ejectment was brought, and
by what means possession of this estate had been
transferred from the family of the Lloyds to the fa-
mily of the Passinghams—the substantial defendant
being Colonel John Passingham, and the other de-
fendants his tenants, with whom he had joined (very
properly) to defend these ejectments. After the
death of Mrs. Catherine Lloyd, a claim was pres
ferred on behalf of Colonel Passingham and his bro-
ther, on the ground that Mr. Giwn Lloyd had been
married before he became the husband of Miss Hill,
and that there was lawful issue by that prior
marriage, a daughter, who afterwards married the
father of Colonel Passingham, and his brother.
Their parents were dead, and they claimed
as heirs at law in the character of the grand-
sons of Mr. Giwn Lloyd. The sole question
being whether Mr. Giwn Lloyd had been married
previous to his marriage with Miss, Hill, and whe-
ther the mother of the Passinghams was the lawful
issue of that marriage. In order to assert that
claim, an ejectment was brought and tried in that
very court, in the year 1794. It was brought
against Mrs. Mary Lloyd; and defended by her. The
late Lord Erskine and the present Mr. Baron Gar.
row, two of the ablest advocates of the (lay, were
retained for the respective parties : the cause was
tried, and a verdict found for Colonel Passingham
and his brother Robert, who both asserted their se-
parate claims. It would be necessary now (the
learned counsel said) for him to explain by what
means it happened that this verdict was given in
favour of the Passinghams, and how it happened dint
the verdict was not attempted to be set aside. In
those days applications to the Court above were not
so frequent as they were now ; a trial even of minor
importance seldom now occurred without appliea-
stijoonn, particular
made to the Court above, either on the
ground of misdirection by the Judge, or the admis-
Nhi h
Andpre
vented-
admis-
sion or non-admission of evidence. On that occa-
aarntyicualpaptlicelarteitrn circumstances
theanees occurred
Court above.v
he (Mr. Taunton) would undertake to satisfy the
Jury that the verdict that was then obtained was
obtained by means of fraud and forgery, He did
not mean to say that Colonel Passingham was im-
plicated in the slighest degree in that fraud or for-
gery, but he must say, that in the contrivance of that
fraud and forgery, his brother, Robert Passingham,
was the principal agentind assistant. The question
to be tried at that day was, whether Mr. Giwn Lloyd
was ever married to one Elizabeth Taylor, the grand-
mother of the Passinghams. In order to prove her
marriage, recourse was had to a species of evidence
always discountenanced, and now not received by the.
courts,—viz. an entry in a register supposed to be kept
in the Fleet;inLondon,which,prior to the Marriage Act,
had received some sanction ; but those registers being
long found to be the instruments of fraud and impos-
ture, the courts of law came to the conclusion that
they should not be received in evidence. To such
an extent was the imposition in these registers car-
ried, that they 'were even bought and Sold as a spe-
cies of merchandise, and could be brought forward at
any time, or by any one, to prove a marriage or le-
gitiniacy. On the trial in 1794 a register of that
description was offered and received in evidence by
one of the most Learned Judges who ever presided
on the Bench (Mr, Justice Heath); but the ge

nuineness of that register was supp:ted by attested
copies of the register of the parish of St. Pancras.
Those copies were produced and put in the usual
way on a slip of paper, by a person iwho alleged he
had examined them ; and as they betrayed no marks
of suspicion, no objection was made, and they were
received in evidence. In summing up to the Jury,
Mr. Justice Heath stated that if the case stood on
the register of marriage only, it would not be entitled
to credit, but (laying the whole stress of the case,on
the copies of the register) he said, when strengthen-
ed by them, the case came to their consideration
with,strong recommendations of credit. He (Mr.
Taunton) should now be able to show to the jury,
that the copies of the register of St. Pancras, then
produced, although copies of that register, were but
copies of forgeries, inserted in that rcgieter. He had
this day got the original register here, that he should
produce before the jury, and they would find, al-
though the register was attested by the signature of
the vicar and church Wardens, that the lea, o7t which
the entries in question were made, and copied from
in 1794, was scraped all over, from top to bottom.
The gentle Man who concerted this forgery had first
copied its contents, recopied the whole upon the
same leaf, with the addition of these words under
the bead of christenings, " Elizabeth, daughter of
Giwn and Elizabeth Lloyd, Sept. 1741." So that
if this entry was to be considered a genuine one, it
afforded an indisputable-belief that Giwn Lloyd had
been married to Elizabeth Taylor, the grandmother
of the present defendant, Colonel Passingham ; and
a few leaves further on was found another page
scraped in the same way and written in the same
handwriting, containing under the head of burials
the following words :—" A. D. 1742, Elizabeth
Lloyd," meaning to have it understood that she wag;
the wife of .Giwn Lloyd. The Jury would find
that the handwriting on both these leaves was dif-
ferent from all the rest in the book ; and on inspec-
tion of the book they would immediately perceive,
that the leaves in question were thinner than the
rest, and had been altered. The Learned Counsel
then went on to detail,that at the time the alteration
in the register was effected, Robert Passingham,the
brother of the defendant, was in the office of an at-
torney as clerk, with a person of the name of
Kendry; that they went to the curate of St.
Pancras, named Sawyer, and by means of his
connivance obtained possession of the register while
this fraud was accomplished ; and that while
Kendry effected it, Passingham waited for him in
the field opposite St. Pancras Church. (The
Learned Counsel then continued.) In consequence
of the forged entries in this book, the present de-
fendants, in 1794, as plaintiffs, succeeded in ob-
taining a verdict; but it was most extraordinary that
on the home circuit of that very year, while the
cause was tried at Shrewsbury, Lord Kenyon re-
jected a register of one of those Fleet marriages as
evidence. The plaintiffs on that, finding that their
verdict might be disturbed, entered into an agree-
ment with Mrs. Mary Lloyd, by which it was
agreed, that in consideration of a considerable sum
of money, which she undertook to pay, Colonel
Passingham should forego all claims for by-gone
rents, on receiving quiet possession of the estate,
the old lady, Mrs. Mary Lloyd, who was near
90, being glad .enough to compound in any way
to get out of the turmoil and vexation of a'law-suit.
It happened that in 1806, the forgeries which had
been so successfully practised in 1794 were discover.
ed by means of a kind of day-book, or foul register, in
which the registers of baptisms, marriages, and
burials, were entered as they occurred. On com-
paring the books, it was found that it corresponded
word fof word withl the register, except in the entries
which he bad already mentioned, and which had
been added, as he should prove, in the handwriting
of Kennedy. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to detaifthe promises which had been made by Mr.
Robert Passingham to several subordinate agents in
the suit of 1794, and stated, that Kendry had gone
to America. The learned counsel then went on.to
say, that Elizabeth Taylor, the mother of the Pas-
singhams, and the issue of the connexion between
Mr. Giwn Lloyd and Elizabeth Taylor, (her mother)
was born in 1741; instead of being educated as the
legitimate daughter of Mr. Giwn Lloyd, she was
committed to the care of a poor man named Honi-
well, residing at Teddington, in the county of Mid-
dlesex, who was the village barber, where she
.con-
tinued from the age of two or three years, till she
was twelve years old, when she removed to a school
at Heston. Previous to that she had received only
such education as that village barber, who joined to
his occupation that of a labouring man, and who kept
in the winter only an evening school,.could afford to
give her. At Honiwell's it would appear she was
known by the name of "Bet Taylor. He (Mr.
Taunton) did not know how she became acquainted
with the father of Colonel Passingham; but she
was, subsequent to her marriage with him, found
keeping • a boarding-house at Bath, and latterly re-
siding in the humble situation of housekeeper
to a gentleman of the name of Birt, then a surgeon
of St. Thomas's Hospital. He (Mr. Taunton) should
show that during that time she acknowledged (to a
most respectable gentleman of the name of Blount) that
she was the natural daughter of Mr. Giwn Lloyd,
and had great expectations from him. That gentle-
man would also relate the melancholy catastrophe,
by which it would appear that on hearing that her
father, Mr. Giwn Lloyd, had died intestate, such
was the effect on her mind that a fever was occa-
sioned; and during the delirium thereby produced,
she threw herself from the two pair of stairs win-
dow, and was killed on the spot. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to detail, that on the disco-
very, in 1806, of the fraud that had been practised,
a bill in Chancery was filed by the tenants for life,
to set aside the agreement entered into by them
jointly 4 Lloyd after the verdict of
gentle-
men at the bar, of high eminence, one of them the
presentj with Chief
B s.
aroM questionn ay , r
was referred to three
and another of them one of
the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas. They
made an award, but the Lord Chancellor being of
opinion that they had therein exceeded their autho-
rity, set it aside, and discharged the bill, but with-
out costs. The Learned Counsel then stated, that
on Colonel Passingham's succeeding to the pro-
perty, the inscription en Mr. Giwn Lloyd's monu-
ment was erased, .and another one put up to the
same effect, but omitting the words that he died
without issue; and concluded, by observing, that
when he had substantiated by evidence the case he
had opened, the Jury would be ,satisfied that the
judgment obtained in 1794 was obtained on the
most fraudulent grounds, and find a verdict for the
plaintiff.
The will of Catherine Lloyd, under which the
plaintiff claimed, having been produced and read,

Mr. John Pownell stated, he had been attorney
for Mr. John Lloyd and Mr. Richard Hughes Lloyd
for 21 years. In 1807, he received an abstract of
the defendant's title now produced from his solicitor ;
the object was to, effect an arrangement between the
parties by arbitration. ,The award was afterwards
set aside and the bill dismissed. The witness was
present at the trial here in 1794, and on that occ..-
sion papers were produced by a witneso, purportinQ
to be examined copies of the registers of baptisms
and burials, atSt. Pancras Church ; they described
the baptism of Elizabeth Lloyd, and the burial of
Elizabeth Lloyd; they were produced by the lessor
of the
Mr. Charles Knowles proved, that having
examined the entries in the register, he found some
of the leaves had been rubbed With pumice-stone;

. , - • _
and the -entries riade thereon containing the re-
gisters of bkitisni and burial in question, were made
in a different handwriting from the rest of those in
the book. The book' termed the " foul register,"
was then produced, and proved to correspond with
the other in every respect, except that the registei-
contained the entries of the baptism of Elizabeth
Taylor, and the burial of her mother, which the foul
register did not.
The deposition of James Young, taken in the
Court of Chancery, was then read. It stated that
he was assistant -clerk to St. Pancras, in 1791: that
he remembered a person named Kendry coming to
search the register; and that not finding what he
wanted, he returned the next morning, having ob-
seined from the curate, Mr. Sawyer, the key of the
register', end in the presence of the deponent, after
transcribing the entries, on two of the leaves in the
register, he rubbed the whole out with pumice-stone,
and then re-copied'the entries, inserting in addition
the names of Elizabeth Lloyd, as having been chris-
tened there in 1741, and her mother, as having been
buried there in 1742. The deponent further said,
that he followed Kendry after this was done, to Mr.
Sawyer's, and saw him give him the key; and that,
while the alteration was effected, Robert Passing-
ham was waiting for Kendry in the field 'opposite
the church. The deponent also said that he men-
tioned what had occurred to Mr. Sawyer, who was
very angry with him for mentioning it, and gave
him money several times after. Proof was then given
that Mr, Sawyer was curate of St. Pancas at the
time, and the register having been produced, it was
evident that two of the leaves bad been reduced by
pumice-stone, and that the entries on these leaves
were iir a different hand-writing.
Evidence was then given by several witnesses that
Robert Passingham conducted the action of eject-
ment in 1794.
Mr. Halley, a watchmaker, in London, 79 years
old, knew Wm. Kendry, an attorney's clerk, and
also Robert Passinghans. The witness was present
at the trial in 1794, being interested as a friend of
Passingham in the result. He remembered a wit-
ness of the name of Emanuel Williams being exa-
mined at the trial. After that, till the day of his.
death, the witness paid him, by order of Robers.
Passingham, a weekly stipend of a guinea or guinea,
and a half per week, and on his death buried him.
Cross-examined.—Williams, he believed, sup-
ported Passingham's mother, when her father for-
sook her.
The depositions of several witnesses were then
read; stating, that they resided near lioniwell's, at
Teddington, and about the year of the ward frost
remembered an infant being brought to Mrs. Honi-
well to nurse. The child was called Bet Taylor,
and remained at Honiwell's till she was 12 years
old, when she was removed to a school at Heston.
One of the deponents stated, that she remembered,
previous to the trial in 1794, that Robert Passing-
ham came and told her, there was no occasion for
her to wash any longer if she could remember that
the child had any other narne than " Bet Taylor."
The deponent replied, that if he was sure of his
cause, he did not want their evidence.
John Blount, Esq., said, I am in my 73d year.—
I formerly carried on the profession of a surgeon at
Birmingham. In 1774, I was an assistant with
Messrs. Birt and Ward, surgeons in High-street, in
the Borough. While I was with them, Mrs. Pas-
singham, the mother of the defendants, resided
there, in the capacity of housekeeper, or something
better, as she always dined at the table with Mr..
Burt, Colonel Passingham and his brother Robert
used to come and see her. I frequently heard her
say she bad offended her father by marrying Mr.
Passingham • he bad discarded her, but knew he
had a regard for her, and would provide for her.—
She said she was the natural daughter of a Welch
gentleman; she continued at Mr. Birt's to the time
of her death. When she heard that her father died
intestate, she lost her spirits and fell into despair,
that brought on a fever; and in a fit of delirium, she
threw herself from a two pair of stairs window, and
was killed on the spot. She was about 32 years of
age at the time.
Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL (with whom was Mr.
Whately and Mr. P. Williams), on the part of the
defendants, objected that the lessor of the plaintiff
must be nonsuited, as the seisin of Catherine Lloyd
was not proved. By a deed of settlement executed
in 1746, on the marriage of Mr. Giwn Lloyd with
Miss Hill, the estates in question were vested in
trustees for certain purposes therein mentioned.—
On the death of Mr. Lloyd in 1787, and his widow
subsequently, the legal estate not having been re-
conveyed by the trustees, was still outstanding.
Mr. TauseroN having been heard in reply, and Mr..
Baron VAUGIIAN having taken a note of the objection,
Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL, in addressing the Jury for
the defendant, said that never was there a case more
calculated to create prejudice against a defendant
than that opened by his learned friend; but lie trusted
they would suspend their judgment till they had
•heard the case he had to lay before them. The whole
of the case on the part of the plaintiff rested on the
supposition, that in consequence of the production
of forged documents in 1794, a lerdict had been
found for Colonel Passingham; and that now on
the discovery of that fraud they were to find a
verdict for the plaintiff. But what would be the
surprise of the jury when he proved to them, that
instead of those Pancras registers being the founda-
tion of the verdict at that trial,—instead of the proof
of Mr. Giwn Lloyd's marriage with the mother of
Mrs. Passingham, depending on the register of a
Fleet marriage, he should lay before them the evi-
dence of several respectable witnesses which would
put the, legitimacy of Mrs. Passingham beyond all
doubt. The Learned Counsel, in continuation, said,
his Learned Friend had truly observed that the only
question in this cause was, whether a marriage ever
took place between Mr. Giwn Lloyd and Elizabeth
Taylor, the mother of Mrs. Passingham. He said also,
that the conduct of Mr. Lloyd to his daughter was
conclusive evidence against such a presumption ; but
what would the jury say, when, instead of the treat-
ment described in the depositions produced by his
Learned Friend, he should prove to them, by the
evidence produced on the trial of 1794, that Mr.
Giwn Lloyd had acknowledged his marriage in the
Fleet with Elizabeth Taylor ; and that her daughter,
on being sent to Honiwell's to nurse, was supplied
with handsome clothes, was treated with the greatest
affection during the life of her mother, and at no
one time had es'& gone by any other name than
Elizabeth Lloyd. The fact was, that Mr. Giw*
Lloyd had been a very gay man ; he had sown his
wild oats rather widely, and having been introduced
to Miss Elizabeth Taylor, he became enamoured
with her, and married her in 1740. In 1741 Mrs.
knowledge
Passingham was born, and shortly after Mr. Lloyd
had the misfortune to lose her mother. He (Mr.
Sergeant Russell) said the misfortune, for he under-
stood that she was exquisitely beautiful, and to a man
so great an admirer of the fair sex it-must have been
a severe affliction. In 1746, tieing of a pretty ma-
ture age, Mr. Lloyd thought he would establish
but the Learned
himself by marriage with a family (the family of the
,itwa3sirn.oLt
Lloyd was
Hills) which must have been the object of his. ambi-
tion. It was then that the: affidavit (which his
elusive in his case) was made;
Learned Friend hadfipureodduuc
Counsel would put it to the Jury from their
knowledge of the world, Whether any great degree •
of accuracy was likely to be, observed
. in a document
theothr a t Jury was
observation
mostb el i voe likelyf
t4rrhat. M Lloyd. It
time to one jnaccuracy, for
It
he was' in that affidavit
dwiantbodudtetehrneekdnos:
described to be about 30 years of age, and would
actually 47 years of ? The
age . fact was, that Mr.
Lloyd, being about to enter into an alliance which
be greatly coveted, `Wes unwilling that it should be
known that he had be previously married lest 'n-
quiries should be made resPectin' ' I• g the family of his
former wife; and for the same reasons he was de-
sirous of concealing that there had been any issue by
that marriage. From that moment his unfortunate
child was neglected ; but when he found that by his
second marriage he was unlikely to have any family,
his heart relented, and his daughter was taken from
1 that obscurity in which she had- bleu suffered to re-