The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-18 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.
FORGING A WlLL.—Yesterday Mr. Alderman
FARERROTIIER was occupied the greater part of the
morning in investigating a charge of forging a will,
which excited a high degree of interest.
The pri.oner, Jetties Sal;,/k, is a man of re-
spectable appearance, about fifty years of age, and
resided for several years at Langley, in Kent.
The name of the deceased person whose will was
forged, was Thomas Brandrith; he occasionally re-
sided at Langley.
James Moseley, the first witness examined, stated
that the deceased, Thomas Brandrith, resided in his
house for about a month before his death. About
ten o'clock, ONI the night of the 13th of last
December, while he was in conversation with wit-
ness, he fell down and expired. Witness imme-
diately called in the prisoner, who was his near neigh-
bour, and an acquaintance of the deceased's. Medical
aid was called in, but without effect. The prisoner
and his wife sat up with witness and his wife all

night, arid in the morning the prisoner opened the
deceased's portmanteau, n hich contained nothing but
clothes and two old papers, which the prisoner said
were of no value, and two sovereigns. The pri-
soner took the sovereigns and some silver found in
the deceased's pocket, and his watch.
John Beaumont Rouse, innkeeper and auctioneer,
at Sutton, close to Langley, stated that the prisoner
applied to him to perform the funeral of the de-
ceased, which he did. The prisoner, some time
after, said the deceased died worth money, but left
no will, and that if his relations would pay the
funeral expenses he would give up what property he
had of his. In a conversation with the prisoner on
the third of November, he mentioned to the prisoner
that he had heard the deceased say he would leave
him (Suffolk) some of his property. The prisoner
asked him to give him a certificate to that effect,
which he did. Two or three months after the

priso'ner paid him the funeral expences of the de-
ceased, and said he had got his property. Witness
expressed. surprise how he could get the property
when there was no will. The prisoner said, the
certificate you gave me did as well. The prisoner
said he had got about 300/. 'Witness was some
days from home in the beginning of June, and on
his return learned that there had been an attorney

from Manchester making inquiries respecting the
deceased's property for his sisters. The pr►soner
came to him immediately on his return, and told him
that he had found a will of the deceased's in the
lining of his portmanteau, which had been drawn
for him by Whyman. He was proceeding to tell
more, when witness stopped him, saying that he was
accused about that will, and he would keep himself
clear, and did not wish to hear any secrets. Whyman
was at that time in witness's employment, but soon
after left the country secretly, and has not since been

heard of.
Mr. William Henry Gambier, son of the clergy-
man at Langley, stated that the prisoner and Mose-
ley came to him the morning after Brandrith died,
to ask his opinion whether it would be necessary to
have a Coroner's inquest on the body. The pri-
soner at that time said the deceased had left pro-
perty, but no will. In the beginning of June, Mr.
Malcomson, an attorney from Manchester, called on
him to make inquiries respecting the deceased's pro-
perty, and they went together to Moseley's house.
While they were at the door the prisoner came up,
and they asked him whether he had obtained a pro-
bate of a will of Brandrith ? to which he replied
that he had. Witness reminded him, that he had
said there was no will, and he replied that he had
found one in the lining of the deceased's portman-
teau. Ile was asked by whom the will was drawn
and witnessed, but would not tell, and went away.
Mr. Brooks, of the Prerogative Office, produced
the will, of which probate was granted to the pri-
soner. It purported to be the will of Thomas
Brandrith, was dated the 28th of August, 1828,
and signed by three witnesses. It appointed the
prisoner sole executor and legatee. The names of
the witnesses were Michael Whyman, Francis Trow-
ley, and Lucy Whyman.
Mr. Rouse proved that the will was in the hand-
writing of Michael Whyman, who had been in his
employment and absconded.
Lucy Whyman, wife of Michael, proved that her
husband left her suddenly in June, and she has not
since heard from him. The name subscribed to the
will is not her hand-writing—she never saw the will
before.

Francis Trowley proved that his name to the
will was not in his hand-writing.
The ALDERMAN having heard all the witnesses,
gave directions that the prisoner should be brought
up to-morrow (this day) to hear all the depositions
read over, previous to his committal for trial.