Star.
London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

•
evidetico. On now, as'well as•befort, looking at 1111.3
Wirt be thought the two letters, " i t," in the name
of Wait, were something like Mr. Wait's writing;
every other part bethought very unlike his writing,
and he did not believe it to be his. This he commu-
nicated to the person who called on him from the
Bank of England, and to whom he had•expressed a
wish that he might not be called against the priso-
ner; indeed, he had since been informed it would not
be necessary for -him to attend. The general Charac-
ter of Mr. Wait was that of a most honourable and
upright man.
Mr. Moore, who had been a partner with the pri•
soner and the last witness for five years, expressed
his doubt as to the writing of the letters produced
being that of the prisoner,
James George, Esq. Mayor of Bristol, had known
the prisoner for sixteen or seventeen years ; he consi-
dered his character for probity and integrity to be
very good. To a question from Mr. Justice Bayley,
he replied that he had lost sight of the prisoner for
the last four or five years.
Mr. Cave, one of the Sheriffs of Bristol, had
known the prisoner for thirty-five years: since he had
known him his character had been most respectable.
Sir Richard Vaughan also spoke to the character
of the prisoner as being excellent. Hl3 family was•
highly respectable. He had not known him for the
last foul or five years.
Richard Hart Davis, M.P. for Bristol, had known
the prisoner from his youth, and considered his cha-
racter for integrity of the strictest kind.
Edward Protheroe, Esq. the late Member for Bris-
tol, the Rev. Mr. Biddulph, the Rev. Mr. Roberts,
and several other witnesses were then called, who
gave the prisoner the very highest character. One
of them, a Mr. Reynolds, said that he had not re-
ceived a subpoena to attend; he had heard that the
trial of Mr. Wait was to come on as that day, and
from the high opinion which he entertained of his
character, he had voluntarily come forward to speak
in behalf-of it.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence with
his usual impartiality. There were two questions, he
said, for tile cpnsideration of the Jury:—first, was
the signature of Mr. Cox to the instrument set out in
the indictment a forgery ? and next, did the prisoner
utter it, knowing it to be forged ? If they were sa-
tisfied as to his guilt on these points, it was sufficiently
clear that the forgery had been uttered in the city of
London, and no doubt could be entertained that it
hadisten uttered with a view to defraud the Gover-
nor and Company of the Bank of England. As the
prisoner had received a character of the very highest
description, from persons of the very highest re,
spectabilite, he should briefly inform them of the
weight• which they ought to attach to testunony of
such a nature. If the character which a prisoner re-
ceived were so excellent as to create a doubt whether
he could have committed the crime laid to his charge,
it was their duty to give him the benefit of that
doubt; but if the evidence of his guilt were so clear
and overpowering, as to do away with even the sha-
dow of a doubt, then, notwithstanding the excellent
character which be might have hitherto sustained, it
was their painful duty—but still it was their duty—to
protect the interests of society by returning a verdict
of guilty against him. 'They would consider whether
there were any circumstances in the present case
which led them to doubt of the prisoner's guilt, and
if there were, then it would be their duty to acquit
him ; but if not, to give that verdict which would,
best satisfy the objects of justice, and most protect
the welfai e of the community.
The Jury retired, and in a short time returned with
their verdict, pronouncing the prisoner Guilty, but
earnestly recommending him to mercy, on the ground
of his former good character.
Mr. Justice BAYLKY said, he would take care that
their recommendation was communicated to the
Crown, to whom all these cases were referred.

The prisoner is a man of very respectable appear-
ance, about 45 years of age, and formerly carried on
business to a great extent at Bristol and Birmingham.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, DECEMBER 7.

LIBEL ON TILE DUKE OF YORK, DUKE OF OLOU.•
CESTER, &C.

Thomas Webb was indicted for a series of libels
upon his Royal Highness the Duke of York, as Com-
mander-in-Chief of the Forces, his Royal Highness the
Duke of Gloucester, as Colonel, and Surgeon-Major
Hay, and the other Surgeons, of the 3d Regiment
of Guards.

Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the prosecution, stated, that on
the 26th of April, 1816, John Haig, a private in the.
3d Guards, died of an inflammation in his bowels,
and from that period to the present time, the defend-
ant, who is married to a sister of the deceased, conti-
nued to stick up written placards about Westminster,
headed " Notice—Military Black Job," reflecting
most severely upon the conduct, not only of the Sur-
geon who attended Haig in his last illness, but upon
the character of the Dukes of York and Gloucester,
falsely represented as refusing the prisoner the infor-
mation which he considered necessary respecting the
cause of his brother•in-law's death. The prisoner
made various applications to every department of the
War Office as well as the regimental Officers on the
subject, and received satisfactory answers from all
quarters ; but that did not prevent the prisoner from
grossly libelling the persons above alluded to, from
May, 1816, to the present time. It was not, said Mr.
Adolphus, the wish of the prosecutors that heavy pu-
nishment should be inflicted on the prisoner, but to
convince him and the Public that his statements were
totally void of foundation. The prisoner persisted in
saying and publishing that Haig came by his death
from a mortification in his arm, which was let blood
on the 2d day of the month in which he died, although
'he was permitted to see the reports of the medical
officers who examined the body.
Mr. Hay and the other Surgeons were called, who
proved the Learned Gentleman's statement as far as
they were concerned. Witnesses were also called to
prove the remaining parts of the Counsel's speech.
The defendant read a written defence, which occu-
pied about two hours, and which embraced various
' topics, such as Radicals, Boroughmongcrs, Reform
in Parliament, Corrupt Ministers, Felons, the late
Queen, Navy and Army, &c. Indeed, it touched
upon almost every subject excepting his own defence.
The Jury found him Guilty ; and Mr. BaonetticK
again stated to the Court the desire of his clients nut
to press for even an exemplary sentence, on condition
of his desisting in future how such prt.ceedings.—
, Judgment deterred.