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

Cox and the prisoneettigetherida after the matter
became a subject of inquiry-before the Magistrates.
Mr. Thomas Davis, an auctioneer, 'residing in
Corn-street, Bristol, lived opposite the last witness.—
He looked at the power of attorney produced, and
remembered attesting it in Mr. Shepherd's shop ; the
prisoner was present. He saw the prisoner execute
it. Mr. John Cox was not present, nor did witness
know such a person. He believed, at the time he
witnessed the signature of the prisoner, that the name
of John Cox was not included in the attestation. He
did not think he could have written his own name
Without seeing it. The name of John Cox was not
signed opposite the seal at the time he witnessed it.
John Cox was called ; but before he was examined,
Mr. SerjeantPiu. submitted, that the person whose
name was forged to a power of attorney could not
be a witness to prove that forgery.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY and Mr. Baron GARROW had
no doubt that the witness was a perfectly competent
witness, and he was examined accordingly.
Mr. Cox then deposed that he was a solicitor at
Rington, in Somersetshire, within twelve miles of
Bristol. He then produced the probate of the will
of James Fitchard. Under the first codicil, this will
gave to John and Stephen Cox, C2OOO in trust, to
pay the interest to his wife during her life, and then
to be divided between them equally, or their heirs.
The trustees appointed to the will were John Wait,
of the City of Bristol, and John Nash. Nash never
acted ; and, in consequence, witness, who was the
John Cox alluded to, went to the Castle Bank to have
the money invested. On this occasion, witness xnen-
cloned to the hanker, that Mr. Wait wished to invest
a stun in the three per Cent. Consols, under the will
of the late Mr. Fitchard ; and mentioned that Mr.
Nash, who was the other trustee, had declined to act.
Witness added, that as Mrs. Fitchard might live for
a long time to come, it would be prudent to nomi-
nate another trustee. It was then suggested and
agreed to by witness, to have his name coupled with
that of Mr. Wait in the purchase ; and the stock was
accordingly purchased in their joint names. Witness
never gave a power of attorney to empower the sale
of that stock. He looked at the power of attorney
produced : the signature, " John Cox," to that power
had not been written by him.
Cross-examined.—Field saw this power in the hand
of Mr. Day; the clerk of the Magistrates, at Bristol.
The signature, " John Cox," which he then saw to
the power, was not in the same state in which it now
was. The C was of a different character quite, and
had since been altered in the shape. The present C
was similar to his usual mode of writing his signa-
ture ; the former was not it was quite of an opposite
character; and he had so mentioned to several people,
remarking, that it was not an imitation of his hand-
writing; and he also observed that the words, " John
Cox" in the attestation,were precisely the same as the
signature; It was clear that an alteration had since been
made in the signature to make it more like his. Wit-
ness never received the dividends upon the stock.
William Cox was a seaman in the pilot-service,
near Bristol. In the beginning of October last his
boat was hired to go to Ciovelly, on the coast of
Devonshire,within 98 miles of Bristol. He was to take
a Gentleman and put him on board a brig called the
Aurora, bound for America. He went, and arrived
at Clovelly on Friday evening, 4th of October. He
found the prisoner there, and he came on board.—
Witness remained on board two days. He never had
any conversation with the prisoner.
Thomas Evans, a Police-officer at Bristol, in con-
sequence of information he received, accompanied the
water-bailiff down the river. He found what he sought
in Pennarth roads. He meant the prisoner. He found
him in a small vessel, and told him he had a warrant
against him. The prisoner only asked him how he
knew he was there? Witness knew the prisoner for
twenty years. He knew he lived at No. 5, Wilson-
street, Bristol.
James Wimble, a servant in the Post-office at Bris-
tol, knew the prisoner, and had delivered letters to
him; he lived at No.s,Wilson-street, Bristol. He was
a gentleman of respectable connexions. '
The documentary evidence was now put in and read.
The first was a letter, as follows, from the prisoner to
Mr. Underhill, the stock-broker :
_ _

" 5, Wilson-street, Bristol, Sept. 25, 1821.
" Sta—l am recommended by Mr. John Hall, of this city,
glazier, to employ you to sell or buy stock when I should have
occasion. I am desirous of selling stock to the amount of 2,1891.
17s. Id. in the 3 per Cent. Consols, standing in the names of
John Wait and John Cox, and will hank you to send me the
form of a power of attorney for that purpose.
4' To Mr. Underhill. (Signed) "JOHN WAIT."
The second letter was as follows :
" s,Wilson.street, Bristol, Sept. 17, 1822.
" Six—Enclosed you have the power executed. It was signed
so far back as October. We suppose that makes no difference
We did not want the money then, therefore have let the money
remain till now. Please to sell out, and, if possible, let me have
the money by return of post." (Signed)
"To Mr. Underhill. (Signed) "JOHN WAIT."
The third letter was written by Mr. Underhill to
the prisoner, informing him that the Bank of England
had refused to permit the sale of the stock to which
he alluded, as there was a difference in the manner
in which the signature of John Cox was signed to the
power and other signatures of his, and directing him
to beg of Mr. Cox to write to the Accountant-Gene-
ral of the Bank, to state that he did not always sign
his name in the same way.
There was a fourth letter, from Mr. Cox to the Ac-
countant-General of the Bank of England, to the fol-
lowing effect :
" Slit—Having received information that the Bank is in pos_
ses,ion of a power of attorney, purporting to have been signed
by John Wait and myself, for the sale of stock standing in our
names, if such be the fact, I beg distinctly to say that I have not
executed such a power, nor have I seen it. Under these circum-
stances, I beg you will not proceed unless you have a letter from
me. (Signed) "JOHN COX."
The power of attorney was then read, and corn-
pared with the indictment. The case for the prose-
cution was here closed.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY now asked the prisoner whe-
ther he had anything to say in his defence ?
The prisoner said lie had nothing to say, and would
leave his case to his Counsel.
The following witnesses were then called to speak
in his defence:
Mr. Charles Jones, wine and brandy-merchant,
Mat k-lane, London, deposed to his knowledge of the
prisoner for several years. He had been in partner-
ship with him for five years, during which time he
saw him write three or four times a day. He had
teen the letter which had been read, dated Sept.
1822, before. It was shewn to him by a person from
the Dank of England, and he was subpcensted to give