Star.
London, England, 1818-12-07 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.
Saturday Alm irsiliatis was indicted for uttering
M true a forged one pound Bank Note, with intent
to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank
otEngland.
The first witness called, on the part of the prose-
cution, was a perms of the name of Underwood, de-
scribing himself as a calico printer, who stated, that
he had been employed by the Bank under the pre-
tenet of being a dealer in forged notes, to negoctate
with the prisoner. He proved, that on the 7th of
November, at the Coach and hones, Charles-street.
Drury-lane, he received ten £1 forged bank notes
for tens than half their nominal value, aad that on a
subsequent day he received five more for the same
price. The reason the witness assigned for requit-
ing so many notes was, that he was going to King-
ston fair, and expected to be able to pass them there.
The notes he gave to Mr. Freeman, of the Bank, af-
ter having marked them.
The witness•underwent a very able cross examine.
tints by Ml. ADOLPIIOB. It appeared that there was
no other honest man besides himself to speak to this
transaction, which affected the prisoners life. He
Lad been about three months in this lucrative trade,
but had followed several others in the course of his,
life. He had been a porter' at a coppersmith's, and
a calico printer ; but had, until the last three
months, been employed by his cousin in.the coal-
trade. This cousin of his had several sheds about the
town, and was also clerk to a lawyer in the Temple.
*Mr. ADOLPHUS then put the following questions to
the witness :

save you ever given evidence against individuals
charged with this oifence before?—l never have
Wen in a Court of Justice before.
That is not my question, and you know it. Have
.you ever given evidence before?—Yes ; I believe
I have.

-
You know you have ; and I volll make you tell
me ?—Yes ; I have given evidence against 2 persons.
\Cult are their names?—The one is Edwards, and
the othei is his wife.

Heave you given evidenc• against no one else ?
Yes ; against a man of the name of Stanley.
• And all these are individuals charged with a si-
milar offence as the prisoner at the bar, whom you
Have been honest enough to entrap, by the assistance
eV the Bank of England ?—Yes.
nd you have face enough to give evidence, under
sw.li circumstances, against the individual at the
bar, who is now on trial for his life'—Yes ; I have.

This was the principal witness examined for the
prosecution
Mr. Chalmers proved that the prisoner, in Sep-
tember, purchased a pair of shoes at his shop in
High Holborn, for which he paid him with a forged
note, at the same time giving him the false address
at " Edwards, Rickmansworth."
Thomas Glover, the Inspector to the Dank of Eng-
land, was next sworn, and, upon the notes being pro-
duced, he declared them all to be forgeries. lie had
been Inspector of Batik Notes for a period of twenty-
five years, and he knew the notes were all from the
5 ;me plate.
The dory seemed much dissatisfied with the evi-
dence of this witness, and the Foreman rose, when
the attention of the whole Court was at once directed
to hien. Ile begged leave to observe, with all defe-
rence tt, the dignity of the Court and the opinion of
the Bench, that neither he nor his brother Jurymen
v.-cre satisfied with the evidence of the Inspector to
the Bank, and they wished to be informed by him, if
posßible, how he knew a forged from a genuine note?.
The/ themselves (the Jury) had several notes in'
their possession, which they had taken in the course
of trade, and they really could not see the differencei
between those notes and the one pronounced to be
forged.
The note being here hbnded to the Jury, each of
the twelve Jurors minutely examined it, and compa-:
red it with several of their own, after which the For-
eman repeated, that it was their decided opinion that
the. Bank Inspector was bound to give them some
specific mark in the body of the note by which they
might judge whether he was capable or not of dis-
tinguishing between good and bad notes, for the one
in question was so well executed, and in all respects
so similar, that they could not make up their minds
oa the subject. -
Baron WOOD remarked in reply, that the informa-
tion they requested was rather of a delicate kind, and
it mi*t not be proper to make the public at large
acquainted with the secret by which the Bank of
Fngland was enabled to detect the forged notes at-
tempted to be passed as genuine. It might, in fact,
be very productive of inconvenience if this was done,
and surely the circumstance of the prisoner selling
for 7s. what was known to be worth 20s. was a strong
proof of guilty knowledge.
'The Jury were, however, by no means satisfied
with this opinion of the Bench, when, at last,
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET said, he should call Mr.
Giver vale, and examine him on the subject still
furr.
Mr. Glover, the Inspector, said, that he would en-
de.urour to comply with the request of the Jury, as
far as he reasonably could. In the first place, the
paper was not of the same kind; next, the water-
mark, in the forged notes, was indented by a sudden
pressure, after the paper was manufactured, whilst
the water-marl• of the Bank of England was inter- ,
woven, as it. were, with the manufacturing of the pa-,
Per of which they were made: then, as to the awn-
bets, or figures of the different notes, those belonging
to the Bank were stereotyped, while tbefiguresof the
forged notes were always struck upon the .copper they
were engraved on.
ITIr: Baron Wools then charged the Jury, and ob-
served, the case bad, in his opinion, been clearly made
out against the priioner.
The Jury retired seventy-five minutes andeeturned,
finding the prisoner Guilty of uttering the note to
Mr. Otliners; but they could not on their oaths be-
lieve sae single word that Underwood, the first wit-
ness, bad said.

'The Learned Baron told them the prisoner was
charged with selling the note to Underwood ; and
they must therefore acquit him if such was their opi-
sion,—The verdict was then declared—Nor Guilty.
William cvsnor, aged SI, was indicted for utter-
ing several £1 forged notes, with intent to defraud
the Goasraor and Company.of the Beek of England.

Five persons ave evidenee as to the pioneer having
passecliorgid notes tiAstm.
The same kind of evidence as to forgery was gives
-as in the preceding case.
The trial lasted till five o'clock, when the Jury re-
tired, and at nine in the evening returned into Court,
when the Foreman stated the verdict to be as follow=
" Guilty of passing the notes in question ; but the Jury
are not at all satisfied with the evidence adduced as to
the note being forged."
The COMMON SERJRANTr." It is your duty, Gen-
tlemen, in such a case, to acquit or convict the priso-
ner, as appears to ,you to be proper."
Foreman.—" The Jury have no doubt the prisoner
passed the note ; but we are by no means satisfied
that it is a forged note. The evidence does not at all
convince us d-that."
The Canton Swam.—" Gentlemen, if you are
not agreed in your verdict you must retire and again
consider it."
The Fortman.—u We are agreed, my Lord ; but
cannot be satisfied with the evidence of the forgery."
The Coscssou SISRJRAPIT.--" If Gentlemen, you are
not satisfied with the note being a forged one, pur-
porting to be of the Bank of England, you are bound
to acquit the prisoner."
Mr. Shelton. Clerk of the Arraigns.—" Gentlemen
of the Jury, is the prisoner at the bar guilty or not?",
Foreman, in a firm tone of voice—" Not Guilty."
This verdict was received with the loudest applluse,l
by a crowded audience, who seemed peculiarly into
rested in the decision of this truly important case.
John Kingston, Jeremiah Heart, William King,
and Henry Townsend, who had on Friday pleaded
NOT GUIITY to the MINOR 01P9RNOR, solicited, to he,
allowed to retract their pleas, and to plead OiIILTY,
so as not to be prosecuted on the Capital indictments;
and as the Bank Counsel gave their consent, the
Court acquiesced.
Mattingley was indicted for stealing a
brown gelding, the property of William Brown,- and
a roan gelding, the property of John Washbourne.—
Guilty—Deadi.
The Jury and prosecutors
mercy, on account of his being an unfortunate man,
and driven to distress. It appeared that he had been
a baker and grocer in Abingdon, but he failed.—
Another ground of recommendation was, that his
candid confession had led to the immediate restora-
tion of the property.

him to

•
If
I
•