Star.
London, England, 1821-09-15 00:00:00

T.-77,e. • •

.. .. ..~

--~--~--

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS. taken into custody, when it stopped. Germain acted
las clerk, and Tipper was one of the firm. I was to
Yesterday William Pott and John Tippr were in- ' receive ESO rent for the year. I hive not received a
dicted for forging and counterfeiting a bill of ex- farthing of this sum, except a quarter in advance.-.
change for £26 17s. with intent to defraud W. Howell. When the second quarter was due I applied for it,
Mr. William Howell was the first witness called, and they said they would not pay it. Mr. Germain
and he deposed as follows:—I am a-gun-maker, and paid the first quarter, and refused to pay the second
live at Birmingham. On the 16th of July I was in when I demanded it. I did not apply to Mr. Tipper
London, and I received a letter, signed J. Tipper, for the rent.
containing an order for a double barrel and a single Cross-examined hy Mr. ANnnEws.—l saw once or
barrel gun. I did not know Tipper at this time, but twice notes paid by the firm, similar to those in Court.
I went to No. 1, Marlborough-street, to inquire fur There was a person regularly attending on business
him. I saw a woman at the house, from whom I from ten till four. Mr. Tipper was the person who
could get no information. I called again in the af- attended in this manner.
ternnon of the same day, but Tipper was not there. Re-examined by Me CotinT.—There were several
I left my card, and desired the woman to tell Tipper other persons who acted as de: ks besides Germain.
to call upon me. I had not got far from the house, The name of one of these was Green. 1 saw these
when both the prisoners came up to me, and asked men at different times. When I had occasion to go
if my name was Howell? Pott also inquired whether into the counting-house I saw books. When they first
I understood the order I had received? Tipper ap- came they we:it on very regularly. I saw great num-
pointed Friday, the 20th of July, to inspect some bers of persons come to receive cash from them.
patterns I had in my possession. The prisoners came Mr. Baron GRA !IA NI here called for some person
on the Friday, and approved of the patterns. They from the house of Williams and Co. to prove that the
told me to send the guns which they had ordered as bill mentioned in the indictment was not accepted by
soon as possible, and promised to pay for them with that firm. It was found that no person from Messrs.
bankers bills. I went to Birmingham, and sent the Williams's was in attendance, and the Court directed
guns to Mr. Sherrington, in London, with a letter, that the trial should stop until a message was sent
desiring him to deliver them to the prisoners, and to to require the attendance of one of the clerks of
receive a banker's bill in payment. The goods came the house.
to £l7 2s. 6d. and Mr. Sherrington sent me a bill In about three quarters of kn hour the Court was
for that amount in a letter dated July '27. I after- informed that the messenger had returned from Messrs.
wards received another letter from Mr. Sherrington, Williams's with a Gentlemaribelonging to the firm.
dated August 11, inclosing, another bill, which I A Gentleman, who stated his name to be Burgess,
understood he had received froth the prisoners, for addressed the Court, and apologized for having oc-
£26 17s. The bill was dated the 11th of August, casioned the delay which had taken place. He had
and was drawn on Messrs. Williams and Co. bankers, not been in attendance, because he understood the
No. 3, Birchin-lane, London, payable two months trial would not come on to-day.
after date: it was accepted Williams and Co."— Mr. Burgess having been sworn, stated that he was
The former bill was also drawn upon the same par- a partner in the firm of Messrs. Williams and Co.
ties. I sent the bill for £26 to Mr. Jennings, in Birchin-lane.
London, to ascertain whether it was good. The bill Mr, ANDREWS objected to receive the evidence of
was returned. this witness, on the ground that he was an inte-
Upon the witness being cross-examined by Mr. rested party.
ANDREWS, the Counsel for the prisoners, he stated, Mr. Baron GRAHAM observed, that lie had desired
that in the interview which he had with the priso- the prosecutor to send for a clerk. However, the pre-
ners in London, Pott assumed the name of Tipper, sent objection might be obviated by sending for a re-
and Tipper that of Hoole. He had never seen the lease stamp. It was a mark of great neglect on the
prisoners from the 20th of July until he saw them in part of Mr. Howell that he had not employed some
custody at Bow-street. professional adviser, who would have prevented the
Robert Sherrington.—l keep a public-house called Court from suffering the inconvenience to which it
the Two Angels and Crown, in St. Martin's-lane. I was subjected.
received from Mr. Howell two guns, and with them After the lapse of a few minutes, Mr. Howell ap-
instructions respecting the way in which I was to peared in Court with a release stamp, upon which the
dispose of them. Pott came to me on the 26th of form of quittance was drawn by the Clerk of the Court.
July, and asked whether I had not got some guns Mr. Baron GRAHAM observed, that he did not wish
from Mr. Howell? I told him I had. Pott gave to load prosecutors with unnecessary expense, but in
me a bill for £l7 2s. 6d. and I delivered the guns to a case of this importance he thought Mr. Howell
him. I asked Pott his name, and he said it was ought to have employed a Counsel.
Tipper. Pott came to me again on the 11th of Au- Mr. ALLEY said that it was not the fault of Mr.
gust. I delivered to him a box of guns, which had Howell that he had not employed a Counsel. He was
been transmitted to me by Mr. Howell, with orders told at Bow-street Office that his case was so clear that
to give it to Pott, upon receiving a similar bill to the it was quite unnecessary to employ a lawyer.
former. Pott presented me with a bill for £26 17s. Mr. Howell corroborated this statement,and added,
in payment for the box. The bill now in Court is that he had pail Mr. Stafford, of Bow-street Office,
the one I received from Pott. In the conversation four guineas for drawing up the indictment.

which I had with Pott, I called him Mr. Tipper, and
he answered to that name. I sent the bill to Mr.
Howell on the same day.
Cross-examined by Mr. A NDREWSe-I made no in•
quiries about the first bill I received, but knowing
the house in Birchin-lane to be a good one, I sent it
to Mr. Howell. I first learnt Pott's real name from
himself, after he was in custody. I have learnt that
the house of Williams and Co. is No. 24, in Birchin-
lane. When I received the bill for £26 from Pott,
no other person was present. A man who came with
Pott took away the box by his desire.
George Jennings.—l am a friend of Mr. Howell.
On August 15, 1 received a bill from Mr. Howell.
The amount of the bill was £26 17s. The bill in
Court is the bill I received. I went, as Mr. Howell
directed me, to inquire at Messrs. Williams and Co.
whether the bill was a good one? According to the
direction on the bill, I went first to No. 3, Birchin-

Mr. ANDREWS having examined the release stamp,
Mr. Burgess proceeded with his deposition am a
partner in the house of IVilliams and Co. The ac-
ceptance to the bill in Court is not like the writing of
any person who accepts bills in my house. The ac-
ceptance to the bill is written across in the way in
which our bills are accepted. It is always a partner
that accepts bills in my house. lam sure the accept-
ance to the bill is not the band-writing of any of the
partners of the fit m. I do riot know of any bankers
of the name of Williams and Co. in London or
Westminster, except our own firm. Our mode an.
ceptance is " Williams and Co."
cross-examined by Mr. ANDREWS.—The mode in
which the bill has been accepted by writing across is
very common. The acceptance does not resemble the
writing of any person that accepts bills ir. my house.
I have seen Williams and Co. written on No. 3, in
Isirchin-lane. I have known instances of bills drawn

lane. I saw there a Gentleman making up papers.
I thought it was a strange place, and asked whether
it was Williams's, the banker's? I was 'answered, it
was Williams's, but not Williams's, the banker's.
There was a large brass plate, having the inscription
of Williams and Co. on the entrance door. I went
through a long dark passage up stairs, where I saw
a woman in a room folding linen. I observed no-
thing which gave the place the appearance of a house
of business. I rapped at a door, which I thought
was an office, on the same landing-place. On the
door was written " Attendance from ten till four."
I then went to Messrs. Williams's, the bankers, and
shewed them the acceptance on the bill, and they
said it was not right, and I went away. I wrote to
Mr. Howell, in consequence of which I received a
letter from him. After this, the prisoners called
upon me en Friday, the 17th August, at my lodgings,
at the Red Lion and Still, in Diury-lane. I was not
at home, and the prisoners left word that they would
call again. They called the next day, and Pott in-
troduced himself as Mr. Tipper. Tipper himself said
he called upon me, at the request of Mr. Howell, to
do some business with me. I told them I was not
prepared to transact business at that time, but de-
sired them to call on Monday. In the meantime, I
wrote to Mr. Howell, and requested him to come up
to town. Mr. Howell did, in consequence, come to
London; and when the prisoners called on Monday,
he caused them to be apprehended.
The witness was cross-examined, but his former
evidence was not in the slightest degree shaken.
Mary Woodall.—l live at No. 3, Birchin-lane. I
know the prisoner Tipper. On the Ist of November ,1
a man hired a counting-house, a dining-room, and a '
bed-room, in my house. The rooms were taken in,
the name of Williams, 'tipper, and Co. and were let
for a year certain. The counting-house had formerly
been used as an office by a ship-broker. A person
whom I understood to be Mr. Williams, came to the,
house on the Ist of February, after the rooms were
hired, and asked me to allow a man named Germain,
his wife, and family, to stay for three months in the
apartments. I consented, and Mr. Germain and his
family came. I never saw Mr. Williams at the house
again, but I was informed that he called on Sunday.
—There was a man in the counting-house when Mr.
Jennings called. I do not know the man's name.
Tipper used to be at the house constantly. I never
saw Pott there. There was some sort of banking
business carried on by the firm ; such as exchanging
notes. This business went on till Mr. Tipper was

on No. 3, being brought to our house, and referred
to No. 3.—This was the case for the prosecution.
The prisoners, on being asked what they had to
say in their defence? replied, that they would leave
their defence entirely to their Counsel.
Mr. ANDREWS then called the following witness:
Mr. Teasdale Cockell.—l am a clerk in the Bankers'
Licensing Office, Somerset House. I find by my
books, that in January last a license was taken out to
permit William Williams, John Tipper, and John
Williams, all residing at Swansea, in the county of
Glamorgan, to trade as bankers. No license is ne-
cessary for bankers in London, unless they issue notes
payable to the bearer on demand. The license taken
out in the name of Williams is to endure till October.
It may then be renewed. I do not know who applied
for the license. I do not recollect whether it was
either of the prisoners. The Act of Parliament re-
quires that a copy of the bill which the firm intends
to issue shall be filed in the Licensing Office. I have
a copy of the bill which was delivered by the person
who obtained the license in the name of Williams.—
(The witness here handed a bill to Mr. Andrews, who
directed the attention of the Court to it, and remarked
that it referred for payment at No. 3, Birchin-lane,
London, and that it was a mere transcript of the bill
which formed the subject of the indictment).
No other evidence was called for the prisoners.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM then proceeded to sum up the
evidence. He observed, that in order to constitute
forgery, it was necessary it should he evident that the
instrument was falsely made with an intent to defraud.
No man in his senses could doubt that in the present
case there was a general intention to defraud—to
produce upon the minds of individuals the effect
which was produced upon the prosecutor. The bill
would suggest to the mind of every man that it pro-
ceeded from a house of indisputable credit. But be-
fore the Jury could determine that forgery had been
committed, they must be satisfied that the instrument
was made with that view. It strikes me that you
should principally direct your attention to discover
whether there was anything like solidity in the house
upon which the bill was drawn? The direction on the
bill is not to general traders, but to Williams and Co.
bankers. It was shewn that a person had taken out a
license in the name of Williams and Co. but it had not
been shewn that either of the prisoners was that person.
If the firm at No. in Birchin-lane had been a well-
known firm, it would have been in the power of the
prisoners to prove incontestably that fact. They could
have proved that Williams was a real man ; that the