Star.
London, England, 1829-03-16 00:00:00

STAFFORD, MAICu 14.

The Commission fot this county was opened here on
Thursday last, and yesterday business commenced. The
calendar contains the names of 88 prisoners, but their
offences are ant of a rely aggravated nature. Thirty-
three causes were entered fur trial, and the majority o'
them has proved entirely destitute of interest.

CROWN Stor—Before Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE.

George Davenport, alias John Orion, and .10Ish Ellis,
were indicted for assaulting Samuel Higgott on the
highway, and stealing from him 265. in silver, and a
key. Fanny BI) ton, charged -as an accessary after the
f sets etas admitted King's eii lence.
Mr. Samuel Higgott, a lamer, Residing at liolleston,
in this county, said, that on the night nf the 274 h of
November he was walking house from the mark t of
Burton-upon:Trent, when he met three men. He pace
them the middle of the road and went towaids the
ledge, but title cif them core up to him, and 4e teed
hint to stop, striking him at the same time several vio-
lent blows on the head with a bludgeon or hammer. Ile
received several severe wounds and braise!, and beiu:
knocked down,she prisoner took 'scorn his pocket A parse
corstainiug 2fs. chiefly in halicrosvus, a promissory
tote fur SOW. and the key of his bureau. On the psi
ewers being apprebeoded, be immediately recognieed
them as the persons who bad robbed him. In conse-
sequence of*, ill Usage be bad received, be we. ill for
a xaoatb.
The evidence of Fanny Blyton, who had been with
the pr snorts previous and subsequent to the robbery,
Evaded to ettablieh she *qv agaipyt them; and bpr
testimony was confirmed by several ober wit owes n ho
had seen the prisoners hear the spot where the robbery
was committed about the time it took place.
The Laaasso JuDos baying surrirrsi up the
chi y f mud the prisoners Guilt,.
His Lordship said, that as they had been conviettcl

of a verraaratious offence, be &odd takesitne to-con-
ii 'sir of the sentence.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LANCASTER, Alsace 13.
Cameo Sum—Before Mr. Justice Hamm
John Inlams, an attorney, lately tesiding at Liver-
pool, was indicted for saving forged and counterfeited
a certain deed, purporting to be an indenture of demise,
for securing the sum of 6501. to one Elizabeth Mather,
on certain lands and hereditaments in Birkenhead, in
the county of Chester; also with having forged a cer-
tain receipt for the sum of 6501. purporting to be signed
by William Garner.
The case excited great interest, and the Court was
exceedingly crowded. The trial lasted nearly the whole
of the day. The history of the case is comprised in the
opening statements,
cursurriaz having opened the indictment,
Mr. Sergeant Caoss stated the case to the Jury. He
observed that the prosecutris in this case, a Miss M.I.
cher, had been on terms of intimacy with the wife of the
prisoner, and happening to be on a visit atthe prisoner's
house about four years ago, she had told him that she
had a few hundred pounds which she wished to put out
at interest. Nothing more passed bet amen them at
that time, but some time afterwards a person named
Garner applied to the prisoner to procure him a sum of
8001. upon mortgage of certain prensises at Birkenhead.
The prisoner upon that application 'wrote t., Miss Ma-
ther, who resided at Nottingham, requesting her to send
him the sum of 6501. which he stated he had an oppor-
tunity of advantageously investing. -Miss Mather did
send that sum in Bank of England notes. The pri-
soner, however, instead of advancing the money to
Garner, told him that he (the prisoner) had not been
'able to meet with the money, nor was any advanced
to him out of the sum sent by Miss Mather. In the
following August, 1825, however, a regular mort-
gage-deed was drawn by the prisoner, and engrossed
by a law-starioner, and the prisoner affixed to it a
name and seal, purporting to be Garner's, and
added his own name as the attesting witness. After
this had been done, the prisoner called in a young boy
of the name of George Williams. and desired him to
affix his name as an arresting witness. This was done
by the boy, and the deed being thus apparently com-
ple,e, it was sent, together with the title-deeds of Gir-
ner's propetty (which had been placed in the prisoner',
custody), to Miss Mather. According to the covenants
in the deed, the interest was to be paid half yearly ti,
Miss Mather, and on the Ist day of January, 1826, the
first payment of interest became due. That payment
was regularly made, bat not by Garner, who was of
course ignorant of the existence of the deed to which
his name had been appended. On the Ist day of the
following July another half year's interest became due.
That was also regularly paid, and that carried the pay-
meat through 1826. In 1828, however, the interest for
a year and a half was in arrear. In the mean time Miss
Mather had married a Mr. M'Clelland,and he had made
application to Garner for payment of the interest sup-
posed to be due from him. Garner denied having
ever executed any deed to Miss Mather, and in conse-
quence an investigation was set on foot, which ended
in the present prckeeding. It would appear that shortly
after the transaction between Miss Mather and the pri-
soner, a Gentleman of the name of Manifold had offered
to lend Garner 3501. which was the sum for which Gar-
ner had applied to the prisoner, and which the latter had
declared himself unable to procure. Garner had im-
media ely accepted the offer cf Manifold, and had in-
structed the prisoner to prepare the necessary deed for
mortgaging the premises. The prisoner did draw a
_regular moitgage deed of Garner's premises at Birken-
head, and this deed was regularly executed by Garner.
The deed was afterwards sent by the prisoner to Mr.
Manifold, who paid the sum of 3501. to Garner. Mr.
Manifold thinking that all was right, did not for some
time look into the parcel which contained the mortgage
deed, but when at length he did examine it, he f• and
to his great surprise that the title deeds which ougl t to
have accompanied the mortgage deed were missing.—
In consequence an application was made to the pri-
soner, who declared that there was some mistake,
and that the title deeds must have been accidentally
mislaid. His office was searched, but no title deeds
were found. The prisoner then suggested, that as
the title deeds were lost, they should get Mr.
Povall, of whom Garner had purchased the pro-
perty, to make a new conveyance to Mr. Manifold.—
This was accordingly agreed to, and Mr. Puvall nude
a new conveyance. Considerable expense was thereby
occasioned, but the prisoner proposed to bear that him-
self, as it was through him that the deeds had-been lost.
The prisoner and Garner covenanted by a separate deed
to mdce diligent search for the lost deeds, and in case
they were found, to deliver them into the hands of Mr.
Manifold. These were the outlines of the case, which
he (Mr. Sergeant Cross) should endeavour to supputt
by evidence.
A great number of witnesses were then called, who
proved the facts stated in the opening speech.
John Swindon, a law statio er in Liverpool, proved
that on the 15th of August, 1825, hehad been employed
by prisoner to engross a mortgage dead, to be a con-
veyance from Garner t i Miss Mather. Witness was
paid for his wink, but did not recollect by whom. Did
not receive the di aught front the prisoner himself, nor
did he see the prisoner during the transacti•in.
George Williams stated, that in 1825 he was in the
service of the prisoner. The signature to the attestation
of the deed produced was in witness's handwriting. lie
signed it in prisoner's office, at prisoner's request. No
one but witness and prisoner were present. The pit-
saner also signed it at the same time.
Cross examined by Mr. F. WILLIAMS... Had attested
deeds before, and hoe* the meaning of doing so. Never
attested any other except when the patties to the deed
were present. His master pointed with his finger, and
there witness wince his name.

Wm. Gather, jun. proved the negotiation between
him and the prisoner, as stated by Mr. Sergeant Cross.
The deed being shown to witness, he said, .4 The words
asainst the seal, William Garner, are not my writing. I
never executed the deed, and never saw it, or knew of
it, will.' tl.e 22.1 of September, 1828. 1 received a letter
(rout Mr. M•Clellan.t, in August, 1823. I had never
before heArJ the name of Miss Mather.

S. mai (saw witnesses deposed, that the signature
the deed, " Gainer," was not in Mr. Gainer's
Mn. di CleHand, formerly Miss Mather—ln the year
1024 I was on a visit to psisoner and his wife at Lists..
pool, and conversed with him about putting out some
money at interest. In the following year he wrote to,
me to send him 65W. 1 sent it him and received a se.
esipt and some deeds. The prisoner paid me some in.
Serest in 1826 I afterwards married Mr. disCielland,
and gave ma my papers into the hands sl Mr. 614C1e1-'
land, jun. who is a soli< itor.
CI o-s examined by Mr. WiLLIAMS—I do not know'
that the deeds pioduced are those which I received
.trom the pi oner ; 1 have known the prisoner about
eight years ; I *as very intimate with his wife ; was on
4 trust seven wr eitht weeks on the occasion I have
:poken cf ; he wm t len lin Da in a very reviler eat

creditablesuatmar, and was sexy attritive to his busi-I
; theft was no appearance of distress or embatrass-
ment ; I had a high esteem for him ; he has a a ife and
four children.
John M'Clelland identified the deeds produced as t!..e
deeds which the last witness had deli.e.ed minas.
The other sitnesses 'loved the differsnt circumstances
which have been already detailed in the speech of Me.
Sergeant Cross.
The prisoner's Counsel took two object ohs to the
indictment. Both were overruled.
The prisoner read a written defence. lie began Iss
stating, thot not h witstanding the able assistance dim ded
him by his Counsel, he should avail himself of the op-I
portunity allowed him by law to address the July. WI
called their attention to the ciictonstances, that it was•
not until a Lite Act of Parliament that a permit whose
name w as alleged to be forged was all wed ttsgsve et f.
dente of the forgery. ' He begged them to be catrions
bow they received the testimony of Gainer. Were 'heat
not some inconsistencies in the evidence? Why should
he expose himself to the ob.ei 'ration of two witnesses.
wino one only would have been sutfi .ient ? Let them
alsu.consid r his situation and character at the moment
when be was accused of committing the crime. He was
in a very prosper us practice, and had uo necessity to
have recourse to the measure imptPed to him. His be•
haVIOUf since the charge had been made ought also to
be considered. He c.iuld have fled; he could have
tanned his property into motley, and got away. Y.t
that he had niaJe no attempt to do, even when °west-
ened by the letters of Mr. NliClelland. He had a u ife
and four children depindent upo s him—(the p ismer
here became greatly Affecte.)—who, in Cilke• he were
found guilty, would not only i.e deprived of his as ist-
lance, but would also be weighed down by rte imams
which must in consequence he attached to his 1140. e Ile
had depended upon the witnesses called against him,
but their evidence had disapp. anted hint, and he there-t
fore threw himse:f upon aleatory of the Court mad the
impartial consideration of the Jury.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY slimmed up the case.
The F.,feman t f the Jai y requested that they might
see the real signature of Mi. Gainer, in ord-i that they
might compare it with the signature alleged to have'
been forged.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY desired Mr. Garner to write his
name on a piece of paper in the manner in which he
usually signed it. H. did ;at d the sigaiatuie, together I
with the deed, were handed to the Jury.
The Jury then sailed, and alter a deliberation of I
about a quitter of all I o ir, seminal into Court, and
gave a ve diet of Godly, strongly tecominenJing the
prisoner to mercy.
John Parker, aged 37, was indicted for the manslangl -'
ter of his wife, Margaret Pat ker, at Manchestei. Is
appeared, that on the 10 h of September, a mosunder-
st.inding arose between the prisoner and Lis wife, And
he struck her with his bst. He then San After o e
the children, and the interposed to a r tett the ct ild
from his cruelty, when he again &wick her about the
head with his fist, and she full. The prisoner Lieu
stamped on her chest several times with Lis right foot.
and apparently with all his strength. In ten days Jim
she died,and the medical Gentlemen stated that the cause
of her death was the shock the system had sustained
from the blows she had received. The poor woman at
the time was in a bad .state i f health, and it is supposed
that she would have died in six or eight months from
disease. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. The
Learned Judge immediately sentenced him to he trans-
potted for his natural life.
William Thorpe, aged 18, was indicted f killing
Charles Disiikeily, at Oldham. The p isattet and the
deceased had agreed to fight. what in I.sticas'.iee is
called up and down. The witnesses stated that the de
ceased and the prisoner got.liold of each o her, and
struggled and fell ; the deceased fell on his back, anti
his rtes turned in his head; some people cried ..ut lie
was killed, and some that his neck was out. Time pri-
soner fell on tI e top of Dunkeily, and got hold it his
throat to throttle Lim. The deceased kept sobbing, but
did no: move; he subbed a few times, and in about ten
minutes lie died.

The J.►ry found tle prisoner Guilty.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, if ►hr primmer had been in.
dicted for murder, the evidence would h►.ve borne out
the charge not only against the prisoner, but all who
had been present giving encouragement • to the bottle.
The practice of fighting in the manner that had been
proved was a disgrace to the counts'', and made it ne-
cessary to make a severe example.