The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-16 00:00:00

CHESHIRE ASSIZES.

The active business of the assizes commenced on Monday
before Mr. Baron GURNEY and Sir John PATTESON, Knight,
at the Shire Hall, Chester.

CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY.
Before Baron GURNEY.
FORGERY.

Richard Blundell was indicted for uttering a prommissory
note for £4BO, with intent to defraud Mr. Henry Ilayes ;
and with endorsing it, with intent to defraud Sir T. S. M.
Stanley, Bart., and also the bank of Messrs. Granville, and
f Chester; and lastly, with uttering it, knowing it to
be Co.,forged.

The Attorney-General stated the case at some length, and
in the course of his observations he remarked, that the charge
was one of a most serious nature, and was rendered more SO
because the prisoner (unlike most criminals) was a well edu-
cated man. He had- been the head steward of Sir Thomas
Stanley since the year 1829, and during that period he had
received his rents, and transacted the greater portion of his
business ; and Henry Hayes is Sir Thomas Stanley's land
agent. In April last the prisoner went to Croughton and
Weston to receive the rents due to his master; and' on his
return it had been his usual custom; in obedience to Sir
Thomas Stanley's orders, to deposit £5OO in Messrs. Wil-
liams and Granville's bank, for the use of Sir Thomas du-
ring Chester Races. On the 3d of May the latter asked the
prisoner whether lie had deposited the usual sum in the bank,
when he replied lie had done so. On the 4th of May the
prisoner sent £l5 in notes, and a bill for £487, drawn on
Henry Hayes, and " endorsed by myself, by procuration of
Sir Thomas Stanley," dated Puddington. He (the attorney-
general) understood that the prisoner meant to set off against
this fraud, that he was in partnership with Hayes • now this
was unfounded,—the only transactions between ;hem were
these—Sir Thomas Stanley gave the prisoner and Mr. Hayes
permission to dig for lead on a plot of his property, in Flint-
shire, but they never obtained an ounce. After this they en-
gaged in another mining speculation, at Halkin, which had
never produced anything. No partnership ever existed; each
paid his own share for the purchase and labour, as it was
common in such transactions ; and Mr. Hayes never gave
the prisoner authority to draw bills on him, yet he had done
this, and imitated his signature. As to the endorsement on
the bill, the prisoner had no'right to draw a single note or
cheque in the name of Sir Thos. Stanley, as he had never re-
ceived authority from him to do so. The learned gentleman
concluded by observing that the questions for the jury to try
were, whether the prisoner had a right to draw the bill and
endorse it, and whether he had a right to utter it, knowing,
as he did, that it was forged.
Mr. Jervis called Sir T. S. Stanley, who deposed.—The
prisoner has acted as my steward since 1829. He went in
April last to receive my rents at Congleton and Warford. I
Faye him directions to put, as usual, out of these rents, £5OO
in Hughes and Co.'s bank, for my use during the race week ;
prisoneytold me he had paid the usual sum into the bank,
but said not a word about the bill. Hayes is my land agent,
and resides at Puddington ; he owed me no money in March,
1839. Blundell received my rents, paid my bills, and kept
my books ; he had no authority from me to accept or en-
dorse notes or bills of exchange,
Robert Roberts.—l am clerk in the bank of Thomas Pierce
Williams, George Brydges Granville, and Thamas Williams.
On the 4th May last, I received a letter from the prisoner, it
contained three £5 notes, and a promissory note for £487 ;
the letter was dated Hooton ; it stated that it would leave a
small amount to the credit of Sir Thomas Stanley ; no sum
had been placed to Sir Thomas's credit instead of the bill.
The bill was put in and read.

Cross-examined by Mr. Temple.—He could not say that
the prisoner was in the habit of paying in bills of exchange to
Sir Thomas Stanley's account, but some had been paid in.
William Hayes.—l am son of Mr. Henry Hayes, of Pud-
dington. The signature on the note is not in my father's
handwriting, but it is a strong resemblance.
Mr. Henry Hayes.—l am land-agent to Sir Thomas
Stanley. The body of the note is in Blundell's handwriting,
so is the endorsement ; the signature is in imitation of my
writing. I know no firm of Henry Hayes and Co. in Pud-
dington ; I did not owe. Sir Thomas Stanley anything, nor
ever authorised Blundell to draw a bill in my name. I and
the prisoner worked a mine in Flintshire from July, 1836, to
January, 1837, and in April, 1838, we commenced working a
mine at Halkin mountain' together: I paid £229 for the
mine, and Blundell paid £l6O.
Cross-examined.—We were jointly interested in the mines.
On the Kith May last, I and Mr. Blundell visited the Halkin
mine, and the prospect was so bad that I thought then of
giving it up. In a short time afterwards I had some hopes
of the mine, but have not yet got any-lead. Blundell.asked
me what name we should give the mine ; I said I would
!Manage the mine until it came to profit, and then I would
surrender it to him. I never mentioned anything about
having my name first in the mining firm ; I never had dealing
in bills in all my life, or endorsed any in favour of myself.
A bill was handed up to witness, and he swore the signature
was not in his handwriting. A letter was also handed up,
and he said the signature was his.

James Gregory-, examined by Mr. Cottingham.—l am
manager of the colliery for Charles Stanley and-Co. at Ness.
The note in question was handed up to him, and he swore
that the signature to it was not in Hayes's handwriting, it
was a more fluent hand.

Richard Congreaves, Esq.—l am a magistrate of this
county. and the examination of witnesses was taken before
me. Blundell was then before me on a charge of embez-
zlement.

Mr. Temple objected to the reading of the depositions, or
any declaration made by the prisoner, because he was then
on a different charge to the present.
The Judge said he did not conceive the objection was
good. _ _

- The declaration of the prisoner was read ; it consisted of
several answers to questions put to the prisoner ; in one he
said, the signature to that bill is mine.
Sir Thomas Stanley.—l never gave authority to Blundell
to endorse this bill in my name, and he never told me he had
done so. He, as my agent, gave receipts for me for. rent.
There are some few bills paid into the bank to my credit—
one on May 14, 1839, and one on May 7. lam in the habit
of selling large quantities of cheese to dealers, and Blundell
has received bills on my account. I was in the habit of
receiving my pass-book from the banker's about once a
month ; the amount between the prisoner and myself was
never finally settled. I had given no particular directions
to the prisoner to pay in money for the races this year ; I
never heard of a transaction in which a £lO,OOO bill was paid
on my account by the Railway Company to Mr. Blundell,
and that he paid it to the Royal Bank in Liverpool.
Mr. Roberts, clerk in the bank, proved that Sir Thomas
S,anley's pass-book there were several entries of bills paid
by Blundell ; they had been honoured and paid.
Mr. Temple submitted the indictment was not made out,
as to the intent to defraud either Sir Thomas Stanley, Hayes,
or the bankers. No ingenuity could prove that Sir Thomas
had been defrauded.

Mr. Welsby followed on the same side. He said the hank-
ers had made no advance on the bill ; Hayes could not be
liable, for it had been proved the firm of Hayes and Co. was
fictitious; and as to the false making of the bill, it could not
be made out, as the bill was not due; and as to the indorse-
ment it was in Blundell's handwriting, and therefore the
counts would not be sustained.
The Court.—Hayes might have suffered from the bill if
such a firm had existed, the, bankers received the bill in lieu
of cash ; and as to Sir Thomas Stanley, the bill was a docu-
ment in the banker's hand against him ; under all these cir-
cumstances he thought there was no evidence to go before the
jury.

Mr. Temple addressed the jury with great force and effect ;
in the course of which he alluded to the prejudice which had
been excited against the prisoner, and guarded them not to
be carried away with it. The prisoner• had always admitted
he wrote the bill ; and the question was, did he conceive he
had authority to do so, on the supposition of a partnership
between himself and Hayes; which the latter admitted was
true in two instances. If profit had arisen from the mines,
Mr. Hayes would have been glad to acknowledge the partner-
ship; that such partnership existed there could be no donbt
from Mr. Hayes's evidence, and therefore he (the prisoner)
had a right to draw a bill in the name of Hayes and Co. The
question-for the jury to consider ;was, had the prisoner done
it feloniously; and as to the forgery,•Blundell had not forged
Sir Thomas Stanley's name, but endorsed it in his own name ;
they must be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of an
intent to defraud. Now, Sir Thomas Stanley could never be
defrauded by the bill, for he could never be called upon to
pay a farthing of it, as the bill was paid into the bank to that
gentleman's credit ; Blundell never asked the banker for a
farthing on the bill ; and then, if there was no firm, it could
never injure Hayes.
His lordship, in summing up, said the only questions were,
had the prisoner forged the drawing or endorsement of the
bill, and uttered it knowing the same to have been forged.
The jury retired, and were absent about two hours, when
they returned into court with a verdict, "We find the pri-
soner Not Guilty," and the foreman added, "on account of
the partnership."