Star.
London, England, 1827-08-09 00:00:00

HIGHTIRLD V. P.BAKE.

This was an issue directed by the Master of the Rolls
to. try the •alidity of a deed of gift, by which the plain-
tiff claimed to be entitled to a certain estate in this
county called Bowers.

blr.Tatrevote, with whom was Mr.RICHA RISS, shortly
detailed the following facts :—The plaintiff, John High-
field, resided at a place called Mill Miest,in this county.
—He was formerly tenant of the estate that he now
claimed, which he rented of an old Gentleman of the
name of Ward. Mr. Ward was a man advanced in
years, and although he had many relatives, appeared
to have taken a fancy to the plaintiff, whom he em-
ployed to perform all the work that was required for
the management of the farm on which Mr. Ward dwelt.
The intimacy which was produced from the constant
attendance of the plaintiff on me. Ward, had created
such a degree of regard in the mind of Mr. Ward. that
in September, 1818, with a view to provide for the
plaintiff's large family, he caused a deed of gift to be
prepared, by which he conveyed the estate in question
to the plaintiff. The Jury would be told. no doubt, that
the deed in question was not prepared by Mr. Ward's
regular attorney, and that that circumstance alone
was sufficient to engender suspicion; but they would
fired that lie had applied co the professional Gentleman
who was generally .employed by Mr. Ward; but in
consequence of his absence from home, or some such
reason, the plaintiff was unable to get the deed drawn.
It was not to be supposed that a person in the plaintiff's
situation in life would evince much delicacy on such a
subject. He was anxious to secure for himself and a
numerous family independence, which he thought would
be a sufficient excuse for his applying to another person.
Accordingly, he went to a man of the name of Green,
who practised as a conveyancer, and by him the deed
was diawn, which was the subject of the present ins.
quiry. The Learned Counsel, after detailing the nature
of the evidence he should produce, concluded by calling
the following • iinesses:
• William Highfield, brother to the plaintiff, said-1
knew the late Joseph Ward for 40 yea's. My father
lived at Bowers ever since Ward bought it, and my
trotter succeeded him ; Ward died in 1819; I remem-
ber, in September, 1818, going with my, brother to
Ward's house at Mill Miest ; when we arrived there,
we found Ward and William Brown together; my
brother produced the deed in question, saying," 1 have
bought the deed." Ward said, " Thee hast not put
any thing in it but Bowers." My brother said be had
not. -Ward then desired Brown to go and fetch Wm.
Hawley, a friend of Ward's, to witness the deer l; Brown
returned with Hawley; Ward then desired Hawley to
lock at the deed, and see if it was all right, and nothing
in it but " Bowers ;" when Hawley read over the deed,
and came to the words rough meadow, Ward said,
" Rough et.ough, I reckon." Ward then put his mark
to the deed, and delivered it as his act and deed; Haw-
ley and I also signed it as witnesses; the plaintiff wrote
his name under the seal, but was told there was no oc-
casion for it; Sarah Bragley, Ward's housekeeper, was
there; after it was done, Hawley said it was a good
job Ward had given Bowers to Highfield, as he had a
big family; I went away, leaving the deed on the table;
. some beer was ordered, but 1 did not stay for it.

Cross-examined—Joseph Peake, the defendant, is the
grand nephew of Joseph Ward ; my brother said he had
got the deed from Green; the ink was brought by me
with which the deed was executed.—(The witness here
had a document handed over to him, which he said was
not signed by him).
William Brown—l live at Mil Miest, and knew the
late Joseph Ward; he was about 84 years of oge when
be died, and was very infirm for ten or twelve years
before. I used to sleep in the same MOM with him, and
a nephv of his. to take care i f him. I knew tte plain-
t ff, John Highfield ; -he lived at Bowers, and was veil
intimate with Ward; he was his tenant, and High-
field's family did all Ward's work on the farm. I heard
Ward say many times, that as Highfivld behaved well
to him, be should behave well to him. I was in the
house when John and William Highfield came in Sep-
tember, ISIS. Tile plaintiff said, " Nuw. Mr. Ward,,
I have gut this business done;" and Ward said to ma;
4, Billy, go and see if thee can find Hawley, to sign.
Highfielif I deed of Bowers." I sent and brought

Hawley in with me, for which Ward ordered hie asap
of ale. When I came in, then/ was a sheet of writing
on the table like that parchment. (Tire witreis at first
did nit know what parchment meant.) Ward often
spoke of Ifighfield, and called him ar J.ck." lie said
he had a big family, and he would give him a deed.
Ward had relations of his own;" but he said the heir at
law, when he was young, bad had a • great deal more
money thau he ever had, and had made It all away, so
he should never have any of his, remained with.
Ward till he died, and he continued in the same mind.
Cross-examined—The servants of the house were
present at the time when Ward said he had given
Bowers to Highfield; it was between ten and eleven
o'clock in the morning.
Sarah Highfield—My name was Sarah Bragley. I
lived with the late Joseph Ward 11 years and a guar•
ter. lam now married to the son of the plaintiff. The
witness then proceeded to corroborate the evidence of,
the preceding witnesses, respecting the eucution of the
deed, in September, 1818. by Joseph Ward. She said,
before H.taley came in, Highfield was reading it, and.
Ward at that time made the remark about the rough
meadow; and atter Hawley came, Ward took the pen
and made a :crumbling mark; he then said to the plain-
tiff to remember he had not given him any thing but
Bowers. She said she was very fond of the Peakes, but
that Ward was against them, and that he would not
leave them any thing.
Cross-examined—l don't know my age exactly ; I
was 52 years of ae four years ago. The plaintiff did
not make his son marry me after this law suit began.
When my husband married me, his father cursed him
and abused him for it, as he expected him to marry a
fortune. I had been &lamented in this cause before 1
was married; I have ant been always on good terms
with my father-in-law. I don't like him now, but I
never said I would hang ldm at any time. I know a
person named Prudence Sunday; I never said to her
that if John Highfield had a deed of gift. it must be a
forgery. Ikn Mary B.irtows; I never said to her,
as GOD is my Saviour ; I be d—d it I did. The witnesa
here became extremely violent, repe..tii.g to every que,-
tion similar asseverations. Here, said she, is a parcel
of false swearers. When Ward and Hawley had signed
else deed, the plaintiff put it in his pocket. •
Charlotte Cree had heard Ward say he -had .given
Highfield a deed upon Bowers.
Ann Cady, aged 81. said her mother was Joseph
Ward's eldest si ter. She knew John Highfieid. WarJ
was very fend ofhint till the time of his death. The
witness was very angry w;tb him for giving Bowers to
the plaintrff. Ward said the reakes s►.outd never have
any of his. property; he would rather give it to a rag.;
man, a tinker, or a chimney-sweeper, than that the'
Peakes should have it.

Cross-examined—l have not entered into any agree-
went with Highfield respecting a legacy of mine. If
the Peakes had had the estate, I should have had a 201.
legacy.
Two other witnesses proved that Ward had said he
had given Bowers to Highfield.
The deed, dated the 16th of September, 1818, was
then produced and read, by which it appeased that
Ward gave Bowers to the plaintiff, on condition of his
paying him an annuity of 501. per annum for his life.
Mr. Camesam, (with whom was Mr. Sergeant Rue-
SELL), in addressing the Just for the deressdant, sod,
he was astonished at the astounding audacity of this
man, who came into Court endeavousing to prove
the validity of a sired, which he well knew was a for.
fiery, whereby, instead of enjoying this property he
claimed, be well knew that he had forfeited his life, and
ought at this moment to be taking his trial at another
bar, where the just punishmeat to his crimes would be
death. He .(Mr. Campbell) was this day prepared
with evidence which, if the plaintiff was taking his
trial at the Crown Bar, wculd bring home the charge
of forgery to him ; and if the Jury Mere empowered
to try him on that ch. ree. would place them under
'the painful necessity of finding him guilty. This case,
which was comii.enced by the production and attempted
establishment of a forged instrument, was supported
by a tissue of perjury. The Learned Counsel here
entered into a review of the evidence which had been,
adduced in support of the plaintiff's case, pointing out
the parts where the witnesses contradicted each other,
and comparing the depositions taken in Chancery with
the testimony given by the same witnesses this day,
which lie contended contained some most important
contra ctions—contradictions so material and evident,
that if was not an issue out of thetourt of Chan-
cery. where it was expected that the evidence on both
rides should be examined before this Court and a Jury.
He should content himself by exposing them, and leave
his case fearlessly in the hands of the Jury without any
further evidence. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to detail toe evidence he should produce on ihe part of
the defendant, whereby it would be proved that Ward,
by different wills up to the time of his death, had pro-
vided for the Peakes by bequeathing them h s estates of
Bowers and M Il Miest, subject to certa'n legacies;
that it was not until after Ward's death that the:
plaintiff ever thought of claiming the Bowers estate;
that the plaintiff then offered 1001. to the clerk of
Wised's attorney to get him a deed of gift drawn, which
was refused ; that in Sept. 1819, be at last succeeded;
in getting a deed of gift drawn, engrossed, and stamped ;
and though the deed now produced was not the
deed which he had thus obtained, yet it was an exact
copy, word for word, actually containing the very in-
accuracies of the first. Is was impossible, continued
the Learned Counsel, to suppose this was the effect of
a miracle. It was true, that when the Hebrew Scrip-
tures were to be translated into Greek, 70 translators
had been employed, and the translation of each was
found to correspond in every word and syllable ; that
was considered the effect of a miracle, and was one of
the proofs of the authenticity of the Old Testament; but
since. the Septuagint translatl.n, no such miracle had
ever been heard of. In conclusion, the Learned Coun-
sel said that he was sure the Jury, when they heard
the ample testimony he should produce to prove the
charge he had made against the plaintiff, would be
sorry they could not by their verdict impose that
punishment upon him which he so notch- deserved.—
But the hand of justice, though ilow, was certa n ; and
the day was fast approaching a ton John Highfield
would receive rise punishment by law imposed on _such
offences; and to ensure that punishment, lie, Mr.
Campbell, should feel it his duty to apply to his Lord-
ship, that the deed in question be impounded to an-
swer the purpo:,es of justice. •
W. Loskley said, 1 was clerk to Mr. Memnon, a•
attorney. residing at Mark-t Drayton. Mr.. Batterton
was employed for the late Mr. Ward: during that
' period several wills were prepareiffor him. He used to
make his mirk instead of writing his name. I think'
the marls to the deed is like the cross he used to make.,

I •knear also Mr. Hawley, the attesting Witness.to this
deed. I don't dna this is his handw►iting. In 1818,
the plaintiff asked me to taepare a deed of gift of the
Bowers estate for him. I asked him if he had brought
me Ward's instructions, as it not, I must go to him
for instructions first ? He said, I must not do that,
I fault prepare the deed, and he would get it exe-
cuted himself. I sail I could not do-that. He said if
I did he would give me 1001. 1 still refused. He came
again to the office about a month alter, and again
asked me to prepare the deed. I said he had better
see Mr. Battetton. He refused to do that, and said, if
'I did not p• epare it, he would be d—d if he did not
get somebody else to do it. I had orders before Wat a's
death to distr,in on Mr. Highfield for rent.
Henry Gray produced the will of Joseph Ward
from the Court of the Bishop of Lichfield,' wbeteby
he gave the estate of Bowers and Mill-Miest ro.John
and Joseph Peake, subject to the payment of legacies to
the extent of 5001. on each.

Thomas Manly, a visiting clerk. residing at New.
castle, said, that in September, 1819. he met the plain-
tiff; Highfield, in Newcastle.
.He asked me to make
him a deed of gitt. I ,aid 1 was not an attorney, but
took him to one, where he gave instructions for a deed
of gift, for conveying the Bowers estate to him. He
never came fur it. He told me, on parting, not to
mention it to any one.

Mr. Ralph Lea, in 1819, was clerk to Mr. Preston,
an attorney, of Buralem. In September, 1819, the
plaintiff came to me at Hanley, and wanted a deed
prepared, from a person named Ward to himself. 1
rtquested him to go over to Mr. Preston at Barslem.—
The deed was drawn according to the draught I now
produce; it was dated the 16th of Septen.ber, 18191
and by Highfield's direction the date was altered to
the 11th of September, 1818 : he said he wanted it to
agree with an..thei deed.
Mr. Preston proved that he received instructions from
the plasutiff to prepare a deed of gift in September,
1819.. The plaintiff gave him a paper, winch con-
tained the description of the premises and parties : he
said he would take we and see the d.ed properly
executed him .ell.

Mr, Battetton, an attorney of Market Drayton, was
attorney iormerly to the tate Mr. Ward: he found
after his death, the deeds of the Bowers estate, which he
gave to Thomas Peake. The witness demanded rent
farm the phintiC !honour claimed the estate. Mr.
Ward died in 1819. .

Thomas Aubrey worked with the plaintiff at Ward's
mill. I ask •d the plaintiff. now his landlord was read,
how it would be ? He slid.' he supposed he should
hold the farm for the remainder of his lease, and then
be suppost d one of Peake's sons would take ir.
Two sons of Mr: Hawley said. the signature to the
deed of gilt, purporting to be his, was not in his hand.
writing.
Mr. Dent, an attorney, said the signature James
Hawley was not in his handwriting; he would not be.
lieve William Highfield on his oath.
Prudence Streatley and Jane Burrows proved that
they heard Sarah Bragly, now Mrs. Highfield, say
that Highfield had no deed of gift: if be had, it must
boa for gory.
The deed having been produced and compared with
the draught prepared by Mr. Preston, was found to
currespnnd exactly.
Mr. TAUNTON having replied at considerable length,
Mr. Justice LITTLIMALZ summed up the evidence to
the Jury, when, after some consideration, they returned
a verdict fur the defendant, thereby declaring the deed
invalid. • . .

This trial commenced at ten o'clock. this morning,
and lasted till nine o'clock at night.