Star.
London, England, 1816-07-20 00:00:00

thTELLIGAAti.

'Mtt OF ICING'S BENCA, JULY D.
SOLOMONA V. BIGGERS.
TI is
wasan action by the endorser of a bill of et-
harp against the acceptor : it wit dated the 9th
'gra, all at five months' date, for 447 6s. The
cidaece was, that the acceptance was not the delen-
da e, writing, but a forgery.
.ina Arrow:et Gemettao said, that the defendant
imere of those gentlemen who found it convenient
141 goby two names ; and in choosing his second he
had displayed considerable ingenuity, following in
isle degree the example 014 person who not many
rim ago was indicted, and very nearly convicted,
by the name of Enots, his real 1111111 e being composed
ethos^ letters reversed, Stone so in this case the
mend tot, *lose real name was Biggers, had for a
bog floe passed under the appellation of Saygib
Kgg;b,
the exact letters of his name reversed, not
biti7TeTy easily prow-mimed. The plea was, that
the signature to the bill in question seas a forgery,
lot the defendant hAd ventured to charge a clerk in
la attorney's office, of the name of Jones, with the
ta me s but though several Sessions at the Old
Bailey had passed since the accusation, Jones had
been permitted to remain at large without trial or
etole•st• Mon. The truth was, that there was no foun-
dation for the assertion ; it eras a mere invention
ey the defendant, who had before. shewn a prolific
imagination in the adoption of a fine-sounding Asiatic
name to defeat the fieriest demand of the plaintiff.
ir4tnesscs were then called.
Mr. J. I-I. Smith, horn the bankrupt's offiee, said,
that he saw the defendant sign the usual bond on
suiting a docket against a man of the name of Nuny,
and comparing his hand-writing on the bond with the
same attached to Op bill, he thought that they were
written by the same person, but he had no other
trans of knowledge. •
William Curry, a witness, who was so deaf that
.theoath was adminisOred and allabe questions put
**thing, swore positively to the defendant's writing,
"Isith he had• seen many times, and had brought
epecirnen is his pocket.
William Banifield, a distress-broker, deposed, that
*hen making. a seitere of the defendant's goods, he
had Writ! Many scrapi of„ paper in the house, the
sig,nateres upon which were very similar to the hand-
writing upon the bill.
Emanuel aril Philip Crabbe proved the hand-
writing of the dealer, and spoke to a Conversation
dui defendant h Id had with them when he sued, after
having been discharges under the Insolvent Act,
that it the witness, Philip Crabbe, did not give him
or pass his word for £lO.. for furniture, he (the
defendant) would go before the Lord Mayor and
dray the hand-writing to the bill.
Mr. ToreiNo, on the other side, complained of the
asfair statement made by the Attorney-General re-i
larding the defendant, who wits a poor tailor, en-
immuring to support a large family by his industry s I
be strimadverttd upon the improbabilities of the plain-1
tiff's case, and called the following witnesses :
Miss Sarah Biggers, sister to the defendant.--She
Me that the bill was not signed by her brother,'
and that when it was presented for payment by Mr.
Salmons, she had so stated, and had brought for.
ward her brother's books to thew the difference in
the writing.
Dural a tollg- ctoss.examination by the4atii•Tort-
FEY•GENERAL, she toad that she never knew that the
defendant hid gone to the King's Bench prison, or
had passed there by the name of Saygib. After
much pressing, she admitted that she had heard him
to called ; but that when people addressed her as
Miss Saygib, she denied that it was her name. She
had seen him sign his aurae Saygib about forty or
fifty times, but she had never asked him why he did
so ; she had nevet heard him say that he went by the
Mime of Saygib because the Society for the Prusects-
don of Swindlers was troublesome to him.
Joseph Batson also swore that the bill was not
signed by the defendant.
Cross examined, he stated, that be had seen the
defendant write several times, in order to prove to the
!fitness that the bill was not of his signature. He
became acquainted with the defendant in the King's
Bench prison while lie went by the name of daygib.
John Fremont, an agent of the Insolvent Court,
was addece4, in order to thew that William Curry
bad *Worn front malicious mutates, having expressed
a resolution togive decisive evidence; in consequence
of a pending dispute between hint and &Fru. The
(Eh, kowever, was not,at all made out. A he witness
was of opinion that she bill Was not
.signed by the
defendant: .
Two clerks out of the ottce of the defendant's.
Orley deposed to the same effect ; andel*. lenami
the defendant's attorney, gave evidence to the pro.
feedings before the Lord Mayor, when the defendintt
chalknged to it by the plaintiff, made oath, that the
'CI Was not signed 14 hint.
After a reply from the ATTOENET-OENERAL. and
s charge from Lord Eursroitoottn, the Jury found'
S verdict for the plaintiff, aii-1•7 6s.
ASSIGNEES OP WOOPGATE V. PETO; .
This was an issue from Chancery to try the vali.
air, of a certain agreenient made bet Ween the bank.
rapt and the defendant; the contractor fur building
'tae new Custom-house, or. the Bth of Noveniber, 1913.1
The agreement had been entered. into under the fol.l
•
^leng circumstances :•—The' defendant had yid
t.m..er in the sons of the bankrupt to the extent of
a!alut snow, for which the bahkrupt gave his Sc.
erptasces to six bills of exchange at visions dates.
Before any of them became due, he came to the de.
fondant and told hint that he was resolved nevet to pay
o•le of them; and that he would rather starve in prison.
fir,however, expressed his regret at the situation fn
which the defendant would thus be *ends and said,
that Ind (Woodgate; the bankrupt) bad a leasehold
interest for 90 years in two houses in Eusten-square,
which were only iocurnbered by a mortgage to Sir
Horace Paul, on which one year's interest wai.dtie r
.4 therefore propcsed tl.at the defendant should gibe
0P thg•Six bills, and should take the two houses, sub-
act to the incun.braoce, instead. After some nego-
tiation it was so agreed, :ld a meeting took place at
a lock.up.house it: Blackfriars-road. for the purpose
--li;
ng the arrangement into effect. There the
lemereent in question was signed by the parties,
\Vuodgate representing that the defendant had never
uncle such a bargain in his life. Very sherd? titer.
*ants the defendant sent proper nom" I. take
'es4ion Of the houses assigned-to Woos bat they had

• . .
Pnri loot anieed ivhen they ibre followed Sheer.
Officer, with a writ Were facia: poernsineffe, in con-
sequence of a judgment in ejectment obtained by Sir
Horace Paul. The defendant was of eonrse obliged
to relinquish the houses; and Woodgate having
committed as act of bankruptcy by remaining two
months in the King's Bench prison, the defendant
endiasiOured to prove the bills of exchange under the
commission. He was met, however, by the agree-
ment he had executed on the 13th of November IS
and the matter being discussed before the Lord
Chancellor, an issue was directed to ascertain whether
that agreement had or had not been signed under
fraudulent representations by the bankrupt.
The issue being upon the defendant, the Amens'
Gimutat., on his behalf, opened the emir, and called
witnesses present at the signature of the instniment,
who proved that Woodgate had represented that the
bArgain was an excellent one for the defendant, and
that the only incumbrance was that of Sir -H. Paul.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiffs, said that the de-
feadant had relied upon the latter part of the transac-
tion only : whereas, if he had taken it up a little ear-
lier, it would have appeared that the defendant was I
aware of all the circumstances of the case. both with
regard to the ejectment and the judgment under
which Sir H. Paul had taken possession of the houses
in Enstort-sqltare. The evidence be adduced estab-
lished thin statement, and under the direction of the,
Chief Justice a verdict wits found for the plaintiffs.