Star.
London, England, 1819-04-10 00:00:00

him to sign a note in July, 1814; witness did sign
the note ; had received a great many notes from Mr.
Kemp before that time. At that time witness re-
ceived two promissory notes of £5OO each, from Mr.
Kemp. One of these notes he gave back to Mr:
Kemp, about a week after he received it. Witness
afterwards went out of town, and left the other note
in charge of his son to change with Mr. Kemp. He
did this in consequence of a meeting he had with Mr.
Kemp, before he left town, when Mr. Kemp said to
him, 4, John, you vrill.do me no service unless you
change that note of Flower's for a note of later date."l
The note he then saw (the one in question) was that
he received from his son, on returning home a fort-
night after. Remembers seeinglMr. Kemp in August;
in the- same year. The meeting was at the house of
witness. The note was not produced on that occa-
sion ; but witness told Mr. Kemp that Mr. Flower
had said the note was a forgery. In October last was
called upon to make good the security into which he
had entered at Mr. Kemp's request. Was arrested
upon that security. Saw the prisoner after that ar-
rest, and requested him to suffer the assignees (phi-,
soner was then a bankrupt) to pay the money. Fri:
soner then said that the money was net to be paid by
the assignees, but that if he, witness, would go to
London with him, he would pay Mr. Bergner, the
holder of the security into which Mr. Cult had en-
tered, as much as his dividend would amount to.
Cron-examined.—Had seen Mr. Kemp in Bath
more than once between May, 1811, and October,
1818. Mr. Kemp had slept at his house more than
once during that interval. Had been very intimate
at one time with the prisoner, but had not written to
him within the last two or throe years.
CHeri,Mr. SetjeantVem. produced a letter which
witness acknowledged he hid wriden to the prisoner
withinthe last twelie months.
Executed a release to Mr. -Flower this morning,
before he came into Court. Had never been applied,
to to execute a release before; that 'war; not by Mr.
Bachelor. Had been applied to by the opposite party;
Mr. Bachelor was solicitor in the present cause raise
acted as solicitor under the commission against Mr.
Kemp. Knew that Mr. Kemp had been trying to
bupersede his commission. After he hadtold Kemp
that the note was a forgery, he gave it to his brother
for some time, that in case he should be applied to
by Mr. Kemp's family, he might be able so say ha
had not got the note. His brother kept the note about
a month--since that time it had been-in his own pes-
session—from July, 1814, to January last. About
that time, he went with his solicitor, Mr. Cruick-
shank, to demand payment of the note from Mr.
Flower. Went chiefly to ascertain if it was a forgery:
Mr. Justice Hottiovn.--If Mr. Flower told you
five years ago that the note was a forgery, how hap-
pened it that you took no steps in the afFair till the
year 1818?-1 had other securities which I thought
sufficient.

Witness was not present at any interview between
Mr. Flower and Mr. Kemp sulsequent to 1814. ?--
Thinks he was not: would not swear.
Re-examined.—liad not taken any steps with re-
gard to the forgery, until lately, because Mr. Ber-
guer, to whom he had become security at Mr. Kemp's
desire, had been out of England. On his (Server's)
return, he called upon witness for his debt, upon
which witness began to look more closely to his own
secur:t-

Charles CuW, the son of the last witness, proved the
changing *of the notes with Kemp, but would nOt
swear that the note shown to him m Court wets the
note which he had received from Kemp. •
On hiS cross-examination he-said, that he had lived•
with hislather frOm: the year 1814 to181t.• Dttein*
that tithe had frequently Seen Kerhp taih. Duri
the tithe that his father had the supposed fbrged
in his possession, Kemp Slept three 'or four tames in'
the house of his (witness's) father. Ife knew' Plower
well, and had done a great deal of bisiness with MM.'
Remembered the difficulty which his father got into.
in Mr. Berguer's case; but did not think•Mr: Flower
assisted his father upon that occasion. • • • -
Mr. Thomas Flosver said, drat be had known the
prisoner 22 years; was his apprentice; and 14 • anis-
rant ; and in• 1814 succeeded.bint isitlit grocery .bu-
siness. Gave LB,OOO fa* the stock in tvade, and a'
great proportion of the book debts. 'That was to he
paid by promissory notes of £5OO each. There were
18 notes ; the notes were payable;.one after the other,
at the end of every week. They were all dated on
the 25th May, 1814.—(11ere the witness produced
the. notes,) One of the notes was payable at eleven
lweeks date. That note was endorsed by Mr. Kemp.
raid the note at eleven weeks, to- Mr. James, of the
house of Neele, Sas, and Co. to whom it was en-
dorsed. (Wltnesslooked •gt the note in question.)
Neither that note, nor the signature, were his hand-
writing. Never aatitorized any person to sta any
suck note for him.

Cross-esatnined.—Never authorised any person to,
sign aay note for hiin. Certainly no person out of
his business. CeTpiinly not Mr. Kemp. Was not
always-in his business. igigi.xt possibly have atitho-
rind Finless, his man, to stun any thing for lisp.
Would not swear. Was positive 'bat he never au-
thcniyed any mem draw bills for him.
Mr.. Justice Hozamm.—flow came you to say,
then; thit rat bsid authorised Einglais ?-1 under.
stood the question.onlY.ai tp endorsing bills.
ness said not come with any intention to take airsii
theJife of Ns biother in law. The accounts between
him and 11540.etap *tee not settled to this day. A
large balance was dee 'to fl--Oh be was *stir
ken, • the accOutits *az m4W.
Mr. justice' HeLioiti.—What do you mean, Sir?
You first say there is a large balance due, and that
aeconnts are not Settled .;* and' then you mi they !
Mt settled:* What are we to under an is!-;-They. are I
settled; itiy. Lord: -goo-6 ivisiii:lsor:witness: for
the good-Will of Yenieslratde: • A. bond was given
'for that : he had the bond in Court he had parchaSed
"it. The bonolt was pat dp by auCticitf. 1 Wee tot
his own of 0,000, fie Stun `011:0500, tadririgeast
of £1,400 %earth of bad hnolt Atte/hick he etuld!
not "Calm. 'Newt applied to Kesnis fir a. Mime
from *II bond after be hied bon en itdfilosight it
tbt-office of the Sblieltoe. 4or Was
tot to the Daskrupt'saThat wait -
but hiMilelf when he tba bond. he the
bond on the Ist " .1011 g eight. or :nine
mambo alto *-Kitieviletatite a bookraota • *a*
IkePkal
lots':444tattolisi staitiaa.-134
'notraaassibor
_asatakartiA nit
or that bigwig:sad Art% walk into Ibtiikhg

room, where Ford saes Kemp and er,
Did not tell Ford that be bad avithgr,lseit '44 k;P
to draw bills in his name, oa COation'that r.
Kemp) shonld find money for then when due.'
Mr. John Cruickshank said that he was a Solicitor
in Bath. Received a. note which he held in his hand
about the sth of January last, from Mr. Sohn Cuff.,
Went with Mr. Cuff to Flower's house, to demand
payment of the note. The note was not paid. Af-
terwards, at the instance of Mr. Flower, he went
with Mr. Cuff to Mr. Bachelor's office. Returned
the note to Mr. Cuff.
Cross-examined.—Was not concerned in the pre-
sent prosecution. Had bailed and defended the ac-
tion upon which Mr. Berguer had arrested Mr. Cuff'.
This communication with Mr. Flower was aboui the
sth of January. Saw Mr. Kemp in two or three
days after, and thinks that Mr. Kemp was then aware
that he (witness) had been with Mr. Flower. lie dis-
claimed all connection with the present prosecution.
Mr. Samuel Bachelor is a Solicitor. Received the
note in question from Mr. John Cuff, on the 9th of
January. Has known Mr. Flower eight years. The
signature to the note was not the hand-writing of
4r. Flower. Ile (witness) said so three years ago.
Mr. Serjeant YELL.—What you said three years
ago, Mr. Bachelor, the Court cannot hear ; and if you
know any thing of your profession, you know it is not
evidence.

The case being clesed on die part of the Crown,
the prisoner left his defence entirely to his Counsel
and to the Court.
Stephen Ford said, that he was a Sheriff's Officer;
had bet'n so thirteen years, and in three counties. In
Sane, 1814, had a-warrant against Mr. Kemp for
40a. Went to the house of Mr. Flower to look for
him. Saw Flower, who said that Mr. Kemp was gone
Into Wiltshire, and that he never wished to see his
face again ; that he was a villain; for that be (Flower)
had given him leave to make use of his name in se-'
veral bills, and that he had given him that liberty on,
condition that he (Kemp) should find money for
them when they Were due ; but that Kemp had
broken his promise; and that he (Flower) had been
obliged to pay one or two notes which Kemp had
signed already. Witness remembered going to Mr.
Flower's house afterwards, about the 26th of July, to
look for Mr. Kemp ; he saw Mrs. Flower, who spewed
him into the dining-room, where he saw Mr. Flower'
and Mr. Kant) sitting at a table, with papers before
them. Witness said, he had a warrant against Mr.
Kemp; and Mr-Flower said he would stgn a bail
bond if witness had one in his pocket. The rrisoner
filled up the bail bond. Witness asked who was to
be the other bail? Mr. John Cuff was then sent for,
who signed the bail bond too.
On the cross-examination of this witness, nothing
appeared materially to affect his testimony.
William Finglass said, that he knew Mr. Kemp
and Mr. Flower in the year 1814. Remembered that
upon one occasion Kemp gave him a bill, and re-
quested him to take_ it to Flower, and get Flower to
sign it. He went to Mr. Flower, and asked him to
do so. There were pcople in the shop with Mr.
Flower. Mr. Flower stepped aside and whispered the
witness to tell Kemp to sign the bill for him (Flower.)
Mr. 'Thomas Flower, on his re-examination, con-
tradicted the whole of the evidence which had been
given by Mr. Ford and by Mr. Finglast ; but his tes-
timony was given in qualified terms. He spoke ,i.to
the best of his knowledge."
The Learned judge' summed up the evidence at
considerable' length. 'The crime, he observed, with
Which the prisoner stood charged was a capital crime;
and if he was found guilty, that conviction would,
probably be followed by the execution of the lair.,
There was a great deal of mystery about the exp.
'was for ,the Jury to decide ;
,and they were to mt.
not only whether the signature to the note in 11
gogAiOn hoti or had not been written by the prisonaegi
but Whether or not the prisoner herd Agtbority from,
Flower to use that signature ?
The Jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner—
Guifo,The. tri4 lasted nearly seven hours, and
the Court war crowded to excess.

FERMANAGH, (IRELAND).
P. Duna" was indicted, fot that ht, on the 27th of
July last, did murder A. Somerville. This trial ac-
quired much interest, from a most atrocious effort to
deprive the prisoner of his right to a fair and impar-
tial trial by his Judge and Jury. It appeared from
the eVidettee, that the deceased and his brothers had
been apprehended on a warrant charging them with
felony ; that the prisoner was taken from his labour
to assist in guarding them ; that the deceased ran
away from the guard, and was pursued by the pri-
soner, whom he dragged through a river, and then
tbrew him down on the bank of it ; and that the pri:
soner in the struggle gave him a wound in the neck
with a bayonet at the end of a pole, which occasioned
his death. The prisoner was a Catholic—the de-
ceased an Orangeman. To sustain the indictment,
the prosecutor bad entirely failed to !lige out a case,
amounting even to manslaughter. In point of law,
it was clearly a case of justifiable homicide; and
when the Counsel for the Crown were about to close,
a person named A. Aikia, a Yeomanry Officer, and
Master of an Orange Lodge, stepped upon the table,
to offer testimony of what ke was pleased to call the
prisoner's confession. He deposed, that the prisoner
was b tto witness's house on the 27th of July,
and on following day was committed to gaol.
The witness was then about to state what he called
the confession of the prisoner, when the prisoner's
Counsel rose to put:what he considered some useful
preliminaryquestions, namely, whether the confession
he (the witness) was about to give in eVideoce had
been extorted from the prisoner by hopes or threats,
&e. &e. Tb this the witness fairly replied, that he
hid not held out to the prisoner either hopes or threats.
He was then questioned as to the fact of his being a
perfectly disinterested witness. He solemnly declared
that be•war ; but, in his answer to the very next ques-
fion, he admitted, " that pending the trial lie had
assisted the Agents for the Crown in the challenges
of certain Jurors. ! I !"

At this crisis'of the proceedings., finding that the
Learned-Jndre had, under all the circumstances, en-
tertained Serious doubts respecting the admissibility
of Mr. Alkinisefizisterested evidence, he (Mr. Aikin)
stoned determined that the mercifd-communication
be had to make should not be withheld from the
duty—and-alth;urt tlrre was directed by the Court
tat to-state she 's confession until be should
be so required, yet, in a paroaysni of ardour for the'
due administration of insticc, ale exclkimad, that