Star.
London, England, 1827-08-11 00:00:00

TNURSDAY, AUGUST 9.

William Crossland, James Benzin, and George Lee,
were indicted for picking the pocket of a person named
Fletcher, of a pocket-book, and two 11. country notes.
Bengin pleaded guilty ; and the others were convicted.
They were sentenced to transportation for lite.
The prisoner Crossland was then charged with mali-
ciously cutting Elisha Walton, with intent to disable
him, or do him grievous bodily harm. It appeared that
when the prosecutor seized the prisoner, on being
charged with the above robbery, the latter cut his hand
with a knife which he drew from his pocket, to make
him let go his hold.—The Jury found him Guilty.
Lord TeNTERDEN disposed of the cause-paper at an
early hour to•day. There was nothing of general interest
in any of the cases, which were mostly ejectments.—
His Lordship after wards proceeded to assist Mr. Justice
Holroyd in trying the prisoners.

EXETER, AUGUST 9.
Oyu. Sroz—Before Lord chief Justice Barr.

DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF HEWITT, F. TOLCHARD.

Mr. Sergeant WILDS stated that this was an extra-
ordinary case, in which the infirmity of human nature
had been practised upon by knavery and cunning in the
Most wanton:manner. The real plaintiff was Elizabeth,
the sister of the late Richard Hewitt, who had inherited
considerable property. The Hewitt, were unfortunately
of very imbecile mind, and for the management of
Richard's affairs, and to protect him from the designs
of knaves and rogues, the defendant, who was a shrewd
man, was appointed to ty.sist him. Hewitt was taken
ill last April and died; but while in a sinking condition,
the defendant, induced him to make a will, chiefly in his
favour, except a legacy of 501. a }err to his sister Eli-
zabeth. On further consideration, however, Mr. Tol-
chitd thought that even this was too favourable a dis-
position of the property for Hennes family, and he
prevailed upon the poor man to make a fresh will,
be.itting the annuity to his sister, and merely griming
a few legacies to see vants in the house, the test of the
prriperty being bequeathed to himself.
The pro of of ie:alonship of the parties was then
given in evidence, and that the plaintiff was heir-at-law.
Mr. WILLIAMS contended for the fitness and comps,:
tency of Hewitt to dispose of hie own property in the
way he wished. It would, indeed, be a harsh rule to
establish, that none bra clever and expert men should
have the right of devising their property, or that the
ties of relationship should be indissolubly binding upon
families, when so many instances occurred of gross mis-
behaviour among individuals who were clo.ely allied.
In this case, there was abundant proof of the ill treat-
ment which Mr. Hewitt had experienced from his fa.
Wily, and that he had repeatedly stated they should not
inherit his property. This was declared when he was
in perfect consciousness of what he was cloing_whiy,l
he was farming his own estate, and purchasing another.
It would also be sren that the will was framed and exe-
cuted with perfect deliberation by Mt. Hewitt, and thel
knowledge of what he Was about.
The will was then produced, and read in evidence:
"it was dated the 11th of April, 1825.
J. Angel, a common•looking man, was a subscribing
witness to its execution, and resided in the parish of
Ho!rre. He knew the deceased for the last 44 years,
and hod been called in by him in the year 18'25 to make
a will, but it was Mr. Tolchard who brought the in-
structions. The witness excited some laughter in
Court, by declaring that he was in the habit of
making will., or scratching out forms," for the peo-
ple of the roeighbourhuod. In the present ca.e, he
repaired, when called upon, to Mr. Hewitt's house,
where he found him lying ill, attended by Tolchard
'and the nurse. He ti ad over the will as he was
MiStluctt d to draw it up, and Mr. flenitt said, that
was his rrhrod ; the sick man then asked whether it
was " ti: nt and good ?" and witness said it would
be both when the signment" arid witnesses were
iyur it. Mr. Hewitt then sat up in the bed
by, Tolchard's desire, signed it, and the witnesses

and the man then said it well
r did what was right also ;
" his seal and testament." Witness, at Mr. Hewitt'i
desire, kept the will. On the Tuesday after he was sent'
for again, to put a codicil to it, but he could not clearly
describe its nature farther than that he took it from Mr.
Hewitt's own mouth, who asked if *hat was d one was
also " firm?" saying "this is my hand and seal."
Cross-examined—The will now handed to him was
the one which he had prepared from the draught given
him by Mr. Tolchard; the one was conied from the
other, except an alteration suggested by Tolchard ; and
he could not say whether the alteration was an omis-
sion of the sister's annuity or not. lie was repeatedly
pressed upon this point, but be persisted in declaring
he had no other recollection of the parliculars, except
that he had guided the hand of the deceased in affixing
the signature. He was generally paid for will-making q
bur as yet he had received nothing for this. It was
Tolchard who first told him what-Mr. Hewitt meant to
do, and then the latter repeated it. Witness admitted
that he " repaired" the " W" in the will after it was
written by the deceased.
Lord Chief Justice Ban—Take care, fellow, -how
you make these " repairs" in dying people's signatures
in future, or else you may find the experiment dan-
gerous. I think it right by way of caution to tell you,
you are not bound to answer some of these questions,
for it is going too near the wind for your safety.
His cross-examination was resumed, and, according
to this will-maker's statement, the witnesses, after sign-
ing their attestation, remained to pray with Mr. Hewitt.
la answers to questions from the Court, the witness said
that he wrote the will from Tolcbard's draught, except
the codicil, which was his own.
. .

The answers of the witness were throughout equivocal.
Mr. Robert Tucker, a solicitor, said, that he knew
the deceased, Mr. Hewitt, for two years previous to his
death, and was acquainted with his signature. The
subscription to the will (which was shewn to him) was,
he believed, the handwriting of the late Mr. Hewitt.
Early in April, in the year 1825, he was called upon
by some of the relatives of the deceased to repair to Mr.
Hewitt's bed-room, which he refused to do without the
presence of a medical man. Mr. Jarvis accompaied
him; when, in answer to the questions which he put, he
said he had made a will, but did not say when, or to
whom, though pressed for an answer. Tolchard was
in the room, and witness asked if he had bequeathed
his property to him ? he said, " Yes " He then asked
if he wished to alter that will? He replied, " No, all
was right." On being reminded that he had recently
made another will, and inquired how his relatives had
offended him, he made no answer. On the whole he
appeared sensible of what he was doing.
In his cross•examination, he said that Hewitt was
unable to recognize him when he entered the room. He
spoke very feebly, and the only words he uttered were
" No, all was right." The other will had been made
three or four months. There had been a previous arbi-
tration about some business of Hewitt's, in which Tol.
chard said in evidence, that he considered Mr. Hewitt
not to be in some parts like other men, adding, " He is
not it to boy or sell upon his own strength: he was
never sent by his father to fairs or markets ; never con.
sidered he was fit for it, or to buy or sell property ; Goa
Acestroures allictions also prevented him from judging
the value of cattle."

The Rev. John Glubb remembered having been
called into Hewitt's to administer the sacrament on
Easter-day, 1825. He asked him if be bad made his
will? He replied " Yes." It was Tolchard called him
in, and on the way told witness that he had been left
the property. On inquiring from the sick , man if be
had made the will, he replied yes; that be had made
it to his mind. He appeased to the witness certainly to
be at this time of a disposing mind, and capable of un•
derstanding what was said to him.
In his cross-examination, it appeared that the will
which Tolchard had shewn him was the instrument con-
taining the legacy of 501. a year to the sister, and be-
fore the alteration by the codicil, reducing it to an an.
nuity of 101. But he repeated, that Hewitt was perfectly
sane when he said the will was made to his mind.

Mr. George Jarvis, a surgeon, accompanied Mr.
Tucker, the Solicitor, to Hewitt's house, and corrobora-
ted his testimony as to the declaration of the deceased, af-
firmatory of this will, and that he was in a disposing mind.
A. Crispen, a woolcomber, and a subscribing witness
to the will, saw its execution by Mr. Hewitt.
In his cross-examination he said, there were only four
persons in the room at the time. (Angel had said there
were six.)

John Leer, and his wife, deposed that they had seve-
rally heard the deceased declare he would not leave his
property to either of the Irishes or the Hewitt:, the two
branches of his family, as he had to complain of them
both for inattention, and a de,ire to get at his property.
He always said, that to settle the matter he should
leave his estate away from them all. _ _

Thomas Gosa ell:an attesting witness to the codicil,
spoke to the manner in which it wes alleged to have
been executed.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE, in reply, contended that the
real view of this case depended upon the manner in
which the Jury felt the force of Tolcbard's inteilerence
in the affairs of the unfortunate and helpless deceased.
—lle then, at some length, recapitulated the evidence
tendered in support of the validity of the will, and com-
mented upon the extreme improbability of the story,
which was evidently gamed to disinherit the helpless
sister of the deceased.

Lord Chief Justice BEST, in charging the Jury, hoped
that no person would doubt the competency of any man
to make whatever disposition of his property he pleased,
without consulting his own relations, if he were of sound
mind at the time, and felt that he had just cause of com-
plaint against those who ought to have served him, ihd
owed a debt of gratitude to strangers. But in this case
the whole conduct of the defendant was marked by in-
delicacy and suspicion ; and it was for the Jury, upon
a full review of the case, to decide what degree of credit
se,s due to either of the patties its the cause. His Lord-
ship then summed up the evidence with great perspicuity,
and remarked upon the danger and uncertainty which
must always attend the employment tat unprofessional
persons in the arrangement of matters of so much
serious import as the testamentary disposition of pro-
sperty ; for here they saw that the stone-mason who was
employed on the occasion uas not content to make the
will from 44 the scratching of the forms," as he described
his rough copy, but must also take the trouble of tin.
kering the words, after he represented that they had
been wi itten. Much of the discrepancy in the statement
of some of the witnesses was fairly to be accounted for
by the circumstance of there having been two wills, the
one reducing the annuity which the other had conferred
upon the ter. For his part he looked with the greatest
suspicion at the u hole condurt uf the defendant.
, The Jury found avt rdict for the plain damage .

POLICE INTELLIGENCE..

.-4,-
MANSION-HOUSE.

The cook at the New Yqrk Coffee-louse, near the Royal Et-
change, was charged, in conjunction with a man named Joshua
Redding, with having robbed the house of sever..l articles at dif-
ferent times.

The circumstances under which•the various robberies were
effected, are of more frequent occurrence than is generally ima-
gined. Hedging was introduced to the servants as the hualsrlit of
the cook, ad he constantly visited her there, without hiving
excited any suspicion of the actual nature of hi, acquaiatinct with
her. The head waiter, however, found that property for which he
was accountabk was disappearing. Bottles of spirits, wine glasses,
&c. &c. were missed. At last three silver spoons vanished. It
was then time to look about. The male prisoner, who was fre-
quently backwards and forwards, was followed, and in his lodg-
ings were found three bottles, containing spirits; three wine-
gl some segars, and other property. The bottles the masts
of the proprietor upon them, and it was believed that all the ar-
ticks were stolen from the eoffee.house. It also appeared that
Redding had a wife and three children, in the greatest distress, and
that he merely visited the female prisoner (or the purpose of cam-
„coining depredations in the house.
The cook, upon being first put to the bar, fainted.
It was stated that proof could be brought forward to shew that
the male prisoner had possessed himself of the key of the bar, and
applied to a locksmith for a counterpart of it, and that be declined
leaving it for any length of time, in the fear that it would be
missed—The prisoners were remanded for a few days.
An elderly Gentleman, who said that he was a collecting clerk
in a house of respectability in the City, charged a young woman of
the town with having, with the assistance of another female,
robbed him of ten sovereigns. The complainant, with a smile,
told the Lord Mayor that he was rather tipsy when he met the
prisoner and her companion, who led him from place to place, and
were very sweet upon him, until he missed his purse. One of the
Ladies then fled, but he secured the other, and gave her to a
watehmin. . .

The Loao MAYOIII thought that it would be useless to send the
prisoner to the Old Bailey upon the mere words of a drua,ken
man, and told the pro/aviator that nothing less than robbery could
be expected under the circumstances.
Prosecutor—But, my Lord, I hope you think that I have done
my duty in bringing her forward. I might have been ro►bed of a
much larger sum.
The LOAD MAvoa—Oh. I think it quite patriotic in you to corn.
forward and submit to such an exposure—(A laugh).
The old Gentleman then retired, and the prisoner was sent to
Bridewell for a month.