Star.
London, England, 1829-09-14 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, Sept. 12.

THE STOCK EXCHANGE FORGERY.
.Richard Geprd, aged 26 years, stood indicted for forging and
uttering a transfer of 5E12.5 Stock In the Three per Cent. Conso-
lidated Annuities, with intend to defraud William Green, whom
he personated.
He was also indicted for committing a like forgery upon Richard
Mann, whom he fraudulently personated, and defrauded of the
sum of £27 Stock in the Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities.

The prisoner, who is a respectable looking man, on being called
upon to plead to the indictments, replied that he was Guilty.
The RI:CORDER recommended him to withdraw his plea, and
take his chance of a trial ; because he would not entitle himself to
any favour by persisting in a plea of Guilty.
The prisoner said that he bad resolved to plead Guilty; and
that plea was recorded.

James Sufis*, aged 52 years, was indicted for forging and utter-
ing a wW, purporting to be the will of Thomas Brandreth, de-
ceased, with intent to defraud the next of kin.

Messrs. ADOl.Plius and BRODERICK were Counsel for the prisoner,
and M . Botnano and Booein for the prosecution. The trial
occupied the greater part of the day, and the evidence, which was
very voluminous, proved the following facts :
The prisoner and the deceased were both Non-commissioned
Officers, for a groat number of years, in the Grenadier Guards,
and lived upon terms of friendship. They were discharged upon
pensions soon after the Walehern expedition, and went to reside
at Langley, in Kent. In the early part of the month of August,
1828, the deceased went to lodge at the house of the prisoner, at
Langley, and he had repeatedly expressed to different persons his
iutention, in case of his death, of leaving his property to his old
comrade, the prisoner ; and his watch, which was presented to
him by Lord Barrington, whose life lie had saved, to the pri-
soner's wife. On the 13th of September, 1828, Brandreth died
in the prisoner's house, and a Mr. Rouse, an auctioneer, was called
on by the prisoner to bury the deceased. The prisoner said at that
time that the deceased had left money in the Bank of England,and
he believed the deceased had a sister living, to whom (if the de-
ceased had left no will) he would give up the property, after paying
all expenses. The prisoner said that the deceased's sitter, it alive,
was residing at Chester, and a letter was sent, addressed
" Miss Brandreth, Chester, or elsewhere;' which letter was
returned by the Post Office in a month afterwards, as no such
person could be found. Shortly before last Christmas, the pri-
soner was urged to adopt some means to find out the next of kin
of the deceased, and he said he would write again. The pri-
soner came to London in December last, and was introduced
to Lee, an officer of the Marshalsea, to whom he said he wished
to recover a debt of 901. due to bins by li'randreth, the deceased,
who had left money in the funds. Lee told him that he must
employ a Proctor, and introduced him to a Mr. Beetham and
a Mr. Clarkson. On the Bth of December the prisoner went to
a house at Pimlico, where he received a trunk, which he said had
belonged to the deceased, and he produced to Mr. lieetham a will
(the subject of the present indictment), which he said he had
found b:tween the lining and the lid of the trunk. The prisoner
obtained probate, and on producing it and the will to Mr. Spivey,
a Stockbroker, the latter sold out stuck amounting to 3901, which
the deceased had in the funds at the time of his death. The pri-
soner, having possessed himself of the money, returned to Langley,
and after that he stated that the deceased had left no will. `sub-
sequently hr avowed that he had found a will, to which he had
administered, and obtained the property. Two of the sisters of
the deceased, residing near Maiichester, in June last. heard of the
death of their brother, and they sent a solicitor to the prisoner, who
discovered that some time after the death of the deceased the pri-
soner had borrowed the copy of a will front a person residing in the
neighbourhood where he lived, named Collison, and upon comparing
the copy of the will which he bad borrowed with the will to which
he administered as the sole executor of the deceased,they were found
to correspond in form, and there was one particular expression in
both—" of what property now here, and every kind whatsover."—
A witness proved that the prisoner admitted to him that he learned
sometime after the death of deceased, of the existence of a will in
his favour from a Mr. Wyman, a schoolmaster, residing at Lang-
ley, who had informed him (prisoner) that be had made the will
for the deceased about a month before the deceased's death. The
witness, on looking at the will, said the hand-writing resembled
that of Wyman, who had absconded from Langley.

Ruthven, the officer, proved apprehending the prisoner at Battle-
bridge ; his property was packed up, and be appeared to be quitting
the place.

The prisoner in bis defence said, that the deceased had repeatedly
told him that he should leave all his property to him, and after his
death he learned of the existence of a will of the deceased in his fa-
vour, Irons a Mr. Wyman, who had prepared it. He believed the
will produced to be the genuine will of the deceased.
A Quarter-Master of the Grenadier Guards was called, and he
gave the prisoner the highest character for honesty and general good
conduct for a number of years, while in that regiment.
Mr. Justice GAZILIZ summed up the ease with remarkable
clearness. The count for forging the will had been given up by
the prosecutor, because there was no proof of the forgery having
been committed in the City of London. The first question the
Jury bad to consider was, whether the will was a forged
instrument or nut ? and if they were satisfied that it was
forged, be thought the evidence proving tke uttering of the will .
by the prisoner to the siockbruker, in the City of London, was
conclusive. That it was a forged paper, they must form an
opinion, not from the conduct of the prisoner only, but from
the facts he should bring to their recollection, which had been
proved during the inquiry. Long after the prisoner had obtained
probate on the will, be derided that he knew that a will was in ex-
istence. it was important to look at the slate of the will—the
18th of August, 1828. The copy of the will which the pri-
soner had borrowed was not obtained by him till October,
above a month after the death of the deceased, and the
Jury would compare the two, and draw their own con-
clusions as to whether the one was not the model upon which
the other was framed ? If that should be their opinion, the
forgery was proved beyond qustion ; because the prisoner did
not obtain the model till after the death of the deceased. His
Lordship adverted to the excellent character the prisoner had
received, and if there was any doubt of bis guilt, it ought to
weigh in his favour. His Lordship said it had been proved
that the deceased had repeatedly expressed his intention to leave
his property to the prisoner, and he thought it probable that when
the prisoner found there was no will in his favour, and lie could
not find the next of kin (there being evidence that he caused a letter
to be written, for the purpose of finding the sister), that he, sup-
posing the relatives were all dead, and the property would go to
the Crown, had Clll4edtbe will to be fabricated, to obtain it himself.
If the Jury were of that opinion, they would say he was guilty.
The Jury, without a minute's hesitation, returned a verdict of
Guilty—Death, but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy.
The Judge said the recommendation should most certainly be
attended to.