The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-08-17 00:00:00

Ang. 17,184?.

I _SERIOUS CHARGE OF WILL PORGERY

AT BATII.-

The magistrates of Bath have been engaged during the
week in investigating a charge against four persons of the
names of John and Daniel Davis Ford, John Lewis, and
Frances Garland (housekeeper to the deceased), for hav-
ing forged the will and codicil of a gentleman of consider-
able property, named William Slack, who resided at Bath-
wick. It appeared from the evidence that Mr. William
Slack died at Bath on the 2nd of July, 1845, having been
taken ill on the previous 10th of April, up to which time
he had been in the habit of coming into Bath and trans-
acting his business with his tenants and other persons at
a house in Quiet-street, where his letters were kept. On
being taken ill, he sent a servant to fetch from Quiet-
street a will which he previously made and cancelled,
On the 11th of April Mr. Dowding and Mr. Wintle, sot--
licitors at Bath, were engaged the greater part of the day'
in taking instructions for a new disposition of the de-
ceased's property, and on the 16th• that will was duly exe-
cuted, and after that time several codicils had been framed,
which remained as genuine codicils till the 30th of June in
the same year, which day was on a Monday. On Sunday,
the 29th of June, Mr. Slack, who was fully 80 years of
age, was fast sinking, and upon Dowding calling on him, ex-
pressed a wish to have a coditil prepared, by which to devise
some property which had yet to be disposed of. That codi-
cil was accordingly prepared, and on the Monday was exe-
cuted in the presence of two of Mr. Dowding's clerks, who
witnessed it. The following day the deceased grew worse,
and early on the Wednesday morning he expired: During
the preparation of the will Mr. Slatk expressed a wish that
it should not be proved till the expiration of six muirths.
Two days before the expiration of that term a letter was
received by Mr. Dowding from the Registrar of Dbctors'
Commons, giving him notice of the receipt, by Mr. Sohts
puty registrars, of a letter signed

[edon, one of the c

A.." and dated, " Bristol,l6th of December, 1845,'
in which the writer, in very bad orthography, informed
Mr. Ingledon of the decease of Mr. Slack, and enclosed
a copy of a will purporting to be his, requesting Mr. In,
gledon to get a proctor to prepare the probate. The en—
velope was directed " To the Prerogative Conrt, London."'
On the receipt of this communication Mr. Dowding went to
London, and at once saw that the said will was a forgery.
The signature was not in Mr. Slack's handwriting. The
document was badly spelt and worded, and contained not.
less than 35 mistakes. The will purported to be witnessed
by a Mr. Mant, a solicitor, since deceased ; but Mr.
Dowding, who knew his handwriting, at once pronounced
it not to be his, though a good imitation. On legal pro-
ceedings being threatened against the suspected parties,
every one seceded except Stephen Ford, who prayed the-
court to be allowed to prove in forma pauperis, and a suit
I I was instituted and proceeded. Twelve months had, how-

he interim

was not produced. Jacob Stoodley Manning, the other
to the will, was not to be found. Fifteen months
infs. of +ha ripa+ll of 4hp rlar.onena

witnes

. . . „
and to be dated at the same time as the viz., the 30fli
of June, but making a different disposition of the property.
This document, it was stated, was found in the house of the
female prisoner in the Wells-road. It was witnessed. by
John Lewis, John Ford, and Henry Mant. Lewis and

Ford had also sworn that they hid
sign the will in the presence of

en Mr. Slack
apersen named J. S. Man-
Mr. Mant and Manning
and that Mr. Mant then
s back with the codicil in his hand,

which having been signed by Slack, they (Lewis and Ford)
attested it with their signatures: In the end this evidence
was rebutted, the signatures were proved not to be ge-
nuine ; it was shown that Mr. Jacob Stoodley Manning
was an imaginary being ; the suit was settled, the affi-
the

le prisoners re

id the Jui

gery it Bath and Perjury in London. Various witnesses
proved that Ford, who had been very poor, had said that
he should be very rich by Mr. Slack's death ; that the
signatures were not in the handwriting of Mr. Slack or
Mr. Mant ; that the body of the will and codicil were, to
the best of witness's belief, in the handwriting of Daniel
Davis Ford ; and that the female prisoner was to get £3OO
per annum under the codicil. It vats also shown by the
female servants of Mr. Slack that neither• Mr. Mant, nor
John Lewis, nor John Ford, who purported to be wit-
nesses to the wilt and codicil, had been at Mr. Slack's
house on the 30th of June in question, when the will and

codicil purported to have been made and executed. The
magistrate thought the evidence sufficient, and committed

CORRESPONDENCE

THE DISSENTERS AND THE WHIGS
DECEITFULNESS AND CI
ONE PARTY, AND TI

THE
IMPRUDENCE OF

THE OTHER

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SlR.—May I 1

medium of your

3 of the

t to be allowed
already

over without more comment thin they h