The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-28 00:00:00

FORGERY

Matthew Farley, an elderly man, stood indicted for forging
a note for the amount of £lB, purporting to be signed by a
person named Peter Ward, and uttering the same, with in-
tent to defraud the Loyal Hibernia Total Abstinence Lodge.
Owen Leary said he was secretary to the said society. The
prisoner was treasurer. There was an audit of the accounts,
and it was found that there was a balance of £lB ls. Id.
against the prisoner. Witness communicated the fact to
him, and he said it was all right. When the money was not
forthcoming, witness called upon him several times. Pri-
soner promised to pay it ; but said he could not then do so.
Witness asked him for a security, promising, in that case, to
give him three months longer to pay it. lie said .he would
get a promissory note from Mr. Peter Ward; In cross-
examination the witness said that the society was not en-
rolled pursuant to act of parliament.
Another member of the society said that the prisoner
went to him with a blank promissory note stamped to get
filled up, he (the prisoner) stating that he would get it filled
up by Peter Ward, of the firm of Ward and Newton, of
Vauxhall-road. Witness tilled it up, and prisoner brought
it back with a signature of Peter Ward to it. It was given
to the president.
Thomas Butler, another member, said the prisoner brought
him the note, and asked him to put his name to it. A per-
son named ranny had been employed by the prisoner to get
the note signed by Ward, but did not procure it. Witness
signed the note as a witness, not knowing what it tended to.
Prisoner then asked him to give it to the lodge, which he
did.

The learned JUDGE admonished the witness to beware of
signing notes in the manner described, otherwise he might
stand in the position of the prisoner.
John Healey, assistant secretary, saw Connell take a note
out of the secretarys box. He took the note to Ward, who
would not pay it. Prisoner was told that it was not paid ;
and he admitted that he had forged the name.
Peter Ainsworth, police-officer, apprehended the prisoner,
who admitted to him that he had forged the name. He also
said that he had asked Mr. Ward to sign the document, but
that he had refused.
Mr. Peter Ward, manufacturing chemist, said that the
signature was not his, nor did it appear to be an imitation of
it. The prisoner had called upon the witness to request him
to be bail or security for him, as he was about to become an
officer of a society ; but he refused. Witness gave him no
authority to sign his name. In cross-examination witness
said he had known the prisoner for eight years, and he al-
ways considered him an honest man.
The prisoner had stated, when before Mr. Rushton, that
the evidence against him was correct ; that he had offered to
pay the money by instalments, but was not allowed, and he
begged for mercy as he had a large family depending upon
him.
Mr. MURPHY took an objection to the indictment, in-
asmuch as it did not describe the alleged forged document in
the language of the statute. The instrument, he considered
ought to have been set forth in the specific terms. Besides,
one of the witnesses had admitted that the society was not
regularly enrolled according to the act. The purport of the
note was to pay to the parties named, and not to the society.
The learned counsel spoke at some length on behalf of the
prisoner.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence was de-
ferred.
James Whitworth, 39, was indicted for having forged and
uttered an order for the payment of money, purporting to be
the order of Leo Schuster, upon the Manchester and Salford
Bank, for £2OO, with intent to defraud the said bank.
John Reid M'Kenzie said he was a cashier of the Bank in
question. The prisoner-came there on the 27th June, and
presented a check. (Witness identified it.) It was signed
Leo Schuster, and the writing was a close imitation of Mr.

Schuster's writing. Mr. S. banked there. Witness, how-
ever, thought it was not Mr. S.'s writing, and sent for a po-
lice officer, to whom he handed the check. Witness asked
him where he got it, and he said a man gave it to him. It
was on a Saturday afternoon, when they were busy at the
bank, and the chances were that it might more readily have

passed.
Mr. Schuster said the signature was not his ; nor was it a
good imitation.
Mr. Schuster's clerk, who was in the habit of filling up
the bodies of his checks, said that the handwriting was not
his ; but was like his. He did not give the prisoner the
check. The writing appeared to be an imitation of his
writing. The prisoner was clerk to Mr. Lees, and used to
call for that gentleman's account.
Mr. Lees said the prisoner had been upwards of seven
years with him. He always believed the writing of the note,
including the signature. There is a little tremour about it,
but it is clearly his writing.
M`Mullen, a police officer, took the prisoner into custody.
He told the prisoner the check was a forged one, and his re-
ply was that he knew nothing at all about it. He said he had
been at an eating-house where there were two men, one of
whom said he would give him a shilling if he would go to the
bank and get the money for the check. He said he did not
know them, but had left them there in a room up stairs. Wit-
ness went with him to an eating-house in Thomas's-street.
We went up stairs to a small room, but no one was tlgee.
The servant said he had been there to dinner; and that ere
were others there whom she knew.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—Witness found up-
wards of £7O on the prisoner. He (prisoner) said he thought
the check was on the Commercial Bank.
Mr. BRANDT addressed the jury for the prisoner.
The prisoner received a good character from several re-
spectable individuals. He had fulfilled the office of clerk to
a chapel, and had been a book-keeper to several persons, all
of whom spoke of him as having been a sober, industrious,
honest man, up to the present time.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of uttering the check
knowing it to be forged ; but recommended him to mercy on
account of his previous good character.
The learned JUDGE said that the offence of forgery was one
which it was found necessary to punish with severity in a
commercial country like this. Until recently the penalty
was death itself ; but that was now done away with, though
parties were still liable in aggravated cases to transportation
for life. The court could not, however, go that length on
this occasion. The offence of the prisoner WAS of a serious
character. It was one of the worst cases of the kind which
had come under his consideration at the assizes, and could
not be said to be induced by the pressure of want. The sen-
tence of the court was, under all the circumstances, that the
prisoner should be transported beyond the seas for the term
of ten years.