The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

CHESTER LENT ASSIZES.-SATUR'DAY.

Reported expressly for the LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
IMPORTANT TO TRADESMEN.—TIIE LIVERPOOL GUARDIAN

SOCIETY.-OXLEY. V. REAY.

Before Mr. Justice Williams and a common jury.
Mr. Cottinghatn, with whom was Mr. Welsby. conducted
the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Jervis, Q. C., and Mr. Towns-
head appeared for the defendant:
Mr. WELsifir having opened the pleadings,
• Mr. COTTINGLIAM stated the case, as follows.,---Gentlemen
of the jury, I have the honour to appear in this case on the
part of the plaintiff, Mr. Oxley, who is a solicitor, carrying
on business in Liverpool, and who has also a house at Sea-
combe, in this county. And, gentlemen, the plaintiff com-
plains against the de:endant, who is the Secretary of a So-
ciety called the Liverpool Guardian Society, (as they say, for
the protection of trade,) for a libel published by him re-
flecting on the plaintiff cm the 3d of January, in the present

year. Gentlemen, I have stated to you that Mr. Oxley is a
professional man, carrying on business at Liverpool, and I
need hardly remind you, that, in the exercise of that profes-
sion, character .(if I may so speak) is a staple commodity,
because without a good character it is quite clear that no
lawyer could expect any party would confide and entrust him
with the management of his legal affairs. Therefore, it is of
the last importance to'a gentleman exercising the profession
of an attorney that he 'should have a perfectly good and un-
impeachable character. Gentlemen, the defendant, Mr.
Reay, is, as I am informed, the secretary to this society,
which calls itself a society for the protection of trade. Gen-
tlemen, on the 3d of January the defendant thought proper
to issue a circular to every member of the society, which is
composed of no less than 900 individuals, and in which cir-
cular the libel in question is contained. Perhaps, before I
make any comments upon it, I bad better state to you what
the libel is. The circular is headed, " Private, and not to be
disclosed to any person ;" then, after stating that two letters
had been received by two members of the society, respecting
some orders for goods by other parties, it proceeds thus to
attack the plaintiff—" a person representing that he was sent
ey George Oxley, attorney, in Dale-street. meaning the
plaintiff, and who lives also at Seacombe, on the 26th of the
last month, brought a written order, purporting to be signed
by George Oxley, meaning the plaintiff, to a member for
groceries, which were supplied to the amount of 18s. 10d.
On the Saturday following, the same person tendered in
payment a printed check of £5, also purporting to be signed
by George Oxley, meaning the plaintiff, upon a bank in the
town, who stated that he had missed the banking hours, that
the check would be paid on the Monday, and requested to
have the difference. The member however declined, and
upon inquiry at the bank it was ascertained that Oxley had
no account there. Subsequently, application was made to
Oxley, for payment of the 18s. 10d., and the money was
paid. Then it proceeds to describe the appearance of the
person who presented the check. Now, gentlemen, it is for
you to say, whether this is not an imputation upon the
plaintiff's character. He feels that his name is introduced
en this circular in a way that if ought not, and he feels that
an insinuation is intended to be conveyed. He says that by
his order, or with his knowledge, a check was presented in
order to be changed, but it is alleged that he (Mr. Oxley)
well knew at the time it purported to be signed by him ; that
he had no funds in the bank upon which to draw. Now, gen-
tlemen, first of all they say that they put us to the proof of
the libel, that is, they call upon us to show upon the libel
being read, whether it is a libel or not. • Then afterwards
they say they had good ground for publishing, and that they
were justified in so doing. Now, gentlemen, the short facts
of the case are these, Mr. Oxley had been in the habit of
dealing with a person of the name of Docker, a grocer, in
Liverpool, and on the 26th of December he sent a person
whom he knew to Mr. Docker, to order some groceries to
be sent to Mr. Oxley's house at Seacombe, where they had
usually been sent. The person thus directed to order the goods
stated the plaintiff was going to Manchester on the Thursday,
and would return on the Saturday, when the amount would be
defrayed. Gentlemen, Mr. Oxley did go to Manchester, and on
his return to Liverpool, on the Saturday, a person for whom
he had transacted some business paid him the £5 check in
question. He gave it to the person who ordered the goods,
who took it to Mr. Docker's to pay for them, but, however,
he declined, requesting that it might be left ; but the indi-
vidual said, he should want some of the money, and, there-
fore he would get somebody else to do it. The person thus
entrusted with the check, accordingly went and received
money for it, and the individual who accommodated him
presented the check on the Monday, when it was paid, and
on the same day Mr. Oxley paid the suit, due to Mr. Docker.
Now, gentlemen, in the tirst place, the check, which they
state in their justification, was signed by Mr. Oxley, turns
out to be signed by a totally different person. namely, a Mr.
John Abbott Kaye, a highly-respectable merchant at Liver-
pool ; but, however, they choose to say that it was presented
by a person in the employ of Oxley, and was signed by
Oxley, he (Oxley) a that time well knowing that he had no
funds. Therefore that fact is disproved by the .check itself.
It appears that the check, instead of being signed by Oxley,
was signed by John Abbott Kaye, and was made in favour of
Oxley. Now, gentlemen, so matters were on the Monday,
that was, the 31st of January ; and so soon after as the
Thursday, although this matter was settled by payment of the
money on the Monday, this protecting society, as they call it,
issued a circular in which they state these facts, well knowing,
as they might have done, upon inquiry, that they were utterly
without foundation. Now, gentlemen, it was their bounden
duty, before they issued this circular, to have ascertained
these facts, or abstained from making a publcation ; and if,
in your opinion, it is a false publication, how are they justi-
fied in making it ? They had opportunities of testing the
truth ; but instead of that, they issue a circular to each
member of their society, of which Mr. Oxley justly com-
plains. Now, gentlemen, Ido not know whether nay learned
friend intends to call witnesses—l should rather surmise
not. The libel will be put in, and it will be for you, under
my lord's direction, to consider what construction ought to
be put upon it. I do not see what witnesses my learned
friend can call in answer to my case, because he has stated
the facts upon which he affects to justify the libel, namely,
the circumstances I have stated to you, the nature of which
will be proved by evidence. It is stated that the check was
drawn by Mr. Oxley, purporting to be signed by him, when
in point of fact it was not. Ido not know whether my
learned friend will call any witnesses to alter that : the fact
will appear upon the document itself when I produce it.
Therefore, gentlemen, I am apprehensive it is possible I may
not have the opportunity of addressing you again ' • and I beg
to remind you that Mr. Oxley asks, at your hands, damages
by way of compensation for the injury which his character
has sustained by the imputation contained in this publication.
John Edwards examined by Mr. WELSBY.—Is :lerk to a
Railway Company at Liverpool. Knows the defendant. Be-
lieves him to be secretary to the Gnardisn Society at Liver-
pool. Has seen his name attached as secretary. Believes
the signature to the circular produced to be his. Went by.
the plaintiff's desire to the defendant en the 12th of March,
in the present year, and asked him for the names of the
parties giving the information contained in the circular. De-
scribed the circular as one received by Mr. Pearson, a mem-
ber of the Guardian Society. Stated that the plaintiff; if the
request was complied with, would withdraw his action against
Mr. Kaye, and begin a fresh one. Went with Mr. Reay to
his attorney, and they refused to do it.
Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS.—Has seen Mr. Reay
write. Bought a hat at his shop for the purpose of obtaining
his receipt. Is not a friend of Mr. Oxley nor his clerk. Was
clerk at the time to Mr. Pearson. Mr. Oxley is Mr. Pear-
son's attorney. Mr. Oxley's offices are at Liverpool. Wit-
ness lives at Liverpool. Has known Mr. Oxley probably
eighteen months, certainly not two years. Cannot tell how
long hp has been in Liverpool. Does not recollect at all
when he came from New South %Vales. Cannot tell how
long he has been practising in Liverpool. Does not know
the name of his 'clerk, or that he has one. Has met Mr.
Oxley at public-houses on one or two occasions.
Re-examined by Mr. WELSBY.—Doesnot know of his own
knowledge of how many members the Society of Guardians
consists, but has heard that there area great many members.
(The libel was here read.)
Thomas Edwards examined by Mr. Corrierdir a.m.-Knows
the shop of Mr. Docker, but knew nothing of Mr. Parkin-
son when he first went there. Ordered some groceries from
Mr. Docker's shop in November. Was asked by Mr. Ox-
ley where he could be supplied with groceries, and recom-
mended Mr. Docker's. On the 26th of December was sent
by Mr. Oxley for another supply with a written order. Mr.
Oxley was going to Manchester, and witness went by his di-
rection to Mr. Docker's, and requested that some goods
should be sent according to former orders, and when Mr.
Oxley returned from Manchester he would call and pay for
them, which would be on the Saturday. On that day he re-
turned to Liverpool between four and five o'clock in the af-
ternoon. Went with him to John Abbott Kaye and Co.,
wine and spirit merchants, in Chapel-street, and waited till
he came out, when he received a check from him for £5.
Mr. Oxley gave instructions as to what was to be done with
the check. The banking houses at Liverpool close from two
till four. Has been at the bank at six o'clock in the even-
ing. Cannot say what time the close on a Saturday. The
bulking house was closed when he got the check. Went with
the check to Docker's shop. Saw Mr. Parkinson when he
first entered, and presented it, saying that he had come to
pay Mr. Oxley's account; who had just arrived from Man-
chester. That he had received the check from a respectable
house, wished to pay the money, and have the balance. Laid
the check upon the counter. Mr. Parkinson said he would
call Mr. Docker and when he came he told him the same as he
had told Mr. Parkinson. Gave the check into Mr. Docker's
hands, who looked at it, and said he had been paying an ac-
count, and had not sufficient change, he had only 9s. 6d. in
silver, that he might leave it, and call for the balance on
Monday. The check was drawn by John Abbott and Co.,
wine and spirit merchants. Looked at the check, it was signed
".l. Abbott." The check produced is the one witness re-
ceived from Mr. Oxley, and would have no hesitation in
going into any house to get it changed. It is the same check
that witness presented at Mr. Docker's.
Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS.—Knows where the check
came from. Did not see it signed. It was signed in favour
of George Oxley. At the bottom of the check was the name
of J. Kaye & Co. It was signed A. Kaye. Don't know
whether they put their name in full. is certain it was made
payable to George Oxley. Is not aware whether Mr. Abbott
or Mr. Kaye is a friend of Mr. Oxley. Mr. Abbott is here.
Both Mr. Docker and Mr. Parkinson looked at the check
attentively. There was gas in the shop. Docker said he
would give the balance on Monday. Witness told him he
wanted some money. It was Saturday night the 28th of De-
cember, and the check was payable on the Monday. Is nor
a clerk to Mr. Oxley ; but a general broker, and fives at No.
35, Bostock-street. Is not aware whether Mr. Oxley is a
friend of his. Mr. Oxley has offices in Liverpool, and has
known him somewhere about two years. Cannot say how
long he has been in practice. Has not particularly acted as
his clerk. Has done business for him, for which he was paid,
but not for serving writs. Collected accounts for him and
recommended him clients, and has been paid for it. Gets
his own living by industry. Was in the excise about 20 years
ago, but gave it up because he did riot like it ,• after that
commenced business in Liverpool as a wine and spirit mer-
chant—continued so between 11 and 12 years, and should
have kept it on but for some attorney's clerk who persuaded
him to give an inventory. Was a bankrupt, but not then.
Has been an insolvent. Could not obtain his certificate
when a bankrupt because he had no money to carry it on.
Knows a Mr. Hardisty a wine and spirit merchant, and lived
in his service about 18 months or two years, during which
Mr. Hardisty was robbed three times. Was not dismissed
for robbing him. Never advised Mr. Hardisty to forge a
name to a bill. Remembers a woman being prosecuted for
theft while in the service of Mr. Hardisty. Cannot recollect
the name of the woman ; she was not a servant of Mr. Har-
disty, but a prostitute. She was not charged by way of steal-
ing money for the purpose of making up a deficiency in wit-
ness's account. She was acquitted. Cannot tell on what
ground.
Re-examined by Mr. COTTINGIIMI.—Carried on business
once to a very great extent. Others were unfortunate who
were more cautious. Has a family of 14 children, whom he
has maintained in credit and respectability for the last ten or
twelve years. No truth in the insinuations thrown out in
the cross-examination. Is quite clear that the check pro-
duced is the same that he received from Mr. Oxley, and pre-
sented at Mr. Docker's shop, and paid it to Mr. John Con-
way Brooks somewhere about six o'clock in the evening of
the same day.
By the JUDGE.—Refused to leave it till Monday, and got it
changed that night, as he wanted temporary relief.
By Mr. Jestvis.—lt W 33 between five and six o'clock that
he went to Mr. Brooks, who gave him two sovereigns on ac-
count. Went to Mr. Docker's shop soon after five o'clock.
Will swear he did not go to Mr. Docker's shop with the
check about seven o'clock.
Mr. Joseph Abbott examined by Mr. WELSBY.—Is a
partner in the firm of Messrs. John Abbott Kaye & Co.,
wine and spirit merchants, at Liverpool. On the 28th of
December last gave Mr. Oxley a check at his countio,,house.
That is the check produced. It was between five and six on
a Saturday evening. Has an account at Messrs. Moss and
Company, bankers.

Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS.—The check was dated as
payable on Monday. Knows little of Mr. Oxley. Is not a
friend of his, Gave the £5. for procuring a document which

he otherwise could not have obtliined.

Re-examined by Mr. CorriNGll Am.—The £5 was given
for getting possession of an agreement. Mr. Oxley made
no direct charge, but it came from witness himself. Had
not sufficient money, or he should not have given the check.
Mr. Oxley said it would be of service to him or he should
not have done it. it was after banking hours.
Mr. John Conway Brooks examined by Mr. COTTING-
TIAM.—Is a licensed victualler in Liverpool. Has known
Edwards between seven and eight years, by coming back-
wards and forwards to his house. Remembers his bringing
a check, to the best of his recollection it was a little before
six o'clock. Gave him two sovereigns on account of it, and

kept it till Monday morning following, when he got it
cashed at the bank and gave him three sovereigns.
Mr. John Evans examined by Mr. JERVIS.—Is clerk to

Messrs. Moss and Company's Bank. Mr. Oxley has no ac-

count there. " Inquiry Was-made whether he h-ad, and the
answer was that he had not.

Mr. JERVIS submitted that no libel had been proved.
Mr. Justice WILLIAms was of opinion that it was a ques-
tion for the jury.

Mr. JEn.vis then addressed the jury for the defendant as
follows :—Gentlemen I put that point to his lordship, ex-
pecting he would decide if this was a libel or not ; that will
now be a question for the court to pronounce upon here-
after, and therefore I will not trouble you at all upon that
matter, I will merely observe as to the publication itself.
The simple question will be as to the malice and the truth of
the publication. It may be convenient for me, in the course
of the observations I have to make, to say something upon
the character of the publication ; and before I take notice of
some of the remarks of my learned friend, I beg to say that
I perfectly concur in the observation of my learned friend
the Recorder, that to an attorney it is of the deepest import-
ance that he should be a man of character; and there are
honourable men in the profession who stand in that enviable
position, but as in all other professions, there are black
sheep ; and, although it may be of great importance to a
man to have that staple commodity, a good character, it is
certainly a much greater misfortune to his neighbouviaood,
and.a much greater infliction and injury to his clients if they
should happen to meet with a man who is paid for bringing
in business, and to be put under the controul of an attorney
who employs such unworthy means of acquiring professional
engagements; and it is the bounden duty_of every man, if he

kn-Ou7s an attorney is so situated to expose him, in Order to pre

vent parties being entrapped in a manner that may lead to ex
perm if not to their ultimate ruin. Character, my friend says

is the staple commodity of Mr. Oxley, the plaintiff. Certairili
gentlemen, we have not had a good specimen of the manner
in which he has treasured and valued his character, when,
upon the evidence of his own witness—Mr. Abbott, a gen-
tleman of high respectability, as I am bound to ..admit—it

appears that Mr. Oxley took £5 actually to behave in a
very unbecoming way towards the man who had placed confi-
dence in him. That is the sort of character that Mr. Oxley
now sets up, but that is not all as to Mr. Oxley's character,
as I will shew you before I have done. Mr. Oxley says that
character is to him of the deepest importance—that he ex-
pects employment from his character alone—and that his
respectability of character is valuable to him in his own im-
mediate neighbourhood, in Liverpool, where he practises ;
and yet Mr. Oxley has chosen, at some expense, to bring
all his witnesses from the town of Liverpool, where he is
known, for the purpose of trying his professional character
before gentlemen in a county adjoining, and perhaps some
coming many miles distant from that place ; thereby viola-
ting that salutary old rule, that jurors should come from the
neighbourhood where the inquiry was to take place, that
they might know something of the respectability of the wit-
nesses who were called—take Mr. Edwards, for instance—
that they might know something of that precious jewel upon
which Mr. Oxley alone relies, namely, the staple commodity
of his good character. You are selected from a distance—
many of you farmers and agriculturists—in preference to the
inhabitants of the town and immediate neighbourhood where
this respectable attorney practises, because, forsooth, you
must be far better qualified, knowing nothing about him or
his witnesses, to estimate the extreme respectability of his
character in his own immediate neighbourhood! But he is
an attorney ; he can, therefore, bring his action at slight
cost; if he loses be has nothing to pay, I fear, as he manages
his own cause at a cheap rate. He kills his own mutton, as
the common term is ; and why, in God's name, won't he
sell it in his own market? He flies from Liverpool, where
he is known, to court inquiry amongst strangers. My
learned friend says, that if poison is circulated, the antidote
should be applied at the same place. People must be in-
clined to suspect what sort of a character the plaintiff has,
when he challenges a public investigation at a place so re-
mote, and asks compensation for his injured character. lie
has sought it, and he shallhave it. You shall hear some-

thing of his character before I have done. Gentlemen,
1 have the honour here to represent the Liverpool Guar-
dian Society, the number and respectability of which I am
not ashamed to own, comprehending 900 members, consist-
ing of the first merchants of Liverpool; and the reason my
friend assigns for coming here to try this question is, that
they cannot trust any people in that great commercial town
to try it, because there are 900 members in this society, with
the mayor at their head. Now, certainly. if a society so
constituted keeps within the ordinary line of its duty, if, with-
out comment or observation, it states simply facts, not wrest-
ing them from the naked truth, for the purpose of putting
the unwary upon their guard; if they do that—if they state
but the truth—l am quite sure you will be of opinion they
fairly discharge their duty. It is the bounden duty of every
man, in their relative positions one to the other, not to permit
a man to obtain credit, station, and employment, under a
false character : and he who seeks to screen his real conduct
from the world, is an impostor. As to the Guardian Society,
every man states that which he knows to be true, and he
states it in writing, where there can be no mistake about it ;

and you will find. that this statement was made in a letter
professing to be private, and circulated only among members.
It was obtained, nobody knows bow, from Mr. Pearson

'whether stolen or not I cannot say) for the purpose a
- - • - -•- - -

?ounding this action. You will find- that the circular con
tains only a naked statement of facts, without exaggeration
and it is now attempted to be met in this way. My learned
friend says, you say there was a check presented to Mr.
Docker, signed by Mr. Oxley. Now I will show you my
client had a check from John Abbott Kay that evening, be-
tween four and five o'clock, the consideration of that check
having been a breach of his duty. I will show you that is
the check which was presented, and I will call a witness, a
Mr. Edwards, who will swear that was the check that he
presented. Now the fact of having got a check from John
Abbott Kay proves nothing, unless it be impossible to suppose
that this respectable Mr. Oxley could not have drawn it in his
own name. It depends entirely upon the evidence of Edwards,
the companion of Oxley, and whom we shall show is not
to be believed ,upon his oath. I will call witnesses before
you for the purpose. 1 defy my learned friend to enter into
the particulars ; he may do so, if he'pleases, but I cannot ac-
cording to the rules of law. Edwards, according to his own
account, has been once a bankrupt, once an insolvent, and,
while in Mr. Hardisty's service fora short time, it happened
unfortunately that Mr. Hardisty was robbed three times,
and Edwards admits that the wlman who was accused of
stealing on his evidence was acquitted. Upon his demeanour
in the witness box alone, 1 ask you to say if you can believe
him ? Either he was acting in a manner most disgraceful or
he was insulting the solemn dignity of the court before which
he appeared, by coming to depose on oath when he was in a
state of beastly intoxication. Now, if he is not to be believed
on his oath, and if Mr. Oxley be a man of the character that
I shall prove him, I ask if it is at all unlikely that a check
was drawn by Oxley upon Moss and Co., though he had no
account with them at all. It is not unlikely that he might
have the other check, to enable him to account for his own,
by mystification. Ido not see any other reason, but I will
prove beyond the possibility of doubt, coupling the evidence
of Edwards with that which I shall call, that the check of-
fered to Docker was not a check drawn by John Abbott Kaye.
That check by John Abbott Kaye was cashed between five
and six on the Saturday, as Mr. Brooks has sworn ; and I
will call two witnesses before you who will prove, that, when
the check upon which the allegation is made was presented
at Docker's shop it was past seven o'clock. Two witnesses,
Docker and Parkinson, will swear to that fact ; one of whom,
Mr. Docker, is a man of the greatest experience in such mat-
ters, and Mr. Parkinson will tell you that, having his atten-
tion drawn constantly to bills, he looked most attentively at
the signature to the check. Both of them will swear most
positively that it was signed by George Oxley. You may
say, is it likely that a man, an attorney, even though he had
sold his own client, could have been a party to such a
fraud as this ? Now, I shall be obliged to show you,
who and what Mr. Oxley is. Mr. Oxley was a soldier,
who served in New South Wales. lie returned to this
country, and became an attorney. I will call numbers of
witnesses before you, who will prove that in his professional
capacity he has not acted in a manner very consistent with
propriety. I will call witness after witness, who will prove
to you that Mr. Edwards is not a man of character, and
ought not to bo so thought. My friend says character is
a staple commodity, and seeks for damages, because Mr.
Oxley's character has been injured. I will prove to you that
he is a man of no character, and let my friend if he dare
ask the particulars, and although that only would go in re-
duction of damages, if your verdict should be against the
society, yet it is of the deepest importance to see when this
inquiry is before you, whether any man in the position of an
attorney, would condescend to commit this most atrocious
fraud. I shall show you it must have been committed—
I shall call before you, as I have stated, both Mr. Docker,
and Mr. Parkinson, to prove the presentation of the check
and the signature, and I shall also call witnesses who will
prove that Oxley is not to be believed on his oath. My
witnesses will support each other, that he is a man of general
bad character, and 1 again invite my friend if he dare to in-
vestigate the particulars of Mr. Oxley's character, if he
thinks a public exposition will raise him in the estimation of
the public.
Mr. TOWNSHEND then called
THOMAS PARKINSON.—I assist Mr. Docker in his shop
in Liverpool. He is a grocer. On Saturday the 28th of
Dec., I recollect a person coming to the shop, with a check
for .C 5, for which no wanted change, in payment for some
wgrioloonerhiees.oatoHei;s—ntahe checkmeNas Ewdawsasridgso,eadnd
Georgeit wa
Oxley. (Thespastio'clock
the
h
check signed by J. A Kaye and Co. was here handed to the
checkewh
broughtich wasEd w
oa Edwards das
ght
bluebrought.
Iwietxuaemssl examined it,
is
,an and the notone
coloirr.
Mr. JEEVIS.—On which bank was the check drawn ? '
Mr. COTTINGHAM —I
a a Object to the question because if
the story be true which my learned friend has told, he ought
to have given notice for the check to be produced.
The JUDGE.—Was the paper which Edwards produced
taken away by him.
Witness.—lt was, my lord.
The JUDGE decided that notice ought to have been given
for the production of the paper.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I am not a mem-
ber of the Guardian society, but my employer, Mr. Docker,
is. I did not know anything of the report made to the society
before it was sent. I swear I did not join in the concocting
of the report. I knew that Mr. Docker had made the report
on the Tuesday, but I did not see it, nor did 1 say anything
to him concerning it.
Mr. Henry Docker, grocer, of Liverpool, examined by
Mr. TOWNSEND.—I pay my subscription to the Guardian
Society.
Mr. COTTDIGHAM.—Are you a party in defending this

action.
Witness.—No.
Mr. CorriNGH Am.—Are not the funds of the Guardian
i Society expended to defend this action ?
Witness.—l am not on the committee, and do not know it
to be a fact on my own knowledge.
By Mr. TOWNSEND.—I am sure that it was between seven
and eight o'clock when Parkinson called me out to look at
the check, because I was going home at the time, and that is
the usual hour at which I leave the shop, excepting on the
Saturday. I haxe been in a mercantile office before I was in
business for myself, and have had many bill transactions go
through my hands, and I swear positively that the check
j produced was not the one tendered by Edwards. The one
he tendered was of a light blue, or slate colour. (A blank
check of Messrs. Moss of the colour mentioned by the wit-
ness was here handed to him, the check signed by Messrs.
Kaye and Co. being of a pink colour.) This I now hold in
my hand I should think to be a fac simile of the plate from
which the check brought by Edwards was printed. Mr.
Parkinson had supplied Mr. Oxley with groceries on the
previous Saturday. After the check was tendered, I made
inquiries at Messrs. Mosses' Bank, as to whether Mr. Oxley
I had any funds in the bank, and the answer was that he had
not, and I then made the report to the Guardian Society. Mr.
' Oxley had prom ised to come to my shop on the Monday follow-
ing the presentation of the check, to pay the IBs 10d for groce-
ries • but as be did not, I weatto him on the Tuesday morning,
and told him about the presentation of the check by Edwards.
In the first instance, I said that I was sorry that I could not
but asked him if he had got it
1 ehange the check at the time,