The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-25 00:00:00

BURGLARY

Richard Heaton, 37, Richard Tootell, 35, were indicted
for a burglary in the house of James Hazelden, at Pember-
ton, near Wigan, when a great quantity of provisions and
other articles were stolen.

Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
appeared for the prisoners.
The prosecutor was a farmer at Pemberton ; the offence
was committed on the night of the 30th of April, and the
property in question taken away. Suspicion having fallen
on Tootell, his house was searched on the same day, and part
of the goods found therein. Another part was found at the
house of Heaton, and his wife said she had bought it in the
market. It was, however, identified by the prosecutor.
The prisoners were found guilty. Heaton was sentenced
to ten years' transportation, Tootell to twelve months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.

BURGLARY.
Richard Vaun, 29, was indicted for burglary in the house
of Samuel Leech. .

Mr. Hulton was for the prosecution. The prisoner was
undefended. _

The prosecutor lives at Saunton, near Ashton-under-Lyne.
The prisoner was found in the act of removing some panes of
glass, with intent to enter and steal, on the night of the 4th
of April. Some inner fastenings had been raised, and a crow
bar and dark lantern were found outside, and on his person
a box of lucifer matches.

He was found guilty, and ordered to be transported for
ten years.

The court adjourned at a quarter before seven to nine next
morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron RoLFE.)
BLUNDELL V. LORD CANIOYS.
This case, which concerns the will of the late Mr. Blun-
dell, of Ince, was, on the application of Mr. Alexander, fixed
to come on for trial on Monday next.
ENGLAND V. LISLE.
In this case, which had been struck out yestexay, but was
restored on an affidavit, a verdict was taken b!consent for
the plaintiff. Damages £97.
1400 RE AND OTHERS V. HODGES.
This was an undefended action, to recover the sum of £3l,
being the balance of an account which had existed between
the parties for several years. The plaintiffs are ironmongers
at Wigan, and the defendant is a blacksmith at Chorley. A
verdict was returned for the amount claimed.
MATIIEW V. LOGAN.
A verdict was taken by consent in this case, for £2OO, sub-
ject to a reference.

DOE DEM ORME AND ANOTHER V. ASTLES

This was an action of ejectment, to recover possession of
certain -messuages and lands, in the parish of Warrington.
Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Wilkins were for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightman, and Mr.
Hoggins for the defendant.
Mr. WILKINS opened the pleadings.
Mr. CRKSSWELL then proceeded to state the case. This
was an action in ejectment brought by John Grice and Joseph
Robinson, the devisees in trust under the will of Samuel
Astles, of Warrington, to recover possession of some pro-
perty under his will. The defendant was brother to Samuel
Astles, and he said he held the property in question as heir-
at-law, seeing that Samuel Astles had left no valid will dis-
posing of his property. The question, then, would be, whether
or not Samuel Astles did or did not leave a valid will devising
this property. The deceased had, for many years, carried
on business as an innkeeper at Warrington, and on the 17th
December, 1838, he was in possession of the property in
question. He was a bachelor, of about 47 or 48. It would
seem that he was a person respected by those who knew him;
and that many of them, knowing him to be a thriving man,
had an inclination to try to obtain, for some of their children,
the notice of a bachelor reputed to have property. Accord-
ingly, it would be found that he was godfather to a number
of children, to each of which he had left legacies. At the
time he died he was the reputed father of a son of Catherine
Brown, whose sister was married to John Grice, one of the
devisees. There was some intimacy between Grice and Astles,
Grice was a book-keeper, and had been for several years in
the habit of keeping Astle's accounts ; later, however, he had
a barmaid in the inn, and then Grice ceased to do business
for him. They were, before, joint executors or trustees
respecting some property in Warrington, and consequently
there was great intimacy between them. Samuel Astles was
the reputed father of Catherine Brown's child, and the jury
would find him bringing up this child as his own. This child
he had at Warrington, to see him, as well as a son of John
Grice, and they lived with him till his death. The jury
would find that he had left a legacy of some amount to this
boy, and that he had desired that both of them should be
brought np together, under the care of Catherine Brown, the
mother of his reputed son. Samuel Astles had a brother,
the present defendant, who was not the same careful, friendly,
money-making man that the testator was. He had borrowed
money from the deceased more than once, and it had been
found that the deceased had l.ft to him £2OO, over and above
dthe
hmoneywhatever, he had
that borrowed.the te s t
at
nr Therew acould r
perfectly
tnl
yo question
competent,o
throughout his life, to transact business of any description,
tuhnetni I
proceededt lieperiodhistonfd‘es e
rdiehaetthhderiel
ensesaarn. d
eThe
hl learned d counselA i
he
and e
concluded
ncircumstancesg that
tr
twhich l
would
thehe
will
o v wased thatmade,r. th the and
de-
ceased was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements')
made, and that no doubt could be felt as to ilB
competencyhat were
to execute the will. The learned counsel then called wit-
nesses.
John Clare, examined by Mr. COWLING, said he knew
the deceased, and occupied a house under him, for which he
paid rent to the day of his death. It was for the recovery of
this house that the action was brought.
John Perrin, glass manufacturer, living at Warrington,
examined by Mr. WILKINS.--Knew the deceased. Saw him
on the Saturday before his death, when he appeared rational.
He had sent for witness in consequence of having been a
joint security with witness for a person named Furnival.
Witness told him not to be uneasy about this affair, as he
would look after it. He wished witness to do so. The de-
ceased was very ill at the time, but he appeared quite rational.

Cross-exarofned by Mr. ALEXANDER.—Witness was not I
more than four or five minutes with the deceased. 'Witness, I
however, should not say that he was able to understand a will

of fourteen or fifteen sheets of paper. He was not capable
in his opinion of-understanding the disposal of a number of
legacies, gifts, and conditions. Witness had known him fif-

teen or sixteen years, and should say he was not a man of

very strong mind

Re-examined.—In the conversation witness had with him

he appeared rational. Witness concluded he was unable to
make the will from his state of bodily suffering.
Mary Smith lives at Padgate.
_Some years ago witness

was employed to nurse a bouy of Catherine Brown's, which
will he nine years old next month. Knew Samuel Astles.
He used often to come to see the child, and brought him pre-

scuts. The child's mother paid witness for her trouble.
Astles used to come and see the child if he was ill, and to

bring him something. Padgate is a mile from Warrington.
Astles had the boy to see him at Warrington, and when he

returned he brought presents with him. Astles, on the boy's
birthday, always brought other boys, to make a merry day.
The boy used to call him " father.' Mr. Astles bought the

boy's clothes till the time of his death

Cross-examined—Catherine Brown is now living at Man-
chester, but witness cannot say whether she was married.

The boy is now living with witness. Witness does not know

John Lawrinson. -
John Johnson examined by Mr. COWLING—Is a tailor at
Warrington. Knows Richard Brown, the child of Catherine
Brown, and William Grice, the son of John Grice. Witness
has been in the habit of making clothes for both those boys.
They are nearly of the same age. Mr. Samuel Astles paid
witness for the clothes.

Elizabeth Brown, examined by Mr. WILKINS.—h the sis-
ter of Catherine Brown. Remembers the birth of her sister's

son, whose reputed father was Mr. Samuel Astles. Mr. Astles
had for some time before been paying attention to her sister,
and the family thought he would marry her. Witness re-
members drinking tea at Mrs. Ashworth's, Marshall-street,
Oldham-road, Manchester. There were present Mr. Ash-
worth, Mr. Mayer, the two children, witness's sister, and Mr.
Astles. Mr. Astles said he should not marry witness's sister
until he had settled some property upon her. Mr. Mayer
had previously asked him to marry her. Mr. Mayer is re-
lated to the family. Mr. Astles said, "If I marry her and
don't make a will, my brother will turn both Kate and
Richard into the street." The deceased then spoke of the
boy as his own child, and said that he had worked hard for
his money, and he should be sorry to leave it to his brother,
as he would make it away. He said he had lent his brother
money to build in Manchester, but he had made it away by
going to the Isle of Man. Remembers going with Mr. Astles
and a party to Frodsham bazaar. Catherine Brown was
there. There is a school at Frodsham, kept by Mr. Church.
Mr. Astles said, " Elizabeth, that is a very good school, and
I will send the children there." Witness asked when, and
he replied, " They are too young yet, but I think in about
four years."
Cross-examined.--These things happened two years ago.
Knows John Lawrinson, who now lives in Liverpool is

five years, if not wore, since he lived at Warrington. There

was merely friendship between Lawrinson and witness's sis-

ter. Witness's family lived as tenants under Lawrinson's
master. When witness left Warrington, Lawrinson's family
consisted of his father and mother, a brother, and two sisters.
Catherine Brown is now married.
By theJuD GE.-N ever went to Manchester with Lawrinson
at a time when Lawrinson proposed to marry her sister. Her

.
sister has now married a person named Morris.
Mr. John Ashton, attorney, of Warrington, knew the late
Mr. Samuel Astles, and had transacted business for him.

In December, 1838, witness was requested to attend Mr.
Astles. John Grice brought that request between ten and
eleven in the morning. Went to him in about half an hour.

This was on Saturday, the 15th December. Grice told him
he was wanted to take instructions for Mr. Astle's will.
Found Mr. Astles in bed ; he inquired if witness had brought
any pen and paper. Witness told him he had not ; but some
was procured, and the deceased proceeded to give instruc-
tions for the will. There are several legacies of 19 guineas.

Mr. Astles mentioned £2O, but witness suggested that, if they
were 19 guineas the legacy duty would be saved. Mr. Astles
replied that would be a very good thing. All the names and
these sums were mentioned by Mr. Asdes. Had no recol-
lection of Grice interfering. Mr. Astles mentioned in the
instructions that he wished Richard Brown to take the name
of Astles; afterwards, when he executed the will, that sub-
ject was mentioned. Witness asked him if he had any copy-
hold property, and he said he had not. He desired that the
legacies should be paid:twelve months after his death, and,
as several were minors; he wished they should be paid to
their fathers or mothers. During the whole time he was
giving witness these instructions he appeared to be in perfect
possession of his faculties. Witness suggested that the
executors should pay a part of the income for the education
of the children, and the remainder to the mother till they
were 21 years old, but he objected to that. In the event of
the mother marrying again, and the children dying, he said
he would leave his property to the charitable institutions ;
but on witness suggesting that he could not leave real pro-
perty to them, Grice suggested that he should leave it to his
heir-at-law. Mr. Astles assented. Witness then went away
with these instructions. About one o'clock witness met Mr.
Steel, and had some conversation with him • after which
witness proceeded to get the draft of the will finished. The
draft was here produced. Witness took the draft the same
evening to Mr. Astles. Grice was there. Mr. Astles was
calm and collected, and he appeared to understand the draft.
When witness read him that part about Richard Brown tak-
ing the name of Astles and the arms, he remarked that he
was not aware he had any arms. Witness explained to him
that he had introduced a provision in case of Catherine
Brown's death, and he said it was very right. He also said
he wished the property not to go away from Richard Brown
if he refused to take the name of Astles. Witness had in-
troduced a clause enabling the executors to let leases, and he
said that was very proper. Before the reading of the draft
was finished Mr. Steel came in, but he went out very soon,
and witness followed him. On his return he finished reading
it, And handed it to Astles for his signature. Dues not re-
collect whether any offer was made to assist him. He signed
it, remarking that any one who knew his hand would recog-
nise it. Witness and his clerk attested the signature. On
the following morning witness applied to Mr. Steel to go with
him to see a fair copy executed. Witness went to Mr. Steel
with it in the afternoon, and Mr. Steel told him he was not
then in a fit state to execute any document.
Cross-examined.—Had known Mr. Astles for some years,
and tor anyttnng witness Knew to tne contrary irc
of temperate habits, but he did not know him sufficiently to
give a decided opinion.
Mr. Robinson has renounced as executor under the will,
and the will had not been proved.
Joseph Smith (clerk to the last witness) proved his attes-
tation to the draft of the will, and added that, in his opinion,
the deceased was perfectly rational.
Mr. Robert Bickersteth, surgeon, of Liverpool, was next
called. He stated that, in affections of delirium tremens,
there were lucid intervals, and that he had taken upon him-
self the responsibility of advising that a will should be made
in those lucid intervals. He had himself been a witness to
wills made under such circumstances. It was consistent
with his experience,' that a will might be made within a few
hours of death. In delirium tremens the delirium was upon
one point only, such as fancied danger; upon all other sub-
jects the party might be perfectly rational.
Cross-examined.—The inducing cause of delirium tremens
was intemperance. It was attended with violent muscular
exertion sometimes.
Mr. Andrew Gillon, surgeon, of Liverpool, had been in
practice twenty years, and had attended many cases of deli-
rium tremens. Does a great deal too much business in that
way. Patients suffering from that complaint almost always
have lucid intervals. During those intervals the patient
would possess sufficient understanding to make a will ; and
witness is at this moment executor to the will of a party who
died from delirium tremens. Was present at the dictation
of that will. That will was dictated during several lucid in-
tervals. Perfectly coincide with with the views of Mr.
Bickersteth.
Mr. Thomas Mayer, foreman in the office of the Manches-
ter Guardian, knew the late Mr. Astles, and recollected him
taking a boy of Mr. Grice's to live with him at Warrington.
Witness was at Warrington fair in 1836, and saw Catherine
Brown's boy with Mr. Astle's. Mr. Astles appeared very
fond of him, and the boy called him father. Was at Frod-
sham bazaar with Mr. Astles in August before his death ;
saw a person named John Robinson there, who invited them
to his house to tea. As they were going there, Astles called
witness aside, and told him he intended to make Robinson
one of his executors, Grice another, and he would introduce
witness to a third before he left Frodsham, which he did.
The will was then put in and read, and the instructions for
it. This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the court and jury on the
part of the defendant. They had been told, by his learned
friend, that the question would be whether or not the party
of whom so much had been heard, the late Mr. Astles, had
made his will with a competent mind, and a perfect under-
standing of what he was doing. He was possessed of consi-
derable property, and ti om the many and complicated ways in
which he had disposed of it, it would undoubtedly be neces-
sary that he should be of a competent understanding. He
(the learned counsel) never saw a case containing so many
particulars which more required to have been fully put than
this—when and in which there had been more lamentable de-
ficiency of evidence. Three witnesses had been called for the
purpose of speaking to the man's competency at the time of
making the will—one of them, the attorney who made the
will, his clerk, and Mr. Perrin, who had told them that the
deceased was not of a capacity to make the will. Not one
medical man had been called who saw the man, nor one of
the servants who had attended upon him ; and from the pau-
city of evidence, of what they thought upon the subject, he
argued that the jury had not been fairly dealt with. The
learned counsel then commented on the principal topics in
the case for the plaintiff, and next proceeded to detail the
substance of the evidence he should call on the part of the de-
fendant. The following witnesses were then called :
Mr. Steel examined by Mr. WIGIITMAN.—Is a surgeon
and apothecary at Warrington. Knew the late Mr. Astles
from the year 1820, and always considered him a very tem-
perate man. Was called in on Wednesday, the 12th ; on
Thursday he was worse ; on Friday morning the servant told
witness that Mr. Astles had been saying that witness should
not come near him anymore. Witness saw him again at 12
o'clock that day, again at 2, again at 5, and again at 7 in the
evening, when he was worse. The disease then put on the
appearance of delirium tremens, which it had not before. The
witness then described the progress of the disease till the
visit at which he met Mr. Ashton, and stated that, as he was
out of the room, he heard Mr. Ashton, who was in the room
with the deceased, used the words " that he should have
full and discretionary power," or to that effect. The
moment the witness went into the room, Mr. Ashton
closed the paper, and no more was read whilst he was
there. John Grice was in the room. The disease was
rapidly increasing. The delirium continued from two o'clock
on Saturday afternoon till the time witness left him. Mr.
Astles died on Monday morning. During the three or four
minutes witness was in the room, Mr. Ashton never asked
witness to sign a paper. In witness's opinion, he was not in
awftscoo oaifirtmtmntus
eposyst aefknsotaleteerycenhaat
attiliwselfmtetiowedmlel;ci
niaal
aonlokt.:
afternoon
niihrt
th.i will.esoeK%rNhe,eai Kendrick.
dd anresoi
acntAtkohi
i9aN. t
efion %irctt'vict
state
al lock, becoming worse,
ieticasifstir
eohr
to
reeoimw2daaioi
dictate
t acei
ridtioceawk flit
tohnsht
ai
thent
instruc-
tionses
n
npyrethimenedthtahteweifftneeestsosfawanhiimnsatrfutemr
e2not'colfotchke.
Alsettnilcngnr(tiiiyeos
Cross-examined
e'txcohlareonmcwi kinnigloel
dnlv,i,othbhweye. t
phSrNeaoritdruhu. recdceawdßy.oEnus. ilwgsdwhbittze,ileal
Lse
witness
_NiNVvtainasfse
snaswos
asked
otei
nndtehsaoes statenwhtiahl
de,
and he did not refuse.
known that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Astles were pre-
liminary to delirium tremens, he should not have ordered
leeches. The symptoms of delirium tremens disclosed them-
selves between five and, seven on Friday evening. Witness
got rational answers from him sometimes, and sometimes he
did not answer at all. Remembers John Grice saying on
the Saturday morning that Mr.. Astles had not made a Will,
and witness told him to take the opportunity of the first lucid
interval to make one. Grice went with witness to fetch the
attorney, Mr. Ashton, to make it. When witness returned,
he found Mr. Astles quiet, and composed; he had previously
administered morphia. Witness knew, when he heard Mr.
Ashton using the words, that the executors must have full
and discretionary power, he knew he was either reading a
will or a draft. When Mr. Ashton came out, he said, " It's
not the will I've been reading, but the draft." Witness did
not say, " Well, well, get it signed and have done with it."
Cannot recollect using anything like these words as it is two
years since. Did not tell Mr. Ashton Iris opinion upon the
state of Mr. Astles's health. Mr. Ashton called upon him on
Sunday morning, and asked him if he would be a witness to
aNslr Astles'sll
a.
%itnessinwia case, as itli
kwea
tshnaet necessary
Witnesss a y to he a
, sa have
answerme di ea: manthlt
that
he would if he were at home. Mr. Ashton called with the
will in the afternoon, and then witness told him Mr. Astles
Was riot fit to sign it, but promised, if the patient had any
lucid intervals, he would let him know.

Dr. James Kendrick said he was called in to the deceased

at eleven o'clock on the night of the 15th of December, and

,
he was then by no means fit to makes will. Has known one
instance of a will being made in an apparently lucid interval,

which he had no recollection of afterwards.
Anne Cash said she was barmaid to the late Mr. Astles to
the time of his death. She described his illness, and said
that on the Saturday night, when Mr. Ashton was reading
the will, she took off her shoes, crept up stairs, and listened
of the door to what was going on. Mr. Ashton read very
quick, and she heard him say Richard Astles Brown. John
_ _

Grice said that had better be altered, and she saw Mr,

ton go to the table, and he appeared to alter it. She heard
Mr. Astles mutter something to himself, and he called out
louder, " Hey, hey." When Mr. Steel came in she went
away. She went in to tell them the doctor was come, and
they asked her to tell him to wait. When she went in the

room Mr. Astles's eyes were directed to the top of the room,
and he was hiccoughing and muttering. When Mr. Steel
had left, she went and listened again ' and when Mr. Ashton
had finished reading, she heard John Grice say that would
do—it could not be better. She did 'not hear Mr. Astles
make any answer to the remark. Mr. Astles was then raving,
and talking to himself. Mr. Ashton then came out, and she
asked him whether they were ready for his clerk to come in.

Witness is now in the service of JOseph Astles, the brother
of the deceased, at the same house, and in September next
would have been there two years.

Cross-examined.—This was the first time witness had ever
come out in the character of a listener. Was certain that
the name Richard Astles Brown was mentioned.
By the JUDGE.—The business of the house was carried on
during the week. _ _

Thocinas Jackson said he lived nearly opposite to the house
of Mr. Astles. At the request of Martha Robinson, witness
followed her there on the Saturday 114.;.t to see Mr. Astles.
He went into the bar where he found Mr. Grice. Witness
said perhaps he should be disturbing Mr. Astles, but
Martha Robinson said he could not be disturbed worse than
lie had been. He was hiccoughing- and rambling, and mut-
i ttring to himself, and when she asked him a question, he re-
turned an answer which witness could not understand. He
uid not seem to know witness.
This witness was cross-examined at considerable length,

and his statements varied from those he had given before:-
William Grice was next called, and he stated that he had
often heard Mr. Astles say that he was not father of the boy
Brown. Saw Astles on Friday; he was rambling, and what
he said was incoherent. Should not think him capable of
understanding a long will. Saw him again on the Saturday,
and staid with him all night. He still went on rambling in
the same way. _

James Hoagkinson Beckett said, he was acquainted with
Mr. Astles. He had a severe illness about eighteen months
ago, and witness often pressed him to make his will. He
said there was no occasion to make it, as he had no other re-
lation in the world but his brother Joe. Mr. Astles called
upon him one day at his house, and they went into a private
room together. He then said to witness, "You have spoken
to me about the disposal of my property; and I am come to
consult with you about it. I see no necessity for making a
will, as I have no relations, and only a few legacies which I
wish to leave," and he wrote them on a sheet of foolscap
paper. They were a watch to each of his godchildren who
had not had it, and £2O to each on coming of age. He said,
" You know I have purchased from Mr. Aston, at Frod-
sham, the house and land where 1 was born, and am build-
ing a house there, and most likely my brother Joe will take
my business." He wrote a plain hand, and witness never
saw him write like the signature to the draft produced. Wit-
ness asked him whether he had not left his old sweetheart,
Catherine Brown, anything ; and he replied, " I have left
her something to buy a suit of mourning." The boy Brown
was mentioned. He said, " You know, Beckett, I disclaim
that child ; and you have seen me take the Bible in my hand
repeatedly, and if I was in a court of justice I would do the
same, to swear he is not mine." On the Sunday following
witness saw him again, at a masonic meeting ; he came late.
When he was going away, he said, " Beckett, do you recol-
lect the conversation we had on Thursday ?" Witness said,
" I do, Samuel ;" to which he replied, " For God's sake,
don't forget it." This was on the Sunday before his illness.
Went to his house on Saturday, the 15th, and was told they
were making his will. Witness went up stairs to see him,
and he met John Grice, who told him he could not see Astles,
as he was rambling, and had been for some time. Had seen
the deceased's brother once or twice, and always understood
they were on good terms together. Witness knew John

Lm-vrinson."

Cross-examined.—Witness is a wine and spirit dealer, and
an innkeeper. Witness had been high constable for the hun-
dred of Nantwich, and had been charged with obtaining
money under false pretences. An indictment was preferred
against him, and it was tried at Chester in 1832, before Mr.
Baron Bolland. Left the office of high constable in April,
1831. Witness was acquitted.
John Furnival said he knew Mr. Astles, who said to him,
after the death of his mother, " Now, John, I have buried
my mother, I have nobody for my property but my brother.;'
About two months before his death, Catherine Brown was in
Warrington, and witness said to him, " Samuel, Kate is in
town," and his answer was, he would have nothing more to
do with her. Witness then asked him what he intended to
do with the child which she said was his, and he replied that
he should leave it the same as the rest of his godchildren.
Witness saw him twice on the Friday before his death, and
he was then rambling.
Cross-examined.—Just before this time witness had failed,
and had assigned his property.
John Bailey Maguire, hair-dresser, said he knew the de-
ceased. This witness gave similar testimony as to the de-
clarations of the deceased—that he intended to leave his pro-
Browperty to his brother, and that he did not consider the boy
nto be his son. Witness was called in to shave him on
Saturday, the 15th, and he was then raving.
John Craike, Wm. Caldwell, of Frodsham, and Thomas
Harper, of Low-hill, gave similar testimony.
Margaret Hewitt proved that she had applied leeches to
Mr. Astles, and that he was very restless and rambling.
Mr. Cunnah, solicitor, of Chester, acted as attorney for
Joseph Astles in a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, in 1830.
Witness was in Warrington in December, 1838, and saw
Joseph Lamb, or Robinson, one of the lessees of the deceased,
who said he would have nothing to do with the will, for there
was such a squabble about it ; and if he had money of his own,
he would sooner bury it than the lawyers should have it. He
should not believe Astles was in his proper senses when he
saw him, but he did not say whether that was before or after
.5,.; will - - ---
evening, and he said he would give 1:5C0 to have the matter
settled. Witness asked him if he had any money, and he
said " No, but Mr. Ashton would find it."
Cross-examined.—Wituess bad taken the benefit of the in-
solvent act in August this year, and had been discharged
forthwith.
Mr. CRZSSWELL then proceeded to reply—a duty which
occupied the learned counsel about an hour.
The JUDGE, its summing up, told the jury that the main
question for their decision was, whether the testator had a
lucid interval when he made the will. The learned Judge
went over the evidence at great length, and concluded his ad-
dress at eight o'clock.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, thus establishing the validity of the
will. _

......
The trial lasted upwards of ten hours. The court adjourned
at a quarter past eight o'clock.

CROWN COURT,

SATURDAY

John Williams, aged 30, was indicted for having, at Great
Bolton, on the 28th March, feloniously uttered a forged £5
note of the Bank of England.
Mr. HULTON stated the case, and called _

Mary Child.—The prisoner came to our shop, and said he
would buy a leg of mutton it I would change a£s note. I
said I could, and sold him the mutton, giving him £4 14s. 9d.
out. We had no other £5 note in the shop at the time.
The prisoner cross-examined the witness at some length,
and she admitted that she said to the policeman, when he
afterwards apprehended him, " Look well at the man, for he
will look different in the morning." She also admitted that
the policeman said, " Don't be afraid : if you are sure he is
the man, you will be all safe." To questions from the Judge,
witness said that the impression of the police-officer was not
elicited by any doubt she had expressed as to the identity of
the prisoner.
Re-examined.—l never had any doubt that the prisoner
was the man. - -

By the JUDGE.—We had candles burning when the pri-
soner bought the meat.
William Child, the husband of the last witness, received
the note from her, and took it, on the following Wednesday,
to the bank, to ascertain whether it was good. Brought it
back, and locked it into the drawer, after marking it. It
was afterwards given to Mr. Barton. of the police.

Mr. Barton Ploduced the note, which was marked.
A gentleman belonging to the bank pronounced the note to
be a very bad one, neither bank paper nor bank engraving.
Sarah Roberts, who kept an inn, said that a man had come
to her on the 3d of April, and asked her for change for a £5
note for a person named Monk. She thought it was not
good, and demurred. He got possession of it, stating that
he would go to a neighbour's and see if it was good. Wit-
ness followed him, and saw that, in place of going to that
neighbour's, finding himself watched, he ran off. She cried,
" Stop thief !" The witness described the note as being
similar to that produced in thickness and in portions of the
printing. The prisoner was brought back by a man who
pursued him. She was sure he was the man.
A man heard Mrs. Roberts cry, " Stop thief !" and pur-
sued the prisoner. -He ran him through several streets and
entries, and he finally captured him in a yard, at the top of n
passage. He was out of breath. Nothing was found. He
was given into custody.
A police-officer detailed some conversation he had had
with the prisoner, in which the latter made admissions that
he had done wrong, and appeared to intimate that he had
swallowed the second note.

Mr. Monk, a tripe-seller, stated, that he did not know the
prisoner, and never snt him for change.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty. _

The learned JUDGE said, that the offence of which the
prisoner was convicted was of a heinous nature, inasmuch as
it went to materially injure persons in humble life. Formerly
the offence would have subjected him to capital punishment ;
but the present law was more lenient. It was necessary,
however, to visit it with severity, and the sentence of the
court was, that he. should be transported to such settlement
as her Majesty, by advice of.her Privy Council, should think
fit, for the term of ten years.

PASSING A FORGED BILL.
Thomas Healey, aged 45, stood indicted for having, at
Manchester, feloniously forged, offered, disposed of, and put
off a bill of exchange, for the payment of £5O, with intent to
defraud John Dunning and Thos. Hemmingsley, the accused
knowing the same to be forged.
The case was entirely devoid of interest. The jury returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
FELONIOUS POSSESSION OF GOODS.
William Heys, a grey headed old man of 65 years of age,
was charged with having received and had in his possession
twenty yards of cloth, one cloak, and one cape, the property
of John Wood.
In this case also a verdict of Not Guilty was returned by
the jury.
There was another indictment against the prisoner, but the
trial was deferred until Monday.

EXTENSIVE FORGERY.
Alfred Sidebotlom, 34, stood indicted for having, at
Manchester, feloniously forged an order for the payment of
money, purporting to be the order of one James Buckley,
upon the Bank of Manchester, for £6OO, and with having
feloniously uttered the same knowing it to be forged.
The prisoner, a good-looking man, genteelly dressed in
black, was a bleacher at the Garret Works, Manchester.
Dr. BROWN stated the case, and called
Wellington Ainscough, who said—l was in the service of
the prisoner in July last. On the 25th of that month he
gave me a check for £6OO, and told me to take it to Mr.
Blomily, and borrow £l5 upon it. It was on a Saturday.
I took the check. My master wanted the money to pay
wages with. I got the money from Mr. Blomily and left the
check. My master told me to say that it was past bank
hours, and he could not get the check cashed.
Mr. BRANDT (for the prisoner) cross-examined the wit-
ness.—Mr. Sidebottom only told me to show him the check.
He (Mr. B.) said nothing, but gave him the money. When
I returned hack, my master said, " You should not have left
the check ; you should only have shown it."
Re-examined.—l have been in the gaol to see the prisoner,
in company with Mr. Taylor, his-attorney. It was on Mon-
day last. One of the keepers was present with us.
Mr. Joshua Blomily, grocer and flour-dealer, in Chorlton-
on-Medlock, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.
He lent the £l5 and received the check. He sent for the
money several times during the week, but did not get it. I
took the check from the Bank of Manchester, and it was
afterwards given to the police.
Cross-examined.—The premises rented by the prisoner are
large. The rent may be five or six hundred a-year.
James Buckley, being sworn, said, I reside at Queekhead,

Saddleworth. lam the prisoner's uncle. I never kept an
account with the Bank of Manchester. I did not sign this

Cross-examined.---The writing does not resemble mine in
the least. The prisoner married my niece. She will not
receive a large sum on my death, unless I leave it to her in .

my will

John Wood, cashier of the Bank of Manchester said, that
no one named James Buckley had any account with the bank.
A person of that name did bank there three years ago. The
signature to this check does not at all resemble that of the
James Buckley who banked with us. The prisoner once
banked with us, but closed his account about three months
ago.

-James Buckley, of Tintwistle, in Cheshire, an innkeeper,
said, he had formerly banked with the Bank of Manchester.
That check is not signed by me.
Edward Frank Hall, of Manchester, a traveller, said, on
Tuesday, the 21st July, I was at the Garratt Works Inn.
The prisoner was there. He asked the landlord to take a
glass, and said, " Perhaps your friend (witness) will take
one." He afterwards said, he believed he had not money to
pay for them, unless the landlord could give him change for
a £6OO check, which he produced. The landlord did not
change it. The prisoner afterwards asked witness if he knew
the signature. Witness said he did not. Prisoner said, he
was his uncle, and that he had taken it to the bank, but they
would not cash it, as his uncle had dated it on a Sunday.
Archibald M`Mullin, of the Manchester Police, appre-
hended the prisoner on Saturday, the Ist of August. He
was told, that the charge against him was, that he had sent a
forged check to Mr. Blomily and had obtained £l5 upon it.
He said, he had sent a check, and admitted that that pro-
duced was the same. He said, he had it sent to him from a
person in London, named James Buckley, who was going
into partnership with him. Witness asked him where
Buckley resided. He said, he did not know, but he was to
direct his letters to him at the Magpie and Stump, Fetter-
lane. He was asked to produce the letter that the check
came in, and he looked in his pockets for it but could not find
it. He said it was probably in his counting-house. He was
taken into custody. A number of letters was brought from
his place, at his own request. Witness looked over them with
him, but found none with the signature of James Buckley.
Witness took him into custody. He said, he had written to
Buckley, at the Magpie and Stump, blowing him up for dat-
ing the check on Sunday.
Mrs. Hannah Hart, landlady of the Magpie and Stump,
said, she had been in that inn for seven months, and no per-
son named James Buckley had asked for or received any let-
ters during her time.
Mr. BRANDY, for the prisoner, considered it improbable,
that a person in his station, having extensive premises, and
a business which, if pursued, would have led to honourable
emoluments, should be so foolish as to run the risk of ruin
and disgrace for the sake of a paltry £l5. He commented
on the whole of the evidence, and urged that the prisoner
had had some communication with a person named James
Buckley, who was negotiating with him for a partnership,
and that this man had signed the check, and, by giving it to
the prisoner, had made him his victim. He argued that, be-
ing so signed, though by a dishonest person, it was not a
forgery, and implored the jury to give the case the most fa-
vourable consideration which the circumstances and the pro-
babilities would permit.
The learned JUDGB summed up, and the jury retired. On
their return, they gave a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was put down, to receive sentence hereafter.
The old man, William Heyes, was again brought up, on a
second charge against him of stealing a hat ; but the case was
so trifling that no evidence was tendered against him, and he
was consequently found Not Guilty and discharged.
The court adjourned at five o'clock.