Hereford, Friday, August ...
The Times, 1824-08-23T00:00:00

RtJore Mr. Jusfhice PAltr, and a Xpecial Juy. s-- liutetsuent ageatLnt ?tobert''rhomaf.. David rilliaFAs, Thomoas Thormas, Jenkin Mlorgan, Benjan-in Lewis. and Davici Williams, for a conspiracy to defeaat the colurse of jttte by stiborn~ ing false-witnesses. TIhe ease arose out of err action of ejectmeni rid at the great sessions at Cardiff, for the recovery tf certain lar ge estates, said to be worth 60,MOOOL, in the county of Cardija.. O thattril, n sppot sftbeeas ofthelessorof the plaintiff, afamlli. Bibl wa prduce, cntaningentiesof births, imptrtant tg iatb.; seaniat th pedgre. T desroytheeffect of this evidence, wit.. neses erecaled n te prt f te dfedants, whose te8timonvy wi, diectd t shw tat he ntreswere forged. and that th'e appearance of the Bible was given to it by artiflicil means for the purpose-s of the cause. After a trial whichb lasted three days, a ver. dict was given flor the defendants. The present indictment was pre. ferred by the unsuccessful party against the Several persons charged for conspiring to defeat the Effect of the entries in this Bible. It st;od for trial at the last assizsts but as it was understood thiat the vaist would occupyv one, if not two data, it wvas made a -rce?anct. Mtr. RyAx stated the substan;ce of ahe charge. Air. I,'UDLaoNv rose to open the case for the'Prosec-ution ; but was stopped, by Mlr. TAUNTYON, who appeared for three of the defenidants. He had to submit certain objections which he believed must prove fatal to the charge and would., withi the permission of the Judge, state therm at once to save timie. The indictmient contained nine counts; in, th-e first eight, the court before which the ejectment was" tried was miiadescribed, far it was called "1The General Ses,it'ng," in. stead of the "' Great Sessions," which was the style gvnt h jurisdictioni by thie statute of' Berry A7I11., and always adopteas in prTactie. TPhe 9tht count, being n,ore general thian the othere, was free fromi thLis objection ; buit thiis rouiat, like all the others, Was bad, as it contained a minidescription of the is4sue in the cause out of which the charge of conspiracy arose. The indictment stated it tobe an'i.ssue joined, in an action in which Johin Doe, on the demise ci' Daniel TIerry anid William Rees, was plaintrif and Robert Thionas anid David Bevan defendants : whereas, when the record of the pro. ceedings in that action should be produced, it would a.ppear neot to be. an action on the joint demise of the two merely, but, an action on titis joint demnise, and also on several tlemises severally aid. Now, as thisk was mnatter of description, and description of a record, the' variance wa-s fatal. Mr. MAUa.I.. on the came side, antd Mr. C~AwatBPEL and M1r_ CROSS for the othr defendants, followedi in supportof the objections; and Mr. M'Acrag added, that thenhith count was absolute nonsense, in consequence of the omission of Sosti verb which shiould huve fL].' ]owed the word'- had." Mlr. LUDnLOW, Mr. Rt-ssai., anid Mr. Ry-As argued that no)ne ot the objectionis were tenable the term " General Sessions"- Cottld be applicable only, to the "-Gr-eat Sessions;" the descrint ion of the record in cjectmert was substantially correct. because tihe declara.. tion incluided a count on a Joint denise ; and as the ninth co-ant con- tae', adsiccharge of conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose, the addtition of insensible words would not prejudice. Mr. TAN sTO-, replied. Mr. JUstiCe PARtc thought thet two first objections v-alid, and that co.nsequently the indictinent could not be supported. He therefore directed the&j ry to. acquit the prisoners 'T'he Jar, Rccordingly returnied a verdict. of Nol t.uity. Mr. L,.v.I'g. L ob',erved. that the indictment was not fr-Amed by any gentleniai of the Oxford circuit. aaastNAGE AYD SNEtO V. tItosaER. T'his %ass ti action by partners in tlte Montmouth and Brcccon banks agrainst Air. Pros'ser. a draper at the vedlage of Crickhowel, iii Irecknockshire, fur1 slanderous words, imputing insolvency, to their firm, by wh-Iichi the,' sustained s(pecial damtrage. The defendaart ple.id,d the leeal s u e. r.CA St1P HE tL opened ti,e ease "or the plairtiffli, wh-lo w ere gel). dolcine of great reso.'ctabilhty, aned who had never beet! in the least dfanger of tai!inK to perfoirm all their engrurctne,cts to their custom-. Ur5 li, the montnth of January, however, they- wet. surprised tfind that reports were curren.t prejudicial '. theit character for ,oivcntc.; adthat, in cosquence of those repowtse, Several balances stere wit. drawn, and t!le circulation of their notesA was dccreased. These re. ports~ were distinctly trac-ed to the defendant, whlo refus~ed to give up his athior, or to aclriowledge the tfalsehood of his assertions. The Pliaiitinf hiad afihireed him ev-ery, oppor:unity of repairing tie injury- whlich lie h.it done by, an apology, but he oabstinately ref used, and left them i4o course but that of a~ppealing tn a jury for the vindica- toWu oft'heir cliaramcer. Thiras, the only obj'ect wilich d'ev. Sought, and they were quite indiderent as to the- amtn of 2h anaget. Mr. Lesis Wa!kinls. a surreon at Brecon. stated thiat the plain. tf,had been bankers there for two years. Or: the 13h of January ls'o,.the da), of tte quarter session&, he met .'tr.P oe in fie town, artd sti to hin-, I hear von should say that the bank of Bromaze atid "neid hies stopped pea`mrens .s- Monrntith. pra,y is it true F He replied " Yes : i: is: I was tm]Itso It is oeported about 0C ickhioweil. and no perstn will take their bffll. I caline to tow-n hr ronixquence of it miyself." The switnces then. sa!dti. Von had better takec tare whiat von say, fbr you brouight the news; tc town. saud told it to John Thiortias." The, defendant replied' " Yes; I heard so." Tfhe witness, who had suspicioPs before, now becAmne aisrtned, and drew out the balance of about fAll, which he had in the hands o'f tLe bankers; but had since renewed his account with them. Croags_erzaixed._.At lit thistieu-tber was; a ruin on thec hank., anid thiis gave the witniess a suspicion. The Rev. Johtn Harrisws pre. sent wyhen the words were spoken). The witneessdid not recollect the 'lefendlant saying- There is such a report, but I um happy to find thle corary.." He could not say that the elefendant mentioned the bank at Mlonmouth, but hie himself mentioned it in htis queastin. fir. Joltn $r.eid, nephew of one of the plUitiffs, who axssised in the managernent of dije bank at Mlonmouth, proved that be et-Er neard of the reports till nine o'clock in the Evening of the 13thj of January, and thjat they occasioned a run which continued for three mocnths, durn which 'time the circulation of their notes,. inde- penident of thos1.e issued to their friends. was reduced 1O,OOO1. On being asked wThat the reg,ular ibssue was;, he declined to answer; and, on time ithniSation of the learoed Judgce, the question -was ror press~ed. He proved that two persons mentioned in dlie declaration withdrew their balances to a small amount, and, oin cross-.examination, ad. mitted tha2t another country bank had stopped payment a few days- before, and created great alarm. On re.exanuinaiion, how-ever. h,e stated that there had been no nin on thet Aontuouth hank frorm the time of this failune to the circulation of thesa rumou.rs. r.INathaniet llorgan, a banker at Ross, proved that about the 2(Lk1 of.Jauuiary last., tlucre was a report nnfavoutw'ble to the hark of tcite plaintiffis,and that their notes were often brought to be exchanged, which increased the balance of excharge against thetna dring a period of near three months, A lettrer, of'the 17th of January, I182.4. frorm the plaintiffis' attor. tiles to thle defendant, was rea,d, threateniing to sue him if' he did rot istake an ainple ap1oloy. The case hhr the plaintiffs being dosedl, Mr. Justice PAa.z asked iV he could no' iliediate between the parties. The counsNel for the plainti2Z expressed their readiness to take nominal darr.;gcs and the costs, und the c-ounsel for the defendant tifered to withdraw a juror; bat e4ch party' retu,ed to accede to the proposals of' time other. Thie case therefore' proceeded. Mr. TAt755T0ON addressed the jury for the defendant, at young mun of ititegrity and character, but whos occupied the humble station of a shopkeeper in the v4iage of' Crickhtiowel. To himi the issue of' this cause was meest mom1enmo0u,i-.uot in respect of damnages, whichl the ocouasel for the plaLintiffs did not anticipate or ash: for,but in respect of co%ts, which if they- fehl4on him would bringo him utrui. As thec evidence now stood, he felt himnself Entitled to ask for a verdict; because malice was. of the essence of every action of slanider, and though malice might be inferred from circumstances, it must exist to formi the basis of the proceeditngs. Now the defendant had not gone about. aaseitinF the failiure of the bHnk: b e ltsd not even assert.. ed it from his own kcnowledge, but in the course of conversation, anId in an)swer to questionis asked of him, he merely seated what he had heard. Thus the matter stood at Present but he would Prore that thiese rumours Existed for dlays before the defendant ever ut. tered themi; that the def'endant himuself had notes of the banle rc. turned to himyp; and that he came to Breconr puposely to ascertain the truth of the reports which were in circulat-ion at Crickhoteel. U nder these circurmstances,it wasclear that he did not speak the word. inaliciaussly, or with any, slew to do the plainrtiffs, an injury, and con- Nequently' that he otught no more to be held liable tothis; speiet'o isctions than a m aster who wits asked for the character of a servant. With respect to the refusal to apologie, he would sihow that it arose frsin the fnreasonable demand's o the plaintiffs, lh- insisted on the payment of all coats as between attorney and clieitf. He wvq quite ready, to 3drmit that there wa, ign pito t ofudto o h u4favourable rumours; bu hydid nt arise from thle defendant, nor Stash he mnaliciously assisted to diffuase diem. Mr. (ieorge Brown, an innkeeper at Crie.kihowel, wvas then called to prove, that ju3st before the sessions he returned'fil Mlr. Pros,ser two one pound notes of time b-Ank,oa theground of reports than PreV'alert' and dliat .AIr. Prosser went to Brt-con for the purpose of' ascertaining the truth of thetse rumnours. Mr. CAMPBELai4 objected to the receptiont of this evidence, as-no justification wafs plea6ded MVr. Justice PARa thlought it ought to be received. If the tde. l'endant hadulnmade an unqualified assertion that the bank hatl stop- p,ed pay'tneast, the evidlence woetld hav-e been inadmisusible ; bitt as h had accompsanied his expresstions with a qualification, he was at IS. berry to prove thiat qualification true. T-wo witnessses were then called to prove that sumoura 'Were abroad before thie 13Lh .January, affecting thie credit of dJie banlci; but this evidenc-e being objected to, and the learned Judge thinking it. differed in principle frorm that already received,tbe counse'l for the defenidant withdrew r t. Ihir. CAMPBELl. repflied. In the courseof hisadd-~5- the- learned counsel contewded thiat ttite plaintiff's were. in pointo last'i, entitled. to a verdict, because the words were not uttered in an" Privileged continuniearion, es iti the character given by a toaster of a servant;- anid wherever this wits the case, -and the: wo'rds tenIded to degrade oc injure aLnothqer, thie law implied mnalice in the speak-er. Air. Justice PAxicK here interposed, and asked site learned cu sdl whether it -realy was his serious opinion that the law ita allcatm implied tmalice, where the commnunicatiorn was not privileged, AIr. CAM,PB3ELL answered, that--it was his opinion, which h, thiought sustained both hy authority and principlle. But, in thi . ase,the ury ouldconsiderv whterthrwanoeidn fsn lice Orof il itenton,in he manner of pelngtew rdsnmd i the prtinaiousrefusl toaplgize forthmwethywr os' to be without foundain MVr. Justice PABE left the case to tbejury on the simple quegtio~., "were the words maliciously spoken " .R ecould not, atama preser,,'k- adlvised, agree in the doctrine laid dlown by the learned counst:~,. for theo plaintiffs, that mnalice watt always to be gresuc doubt, might be inferred ; malice, no doubt, was not rcstricted in it7 meaning to mere personal illwill but though it might be.iferm-JR., it mightoilso be disproved by the circnumstances under which ti--, words were spoken. Now here the defendant heard tie mmou,,t,. notes vrere actually returned to him incoitSequenCcoftem; le set x to Brecon on dths very business, as he s'did and ther i- answer questiots asked of him, he to'd wbat he ba, heard, d the hlis journey. ' I f this w4as masic;ous, then oulr lifttuight beloeset ws actions of slander, anrd our enost co;ninon an;d loese-cnnveatsa.0n.is,5 of peril * and if ittwerd not niciomas, it'*odild)totbe ahilO.Dale,'b ai) ever injurious mnigtrt be thie ons,enmences to tbe parties of -wl~imniu was spolteu.* S 'The Jtury, which w7as enthircy cmnposed of dp~a juror, este nearly an botir, end thlea rttormed at verdict for thc-de&nud~at, attesame time to e"Press diso hsreualt '"oation o i ~uat Mr. Jutice P iiz aid5 that it Would have been be tter if he had pooie,bt it might be a little excuAe if the suggegtion of Mr. antnwere accurate 2as to the terMS asked of him. Mri. TkuqTrroX said he was quxite ready-, on the part of big elient, express his firm conviction that the rumours were groundle&s, anti isregret that any expressions of his should have contributed, or Supsdto contributes, to diffuse them. Mr. JusticeP not bervd tha itnust be grtifyingl to thte lainift toknowtha no theslihtet imutaionrested on their The jur the reied. WOOLAS7N V. lIStYtnEE ANDl OtZ_1 ADl5It5eSTILT0R9 0ir O THOMAS XiEE9EE, Z5Q., DlEC3CASED. Mr.RSS Stated, that. this was an action on twio bonds, condi- Oned for tC pay-ment of 5.0091. each; wti i months; after the eth of ThmsBer,Bq. The defendant= had pleadeda that e bndswer no th dedsof Mr. Beebee. Mr. s~rtsz ne h case en behalf of the plaintiff. An ton of' this atr was tisually seated in the few words u.sed by is learned friend, and proved in as few by the isubscribing witness thede0eds. But an, in this case, the defendants had thoutght fit thuh p~al jury, and to make a show of seriousi defence, itrgt to satMe, in the first instance, the circumstances oier hihtebns were given. The defendants, were the repre- ntativso r.Toa Beebee, a gentleman who resided near restlga,andwbo iedin the early patt of 1823, without a will. c wa a ,atelo ofeccntric character and habits, but enjoysing splcdi~ ortme, ind iedpossessed of no less a aum than 8,0091. tha imeof hs dathhe had no nea-rer relative than hi%s ister, Its.Mons.,nd is roter, Mr. James Beebee, and their chiil. rn. Mr olsrn h plaintiff, was in early life articled to Ir. Mlorris, wopatsedI as an attorney at Leominster, anid there ried at-. attacment to one of his dauighters. The youngc coople arried in 186 with) but slender rmeans of providing for a famiy ti in the fuill expectation of' assistance from Mr. Beebee, whose fa. Orite niece Amrs NVoolaaton %vs. In accordance with tins expc non, Alr. Beebee in August, 1802, gave the first bonLdl whiceh the sutbject of the pre-sent action, conditioned for the payment of .0091. InT May, 181 1, Sir. Beebee visited Mlr. WVoolaston at He. ford, where he) then was in partnership withi a mo-st respectable ntleinan natmed Bird, and toek measures for making a furthder roi for o his niece . and upon this orcmaion gave the secondI rd or ,001.,rciting the first. It could not be contended that - ra bods erein ny ay neqitable in respect of Mfr. Beebee's the reatins,wh too in the sae degree with Mlrs. Wsoolaston, ecue Ithe sum for which they were given was scarcely more than Cr proportion of hiswealth, supposing it equaUvydivided among those ho hadequalclaims. Indeed, SIrs. MSlorris,one'of the defendants, en. ed astill largersuirsunder adeed of gift from theoldgeutleman,who last died intesta'e, and thus actedi consiatently to thle lasit. The ret bond, whiich was given at hisi houise, was witnessied by a womran arad Mary Evans who lhad been his servant, and twhom tlierefore plantiff mrust al, though she was now under the influience of te defend?..it,.. Sbe wouldl probably state that she haa no recoliec. on of the hr livery ofthe deed ; but this statement would enable the Isintifi' to usil other "itnesses to prove thesignature to be the genuine ads-citine of 5Ir. Beebee. The second bond was witnesse-d by Itr. Richard Vaughian, who, at. the time it waft Riven, was an ar. cled clerk to Sir. WVoolaston, but who had been by ill health inca. aciasted fromn follewinis his profession. This gentlemanL had re- ded with his famnily ; oeanuihechbecaace n d o h lgtst interest in the result of ttire cause To his tea. irOny, therfore, there could be no objection ; and, as the bond hichi he would pro-ve rrcited the other, he w-ould Yirtually substan. ate oth Thre wouldl remnain theit no doubt that these bonds rctegnine handwriting of Air. Beebee ; the purpose for i,th tey eregiven was reasonable and just; and no attempt tiM b madeto sow that the deceased %vas incompetent to execute oem,becase te defendants theimselves had received bienefits under ~straments Subsequtently, given. It was righit to state, that M r. Voolaston, who was Rot in England, brouight this action merely for utbnefit of his wife and chiJdiren, whose affaira were in Citan. cryard who, whiatever his follies or errors m-ight be, had no wish us thlat they shiould obtain jusitice. Mairy Evansa was theni called, and the first bond put into her sor,,.Shesaithde namne " Mlary Evans," att subscribing witness thebotl, s o ty handriting, but I have no recollection of Mlr. erbe's ign'ugit. The bell rang I went inito the parlotir Ir. leeee nd r. Woelaston were there, anti I was desired to put iuvuamerto the paver. Cross-examined bv Sir. TAUNTToN,...At first, wlhen I wmasaked put my nanie to itie paper, I irefused,' sayig," I did not like to veany thing to do with lawyers" and went into the kitchen. In shrt time I was caUled back, and Mr. WVoolaston pointed out the I.ucc where I was to put miy namre. Not a word was read, andl I d.i not know at thec tinme what was written over the place where I rte it. At that time, there was neither signature nor u'eal now appeared. Of that I am sstre. I werit out immrediately, and aw no niore. At this time, I bad livedl with MIr. Beebee several ears. He saw no company except his relations, who sometimes iired with hini. Re-examincd...Mr. Beebee came after rue asi well as Mr. Wool. ston. Both of them asked me to come back and write my name, ytgit was no harm, buat a mere matter of form. I returned wmith 'r f them to the parlour. I now live near MAr. Beebee, but am or his tenar,t. M11r. Richard Vaughan, the subscribing witness to the second bond, as hen called. Hie appeared in very ill health, pale, anid exceed. ogly nervous ; but tremullously anxious to be accurate,Ilie said, o Lhe la-tter end of Japtuary, 181 1, 1 was articled to Mr. Woiolas-. n, then practising as an attorney, at liereford. I am the sub- cibing witniess to the second bond, and saw the deceased sign it, ut do not know that my eye was on his hand when he sealed it. Ir. Beebee looked at in';Air. Woolaston said it was right; ant(I I.Beebee then signed it, end delivered it as his deedl. Mr. ooston desired mewt attest it. I once inade an affidavit of the xecution before a magistrate of Hereford. Cross-excamnired by Mr. CAMP33sLity.-~sMr. Woolauton requestedI nc to make an affidlavit, I think on the same evening the bond was vers. I was 14 years of age in the September preceding he transaction. I servedl with Mlr. WVoolaston five yearr; but dloanot recollect thiat lie ever asked me to make an affidavit t'the execution of any mnstrumentr, except where an affidAvit ruie oaccomp.any the deed. I do not remember that Ir. oolatongave me aniy reason for his desire that I should ase n afidvt oni this occasion. He drew the affidavit. yit to me to copy, and took me en the magistrate to stwear it. I nikM r. Becebee had been at IIIr. Woolaston's house three or four ays before the execution of the bond, where T usied to see him at inner. I never re.Ad the bond before I stigned it as a witness; my eye lneonprt of itt but I withdrew it, thinking Mr. Woolasmon itrerdit as impertinent, neither was it ren over to me. Both misar i the handwriting of ?,r. WVoolaston. The impression 0my mind is, that at the, visit when the last bond was given Ir'. Peebee'z spirits were not god,hut I was in infimn health then, d have been so since. NMr. Wr.oolaston sent ine to the hotel forea asie, and shortly afer I was called ini to witness- the bond. I ink the chaise was then in waiting, and that Mr. Beebee leftt e house shortly after. Mr. WVoolaston clesired me to keep e bond secret, hut assigned no reason for his wish. Miss ebee, Mr. Beebee's sister, came into the room while thie bond ass there, and I think .tIr. Wloolaston asked her to witnesst hr inRitrument whic-h Mr. Beebee was going to sign, or had sign ed. do not thin:k she made any articulate replv, but murmured whiat I rAiaered as a refusal. I cannot s-ay whether she had left the roomn foeI witnessed it. Mr. WVoolaston, two or three years after, noweed me the bondt, andI asked ine if I recollected it ? *Re-exatmined.-Mlis% Beebee is now dead. I think I should not uavec sworn, asl I have in the affidavit, to the purport of the bond, 'ithout hearing it read over, or readinig it myself. John Harpur.-l knew the late. Mr. Becebee froter( 1792. I wasl a ree,aniworke-d in his house. I have seen him sign his name reuuenly,andthink the signatures en both bonds to be his;- they reinthe o7mhe used to write ; I rather thiink he wrote them than nor. Czses-examined.-He once sent me with theletter to pr-ocure deals, and fromr the.ce I judge of the form of his signature. I have oftenl ~!etn him write besides; but I do not recollect how he usually ige'l his name. William Lcwi,._I once lived ass week-ly5servitntwith Mlr.Beebee, for six years in the whole. Ile settled with me once a quarter, and I often saw hlim wr-ite. I never noticed his writing, except the letter~ C;" ; this (looking ant the first boind) is of the same form, but clearer han I ever saw him write. I cannot say whether it is or not his ~s4mrature. I have always said so. John Davie,.-I ha've seen Sir. Beebee write; the signatures of thIe bonds; are like hi, writing,; I rather believe they are, by the par. Iicilsr turns of the letter ' e. ? CroAssexa,nicied.-I never saw him sign the single letter " T."i as in tehe bonds.. M%r.Cecil Parsnst an attorney at Presteigni,said-In I82 I corre .npned with Mir. &lebee, at;d received three or four letters from~ hi.The signatures to the bond.s are similar to those at the footof hi etrs, except that he wrote "1 Thos'" instead Ifll,T." s'lould believe thcrrito be in his htand-writing; the characters are the same, but more finely written than those which I receIvedi=omhim. Cress-.examined.-I have been employed to collect evidneby [Ieattorney for the plaintiff. I applied to several prstsopov the -7 hadrtn of I 15 . Beebee, but foundI them undea heiflec of the defendants. I never sawg Mlr. B3eebee write. It is from comparison of the signature to the bond with the aignature to the letters that I believe both were written by the samne person. From Ithat con?'srjion in my own mind I now speak. 'Thetti'_ds were then read. The first was dated 21st August, 1809, 1517e penal sum of 10,0OOL with a recital that the obligor r,wis_ieem-to make a provifion forbi niece who was' married to Alr. W%,oolastan, anid a condition for the payment of 5,0001. within sit mnonths ufter the death of M r. Beebee. Ttie second was dated 29th Slay, 1811, and, reciting the first, and the wish of Mr. Beurbee to make a furthger provision for his niece, was conditioned for the P,a,~7 ine.1t of thelie smat the same period. Both were signea Beebse.'" Air. CANPSELY. addressea tla jury for the defendants, who felt thems-elves bound to resist this large and most extraordlinary claim rmade on 31r.Beebez's estate. Thewhohecircusmstancesof the case,, as itboloth bonds, Were pregnant with suspicion; and the jary wouldsee atrundant a-easou to believe thait the frast bond wat not executeA by Mtr. Beebee, and that the second wras obtained by fraud. As to the fhre, the suibscribing witneas had disproved the execution in her pre- z,mct; thc evidence of handwriting was exceeedingly weak and un. eain; and would be met by evidence far outweighing it in aci caracv ar.d value. After the evidence of Itr. Vaugban, a most -xaectab!e and conscientious witness, it would be vain to contend that the sginature to the second bond wax not the handwriting eo Alr. IleeeeeK. lMr. Justice PAng-If one is his. writing, the other is; let any 0;2elook at them ion an instant, and judge. ltr. CAM'DsELL proceeded to comment on the circumstane. atnder which the seeond bond was given. Here was an infirm old soan at thie house of this attorney, made to execute a bond drawn hy tue plaintiff hirrself. reciting a previous bond without the least ne. Ceesty, and in the presence only of a sickly boy of 14, called in for thecccasion; no partner consulted, no expeTienced lerk employed; bat this witness taken before a magistrate to mnake an afFidavit, Rhib wits also drawn by his master ! In that affidavit Mlr. Vaughan rnade to swear to the purport of the bond of which he was igno. Tt, and to state that it was executed by 'i.r. Beebee, " having ben 5rs: read over by hini ;" whereas It now appeared that Slr. rWoolaston prevented him from reading it by saying " It is altriglt." What would the juty thiHk of an attorney who prevailed on an tin- f6ztunate younht man, in infirm health, to swear suclh an affidavit,or of the object which he hoped to accomplish by such means ? As to the firat bond, the principal witness only gave his evidence from the resilz of a comparion ofhhands, which comparison the law did not Perm;itobemTadiin thepresenceof the jury; andthey would judge ofthe fairnmes of Lhe first trnsaction by the last. The Itarned coon- F6lctocluuded b allifimon-the jurv to dereat this scheme far obtain. ingthe poperty of a mwek old man, by meanssuch as thsce develop. ee in the cavSe. The aSlldavlt was then read, to the,parport ttated by ,lIr. Camtp. bell in his address to the jury. Mlr. Richard Peythers_ r'knew liTr. Beebec for 26 or 27 years be- fore his death. During that time, except about two Years, I was writing clerk to Mr. i'tMorris, wlho married his sister. I have often seen h r. Beebee sign his name. I saw the first bond yesterday. I have very great doubt whether the signature is Air. Beebee's ; he al- ways signed" Thos.," never ' T." for Thomas. I do not believe it to be hs witing for that reason, and becauas there is a flourish to the 'B." more than he usuallv made. Cross-examined..!lSr. James Beebee, the defendant has two or three chiltren; iMr. Morris has six, of whom Mrs. *oelaston i; one. I haye heard from them that Mr. Beebee (lied very rich, and that they paid 5tlOI. for the letters of administration. alr. R ussrL here proposed to ask respecting a deed said to have conveved to Mrs. Mlorris a considerable estate of Air. Beebee ; but, as it appeared that his notice to produce it had only been served yesterday at Hereford, and the attorrley resided at Iaeomingter, the learnedJudge thought hewasnotentitlea byssuchnotice to giveparole evide*ce of its contents. The witness, however, proceeded to say Mfr. Beebee had a large estate near Presteian. Mrs AMorris now received the profits of part of it. The rent of the whole used to be near 1,0001. a year. There is a great deal of fine timber upon it. Mir. Justice PARK ordered the signaturets of both bonds to be shown to the witness, concealing the rest, and asked if lie believed both or either to be the hand-writing of the deceased. 't'he witness lsoked at both signatures, and said that he thought neither was Mr. Beebee's writing- hejudged so, because she signa- ture wnas " T.," not " Thos. ;" and there was an extra flourish to the"' B." MIr. Thomas Pric-1 was Acquainted with Mr. Beebec for 20 years, and was his tenant. I have been well acquainted for 19 ears with his hand-writine. I do not believe the signature to the Kond of 1809 to be his, hecause I never san him sign " Thos.," or make aflourishing s' B." lt ig not his usual character. Cross-examined. - hlave always said I did not believe this signa' ture to be his hand-writing. This witness also was desired to look at the two signatures, and say which he thought was the forgery. He replied, like the last, that he thought both were forgeries, and gave the same reason. sMr. RussE rreplied. The defendants, by 2dmittinz one of the tignatures to be genuine, had comnpletely destroyed the case of forgery; because it was impossible to look at the two, and not per- ceive that they were written by the'same pesson. As to the alleged freud, there was one circumstance which completely disproved it- the presence of Aliss Beebee, and the request to her to witness the bond. There were certainly features of peculiarity in the case, as the affidavit, which seemed made under an erroneous notion of perpetuating testimony, but they were capable ef explanation, and were wholly insufficiet)t to cast a doubt on the bonds. There was nothing improbable, nothing unjust, in the provision made for the niece, and the mode adopted was one which many persons of high character had employed in the disposition of their estates. iMIr. Justice PA RX direzted the attention of the jury to the case of the defendants, which impuited thi.: the first bond was a forgery, and that the second adnmitted to be genuine, wras obtained Sy fraud. As to the charge o? forgery, they wrould cormpare the two, and say wlhether both were not manifestly written bv the same hand. IMurs. Evass, indeed, said that when her narie was signed, there was neither writing norseal agaitst it; but the jury would say whether she nust not be mistaken in this, especially as not only Alr.Wolaston,but Alr.Bee- bee himself, cameinto th ekitchen, and requiested her to affix her name. It was not at all unusual for the subscribing witness to forget en- tirely the execution of the bond to which he placed his name. He M51r. Justice Park) had himselfwitnessed the execution ef the will of a very eminent person with the late Lord Chief Justice Gibba ind a year or two after, mentioning the circunmstance to him, found that lie iad entirely forgotten it, nor would he believe it till he saw his name written by himself. With respeot to the alleged fraud, the lr would consider the presence of Miss Beebee, the request to her and the wantof all proof that the deceased *as of infirm mind. There was nothing so ver unusual in the mode of disposing of his pro. Perty; for lie (the learned Judge) knew a person of very high consi- leration, who declared he vwould Aispose of all his persosal estate by post obits, in order to defeat the legacy duty, which was very hard on survivors. On the whole, therefore, they would say whe- thee any case had been made oult to i-ropeach thc bonds. The Jury, after a few. mintes' consAultation, returned a verdict for the plaintifron both bonds. Mlr. Justice Lev'rLe,Ae. tried casuses yesterday and part of' his day in the Crown (ourt, none ot which wvere of general intercst. Ky lis assistance, all the busineqss was completed by 8 o'clock this ~vening._e HEREFORD. FRInAx-v Anr.nkr 2a5 . _ . -JSIJMAN AK!D OTHERS.