Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-01-17T00:00:00

Mr. Justice BEST sat for the Lord Chief Justice at .Nisi Priux. This was an indictmient, chargig the defendant with conspiring with a clergyman named Brown, to defraud Sir Colin Campbell, as trustee of Sir Alexander Campbell, of 6,0001., by a pre'tended grant of an annuity securedl on an estate in Essex, ancd a vicarage dona- tive, and marriage settlement. 31r. Brown has absconded; Air.. Whitehead has been alIready tried, and convicted of die chaLrge, but obtained a newy trial. Mr. SCAIULETT dletailedI the circumrstance of the case, which have been partay before the public. Tn outline they were as fol- lows --Mr. Brown, a clergyman in Essex, marriedi to the daughter of a gentleman of large fortune,.and otherwise most respectasbly con- nected, was desirous, in 1818, of raising the suma of 6,0001. by way of annuity, and eranloyed Mr. WhitehLead, acting as a conveyancer, for that purpose. Mr. W1hitehead anl1ie to Messrs. WVatkins and Peoly, the attornies of Sir Colin Campbell, who approved of the propositioni for the advance of this sum bi~ their client, to be securedl on a copyhold estate, represented to be in the possession of Mir. Brown, on the vic-arage of Clackton, said to he worth 480L. a-year ; on the donative of St. Osyth, worth 2201 a-year ; and on the in- terest of Mlr. Browni,, under a marriage settlemenL. aessrs. Wat- kidn and Peoly were surprised, however, to learn that they could not be allowed to inspet the court rolls of the manor of Great Hol- land, as Mir. Brown was most anxious that his father-in-law, M5r. Coale, from whom he had great expectations, should not be aware that he was raisin money on the estate which he had given him on hs mrriae. eing assured, however, that Mr. WVhiteheatd had mad ful iquiies ad had raised money from his own clients for r. Bown,andseeing an abstract, apparently signed by Mr. Hlls, hom r. Whbiteheaa represented'c as the steward of the ano, ad apaper purporting to he a copy of the court roll, tey ssetedto the stipulatsoin that they should refrain frommakig thsuI searchi. They proposed to send a surveyor to stiatethealuof theiroperty; no objection was made, but it was reqetd htMr.'Witenead should have notice of the time; the surveyor went down, met Mr. Brown, looked over the estate,and reported it to,be of adequate value. All, therefore, a.ppearing satis- factorty, the deed was eyecuted; Sir Colin Campbell becoming a trustee for his brother Sir Alexander Campbell, instead of principal; 6,0001. werepaid at Romford and the larger portion applied to pay offprevious annuities. The ?lst hatlf year's payment was notinade, and it was sooni discovered that, in respect to Mr. Brown at least, the whole transaction w5slai atrocious fraud ; that the vircarage. the donative, and the marriage settlement, were greatlv overrated in valu; tht M. Brwn hd n tite watever to the eitate ; that the abstact nd cpy o cout rols wre etire fabrications; anIta Mr.Hils as ot no eer adbee, teward of the manor. To brin hoe aguily kowldge o M. Witehead, and show that he wasvolntailyaidng he rau, te cunisel for the prosecution re- lie onthereclletin o Mesrs Wakis anid Peoly, as to con- verssations in which lie assumedl a personal kniowledge of the truth of some of the representations ; on thle alleged circumstance that come of the documents were lin the handwriting of Brown himself, 'which Mr. Wliitehead must have known ; on the testimony of a Mlr. James (since deadl); anld on that of a Air. Smith, who hiad made pre- vious inquiries respecting the estate, and had told Mlr. WVhitebead that he was dissatisfied. To support this case, Mr. Peoly was first called. ffe stated that in October, 1819, Mlr. Whilitehjead, then a conveyaceer, called at the chamibers of the firm of 'Watkins and Peoly, and stated his desire to raise 6,001].for a client,according to a written proposal before them. At the first or second interview he mentioned the name of' his client, the Rev. William Robert Brown, of Little Clackton, in Essex, wvho, he said, had been.for somne time his intimate friend: that he was acquainted with Ihis affairs; that he wvas the eldest son of Dr. Browvn, of Aberdeen, and would eventually become possessed of a large fortune. Mlr. Whitehsead further described Mlr. Brown as the son-in-law of Mr. Coale, a gentleman of large propertyr sn Essex, and said that he received with hiis wvife a copyhold estate in Great Holland manor, whichi he occuipied. MVr. Brown, he said, was n very respectable man, though in embarrassed circumstances, sand wanted the imoney to clear off incumbrances, and to obtain prefe ment. He represented the estate as having cost 13,0001., and that it was of great vaiuu.~ He desired that 'the knowledge of the loan shouldI not reach Mlr. Coale, as it might destroy the expectations he had from him, and that the court-rolls must not be inspected, as the stewardl of the manor, MVr. Hils, mnarried one of Mir. Coale's daughters. On this Mr. Peoly saidhle thought the title could not be cceted Di. Whithea relie tat he knew the title, anid coud gve evry equsit eplaatin.He was referred to Mlr. Watkns.He sid e knw M. Hils,and had had business with On ros-exmintio, he itnss aidhecould only swear that Mr.Whiehed aidhe newMr Hils asthe steward. The re- presentations that Air. Brows was the son of Dr. Brown, the son- in-law of DI1r. Coale, who had a large fortune, and rector of Clack- ton, were trae. Mir. Bolton originaUll left the proposals for the loan beforre Mr. Whbiteheaa called at die office, but did not mention Alr. Brown. An action was brought in the name of Sir Alexander Campbell, against Mlr. Wlhiteheaa, to recover the money. Mir. 'Watkin's was then, called, and asked by AMr. OusReNysr on the Wolfe dire, whether he hadl not given the prosecutor an indem- nity for the sum of U,0001., and whether this indictment was not proecued or hePurpose of obtaining the money; which, he con- tened,he ad rght to ask ; as the answer of both given in the af- ~firmtive woul sho such an interest in the result as incapacitated hbnfro beinga witess. Dir. uatie BET over-ruled the queitiozn, being celaily. - of ap:i- -M ibht no irfprdpleitr otive for fastituting or promoting a cri- minal prosecution, howeverit might lessen the credulity, would de- straY the competency of a witness. Mr. Watkins then proceeded to state, that Mr. Whiteheadl was introduced to him, in order to consider the difficulties in the way of the loan. Be proposed as securities the copyhold estate, the living of Little Clacktofr, the donative of St. Osyth, and sonie intercst under ihis mri e~-settlement A document was produced, to show .that the tithes of the vicarage produced 4801. ; the donative 2201. tl(i nalriage..settlement was produced, hut the exact inter est did not appear; it was stated that it amounted to 1801. a year. Mlr. Whitehead stated that the court-rolas mustt net be searched, which mnetMwith adecided objection. He stated that lie had satisfied him. self fully on the subject of the title ; that he had prevailed on a client, MVr. Strong, to advance 1,1001. upon it ; and before he dlid so,ie had perfectly satisfied himself of th~e title by the examination of the rolls. Hle said. Hills was the steward, and the abstract which he produced was certified by him. Ilie fumnished a draught of Mlr. Strong's security, and produced copies of surrender, purportin to be signed by tise steward, and stamped on parchment.H sai lie per-fectly well knew the steward; dust he was the son-in-law of Mlr. Coale ; that any search of the court-rolls would come to the know- ledge of Alr. C)oale, and be injurious to Mr. Brown. He added, that as security to Strong, he hiad procured a surrender to himself asl trustee. Ilie was- askedl how he obtained this without ex- citing susgicion ; he replied that, as he knew the steward. very wel he ~ad managed to do that without exciting any stuspicion. To those appearances and assertions Mfr. XVatkins trusted. The witness afterwards saw Mfr. Brown in company with Mlr. WVhitehsead, and askmed htm for references. H-e produced letters to himn from Lord Buckiaghztmshire, liord Dacre, and others, addressed in the most fa- miliar language of friendship, and franked by them. Mr. Wiatkins then obse-ved, that it wvas indispensable to have a surveyor's opinion, of the value of the estate; 1Mr. Brown begged to-he apprised of the surveyor's visit, in order to prevent it from coming to the knowledge ofAIr. Coale. Sir Coin Campbell was thepsaty to lend the money, and ll uspiion wer luldd slep. A aqdavit was,. however, preare toguad aaint scre inubrancks, approvedt by Mr. Whithea, isd sorn Theannitydeed was prepared and exe- cutd o th 10h o Noembr, 819 atRomford, in Essex, to Sir geste that his release should be enteredo h ol o hspr pose MVr. WVhitehead gave the addresoMrHil,aCohst, and th e release was sent down addressdtMrHilathtplce This was answered by a letter iurporeigt oi rmM.Hls At the interview at Romfor , the 6,01 a ad to Brown himself, on an understanding thattemoyshudbap ProPriated, 2 9001. to pay to Mr.Witeadodscrete secuirities with which hie was concerned ; 2,0001. to M.Wtis to dischiarge securities in his hiands, and the residet r Brown. Whien the lirst half year's annuity becamec due, it was not paid. The tithes of Clackton proved to be worth 1631., instead of 4801. ; the (honative 631. insteadof 2201.; and the marriage-settlement WasTeduced to 001., instead of 1801. Mr. Brown had no copyhokiL estaite at all. 1%r. Alaberly, not M1r. Hills, was steward of the mnanor. The title deeds exhibited were wholly fictitious. The documnents were then put in and read. Mlr. John Pricket, the sarveyor, who went to survey the farm, stated that lie met Mir. Brown at the, uemnises, went over themn, esti- mated their vallue at 9,0001. or 1 0,000.r, and so reported to M)essrs. WVatkini andl Peoly. Mr. Mlaberly, stevvard of the manor of Great Holland, who had been in thlat situation 11 .,r 12 years, provedl that the abstract was adtogetlier tictitiolus; that Browvn nrver was tenant of the manor ; aWh ilt hea person namied HUills had any concern in its affairs. Mr. Wlicednever had any coniimunication with him respecting the manor. Mr. Coale, Mir. Brown's father-in-law, p rovedl that hie war pro- rector at-. Holland-green farm, and that he iaa never partedl wit It wie Idid uot believe 11r. Brown capable of fabricating the documents. He did not think the surrender was in Mr. Brown's writing ; it was much better than his usual hand. The signature to die surrender froin Brown to Whiteliead was rather more like ; but he did not be- lieve it to be his. Mlr. Hills was his son-in-law ; lie never was steward of thie manor, nior was the signature to the abstract at all like his. The witness was pressed as to the hand-writing of the adImission, and swore hie diid not knowv whose it was; and that he did not be- lieve itto beBrown's. He did notrecolleethaviug sworn otherwise at the formier trial. Hoc found letters of Brown's among his papers, fronii whiclh Messrs. Watlins and Peoly made such copies as they iliouglst proper. Mlr. Edward B3rowin, a trustee under the marriage-settlement, proved, that the beneficial intereist of Mir. Browni was oinly 621. 8s. 2d. The last tidings of himn were from America. The witness be- lieved thie letter signed "1 IVilliam Hils". to be his handl-writing; the abstract, he thiought, was written by him in a disguised hand, and the soirrender to him from Coale. -Thte evidence of Mfr. James, who has died since the last trial, was then read from the notes of the lord Chief Justine, according to the terms as which the new trial was granted. Tne important point in it was, that he pointed out to WVhitehead, that the surrender to Brot7awasin thehand.wsiting of that person; but thtt he made ,no anewpr, and put thb'papers away. - Mr. Jobn 8minWprqvcd that Mr. Wlitehead applied to him to. lendamoneyon theestate ofk r. Brown in Essex. -He r uested a fiiend to inquire'He was not satisfied; and he told Mlr. 1.hitehead he was not satisfied, and he.would have nothing to do with iL Ir. Whitehead -always bore tiso character of a respectable man. .The letteirs of Mr. Wisitelead were then read; oneproposing a fiusther loan, the dtl4er desirirtg'thiat the surveyor might notbe sent down-till the end of tIme veeke when Mr. Brown wvold he at home. MrG Enhdt, from the Enrofznert-office,nroduced the books show- ingdthteh merhorials of annuities by Mlr. Wiuehead to blr. Strong The ATTORKEY.GrNERAL addressed the jury for the defend- ank Heentreated them to keep- their minds in suspense until e coucuslortlof the ause, and-dcprceate4-theeffct ohoseprejudices wbich the situation-of his client was cascu..t,d to excIX in thefirtL instance, Sir Alexander Campbell brbht a civil action, which he had since abandoued. no doubt because m that form Messrs. Wat- kins and Peoly, who. bad indemnified him, could not be witnesses. The tbrm, theretbre, of proceeding was chauged; the object re- Taining the samne-to force money from the defendant; but thoughl Messrs. Watkins and Peoly were thus made competent, they had a deep interest in the result of the inquiry, and they rnight uncon- sdously give the colour of their feelings tQ distant transactions.. That Ith. Brown was guilty of the gross and abominable fraud.imnuted to him, no man couln doubt;but lMr.Whitehead's case was, that he was not his partner, but his victim. He would show, step by step, how Mr. lVhitehead was deluded by Ir. Brown; by what spcious appearances he had been mnisled, and how he had acted, boaraflde, thwoughout the whole of the negotiation. In pursuance of this de. sign, the AttornepUeneral proceeded to trace the progress of the connexion betw~een Brown and Whitehead, and stated that he should produce and read in evidence the wholeof the cor- respondence;4 consisting, on Mr. Whitehead's part, of letters found by MW[r. Coale atter .4Ir. Brown's departure, and impar- tially communicated to both the parties in the cause. From these letters it weould appear that Illr.- Whitehead had no suspicdon of the fraud which MIr. Browvn was practising ; why, indeed, should not he be deceived as weUl as Messrs. Watkins and Peoly, whose greater age and experience might have rendered them less accessible to delusion ? If to these gentlemen Mr. Whitehead asserted that he knew AIr. Brown's title to the estate to be good, he must not be understood as having intended to speak' with the accuraey requisite in a court of'justice, but to express an entiremoral convictionifound- ed on a perfect confidence in Mr. Brbivn's integrity and honour. lVith respect to the evidence of Ilr. James, evidence would be given to show that it was entirely false, and to raise a strong suspicloa that he was himselfimplicated in Mr.Brown's contrivances. Testimonies of the highest kind, from a cloud of witnesses, would be given to .Ir. Whitehead's character; it would appear that he had no motive E to commit ibe fraud charged to him; and these circumstances, even if there were any ambiaity left in the, case, ought to entitle him to a verdict of acquiutal. lMk. George Hicks, an attomney, proved that in 1817 his father raised 8001., 3601. and 1,2001. on annuity for lr. Brown, secured on the vicarage, donative, and marriage-sqttlement. In 1818, when he had succeeded to his father's business, lr. Whitehead caUed on him for particulars of Mlr. Brown's propety, and received the rental: vicarage, 480; salary of donativ 2201.; in tie hand-writing of Mr. Brov;n. Thewitness informed Ier. Whiehead that hebelieved Mr. Brown to be a very respectable man. These antluities were regu- larly paid down to the time when A?r. Mhitehead applied for in. formation. Air. lViliam WVhitehead, the defendqnnt's brother, said that he remembered Brown in 1818 applying to his brother, in order to raise a sum of money to pay off former annuities, and referred him tat iMlr. Hicks for the documnents. Mr. WVhitehead accordingly aplied to Mllr. Hicks, and obtained from him a rental. A person named gSel. lea said he was very well satisfied with Mr; Brown, and would tage 500L or 6O0I. Mr. Bruce alsD was referred to, and gave satsfactory answers; and in consequence of those and other assurances, 1,7821. was advanced on annuities to Kellett and others. The witness then proceeded to state, that Alr.Ii3rown, from time to time, made repre- sentations to Mr. Whitehead, by which hewas deluded; that when the deed was executed, MIr. Brown owed to MT. Whitehead more than 4001., and that the letter produced was written by his brother. The correspondence was then read at great length; it showed that Mr. Brown was in great pecuniary distsss but Teferrqd to the se. curities proposed as complete. Three letters frnm hMIr. James to Brown were aLso read to show that his testimony could not be true. Ir. Jorephl Bruce, principalporter to the Bank of England, proved, that in 1818, he had, by desire of Mr. lVhitebead, made inqiury re- secting Mr. Brown's afairs, at Chekton ; that he understood his Craramterwas highlyrespectable, and soreported itto Mr.Whitehead. Cross.examinedh-A.r.WVhitcheal was an pannity-broker in Bur- lington-gardens, and parish clerk oJSt. Helen's. Ar. Ryde, a gentleman residing at St. Osyth, also proved that Mr. *Phitehead made inquiries about Mr. Brown, and received sa- tisfactory answers. MIr. Robert Strong proved, thathe advanced 8001. on AIT.Brown's annuitv, and received it back in November 1819, with the interest. It was agreed that the other parties who had lent money to Air. Brovwn on annuities were paid e,i wTith the money borrowed of Sir Alexander CampbelL- A great number of witnessesgave the defendant an excellent character. MIr. SCAIt.ETT replied at corsiderable length. Mr. Justice BEST sunimed uD the evidence, and left the jUry to say, upon all the circumstances, whether 31r. Whitehead was or was not privy to Mr. Brown's fraud. The Jury, at seven o'clock, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. COIYRT OF KING'S BENCfl. WZSTXENSTER, JAN. 16. rUE KING, ON TnE rROSECUTION OF SIR COLIN CAMPBELL, V- WTTTTEHFAnl.