To The Editor Of The Time...
The Times, 1824-05-31T00:00:00

I AnVFt-ryqv,.'V 1 --- IrjJATUUrL 01 a mrat wnerein I was defendant appeared in your coilumns, and I was held uip to pblic notice by tho above attractive title. Of the report itsclf I have to right to com- -plain; it was, as I readily admit, fair iII every respect, and ge- nerally correct; and I muist say, I am not surprised that a pub- lic journalist should point out to the public censure, by some attractive title, any person who appeaTed to have acted as I was made appear to have done at the trial. Nevertheless, being altogether innocent of the extortionate conduct ascribed to me by the testimony of the witness, R. N. Lewis, of Alelina- place, AlVestminster.read,_a man of sufficient aotoriety to have rendered the report in a great degree harmless, had his name been put to it as the witness,-I cannot refrain from addressing myself to your candour. and, begging you will give publicity to this letter, thus remove, in some degree, the evil resulting to nme from your re- port. In the first place, r beg to state that the injurious -and on- proved assertion that I hbad purchased the debt in the action "Fowler v. Rase," for 30L, was falsel; the debt had, in fact, become mine under the following circumstances:-The action, "Fowler v. Rose," was brought on a bill of exchange for 581. 10s., for which sum Rose was arrested at the latter end of Trinity tenn, 1821. Rose, or Prior, his attorney, put in as bail two men of no property (I be. lieve one or both being of the common hired bail who surround Sergeant's-inn gate, Chancery-lane, and one of whem was Wil. liam Re ath, in your report called Rippon, a witness on the part of Rose in the action against me), my clerks omit. ted to enter in due time an exception to the bail, in conse- quence whereof the benefit of bail was lost, and I sponta neously took upon myself to stand to nlaintiff Fowler in tLe 8i. tuation of bail. The peculiarity of the proceedings in the cause, iD- rluding a reference of long and disputed accounts between Prior and Yowler involved in it, necessarily occasioned great expense, and beavily increased the costs of the actioa; so that 1 (finding there was little chance of taking Rose in execution), the day before obtaining thejudgment against Rose, proposed and agreed witb Fowler to give him in discharge of the responsibilitv I bad spontaneously taken en myself, the sum of 351. for thc debt, being about 121. more than what was ultimatelyawarded to him, and to abandon all claim for costs in thataction, or arising thcreout; and I iccordindly did payor allow to him it-at stin, and abandon, as against him, as well the taxed costs of the action, amounting to 371. 7s. 9d., making with the S3l., the suli of 721. 7s. 9d., as also all extra costs, which, from the nature of the proceediugs, had become very heavy. Nowr, with respect to Lewis's testimony, I have documentary evidence,showing many of his allegatioiis to be fblse; and I most so- lemnly declare,.that at the time when I consented to receive theO81. nd dischare of Prior and Rose, I expressly stipulated, in the pre- sence of Vilhiam.M'Daniel, my themy clerk, now in the service of Mi!essrs. Egan and: Waterman, Essex.street, (who statel his recollec- tion of the facts JUSt before the trian, -nd frequently theretofore, but who at the trial did not, or, as h.s subsequent- conduct has in- luced me to thinkr, would not,reco'ect them) that I was not to pay t mc poundage. Idao also possQely and soleminly declare, that the omlssion of the words "upon pAymenlt of foundage' in th1* charge which was given, was solely -nccident , 4nd. *as oNcZsTdnea soledy by2he harrofbusiness; anidIappal tb yoaxani to the pub:C ho to judgeaf the probability of my4tatement in thatrespect ftrom *.he folowing f2cts. The discharge was given on the 30th of December 182' Oii the 2d of January, 1823, at 5 o'clock in the morning, I lift l odon by the coach for lare, in Saftolk, and coritinue&absent from London until thie afternoon of the 8th of January as I)r. Cthainpion, a clerk in the house of Enight and Fyson, and others.can jriove; anidl I? again left London on the 9th for LuttrtVorbh, in- tompany of John Barker Esq., of Paper-buildings, -TemPle. After mvyfirst departurefrom London the 2d or 3d Januav,aB erkof tbe Se. condares broughttheorderforthedischarkeofRos to my office, to learn if it was my hand-writing, adbting Snswere'Iin the affir- mative, asked who was tG Pay'the poubdag, .and was answered by, MI'Daniel- in the presence of Sicitbliater.clerk of min-e, noir in the employ of a Sr. Noel, soGcitor, Great Ormoidu.street, to the effect that the defendant was to pav the pounda:ge, and that it had been so agreed ; and Ai'Daniel then openly, and as -he says, by the desire of thcSecondary's clerk, took upon-himself ftfo his own knowledge of the agreement, withoett tny knowledgeor pri- vity, and without any previous directions from me, and in my ab- sence from London, to insert in the discharge the words, " upon payment of poundage.". When these words wreeinserted; the facts were of recent ocetrrence, and fresh in the treacherous memory of DI'Daniel; and consequently, I may boldly askif it be possible that any person, notabsslutely an idiot, could,inttheabsenceof his master, alter :a document in the hand.writing of his master, as itl'Daniel did, withoat knowing that he was justified by the facts in doing so; and I ask further, if it be possible for any one to believe that anv person, who on his return from the country shonld learn from his- clerk that he had so altered such a document, written and given out by him, and-be threatened with an action,-(as I am alleged to have been threatened by Repath-akthough I deny that I ever to myre- collection or beltef received the letter,to the deliKeryof wvhichhegeve testimony), would, unless he knew what his clerk had donewas rightly done, adopt- his clerk's act, and thereby expose himself to the action ? Indepe3d6ntly of this, I beg to add, that Prior did take out a summons-, caUingon metoshow cause why Rose should-ntot be dis- charged without payment of.poundage, and jtIat- l'Daniel, by my desire, attended to show cause against such &gmmons, but tba- he, finding Prior had improperly put the word-pimptory to that sum- mons, refiused to wait, and threatened pi'r to complain to the Judge of his conduct, when he attended therenewedl summons.; that such summons was not renewed, but abandoned by Prior, for the purpOSC, as it now appears, to enable Ro'se4S make a oroperty of me. by lying in gaol and bringing this-iiction. PI addi- tion I declare that I was induced to take the bill for 851., (which, although paid, I have no hesitation in,statdne to have been a forgery,) deceived by. apd relying'upon, the fdsekipr6senta- tions of .Ur. F. Dore, of Bruton-street, Ber.eley..square, auc- tioneer as to the sufficiency of Afr. Watson, and as to thei-dentity of his rWatson's) hand-writing, and also unon the never-performed undertaking and assurance of Lewis, the iviitess, to giveme the trte address of Wm. Watson. I boldly assert,, that at the time when 3Ir. Dore represented M1r. Watson to be a man of large property, he was an outlawed person,.keeping outof the way of his creditors, and that Dore knew wrhat he stated to be-false.. I assert, that the statement made by Mr. Dore in writing,' that he had scen 'Watson, and that he had then admitted the acceptance' to the 851. -bill to be of his hand-writing, was an utter falsehooe; and that he (Dore) subsc- quently declared to me and to my partner, Mfr. 'Tindale, that he had never seen Watson, and that he believed the :acceptance to the bill to be a forgery. I assert, that the'dfawer of the' 851. bill, (a Mir. Robert Cane, of Ifercules-buildingsp,Lambeth),who was repre- sented tome to be a man of great expectations, was shortly after- wards taken up and committed,(rknow not If convicted), for obtain- ing money under false pretees; and that whilstti confinement under that cbarge, he declared to Mr. Tindale, who called upon him to make inquiries, he did not know lVatson, but that he bad put his name to the bill, to oblige mr. Prier, and on-the assurance of Lewis that he (Cane) would be perfectly safe in go doing. I also assert, that such was my conviction that the bill wa'a forgery, and that I had been duped by a set of scoundrels, that I;,about- April, 1823, laid a case before M1r. Bradby, a special pleader, to advise as to the propriety of prosecutting the parties and tbatL only delayed my threatened proceedings by his advice. I affirrm, that being con- vinced of the fargery of the acceptance, 1 kept the bill therefore by me, until withi n a few davs before its maturity, and that I then placed it as a short biU for presentment with my bankers, Messrs. Grote and Co., informing their clerk it was a forgery, and desiring that it might not be parted with for a check, but for money only. I also assert, that besides the 72L 7s. 9d. so paid or allowet by me to Fowler, as before mentioned, I also abandoned asagainsthim all extra costs, whichv ere very considerable; that Iincurred thecosts of three or four writs of execution against Rose, who kept himself for a long time secreted; and that I incurred the costs of nmoving for, obtaining, and issuing out an attachment against Prior, for non-ob- servance of his undertaking in the cause "1 Fowler v. Rose," and that such costs, upon a most moderate calculation, could not have been less than from 251. to 401. ; and that had I acted for a client, and charged him for my numerous attendances in making inquiries as to the numerons proposals made by Prior subsequently to the judgment against Rose, all of which proved fraudulent or worthless, my demand in that respect could not have been less than 201.,; so thatitis apparent, in requiring abill for 851., payable 12 rporths after date, I was not guilty of screwing or extortion. r also-assert, that when I gave the witness Lzewis the discharges, I offer'd in the presence of ray clerks to give him theiS1. bil back for 60I. or 50L in ash, and that at any time up to its maturity I wou d have-sold the bill or that amount. To detail the evidence I have of these facts would fil more than two quires of paper. I have, tberefore, refrained from so doing, but I have set out the difFerent parties' names, thus riving them an opportunity of suing me for the libel, if what I have stated be false. I have done so, because I feel it incumbent on me, for the preservation of my character from aspersion, to make the facts known, and I trust that you will not hesitate to give this publication, I hereby ofiering to indemnify you from aU loss, if any, to be occasioned therelly.- The experience of every man of business must have taught him that a trial by jury is not always a sufficient safeguard, and that it frequently happens that the perjury, or want of memorv, or even the confusion of mind of a witness, may pervert the chainnel of jus- tice, and an insocent man may be made to suffer. This is my case in the present instance,and the injury done to me has been increased by the public press,.I cannot .say unjustly, but most unfortunately. I have no mode, save through the public press, of vindicating my character, and therefore beg the insertion of it in your widely circu- lated paper. I am. Sir, vour verv ohedient ass-vans. ANDREW VAN SANDA.T. O4, JJowgate-hill. 27th Mlay, 1824. P.S.-Witness L'ewis, at the trial, stated en oath, to the effect that he first called on me on the business about November. 1822, and that he continued to call until the month of December, when the arrangement was made; that I first said I vrould take a bill for 801., but not being satisfied with the first bill, I said the bill should be for 851., to covcr all incidental cxpenses. In contradiction to that his statement, I say he called on me upon the business so carly as June, 1822, as appears by a minute in my dav-book ; I further sav, it appears by a letter written by Prior, in my possession, dated the 27th of September, 1822, that Lewis had previously made repeated calls at my office; and it further appears, from another letter from Prior, al;o in my possession, dated the 25th of October, 1822, that 851. was the sum then agreed to be taken by me. The followin- is an extract of that letter:-" Mlr. Cane (the person of that name %e- fore mentioned) will give his acceptance, at twelve months, for 851., the sum agreed to be taken." The acceptance of AMr. Cane was, of course, on inquiry, rejected. TO THE E'DITOR OF TH1 TIMES. CONDUCT OF AN ATTOXtnY.-RO8E V. VAN SANDAU.