Page images
PDF
EPUB

you will allow that the letter alluded to may be produced and read with this view.

The Court acceded, and Mr Brown being desired to produce the letter, it was read by Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns. It was signed J. Rooker, and requested that the keeper would not fail to communicate to all the prisoners under charges of forgery upon the Bank of England, that their trials were about to take place, and that except three individuals only, (Dye, Connel, and another,) they would severally be charged upon two indictments, namely, for the capital crime, subject ing them to death, and for the minor offence, to that of transportation.

Serjeant Bonsanquet begged that the Court would now ask Mr Brown whether any other communication was made by the Bank through him to the prisoners.

The Court acceded, and Mr Brown declared, in reply, Most certainly

not.

Baron Wood. Now, prisoner, you have heard what has passed, and find that if you withdraw your former plea, you will again stand charged with two indictments, the one affecting your life, the other your liberty, in being removed for fourteen years from your 1 country. It is now for you to say whether you will deny the guilt which you have already acknowledged, and take your trial?

Prisoner. I will not retract my plea.

Baron Wood. Then you confess yourself guilty of having the note in your possession, knowing it to be forged?

Prisoner. I had the note, but declare solemnly I did not know it was forged.

Baron Wood. Then I again tell you, you cannot in that case be guilty of the offence. Will you therefore take your trial?

Prisoner. No, my Lord, I am determined to plead guilty, and leave myself to the mercy of the Court.

Baron Wood. Take care that you understand what you are about, and do not let this most important business go forth to the world mistaken or misrepresented. Above all, consider well your own situation. Do you now acknowledge your guilt, and again plead to the minor offence?

Prisoner. I do consider, my Lord, what I am about, and plead guilty.

[ocr errors]

Mr Serjeant Bosanquet. My Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury, the prisoner having now pleaded Guilty to the minor offence, of having in his possession a forged Bank of England note, knowing it to be forged, I am instructed not to offer you any evidence against him upon the capital charge, and you will, therefore, gentlemen, acquit him upon that ground.

The prisoner was then pronounced Not Guilty, and he bowed and retired from the bar.

WILLIAM JONES, a smart young fellow, was next brought up. He was asked by the Court, if he was one of the persons who signed the petition for a trial? and he replied, Yes.

Court. Are you now willing, then, to take your trial upon both indictments; namely, for the capital and minor offence, by withdrawing your former plea of guilty to the latter?

Prisoner. Yes. But I wish to know whether, if I am put on my trial for the capital charge, and escape, I shall then be subject to the consequence of the minor, and suffer fourteen years' transportation?

Mr Brown. He means, my Lords, whether the Bank means to proceed upon the two indictments?

Mr Baron Wood.-With that we have at present nothing to do. The Bank, upon the result of one indictment must be left to their own judgment as to any farther proceeding.

Prisoner. I was persuaded, my Lords, to plead on the former occa

sion.

Baron Wood.-Who persuaded you? Prisoner.-Mr Brown, the keeper. Mr Brown. That is a gross falsehood, my Lord. I stated to the prisoners their several situations, but used neither threat or promise, nor did I even advise. What I said was delivered in the presence of others, who were with me for the purpose of witnessing that nothing improper should take place on my part.

Mr Baron Wood.-I believe, Mr Brown, the charge against you is totally false, and the Court believe you have only done your duty.

The Court again inquired if the prisoner had made up his mind now to undertake his trial? He replied, Yes. The indictment for the minor of fence was then read to the Jury by Mr Shelton. It charged him, that on the 18th of November last, in the parish of St James, Clerkenwell, he had then and there in his possession, one bank note for 1., purporting to be the currency of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, he well knowing the same to be false and counterfeit, contrary to the statute, &c.

To this indictment the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr Bolland opened the indictment. Mr Serjeant Bosanquet stated the case to the Jury.

The following witnesses were then called :

William Hankes, son of Robert Hankes, a hatter in Holborn, recollects prisoner coming to the shop on Thursday the 19th of November, be tween seven and eight in the evening, for a low priced hat, for which he agreed to pay 9s. and tendered a 17. bank note. Witness suspected the note, and asked his name and address,

and he wrote George Cloye, Eagle Street; witness being then shown the note, identified it. His father came into the shop, and asked for pen and ink to write prisoner's address, when prisoner said, he had already written it; asked him what number it was, and he replied, it was 15. Witness was then asked to go there, and prisoner said he would go with him, but his father refused, and said he would detain him till witness returned; no such person was known in 15, Eagle Street. Prisoner was in the shop when witness came back, and he was then taken to the watch-house.

Robert Hankes, father to the last witness, was called into the shop on the 19th of November last, in the evening, by his daughter, and went between prisoner and door. Asked prisoner for his address, when he said he had given it on the note. There were two indorsements on the note. While his son went to No. 15, Eagle Street, prisoner was detained in the shop, as witness said to him, "this is a forged note, and you shall stop till my son returns." On this the prisoner said, " he did not see that witness had a right to detain him, even if he had a forged note." Witness replied, "that may be so, but I shall do it till my son returns; for if such a person lives there it may be all right." Prisoner said, that if witness would go with him, he would show him where he took the note, but witness refused to go. After half a minute in silence, prisoner said, "You shall not detain me, for I shall go." Witness told him he should not, when at last he attempted to go out, when witness took him by the collar to prevent him. Prisoner forced his way to the pavement, and there he began fighting as fast as he could, when witness let go his hold to defend himself, and knocked him down in the kennel. As he

51

endeavoured to rise, witness tried again to seize him, but he ran off; ran after him, and called out "stop thief!" and in two or three hundred yards he was thrown down by a watchman at Chancery-lane, when witness collared him, and took him back to his shop, and sent for a constable. His son then came in, and said no person of that name lived in Eagle-Street. Being shewn the note, he identified it as the one tendered by the prisoner.

Anne Gregg, wife of William Gregg, lives in 15, Eagle-Street, Holborn ; prisoner never lived there, and she never saw him before in her life.

Daniel Banning, watchman, proved that he stopped the prisoner, and assisted Mr Hankes in taking him back to the shop.

Samuel Furzeman, constable, saw the prisoner after being brought to the watchhouse. Asked him from whom he got the note, but prisoner said it was of no use, and he would not tell him, as he would not bring four or five more into it. Asked why he gave a false address, and he then cried, and said he knew it was a bad one; and he knew he should go for life.

Charles Ball, milkman, corroborated the last witness."

Thomas Evans, shopman to James Addells, hosier and glover, 2, Coventry Street, said, the prisoner came to the shop on the 5th of November, and asked the price of a cravat, which was 4s., and he tendered a 1. note. Mr Adells came into the shop, but pri soner had written his name and address on the note, which witness now identified.

James Addells, master of the last witness, remembers the prisoner being in the shop. His nephew shewed a note, which he now identifies. He corroborated last witness. Begged prisoner to wait till he saw if the address was correct, but prisoner said he

could not wait, but somebody might go with him. Witness was convinced the note was a bad one. Sent his nephew with him, but kept the note. Prisoner never called again at the shop for the note.

John Addells, nephew of Mr Addells, was sent with the prisoner on the 5th of November, to see if the address was right. Had not proceeded far with him, when prisoner ordered him to go back, and said he would send his master, Mr Boycer, to-morrow for the note. Witness went a little farther, and prisoner said he would knock him down if he did not go back. Prisoner then ran off and made his es cape.

Mr John Lees being sworn, gave his testimony to the following effect: -I am an inspector of notes in the Bank of England, and have been so for nearly twenty years. [Here the note passed to Hankes, the first witness, was put into Mr Lees' hand.] This note is a forgery in every respect. The paper is not the same as that used by the Bank of England. The watermark is a forgery. The watermark of the Bank of England notes is put in at the time the paper is made; but in this note the waving seems to have been impressed after the paper was made. The impression of the note is not from the Bank of England plate; the date-line appears to me to be engraved. In the genuine notes, that line is stereotyped; stereotyping is casting the letters in one piece, so that they cannot be separated without being broken, and with that part common printing-ink is used. The name signed here is that of Mr Charles Tabor; he is one of the signing clerks, but this name, I believe, is not his handwriting. I have known and have been acquainted with his handwriting for many years. Witness on examining the second note (that passed to Mr Addells,) said, that it

was forged in every part, and assigned the same reasons as before. The name signed to it was that of Mr Clough, but it was not the writing of that gen. tleman. Mr Clough had not begun to sign small notes at the time the note in question appeared to be dated.

Question by a Juryman.-Are there any other means of knowing forged notes from genuine ones but those you have already described?

Witness. There are none that I can satisfactorily describe. With respect to this note there is another, the letters N. O. before the number appear to be engraved, but in the genuine notes they are printed in stereotype.

Juryman. My lord, I wish to ask another question or two, but I only do so in the discharge of what I conceive a public duty.

Baron Wood. Certainly, gentlemen, you can ask what questions you think proper. It is right that you should be fully satisfied with the evidence before you decide.

Juryman,-(To the witness.) Do you think that the stereotype is a characteristic which can be distinguished from engraving by any others but those in the Bank?

Witness. Yes, I think it can be distinguished by others.

Juryman. You say that the water-mark and waving in the notes in your hand was executed after the paper was made; how do you know that?

Witness. From the general appearance of the paper. The waving is done on the Bank paper whilst it is in a liquid state; this has all the marks of having been done after the paper was perfectly made.

Juryman. Have not inspectors and clerks in the Bank sometimes received and paid forged notes?

Witness. They have; they always pay them when they take them. [This

[blocks in formation]

Witness. I have known one instance; but that in the case of a very old note, which was quite worn, and covered on the back with small pieces of paper, so that it was difficult at first to discover its being good or bad. This was before the system of stereotyping parts of the notes was introduced.

Juryman. Have you known only of that one instance?

Witness. I cannot say that I ever knew another. It is possible there might have been another in my time, but I do not recollect it.

Juryman. Do the Bank ever change their plates?

Witness. Within the last twenty years they have been frequently changed.

Juryman. Are the Bank papers which are cut for engraving ever counted to those to whom they are given, or are those persons employed for that purpose ever searched to prevent their taking any of it away?

Witness. That I do not know. Juryman. My lord, I have asked these last questions, because I thought

it

was possible that a quantity of Bank paper might possibly be stolen from the Bank before impression.

Mr Baron Wood.-Gentlemen, the witness has already sworn that neither of the notes now in his hands are made of the paper used by the Bank of England. No person can use that kind of paper but the Bank, without incurring the risk of a heavy penalty.

[blocks in formation]

Mr Baron Wood charged the Jury. In his charge the learned Baron particularly commented on the evidence in support of the forgery, and added, that, if that evidence, which had been adduced, was not sufficient to prove forgery, then there was no such thing as forgery, and it would be for ever impossible to convict any man in future of such a crime. Whatever the public opinion might be, relative to the law, the Court and Jury were bound to abide by it as it stood at present.

The Jury consulted for five minutes, and found the prisoner Guilty,

MARY HUTCHISON FOR PRETENDED WITCHCRAFt.

[blocks in formation]

The Solicitor-General stated, that he withdrew the charge, in so far as it depended upon the statute.

The pannel then stated, that she was guilty of part of the charge, viz., guilty of telling fortunes, but the money she received was voluntarily given.

The Lord Justice Clerk then read each charge to her separately, and, from her answers, the Court held her plea to be Not Guilty.

Messrs Hosier and Russel, counsel for the pannel, took an objection to the libel, in so far as the public prosecutor had not particularised the nature of the incantations and enchantments he alleged the pannel to have been guilty

of.

The Solicitor-General answered, that it was impossible for him to be more particular than he had been, and, as he withdrew the charge as under the statute, he now charged the prisoner at common law with fraud and falsehood, and cheating and cozening the lieges out of their under false pretenmoney

ces.

The Court repelled the objection, High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, and it was observed from the bench,

June 22.

The Court proceeded to the trial of Mary Hutchison, alias Arrol, indicted and accused of falsehood, fraud, and

VOL. XI.

that unless the public prosecutor was a teller of fortunes himself, it was impossible he could tell what were the nature of the incantations and enchantments the pannel pretended to exercise.

E

« PreviousContinue »