18th April 1787
Reference Numbert17870418-118
SentenceMiscellaneous > fine; Imprisonment > newgate

Related Material

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Navigation< Previous text (trial account) | Next text (supplementary material) >

448. WILLIAM PRIDDLE , ROBERT HOLLOWAY and STEPHEN STEPHENS , were indicted (together with one JOHN SNELLING ) for that they, intending to deprive one George Crossley of his reputation, and without any reasonable or probable cause, to subject him to the penalties by the law provided against persons guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, on the 18th day of July last, amongst themselves, did unlawfully, falsely, wickedly and maliciously combine, conspire and agree, falsely to charge and accuse the said George Crossley , of having before that time committed wilful and corrupt perjury, and falsely and maliciously to indict him, the said George Crossley , and to cause a certain indictment to be prosecuted against the said George Crossley , upon a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury; and that at the general session of Over and Terminer, held the 19th of July last; they without any reasonable or probable cause, did indict, and cause and procure the said George Crossley to be indicted; for that he, the said George Crossley, on the 3d day of October, in the twenty-first year of the King's reign, did depose and swear before a person in the said indictment mentioned, duly authorized to administer the said oath; that John Snelling , one of the defendants, was justly and truly indebted to him the said George Crossley in 100 l. and upwards, for work and labour, business done, fees, disbursements, and money paid, laid out and expended, by the said George Crossley , for the said John Snelling , and at his request; where as in truth and in fact, the said indictment charged, that the said John Snelling , at the time of making the said affidavit, was not indebted to the said George Crossley in the sum of 100 l. or in any sum of money or cause of action, amounting to 10 l. or in any other sum of money whatsoever; and so the indictment charged that the said George Crossley , in his said affidavit, did commit wilful and corrupt perjury: and this indictment further charges, that the defendants without any reasonable or probable cause, prosecuted the said in part recited indictment, against the said George Crossley , from thence until Saturday, the 25th of November last, when the said George Crossley was in due form of law by a Jury of the country acquitted; and that by means of the procurement and prosecution of the said indictment, so by them the defendants procured and prosecuted against the said George Crossley , he was greatly defamed, disgraced and put to great expence of his monies, to the great damage of the said George Crossley , to the evil example of all others, and against the peace .


Mr. Silvester, Mr. Fielding, and Mr. Garrow.


The Honourable Mr. Erskine, Mr. Chetwood, Mr. Mac Nally , and Mr. Knowlys.

The witnesses all ordered out of Court, and examined separate.

The indictment opened by Mr. Garrow.

The case by Mr. Silvester as follows.

May it please your Lordship and you gentlemen of the Jury, the charge which has been opened to you by my learned friend, against the three prisoners, is for a conspiracy, and a conspiracy of the most wicked nature that be devised by any set of men against another; the characters of the several

defendants are as follows: William Priddle and Robert Holloway , are both attornies; the other defendant, Stephen Stephens, keeps a gin-shop, in the Borough; the defendant John Snelling, who is not now before you, but who is also joined in this indictment, became acquainted with Mr. Crossley in the year 1774, and during the whole period of eight years, from that time to the end of the year 1781, Mr. Crossley was employed in all Snelling's business, as his attorney: In 1778, a woman of the name of Ann Brumidgham, the wife of one James Brumidgham, who then lived with Snelling, was arrested in the Palace Court for a small sum of ten pounds, at the suit of one William Wortley; upon that arrest, Mr. Snelling. applied to Mr. Crossley, desiring him to undertake the defence of that action, she being sued as a single woman; Snelling then told Mr. Crossley, that if once it got wind that they could recover against Mrs. Brumidgham as a single woman, she would be sued for several hundred pounds; and therefore it became a very material point to Mr. Snelling to defend her against this suit. A verdict was obtained by the plaintiff in this action; a writ of error was brought by the defendant, and her coverture assigned for error: she was afterwards and pending the writ of error, arrested upon the judgment recovered against her; upon the hearing of the writ of error, the original judgment against Mrs. Brumidgham was set aside: during the time this action was going on, Snelling came frequently to Mr. Crossley's house, begging and desiring him to take care of the cause, and that he (Snelling) would take care of the money to pay him; this woman at that time, cohabiting with Snelling and going by his name. The first bill in Mrs. Brumidgham's business, was delivered personally to Mr. Snelling, upon the 29th of May, 1779; this bill amounted to 42 l. 15 s. 5 d. and credit is given for 16 l. 5 s. 6 d. leaving a balance of 26 l. 9 s. 11 d. But you will observe, gentlemen, that this bill is not only intitled, Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann Brumidgham , debtors to George Crossley ; but in the credits all the payments, except one, are made by Mr. Snelling; for the 16 l. 5 s. 6 d. credit, is made up of the following items: Received of Mr. Snelling, 3 l. 13 s. 6 d. at Rygate; - of Mrs. Brumidgham, 1 l. 1 s. - in costs, 1 l. 1 s. - of Mr. Snelling, 10 l. 10 s. Gentlemen, I mention these items more particularly in this first bill, because it shews you that Mr. Snelling from this time, knew he was made debtor in Mr. Crossley's books, and he never disputes any payments. On the 9th of August, 1780, a second bill was delivered at Mr. Snelling's house, containing the same items as the first, with further items, amounting to 97 l. 1 s. 4 d. in which credit is given for 46 l. 15 s. 6 d. and leaves a balance of 50 l. 5 s. 10 d. this bill was also intitled the same as the former; Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann Brumidgham , debtors to George Crossley . Shortly after the delivery of this bill, Mrs. Ann Brumidgham called on Mr. Crossley, and requested him to let his clerk make a copy for her without any title, which was done, and this duplicate was signed by Mr. Crossley in the usual way, but differed from the other in nothing more than as it begun Wortley against Brumidgham, instead of Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann Brumidgham , debtors; as did the bill delivered at Mr. Snelling's house: Gentlemen, a third bill was delivered on the 19th of April, 1781; intitled like the former bills, Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann Brumidgham , debtors to George Crossley ; this bill together with the balance of the former, made a sum of 86 l. 0 s. 4 d. and credit is given in this last bill as follows: Received cash, 10 l. by Booth's bill, 12 l. 2 s. my note you have, 15 l. 15 s. leaving a balance of 48 l. 3 s. 4 d. due to Mr. Crossley. I particularly mention the credits at the foot of this bill, because you will remark gentlemen, the last item is,

"my note you have

"15 l. 15 s." and as in the course of the trial it may become material: the transaction, as I am instructed it will appear in evidence, is this, Mr. Snelling being out of town, at the time one of Mrs. Brumidgham's causes came on to be tried, and Mr. Crossley wanted money to carry on the cause; Mrs. Brumidgham proposed his giving this note, payable to Mr. Snelling,

which she engaged to get discounted without Snelling's indorsement: Snelling when he came to town, being to return the note to Mr. Crossley, who was to give a receipt s for money, on account of the cause. Mrs. Brumidgham did bring Mr. Crossley the money for this note, and it was not sent for payment when due. Snelling informed Mr. Crossley he had got the note in his own hands, and would return it; therefore Mr. Crossley in his next bill gave credit for this note. On the 31st of May, 1781, a fourth bill was delivered to Mr. Snelling personally, with the same title as the former, the balance of which amounted to 71 l. 19 s. 10 d. About this time Mr. Snelling got into the hands of Mr. Priddle, and therefore as you may well suppose, no more monies were paid to Mr. Crossley: On the 29th of August, 1781, a fifth and last bill was delivered by Mr. Crossley to Mr. Snelling. This bill was intituled

"Mr. John Snelling on

"behalf of himself and Mrs. Ann Brumidgham ,

"Dr. to George Crossley ," and the balance due 100 l. 4 s. 2 d. Mr. Crossley on the 3d October, 1780, made an affidavit, that Snelling was indebted to him in 100 l. for work and labour, business done, fees and disbursements, money paid, laid out and expended; which affidavit so made in the year 1781, has been made use of as the foundation of all the iniquity of this conspiracy. Gentlemen, in Michaelmas term 1781, Mr. Priddle acting as the attorney of Snelling, suffered judgment to go by default in that cause; and on the 12th of January, 1782, a writ of inquiry of damages was executed in the cause of Crossley against Snelling; the execution of which writ was attended by the defendant Snelling, a clerk to Priddle and counsel on behalf of the defendant, to dispute this bill. The Jury in that case found 100 l. 4 s. 2 d. due from Snelling to Crossley. Gentlemen, at this time Snelling would have paid the money, but was prevented by Mr. Priddle, whose ingenuity suggested a method to escape payment; He applied to the Court of King's Bench, and obtained a rule suggesting Mr. Crossley's bill had not been taxed; and by consent it was referred to Mr. Lowten, instead of the proper officer of the Court, to determine what was due. Before the arbitrator, Mr. Crossley stating that he was employed by Mr. Snelling, but having no written order, the arbitrator awarded against him. Gentlemen, after this award, Mr. Crossley delivered a bill to Mrs. Brumidgham, who on this occasion had it taxed before the proper officer, who found a balance of 75 l. 8 s. 7 d. due to Mr. Crossley: But this bill did not include some articles of business done for Snelling contained in the former bill. Gentlemen, Mr. Crossley heard no more of these proceedings from January 1782, until January 1785; in which intermediate time, very unfortunately for him, he was concerned as attorney against Mr. Priddle in divers suits; in one Priddle had sued a Mr. Bullock, in which action Priddle was nonsuited; in another he was employed to sue Priddle on a bail bond, at the suit of Mr. Plumbe, late Sheriff of Middlesex, and a judgment was obtained in that action; and in the beginning of January, 1785, Priddle proposed to settle and give security. On the 3d of January, 1785, a warrant of attorney was executed by Priddle, and one Robert James , in the penalty of 208 l. at the suit of Mr. Crossley, and witnessed by the defendant Holloway; on which warrant of attorney was a defeazance to pay one half the money in six months, and the other in twelve. Priddle having thus got Mr. Crossley to let him at large, by way of requital, and with a view to get rid of his securities, spirited up his client Snelling to file a bill against Crossley for a malicious arrest in 1785, although the affidavit had been sworn, and arrest made so long ago as October 1781: It never before entered into the mind of man to indict Mr. Crossley, they knew they could not do it; they knew if they did, they must swear falsly; but in 1785, they file a bill for a malicious holding to bail: the cause came on to be tried after Trinlty Term; when it came on, Priddle who never wants ingenuity, put in a number of bills and receipts, supposed

to be the handwriting of Mr. Crossley; Mr. Crossley not prepared for this, it imposed on the Jury, and imposed on the Lord Chief Justice; Lord Mansfield expressed great indignation; why, says he, Crossley must know he had no right to arrest Mr. Snelling; and the indignation of the Court was manifest to every man that heard it; but Mr. Crossley knew they were false, he knew they were forged; he suspected the ingenuity of Mr. Priddle, but he did not think he would carry his ingenuity so far, and therefore could not be prepared with an answer. Gentlemen, in a few days after this transaction, Mr. Holloway made his appearance; Mr. Holloway, the friend, the agent, the bosom companion of Priddle, applies to Crossley, under the mask of friendship; I will, says he, if you will come down, I will get you out of this scrape; I know the whole transaction; why these bills and papers were not forged above a week before the trial; they were made within the week: why, says he, you did not know your own hand-writing, they were so well done: Crossley was alarmed at this; Priddle (says Holloway) had got a witness to prove them; one of his clerks, a good witness on the occasion; and if the occasion had required, would have stood forth to have sworn to this handwriting, though we all knew it was made within the week; but, says Holloway, if you will give me ten guineas, and pay the verdict and costs, I will put a stop to this prosecution; I have a great influence over Priddle; give me ten guineas, and pay the money, I will put an end to the whole transaction. That would not do, Holloway came again in a few days; says he, Priddle wants to go to Worcester assizes, and he says, if you will pay the debt and costs of that action of Snelling's, to be estimated at one hundred guineas; pay fifty guineas now, and the rest by and by, there shall be an end to all this business, and the papers shall be put into the hands of Mr. Lowes, a gentleman at the bar; Mr. Crossley thought they would be safe in that gentleman's hands; he thought they could not be in worse hands than they were; and a meeting was had at the Leaping Bar, the other side of Black-friars-bridge, in July, 1785; Stevens and Snelling were to have been at that meeting, but were not; they therefore adjourned the meeting to Stevens's gin shop: when they came there, Stephens and Snelling were together; Stephens said to Mr. Crossley, this matter shall not be settled for a trifle, we must have 200 l. and nothing less; for if you do settle, now is your time, pay the money now; for if it is not, you shall be indicted for a perjury; and then when you are indicted as an attorney, you will not wish to shew your face in a Court of Justice; it will be an imputation in a Court of Justice, and therefore we shall rise in our demand; an indictment once found, they shall not take less than 500 l. Mr. Crossley resisted this application; but not satisfied with this, Holloway came again, he applied several times to have a meeting at the Mitre Tavern to settle all this matter; that they should have 50 l. and that the papers should be placed in Mr. Lowe's hands: Crossley, who had been frightened into this, and who, as they will tell you, is a timid man; for Holloway had bragged, Oh, he is a timid fool, he will be a fine milch-cow, whenever I want ten guineas; Crossley parted with his fifty guineas to Priddle, and the papers were placed in Mr. Lowe's hands: Gentlemen, this brings me to July 1785; Mr. Priddle then thought his friend Mr. Holloway had served him; why, says he, Mr. Crossley, to be sure, Mr. Holloway deserves ten guineas, and a note was given by Crossley for that sum, Gentlemen, in December, 1785, Mr. Crossley happened to be concerned in defending some informations which Holloway was employed to prosecute; the penalties upon those informations, would have amounted to the sum of 200 l. upon which Crossley's client thought it better to give Holloway ten guineas, than run the risque of being sworn against; Holloway received another ten guineas,and he had the hardliness to go on even with those informations; Crossley resisted them on the part of his client, and they were dismissed with contempt and indignation before the magistrate; what, Sir, (said the magistrate) take the money, and then bring the information! get out of the office. Then it was that Holloway and Priddle set to work, to try what they could do either by way of getting more money out of Mr. Crossley, or ruin him in his business, so as to render him incapable of ever attending to resist them again; they then began by giving notice to Mr. Lowes to return those papers which were placed in his hands; Mr. Lowes applied to Crossley upon the occasion; Crossley said he had no objection, but desired they would take exact copies, before they were entrusted in the hands of Priddle. Gentlemen, from 1781, to 1785, no indictment was preferred, not a single step taken by either Priddle, Holloway, Stephens, or Snelling; though Mr. Snelling must know the transaction from the year 1781, when the affidavit was sworn; and his attorney Priddle must know it when he brought his action for the malicious arrest: Holloway likewise knew it, and Stephens the witness, who said he would not take less than 500 l. not one of them ever thought of preferring the indictment till July session, 1786, and this for an affidavit sworn in the year 1781! Gentlemen, on the back of that indictment, the first witness is Mr. Snelling, the second Mr. Stephens; and as the clincher, comes William Priddle ! in case you two do not swear enough, I will come last and pin the basket; now nobody that hears me disputes Priddle's ability to do that, he is too well known; and therefore puts himself last, to cure all defects that may be found in the former witnesses. But that is not all; you do not know half of Priddle yet; Priddle and Holloway consult together, whether he, Holloway, should be on the back of the bill; no, says Holloway; then I cannot be the go between, I shall look like a friend of his; and unfortunately, though Holloway is cunning, yet he was not wise enough to keep his own council; is for the very day he came down here to find the bill of indictment against Crossley, he met Mr. Sambridge; well, says he, I have been at the Old Bailey, and I have been instructing the witnesses against Mr. Crossley; I do not suppose any thing will come of it; he will come down, but I thought it was better for me not to be on the back of the bill: Holloway boasted of this to Mr. Sambridge, after the indictment was found in July session, 1786: that indictment did not come on to be tried till November, 1786; Mr. Priddle never preparing for it, because, as he was boasting to every body, he did not expect it would be tried at at all; but that he heard and knew Crossley was a timid man; therefore he would settle it. Applications the moment the indictment was found, were made by Snelling, by Priddle, and by Holloway, to Mr. Crossley, to make some terms to settle this business; Snelling represented he was led into it by Holloway and Priddle, and that he knew nothing of the matter himself; therefore excused himself among his friends; Holloway declared that he meant nothing by it, and knew nothing on which to prosecute Mr. Crossley, but that he was a very good milch-cow, and was a sure bank to go to for ten guineas; that Mr. Crossley had money, and while he had six-pence, he would have half of it; Priddle asserted every where, that he was at the expence of the whole of it, and it was his doing, boasting that the false papers and the whole contrivance was his, and that he had given forty guineas out of his own pocket to counsel to prosecute Crossley; Stephens said, he did not mind spending any money at all in a business of this kind; and when Priddle applied to him to be bail for a man; no, says he, we have agreed to indict Crossley, and I will not do any thing for you till you have indicted him. Gentlemen, when Mr. Crossley found they had preferred their bill of indictment, he rejected all compromise; no, says he, I have got into bad hands, I now will getout of them, and will take my trial; I will come before a jury of my country, and let them determine on the justice of my case. Gentlemen, in November last Mr. Crossley's trial came on, Mr. Snelling, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Holloway, and Mr. Priddle, the witnesses attending, were ordered out of court; and here if I was to open to you the different declarations that all these prisoners have made at different times, you would be astonished, not only at their wickedness, but at their folly, for they all of them, at different times, declared their knowledge of the business, and that they knew their accusation to be false, but that they instituted it for their own iniquitous purpose. When the trial came on, the first witness examined was Snelling, the moment that he was examined, it appeared that Ann Brumidgham , the woman that had been sued, had all along cohabited with him as his wife, that he, in Crossley's presence, and every where, had spoke of her as his wife, upon which an acquittal of Mr. Crossley immediately ensued, on that indictment. Gentlemen, one would suppose, that when these men had gone thus far, there was an end to their proceedings against Mr. Crossley, but the measure of their iniquity was not yet full, for in January Sessions, in this year, and pending this present indictment against them, they preferred another indictment against Mr. Crossley, on an affidavit sworn in the same cause in the year 1781, with no less than twenty-nine assignments of perjury; but they dare not face a Court of Judicature with that indictment; for, on Mr. Crossley entering his cause for trial at the sessions where the indictment was found, immediately before the trial, Priddle, (the prosecutor of the indictment) removed it into the Court of King's Bench. - Gentlemen, the employments of Mr. Crossley by Snelling, will not depend on Crossley's evidence alone, but a number of witnesses will tell you, he himself employed Mr. Crossley in Mrs. Brumidgham's suits; and was to pay the expences of those causes. At a conversation, in the year 1780, at the house of Mr. Alexander, a very respectable man, when Crossley was applying to Snelling to drop the suits in the cause of Mrs. Brumidgham, Snelling said, I would rather spend 500 l. than settle this cause, upon which, Mr. Alexander saying, perhaps Mr. Crossley may be uneasy about his expences; Snelling replied, He knows I have undertaken to pay him, and he has taken my security; what is be afraid of? but he is always plaguing me to settle the cause: Gentlemen, by and by you will hear my friend Mr. Erskine enlarge on the expences of these bills of costs: what, 200 l. spent in desending a suit for 10 l.? but you know a man will sooner spend 50 l. than pay 18 d. wrongfully; and it becomes a matter of spirit; I think I do not owe the man the money; I will not pay it, the amount of the sum is nothing, Snelling might at any time have put a stop to it; but he would not, and expressed his anger against Mr. Crossley, for advising him to make it up; and this not only before Mr. Alexander, but a number of indifferent witnesses; since the indictment there was a conversation at Alexander's house, between Snelling, and one Abbot, when Snelling being asked what he wanted by the indictment against Mr. Crossley, he hit upon a very curious method of telling what his motive was; he wetted his singer with the liquor, and wrote upon the table figures of 200, that is it, says he, why, says Abbot, I know Mr. Crossley, very well, it is a great deal of money; upon which he wetted his singers again, and wrote on the table 150, and says publicly, I will take no less; and Snelling said further, he wanted to get some money; for if the money got into Priddle's hands, he should never get it. Gentleman, this was the language of Snelling; and as to Holloway, whereever he meets Sambridge or any man, he boasts continually from time to time, that he would have money out of this poor man's pocket; it was in the year 1780, after the action against Mrs. Brumidgham was brought, and before the bills delivered, that Snelling said he had undertaken to pay the money, and to besecurity to Crossley. Gentlemen, there are a great many other acts which will convince you, that these men have conspired together to charge Mr. Crossley falsely with that indictment; it is a case in which none of them could be deceived, ignorance is not imputed to any one of them, Snelling must know whether he had undertaken or not to pay the costs to Crossley, he must have known the whole of that transaction; and Priddle must have known that the papers he so produced, were false, to save the client that sum of money, because they were his own manufacture; and there could be no excuse for either Priddle or Holloway, to say, that they believed them to be true, when they knew before they were false; and then they did not pretend to say, that there was any ground for the prosecution, because they knew that Crossley would not come before this Court to be tried for perjury; says Holloway, we shall get an end of him as an Attorney; then Priddle you and I shall share his business between us, we shall get those clients that now go to him: But if they were honest men, would not they have thought seriously thus: what! institute a prosecution in July, 1786, for a perjury committed in 1781! and you, Mr. Priddle received fifty pounds; and you Mr. Holloway ten guineas! why point to him? why apply to him to settle the business? but they were conscious they were wrong; they knew it was both foul and false. Gentlemen, it will be said, by my learned friend, Mr. Erskine, that there was some cause for this prosecution of Mr. Crossley's for perjury, because Lord Mansfield had been angry, and called it perjury; I admit it, but Lord Mansfield was imposed upon, and the jury were imposed upon to give that verdict; for had they known the fact, instead of words of indignation falling from that noble Earl against Mr. Crossley, he would have ordered Priddle to have been committed as he richly deserved: then what becomes of the words of Lord Mansfield; and if they believed Mr. Crossley guilty, then certainly they ought instantly to have prosecuted him for the perjury, they ought not to have lain by till July, 1786, before this prosecution was instituted; and when they had instituted it, do they come fairly before the Court? No, Priddle declares, that even in November, in the same year, he had not prepared himself with his briefs, because he could not suppose, that Crossley would be tried; then he purposes to make money of him or a milch cow. Gentlemen, these facts will, I am sure, induce you to pronounce these three defendants guilty of the several parts of this indictment, when I have called the evidence, you will judge of the iniquity of these men. a fouler conspiracy never came before a court. Gentlemen, the defendants know that, and therefore they came here to meet, and, in hopes to baffle, a prosecution of this kind, by the great abilities of my learned friend; my learned friend will endeavour to baffle our witnesses, he will endeavour to hold my client up in bad colours, perhaps, to you; but admitting for a moment, that Mr. Crossley was the worst man that ever existed, which fact I deny; what right had they to conspire against him? they have no right to conspire against a man, and say he has been guilty of every crime under the sun, supposing he had; but it is no excuse in you, to institute a prosecution of this kind, when you know it is false; you are bad men; you are brought to Justice; and you must answer for your own actions, and not for the actions of others; my learned friend, perhaps, will not trouble you with a witness, resting upon a very able speech; and not wishing, that even I, with my poor abilities, should have an opportunity of making any observation, in reply; he will perhaps address you, in a very able speech, calculated to engage your passions; he will say to you, Can you, gentlemen, suppose, that men of this description; that Mr. Priddle, who is a very able man; that Mr. Holloway, who is a very cunning man, should so far forget themselves? but, Gentlemen, I say, it is a very common observation, that the Devil will forsake his friendsat the last; and, in this case, he certainly has forsaken two of his very best friends. Gentlemen, from their own mouths will I judge them; I will prove the facts I have opened, not from vague witnesses, but from repeated conversations held both with Mr. Priddle, Holloway and Stephens, if that fact is so, what becomes of my learned friend's able speech? you will admire his talents; you will say, pity so much ingenuity should be exerted in behalf of men so undeserving; pity it is, that his great abilities are not employed on the other side, to bring these men to justice; if they had, he would have made us all shudder at their iniquity; and we should have sat down, lamenting, that such men ever existed, and that the Court had it not in their power to inflict a more exemplary punishment on such atrocious offenders, than the law at present enables them; for if men of this description can rob another of his reputation, the next step is neither very remote, nor very difficult, namely, to deprive him of his life; and to a man of character, death would be infinitely preferable to the possible consequences of such an accusation, supported by such a conspiracy; for how can a man exit in society, who has been convicted before a jury of his country, of wilful and corrupt perjury, he ought to be, and I hope ever will be an outcast from society. Gentlemen, if the evidence comes up to but half of what I have opened, you will not let the able harangue of my learned and eloquent friend, Mr. Erskine, outweigh the testimony of so many witnesses. Gentlemen, I trust Mr. Crossley's case in your hands, with you I leave his character, which is dearer to him than his life; and I trust that you will, after a serious investigation of the facts, in justice to him, as well as to the offended laws of your country, give these men over to that punishment, which they so richly deserve.


(Examined by Mr. Garrow.)

I am clerk to Mr. Crossley; I have examined a copy of the record of the acquittal of Mr. Crossley with the record, I have examined it both ways; this is the copy, and it is a correct one; I examined it at the office of the clerk of the arraigns.

Did you likewise serve a copy of that notice? - I did.

(The record read.)

Mr. Fielding. Now I purpose to call Mr. Crossley.


At what date was it in point of time that you had the first connection with Mr. Snelling and Mrs. Brumingham? - With Mr. Snelling either the latter end of the year 1773, or the beginning of the year 1774; there seldom a month passed but I did something for Mr. Snelling; from the year 1774 down to 1778, I did business for him and from his recommendation to the amount of 400 l. or 500 l. from 1774 to 1778.

At what time was it that you was applied to, to undertake any cause for Mr. Brumidgham? - I think it was in Trinity Vacation 1778.

How was it you was applied to? - Mr. Snelling first applied to me at my office; he told me he was going out of town, and that Mrs. Brumidgham, who was the person who lived with him as his wife, though they were not in fact married, but lived with him as his wife, and she had another husband. -

Was this his representation to you? - Yes.

He himself told you that this woman who lived with him, lived with him as his wife, but she was not in fact married to him, but had another husband alive? - Yes, that was his representation; and he said, she was arrested for the sum of ten pounds, but if they recovered that, she was liable for the sum of three or four hundred pounds more, and therefore though this was a trifling sum, he wished me to conduct it in a particular way; he said, I should put it to his account, he should be my pay-master.

Had you at this time seen any thing of Mrs. Brumidgham? - I think I had seen her twice, not on this business, but I had

not known her by any other name than Snelling; Snelling said, I might place it to his account, he should take care to pay whatever might arise.

Did you in consequence of this conversation, undertake the cause for the woman? - Yes Sir, she applied to me two or three days after, when Mr. Snelling was in the country, and gave me the history of the cause, and said, that she had done some friendships for some people of the name of Rayner.

Were those instructions that she gave you, referring to pre-instructions that you had received of Mr. Snelling? - They were; she only related the history.

You did a great deal of business for this lady, under those instructions? - No doubt of it; and Mr. Snelling was with me every day.

Did you in the course of the business you was carrying on, see Snelling only, or at all? - There hardly was any matter of consequence in any Court but he was present; he attended more than persons usually do; I consulted him through the whole business.

To what amount did you do business? - Much larger than 200 l.

Mr. Erskine. Did you deliver any bills? - Yes Sir, five; I delivered the first bill, the 29th of May, 1779.

(That bill produced.)

Mr. Erskine. Here is a bill of the 29th of May, 1779, produced by Mr. Priddle.

(The title read.)

"Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann

"Brumidgham, debtors to George Crossley ." Amount of the whole bill, 42 l. 15 s. 5 d. - the credit is 16 l. 5 s. 6 d. - upon the balance is due to Mr. Crossley, 26 l. 9 s. 11 d.

Crossley. After the trial and the writ of error, in August, 1779; Mrs. Brumidgham was arrested at Warley camp; she kept a sutling house there; after the verdict boil in error was put in, and they took out an action on the judgment; Snelling having become one of her bail in error wards was the attorney) Mr. Snelling me this letter; she was then in custody letter is dated the 7th of August; I think bailed her out on the 9th; this is Snelling's hand-writing:

"Mr. Crossley, Walley

"camp, 7th of August, 1779. I am surprised,

"when I had taken all necessary

"steps, that there should come a warrant

"to take the body in custody, which is

"now taken to Mr. Wright's, at Holloway

"Down; beg you will come there to release. " John Snelling ."

Mr. Fielding. Did you find Mrs. Brumidgham at the place? - Yes.

Did the letter so far as you infer, relate to her? - Certainly.

Was there any other transaction between you, to which that letter could have referred but to that woman? - It referred to her; I found her in custody and bailed her, and signed the bail bond.

Then you did some other business in consequence of this letter from Snelling relative to Mrs. Brumidgham? - I released her.

Did you deliver a second bill? - I did, on the 9th of August, at Mr. Snelling's house, cause a bill to be delivered; and a few days afterwards Mrs. Snelling came to me and begged I would make her a bill without any name; the title is Wortley v. Brumidgham, in the Palace Court; the amount of the bill is, 97 l. 1 s. 4 d. - credits, 46 l. 15 s. 6 d. - balance, 50 l. 5 s. 10 d. - this contains the same items as the first bill, with others; I saw Mr. Snelling frequently about this time; he seldom was out of town more than a week or ten days together; I looked upon him as my client; we were always talking about the business.

Did you, or not, look upon him as the responsible person? - I certainly did.

The bill produced by Mr. Priddle; the title,

"Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann

"Brumidgham, debtors to George Crossley .

"Bill dated 8th of August, 1780; and the

"last article, remains due, 50 l. 5 s. 10 d."

After this, was any satisfaction made to you? - I delivered the third bill in April, 1781; the amount with the former balance, was 86 l. 0 s. 4 d. there is a note of fifteen guineas given credit for in this bill.

Please to read the articles of the credit; Received cash, 10 l. by Booth's bill, 12 l. 2 s. my note you have, 15 l. 15 s. and the last article is, remains due, 48 l. 3 s. 4 d.

Mr. Crossley. When we were at Westminster on the trial, some money was wanting; that note was given, it was to be paid for me; it was a note given by me, payable to Snelling, for the purpose of raising money when he was out of town; it never was paid; I spoke to Snelling about it, and he often promised to return it.

Court. Why was credit given for that note to Snelling? - It was never intended to be sent for payment, we were on a very friendly footing, and the note was long due; I gave the bill for the purpose of raising the money; Mrs. Brumidgham took the bill, and brought the money the next morning, and I had the cash for it, and therefore I gave credit for it.

Was any money settled, or the debt at all liquidated before you delivered another bill? - There were two payments which are at the head of the next bill; which bill was delivered the 31st of May, 1781.

Mr. Priddle. I have not the original bill, but I have the copy of it.

Mr. Crossley. They are both alike, I believe.

Court. Read each of them? - Received 18 l. 8 s. and 10 l. - the title of that bill, is Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann Brumidgham, debtor to George Crossley , 71 l. 19 s. 10 d.

Mr. Crossley. The next is the 29th of August, 1781; that was the last bill; and intitled

"Mr. John Snelling on behalf of himself and Mr. Ann Brumidgham , debtor to George Crossley ." The balance of that is 100 l. 4 s. 2 d there is no credit upon that; the business got into the hands of Mr. Priddle, and he never paid any thing after.

Then that is the last balance previous to your making the affidavit of the debt? - Yes.

Mr. Fielding. After all these bills delivered to Mr. Snelling, did you see any thing of him after the delivery, till the time you was driven to have recourse to law? - I frequently saw him after the delivery of the second, and a month or two after the delivery of the last but one; Mr. Priddle and Mr. Snelling came to my house; they said, they came to treat with me about the papers; and Priddle said, if I would give Mr. Snelling a time, which he then mentioned, for payment, and delivered up the papers without the money, it should be paid shortly.

Mr. Fielding. I ask you upon your oath? - That was the first time I had a personal interview with Mr. Priddle upon that business; I told Mr. Priddle that I would not part with the papers without the money that was due to me; they were the papers in the cause of Wortley and Brumidgham.

Did you happen at that time to mention any thing of your determination to proceed at law against them? - Not at that time, for I wished to get the money without if I could.

Had you at any time pressed Snelling, or threatened him with a legal progress? - I never threatened him with any process till he came into the hands of Priddle; I had no cause of complaint before; I told him I would not part with the papers till I was paid; I think they went away, and said, they would give me an answer; or something to that effect.

How long intervened before you saw either Priddle or Snelling again? did any thing pass material between you? - No Sir, I cannot say that there did; I do not know that I saw Mr. Snelling after the delivery of the last bill at all.

Have you heard from Snelling at any time, whether he had or had not in his custody any money of Mrs. Brumidgham's? - Yes Sir, 400 l. frequently, when I advised him to settle the cause, he said, what was that to me, he had more money in his hands of her's than would pay me; he was

my pay-master; I arrested him at the instance of Mrs. Brumidgham.

Had Mr. Snelling at any time before, manifested any thing like dissatisfaction at the urgency of payment? - He said, that other attornies would go through their business before they asked for money; I told him, they might, but I would not in such litigious suits; that might be at the delivery of the last bill but one.

At any of these times when you had these conversations with Mr. Snelling, did he attempt to shift his ground? - Never, he always acknowledged that he was responsible.

How long elapsed after these conversations, before you was driven to take out legal process against him? - The first time that any dispute arose, was his wanting me to get possession of a house in Surry.

After this dispute, what time might elapse before you was driven to have recourse to legal process? - After the delivery of the last bill, and the month expired, I sued out a bailable process.

Mr. Fielding. From this bailable process it was that the perjury was assigned; after this arrest did you see any thing of him? - Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Fielding. How long did you hold him in custody, till he was bailed? - A little time; I do not know when he was bailed.

When was you first apprised of an indictment for perjury against you on this affidavit? - To the best of my remembrance, it was preferred in July sessions, 1786.

Mr. Fielding. Your Lordship sees at once the gap there is!

Court. Yes, there are five years.

Mr. Fielding. Now in these five years, had any thing been said to you by these present defendants, and what was said to them? - I had several actions against Mr. Priddle in that intermediate time, upon two of which there were executions.

Mr. Fielding. Did Priddle stand indebted to you in any sum, and what? - He stood indebted to Mr. Plumbe, the late Sheriff, or to Mr. Saunders, the Sheriff's officer, in 100 l. knew it by Mr. Priddle's admission.

Mr. Fielding. Did he ultimately in the event, become indebted to you in a particular sum? - Yes, in that way, he was not indebted to me till I took the secu after that settlement, he frequently applied for time; the sum he admitted he owed me was 104 l.

Did any conversation pass, respecting the subject of the indictment, between you and any of the defendants? - After the action for the malicious arrest, there was nothing before that; an action for a malicious arrest was brought against me; I think it was in Hilary Term 1785, or Easter.

Who was the attorney in that? - Mr. Priddle.

Who was the plaintiff? - Snelling.

Had Mr. Priddle acknowledged to you before this time, that he was your debtor to the amount you mentioned? - Yes, Sir, he had given me security before that.

Were there any terms proffered to you at all by Mr. Priddle, during the pendency of this cause? - No Sir, I forced them on as quick as possible by rules to trial.

After this trial ended, I believe there was a verdict against you? - There was.

What were the damages? - Sixty pounds.

After this was ended, what conversation did you at any time hold with Priddle or Mr. Holloway? - Some few days after the trial, I met Mr. Holloway; he told me, if I would give him ten guineas and pay the verdict and costs, he would get me out of the scrape.

What scrape did he say? - I told him, I did not understand him; I was much afraid of speaking to him at that time, though I had done some friendships for him; he said, about the papers; I had certainly been overseen at the trial, and had admitted papers that I had never wrote; that I had been taken by surprise. I was sure I never could write such papers; and he said, I was a fool, and did not know my own handwriting; they had not been made seven

days before the trial, and Mr. Gosnel was to prove them.

Who is Mr. Gosnel? - He was then Mr. Priddle's agent, or something of that kind; I told Holloway I believed I was got into bad hands, and I should have no objection to get out of them; that I should not mind ten guineas, and as to the verdict, I did not want to trouble myself about that; I should pay it without any further trouble; he said he would apply to Mr. Priddle, and get it settled in some way or other under his management, and I must give him ten guineas, for himself; there were several meetings between us; at one he pretended Priddle was going to Worcester assizes, and that was the time to strike, and that he could make a very good job of it; if I would give Priddle fifty guineas to enable him to go down there, and set fifty guineas off the warrant of attorney, that should be a discharge of that verdict; the damages and costs were to be estimated at one hundred guineas: we had several meetings. Then he told me that Priddle wanted to fly off, but that he had agreed with Mrs. Priddle that it should be settled; that she had the entire government of Mr. Priddle, and that she was very fond of venison, and that they must have a venison feast at the Horns, in Surry; Holloway and I went there, we had a neck of venison; Mr. and Mrs. Priddle were to have been there by his appointment, but they never came; Holloway came there, and while we were there, he continued to work upon my passions; said, that it must be settled at any rate, even if it was to the amount of two hundred pounds, to prevent Priddle bringing forward an indictment for perjury; I told him I would not pay more than the verdict; Holloway said, I ought to settle it, if it cost two hundred pounds: Priddle would furnish evidence to convict.

When was the first time Mr. Holloway mentioned any thing about an indictment for perjury? - He said he would settle all then; he intimated to me that there was a danger of an indictment for perjury; that was about the time of the ten guineas, to induce me to it, I believe all in one conversation. He said I ought to settle it, if it cost me two hundred pounds more, for Priddle was determined to furnish evidence to convict.

Be accurate, if your memory will serve you, as to the terms made use of; do you feel yourself warranted upon the oath you have taken to say, that these were the terms, that Priddle would furnish evidence? - Clearly; I found myself in a very awkward situation; I wanted to come away, upon which he changed sides, and said, if I doubted his integrity, he would make affidavit of the forged papers; he said he would compel Priddle to settle it; when Holloway went away, he said he would apply to Priddle again; he then wrote an appointment to meet me at Mr. Lowes's; there was a previous conversation between Holloway and me about putting the papers into Mr. Lowes's hands; they were the papers, as I understood it, that were produced in Court. A meeting was appointed at the Leaping Bar, on the Surry side of Westminster-bridge, by Holloway, and Mr. Lowes went over there with me; Mr. and Mrs. Priddle, and Mr. Holloway met there. Priddle upon that meeting said, that the verdict should be settled upon the terms of paying fifty guineas down, and there was fifty guineas in the term preceding to be wrote off the warrant of attorney, and I was to postpone the judgment on the warrant of attorney, till final judgment could be obtained on the record; I understood the agreement fully concluded then; but Priddle said he would have his client present, that he might have a discharge. Mr. Snelling did not come, and we went from there, Mr. and Mrs. Priddle, Mr. Lowes, and me; Holloway left us, I think; we went from thence to Stephens's house in the Borough, to look for Snelling, and there we staid for a few minutes; they came in both together; Holloway never came to Stephens's house; but Stephens and Snelling came in after we had been there some time: Priddle withdrew with Snelling; Stephens said, if it was his case, it should

not be settled for two hundred pounds; that was while they were absent; I am not sure whether it was before they returned or not; but after they returned, Stephens said in the presence of Priddle and Snelling, it should not be settled for two hundred pounds; and if there was a bill of indictment found, he would be d - d if it was settled under five hundred pounds; I said to Mr. Lowes, it was unfit for me to be there; and Mr. Lowes and me came away together: either a day or two after, or the next day, I received an appointment that Priddle was determined to settle the business; I believe I have a letter from Mr. Holloway; it is in his hand-writing; it is dated the 9th of July, 1785.

Court. It is of no consequence, he has told us already? - Afterwards there was an appointment, I rather suppose it must be verbal, with Holloway, to meet Priddle and him at the Mitre Tavern in Fleet-street; that was for the 11th of July; we met there on the 11th of July, at the Mitre Tavern, Holloway and Priddle, Mr. Lowes and me; Holloway went to fetch Mr. Lowes; while he was gone, I asked Priddle to let me look at the papers; he then shewed me the original bills of costs, and papers which corresponded with the affidavit that Lord Mansfield had reprobated; I said to Priddle, those are not the papers that were produced in Court; he said, d - n you, you do not know your own handwriting; I did not want but to settle the business, I knew very well that those papers being deposited in safe hands, would be the same thing to me; Mr. Lowes came in, I gave him the fifty guineas, and Priddle delivered him the papers; Mr. Lowes went back, and said Priddle with him; they came back, and said the papers were locked up; I then told Mr. Lowes he must pay Priddle the fifty guineas, and a receipt was given; Priddle then said, you must give Holloway the ten guineas; I was not provided, I gave a note to Priddle, and the note came for payment by Mrs. Priddle; this was the 11th of July, 1785: in the Michaelmas Term following, Priddle was to have entered satisfaction on the judgment on the verdict; there was no writing for it; he asked me in Michaelmas Term to let him have ten guineas, and then he would enter up the judgment and satisfaction; I gave him the ten guineas, and took a receipt in the cause. In Trinity Term, 1786, I heard he had applied to tax costs; I then took out a rule to be present, but he taxed them ex parte, and issued out execution for the whole money.

Did they levy the whole? - I did not see the execution, but the officers came to my house, my clerks denied me, I cannot tell what was marked; I saw Priddle afterwards.

Did Priddle admit that he had taken out execution? - He said he had not taken out execution, as I understood; I told him that was false, for that the officers had been at my house, and I was not at home.

Did he admit that he had done it? - No.

Did any conversation take place in any after-time, relative to the indictment for perjury, and to any method of accommodation? - I do not recollect that, I do not know that I ever saw Stephens after the time he said he would have 500 l. I think Priddle said whether I had paid a part of the execution on Snelling's judgment or not; I should pay it over again, and he would have all his securities up, or he would prefer an indictment for perjury; that was in Trinity Term, 1786; I went away directly; I do not recollect seeing Priddle again.

Did you see Holloway again? - I do not recollect.

Did you see any thing of Stephens? - I do not recollect.

You saw Holloway at your trial? - Certainly; Mr. Priddle, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Snelling were witnesses on the back of the bill; we had Holloway turned out of Court; he said he was a witness on the trial.

Mr. Erskine. If I understand you right, you was acquainted with Snelling from 1773, or 1774? - Yes.

You have had various transactions with him? - Yes.

During all which time, I understand you to say, you never found him defective in his payments; and you had no reason to distrust his credit? - Not till after the delivery of the bill of 1781.

Then it was Mr. Snelling that first applied to you upon Mrs. Brumidgham's distress? - He first applied to me to employ me on her behalf.

And that he was to be your paymaster? - Yes.

This happened before you had seen Mrs. Brumidgham on that business? - Yes.

Consequently you undertook the business on Snelling's credit soleley? - I should have taken up any business on his credit.

Then I take it for granted, you never received any sums of money from Mrs. Brumidgham on that account? - I have received sums frequently from both.

Did you give any receipt at that time? - I have no doubt but I did.

The credits, I observe, are marked on the bill? - I never had any dispute about the credit.

You brought an action against Mr. Marsh, did you not, for Mr. Snelling? - Yes.

You applied to the Court of King's Bench, in order that you might retain the debt and costs in your hands, because Snelling was indebted to you on account of Mrs. Brumidgham's business? - I believe I did.

On that occasion, Mr. Snelling came forward, and denied, that he had employed you? - I do not know that he did, the rule was discharged, because I had not sworn that Mr. Snelling was not able to pay me, the Court said they never interposed, unless it was an insolvent man.

Afterwards you brought an action against Mr. Snelling, charging him with all the sees, all the disbursements, and all the business done for Mrs. Brumidgham? - Yes, In that matter I had a judgment by default, and recovered the money before a jury, the master said he had a great many references before him; and it went to Mr. Lowton, with a general reference.

Did you attend Mr. Lowton on that reference? - Yes.

Did you produce before Mr. Lowton the different bills which had been talked of tonight, the five different bills? - No doubt on it, and I believe they were left in Mr. Lowton's hands for some time.

Take that paper in your hand, and answer me, Sir upon your oath, whether that first bill, at the time it was left in Lowton's custody, was intitled, as it is now, Mr. Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham? - For any thing I know to the contrary, it was as it is now.

Will you swear positively? I have an affidavit in my hand, which was the affidavit you made in order to get the debt and costs in the action of Snelling against Marsh, in which you swore you always gave credit to Mr. Snelling, and not to Mrs. Brumidgham? - I say now, that I never did deliver any bill of any kind without being entitled, Mr. John Snelling and Mrs. Ann Brumidgham , Drs. and I tell you now, Sir, that the second bill you produced, they have a duplicate of it, with a like title, that is in my hand writing.

Then I understand you to swear, that you never did make out the bill of the 29th of May, 1779, there was but one bill of that date? - It is impossible to say, at the distance of eight or nine years; we were upon terms of the greatest friendship; but, I positively say, Sir, that the bills were all delivered in that fashion.

You have stated, that the first bill was delivered on the 29th of May, 1779, and that it was in your own hand writing; was that first bill, of the 29th of May, 1779, produced to Mr. Lowton? - It is impossible to recollect at this distance, if not by them, it was by me.

In that bill of the 29th of May, was not Mrs. Brumidgham alone, made debtor, and not Mr. Snelling? - She certainly was not.

Then you say, that the very first bill you

ever delivered, which was the 29th of May, 1779, which bill was laid before Mr. Lowton, the arbitrator, was titled as it is now? - I mean to say, that the first bill, dated the 29th of May, 1779, was titled as you mentioned certainly.

Was there any more bills of that date delivered? - Not that I know of, my copy might be laid before the arbitrator.

Mrs. Brumidgham alone was not made debtor? - She could not.

Did you ever make out a bill in your life that had Mrs. Brumidgham alone debtor? - Not to my remembrance; I wish to be understood to say, I never did to my remembrance, it is impossible for me, at the distance of eight or nine years, to swear to transactions.

You surprise me, I understood you to say, that the first bill of the 29th of May, 1779, was titled as it is now; did you make Mrs. Brumidgham your debtor, or, did you make Mr. Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham your debtors? - I certainly made Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham jointly.

Were there produced before the arbitrator any sums of money received of Mrs. Brumidgham? - I do not recollect; there was no dispute before the arbitrator, as to the sums at the foot of the bills.

But were there not receipts produced to shew? - I should rather suppose, that the credits were taken from the foot of the bills.

Did you ever receive in point of fact, 10 l. - 10 l. - 12 l. and 10 l. from Mrs. Brumidgham? - I may, for ought I know, whatever I received is at the foot of the bills.

Did you give receipts, as receipts from her, on account of Snelling, or on account of herself? - It is impossible for me, at this distance of time, to recollect what receipts I gave, but I should rather suppose I gave them in his name; I believe there were duplicates of the bills, and there were books, those books are in my custody now

Are they in court? - After I came down here I had notice.

Court. That is no notice at all?

Priddle. It was in the morning; I had his notice only in the morning.

Did you in all your accounts before the arbitrator charge Mr. Snelling as well as Mrs. Brumidgham? - I certainly did.

Then how came the arbitrator to decide there was nothing due to you? - He found nothing due to me.

Did he make it in writing? - Yes.

Mr. Garrow. Then I object to talking of it?

There was then an action brought against you by Mr. Snelling for having maliciously held him to bail? - There was.

That affidavit that I just now put into your hands, was read in Court? - It was.

In which you swore, that you had made no bill, except in the name of Mr. Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham? - No doubt of it.

How came you to say on your original examination, that there was a forged account of your's produced with the name of Mrs. Brumidgham only? - I did not say so; Holloway told me after the trial was over, that there was; I saw them in Court; I saw the names signed to them, and I believe I admitted them; the papers were put in the usual manner.

Did not you hear it stated that your affidavit was false in that respect? - I do not recollect that any thing was stated about the affidavit.

Was you not in Court at the time the verdict went against you? - I certainly was.

Holloway told you after the verdict, some of the papers had not been made above a week before the trial? - Yes.

How came it you never made any application to the Court for a new trial? - Because I had agreed not to impeach the verdict at all; I found myself in bad hands.

You knew very well if there was a difference, you had an opportunity of detecting it? - The papers were not in my hands at that time.

The papers must be different to those that were produced before Mr. Lowton? - They must be different, because I certainly at

the arbitration, would have impeached any false papers.

Did you in Court, when the cause was tried before Lord Mansfield; (I was counsel against you.) when I stated in your hearing, that you declared that all your bills were made jointly; did you deny that I had your bill made only to Mrs. Brumidgham? - I certainly did not see that there were any forgeries at that time; I certainly admitted the papers, suspecting them to be mine.

Did not you hear me state in the publick Court, that in the first bill, Mrs. Brumidgham was alone made debtor? - I do not recollect it.

Do not you know the cause was determined upon that point? - I do, but I do not recollect your opening that bill; I was very much surprised when those papers came to be read, because I was sure I never wrote such papers; I might be instructing my Counsel.

Look at this? - This is my writing; the minute at the bottom is not mine.

Look at that? - That is my hand; they are all my writing; they are my receipts; I should presume they were written at the time they bear date; I either received that sum from Mr. Snelling, or somebody on his account.

Were those receipts before Mr. Lowton? - I do not know; I do not recollect any thing being before Mr. Lowton, but the bills of costs, and the credit that was given at the foot, when a cause of Mrs. Brumidgham's upon a plea of coverture, came on to be tried at the King's Bench; the evening before, I wanted some money, this note was delivered over the table after dinner to Mrs. Brumidgham, knowing Snelling to be out of town, and she got the money.

Mr. Garrow. She told you that the only way was to give a note to Snelling, and she would get cash for it? - No bill could be produced before Mr. Lowton so directed, with my hand-writing fairly obtained.

With respect to your bills, they could not be with a single title, or Mrs. Brumidgham only debtor, if they were fairly obtained from you? - Certainly not.

With respect to your books, they were of this sort; the bill was copied out and became a perfect duplicate, therefore if the books were produced to Mr. Lowton, they could be only copies of the bills? - Certainly.

Mr. Holloway. If ever I was thoroughly shocked in my life, I am this night; you say you saw me after this verdict at Guildhall? - Yes, in the Strand; I came to your house some few days after; you had made an appointment; I first saw you a very few days after the verdict, it might be the next morning.

Upon your oath, you did not come to me in Scotland yard? - I did not first; I came to you by your own appointment; you said, if I would give you ten guineas, you would get me out of the scrape.

Did not you come to me after my Lord Mansfield declared in my hearing, that you had committed the most wicked impudent perjury he ever remembered; did not you come to me, knowing I knew Priddle, and feeling your situation? - I never did apply to Mr. Holloway till I met him in the Strand, and had this conversation with him.

You never did apply to him till he made you that offer? - No, Sir.

Mr. Holloway. Did not you write to me on the 11th of July? - I might for ought I know; I do not know that I did; if you have any letter of mine you may produce it; you told me if I would be directed by you, you would get me out of the scrape, and you would speak to Mr. Priddle.

You say you was frequently with me afterwards? - Yes.

What were those meetings for? - For the purpose of settling upon terms you proposed.

Settle what? - If you would have my ideas upon the subject, I believe it was to work out of me as much money as you could get.

You have told the Court that I told you the papers were forged? - You certainly did say some of the papers had not been made a week before the trial, and that I did not know my own hand.

Was it not your own request that I would interceed for you? - After the first proposal, I certainly did wish to get it settled.

I ask you, if I ever mentioned any sum of money that you were to give by way of setling any indictment? - You mentioned that I must settle it, if I gave him 200 l. at the Horns, and Priddle would furnish evidence to convict, if I did not.


I am a farmer, I live in Wales.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Stephens and Mr. Priddle? - I have seen them together, I remember seeing them in October, 1785; I saw them at Mr. Stephens's house.

Who were present at the meeting? - I saw Mr. Stephens and Mr. Priddle, it was on a Sunday; Mr. Priddle asked me to walk with him to the King's Bench, and from there to Stephens's; and we went to Stephens's, and when we got there, Mr. Stephens said, d - n you Priddle, I find you are going to do us all; I did not know what he meant by it; however the conversation past, what do you mean? and Stephens said, those costs of Crossley's should be paid some time ago; I am informed you have got them; he said he had not; says Mr. Priddle to Mr. Stephens, Mr. Stephens, we want you about an elegit of Grant's; says he, I will not give bail for Grant, I will have no concern unless you get the money of Crossley; you have got the money of Crossley, it was agreed upon to indict him, you see we have done him once, and we can do him again; says Priddle, I only want you to step forwards for this poor man that is in gaol, and to get him out; no, says Stephens, I will not, you know I agreed to furnish the money, if you will indict the man, we can get a thousand pounds of him; you know we have done him once, and we can do him again; then Priddle and I came away; says I to Priddle, that Gentleman Stephens is a money-getting man; says Priddle, O I can do him; as we were going on, says Priddle, do you know that Crossley has got an execution against me, for a hundred pounds; when I have settled with Crossly for this money, I then shall indict Crossley, and I shall then get two or three hundred pounds out of him, and get the execution, and then they may all go and be deman'd.

Did any more conversation pass at that time? - No; I think about the 5th of December, in the same year, my son was with Priddle, and he sent him over to see if Stephens would bail Grant, I went with my son to Stephens, we staid there a couple of hours, I suppose, before Stephens came in; when he came in, my son related the matter to him; no, says he, I will not bail Grant, or have any thing to do with him, till the matter is settled with Crossley; says he, I am a Boroughnian, and have a sack full of money; and you may tell him, unless he will do that, I will not stir a foot; my son went out, and I talked to Mr. Stephens about the business of bailing Grant, and he still said the same thing.

Did you see Mr. Priddle at any time in June, 1786? - Yes, I was with him, I think it was June, or the latter end of May, 1786; Mr. Priddle asked me if I had any money in my pocket; I said I believed I had; he had some of me, I was to have it the next day; says he, I shall have money enough to-morrow, I can give it you again; I went down the next morning, Priddle was at Westminster; says he, will you take a walk with us, we are going over the water; I went with them, Priddle left us, and Snelling and me, and his clerk, went to them, and somebody else, I cannot recollect who; we staid some time, and Mr. Priddle came; then we returned back; Priddle said to me, Mappleback, you have been over to Grant's, and here is a little bit of an affidavit, which you must swear to; when I went to ask Mr. Priddle for the money, says he, d - n me, he has taken out a writ of error; then Holloway came; says he, what do you think Bob? Crossley has taken out a writ of error; oh! says Mr. Holloway, d - n him, we will do

him over; we shall get 1000 l. we will indict him.

Where was this conversation? - At Westminster Hall, just by the gave; says Holloway, you know I was a witnesses to an agreement, and Crossley was to pay the money, and he has been a good milch cow, and I have got ten or twenty out of him, and said, he would get a hundred; Mr. Priddle was Snelling's attorney in Trinity Term, 1786; I think there was some conversation in Place-yard; says I to Pridle, you have brought me into a very pretty mess, here is a non pross for 27 l. and Snelling has got a receipt for the costs; oh! d - n you, says Priddle you are not up to it; I was obliged to give him a receipt for the costs (meaning Snelling) to indict Crossley, for he would not be concerned in the business, unless I give him a receipt for that sum.

Did he tell you when that prosecution was to be carried on? - He said, they would do it immediately, as soon as Priddle had got the money of Crossley; for some costs of a writ of error; or something of that sort; he said, we shall indict: Crossley; I only gave him a receipt on purpose that we should indict Crossley; in August 1786, I came to London about the 17th or 18th; I saw Priddle; so I applied to him to know who I was to pay some money to; says he, you shall not pay it, do you know we have indicted Crossley; no, says I; says he, the bill is found, and now d - n him, we will do him up; says he, do not you pay the money, Crossley and me will make an end of it; he has got money enough; Snelling said, he would have no concern in the indictment; Snelling said, you know you are to go through this business of the indictment against Crossley; but says he, Priddle, you know my friend Stephens is to find the money, and I have nothing to do with it; Priddle said, I think, I shall receive five hundred pounds.

Did he mention at any time any money that either he or any body else had paid towards carrying on the prosecution against Crossley? - No, I was a perfect stranger at that time to Crossley, but I met him by accident, and he subpoened me to attend at the sessions; I went to Priddle, and told him I had got a subpoena; O d - n him, says he, we will do them up, I will have three or four hundred of him; says he, when you was here before, I did not think of going on with the business; I had not then made out a brief; but now I have one of three hundred sheets; if he does not come down immediately; I have given fifteen guineas to Counsel, and I will give twenty more.

That was before Crossley's trial and acquittal? - Oh dear! yes; I told them to settle it; then says Priddle, if you will go and bring me my execution and 300 l. that matter shall all be ended, and I will give a receipt for the money; I then said, it is a sum of money; but however, if Crossley is a man of money, in the hands he is in, he had better give it, than stand the racket, and I will advise him and give him all my trouble; I told Crossley; I then told Priddle, that Mr. Crossley said, he would be d - ned if he gave him a shilling; then says Priddle, I will pursue him immediately, and I will knock him all to pieces; for if he gets quit of this business, I will indict him, and indict him again, till I do him over; I was with Priddle several times; he then said, he would take 200 l. and I went and begged of Mr. Crossley, to give 200 l. says I, I advise you to give 200 l. and make it up; I told Mr. Priddle that he would not give any thing; now says I, you are like to fight it out; it was some time before the trial; I think it was in October sessions; I never saw Mr. Holloway, but at Guildhall; and says he, this will be the ruin of Crossley; says I, I am sorry for it.

I believe Mr. Priddle's son married your daughter? - Yes; I have no connection with Mr. Crossley; Mr. Morgan, of Bedford-square, is my attorney.

Mr. Knowlys. Can you recollect when it was that you first saw Mr. Crossley to know him? - I cannot tell you, but long ago; in 1781 or 1782; on a Sunday.

Have you seen him often from 1781 or

1782? - Yes, but never to drink, or have conversation with him; I knew him by person.

You knew him perfectly well in the year 1783? - I knew him when I saw him.

How long have you been a farmer in Wales? - About seven years; my farm is at Cefnyberrin, in Montgomery; I lived in Yorkshire at that time; I have lived in Wales at times, about six years; my own farm is at Ealey, in Yorkshire; I let it last April, and left it.

What farm have you now? - I live at Cefnyberren, when I am at home with my daughter.

How long have you occupied that farm? - I have had it six years in my hands; I let it for three years, and only entered on it last April.

Is this farm your own? - I look upon it as such, when I have paid for it; I bought it, and when I find the right owner, I am ready and willing to pay for it; I have not paid for it yet; I have had the farm in Yorkshire fifteen or sixteen years; I have occupied my own farm since last April; that has been the place of my last residence.

How long have you been in town now? - About six or seven days; I have lived at Mr. Crossley's sometime; I lodged there; I feed at his table, but I never had any money of him for my trouble in coming up; I never staid an hour at Mr. Crossley's house, but on this business; in November, I was at Mr. Crossley's house; it was all on this business.

Then you came to town on this business, and lived for a month in his house? - I always was at his house; I never did any business for him; I never served a writ for him in my life; I have been constantly living in the country; I cannot say what term it was in.

Have you ever served a writ for Mr. Crossley? - No, never in my life.

Did you never, at the suit of Jacques, serve writs for Crossley? - What do you mean, writs to arrest men; I never did; I believe I did serve a copy of a writ; I went with Crossley's man.

Did not you make an affidavit of the service of that writ, after you had served it? - I believe I might, I did not remember it; I remember nothing about it; I might not make an affidavit.

Did you or did you not? - I gave the gentleman the writ.

Did you swear to that service? - Yes, I believe I might.

Did you, yes or no? - I believe I might.

Did you ever say you would do for Priddle? - I did not.

Have you never said so to any person whatever? - Never in my life, he has said a thousand times that he would send me to gaol; and I said, if you do, I will send you there.

Do you know one John Hall? - Very well.

Do you know Robert Jemmet? - But a little.

Do you know Isaac Gillet ? - Yes, I have done business for him.

Did you, to any of those persons, say, that you would hang Mr. Priddle? - No, never to my knowledge.

Will you swear positively, that you never did say so; I will bring a hundred people to prove you did? Gillett may have heard me say so to Priddle; and then he may say it.

Did you never serve any commissioners of bankrupt or any body else with notice or with writs in Jacques's-cause? - I cannot tell about that; I was at Mr. Crossley's house about business? - He might ask me.

How many times have you done this? - Perhaps once.

Not twenty times? - Nor ten, nor five; I will be hanged if I did; I cannot remember how many times; I believe I might make an affidavit of it perhaps once or twice, I cannot tell.

Mr. Holloway. Where was it you saw me? - At Westminster-hall, in the gate in the forenoon.

How long ago? - I think it was sometime in July last; I will not be sure.

Your son is now clerk to Mr. Crossley?

Mr. Garrow. I think you said, that a judgment of Non pross led you to Mr. Priddle? - Yes, it was.

All your knowledge of elegits, was in consequence of that? - Yes.

Your son was once clerk to Mr. Priddle? Yes, but I was very sorry for it.

This trial of Crossley's was put off several times? - It was so.

Mr. Crossley entertained you with the best he had? - Yes.

Was not Mr. Snowdon your Attorney? - Mr. Clark, by the directions of Mr. Priddle; I never employed Snowden in the business; it was a scheme between Priddle and Clark to touch me for the money.

In short, Sir, you are at law with Mr. Priddle? - Yes.

Have you not, at this moment, by your own direction, given to your attorney, a suit in the court of Exchequer, against Mr. Priddle? - Several, he wanted to rob me of a large sum of money, or my friends, and I would not let him.

Did not you hold Snelling to special bail? - I suppose I held him to special bail, it was by Mr. Priddle's directions.

Mr. Garrow. There was no alternative but to be robbed by Mr. Priddle, or to go to law with him? - Yes.

So all your connection with Clark was produced by Priddle? - He told me he could not be an attorney for me, but he would be a witness.


I keep Tom's Coffee house, in Cornhill.

Did you see Mr. Snelling and Crossley at your house, any time in the year 1780? - They may have been there; I have dined with Mr. Snelling at Mr. Crossley's; I think it was in 1780, to the best of my recollection at this time.

Do you recollect any conversation between them? - I heard a conversation after dinner; Crossley mentioned to Mr. Snelling that he was engaged for him in defending a cause, and there was an application made by the opposite attorney to settle it, for Wortley; and Snelling seemed angry, and said, he always wanted to settle the causes, upon which he said, he would not do it, he would rather spend 500 l. than settle it; I thought it then was a matter of dispute, whether Mr. Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham were married, or how they lived together; I said, perhaps Mr. Crossley may be uneasy about his expences; and Snelling said to him, no, you are not, are you? I am to be your paymaster; I believe it was in 1780, or 1781; I cannot charge my recollection just now, Mr. Crossley said, you had better settle the cause, in order to save expences, and you will get this money; I think it was an offer of 40 l. Snelling said he would not settle it, he would rather spend from 100 l. to 500 l. At another time, near the Christmas following; Snelling was very frequently there; Crossley asked him about a note of 15 l. or fifteen guineas that he had lent Mrs. Brumidgham, during the absence of Snelling, to get money to pay the expences with, he said, that note is never come for payment; and you may give a receipt for it now, and I will take care of it.

You are very well acquainted with Crossley? - Yes, I am; I know nothing more of Snelling than seeing him in company several times.

You do not know then, that Mr. Snelling swore in the Court of King's Bench, that he never had employed Mr. Crossley? No, Sir, there was an appointment between Mr. Abbot and Mr. Snelling at my house; I went to bed, and left them there; they were both drunk, they came to settle something; Snelling would have 150 l. he wetted his fingers with the wine, and figured 200 l. They said it was a great deal of money; I believe Mr. Jacques was there; Snelling said, he wanted to get some money, for if the money got into Priddle's hands, he should never get it; after he figured 200 l. he then figured 150 l. then he said no less.


Do you remember seeing Mr. Holloway any time in the year 1768? - I believe it was very early in the January, 1786, there was a business in which Mr. Holloway and me were jointly concerned at that time, and a sum of money had been received by Mr. Holloway, I conceived, on the joint account, on which we were engaged: Mr. Holloway declared, he did not receive it on that account, but that he received it from Crossley, for the purpose of smothering an indictment which was in agitation against Crossley for perjury; that he had received the like sum at the Mitre Tavern, in Fleet-street, when Priddle received 50 l. that Crossley was a frightened driveling fool, and he would make him bleed at any time; that whenever he chose to alarm Crossley, as he did once about some venison; he was very sure he would let him have the same sum. Holloway frequently mentioned him in the course of business, that he should not oppose him in an action we were concerned in, for, that an indictment for perjury should always be held in terrorem, against him; I do mean so upon my oath; I have very frequently seen Crossley; but did not know him, only as being concerned for some Lottery-Office keepers; shortly after this he ridiculed Crossley, said he was a driveling fool, he might have settled it for a hundred, tho' it should cost him many hundreds; tho' damn it he and Priddle had made up their minds; he should not be a witness upon the bill, because he might have the opportunity to act as a mediator, if it was found necessary, as he had been before at the Horns at Kennington; for all they wanted, was to get security for a sum of money. Subsequent to the second indictment, Mr. Holloway and me had several disputes, which are now settled; he then told me he had been at the whole expence of the second indictment for perjury against Crossley, even to bringing up Priddle by Habeas Corpus, for Priddle chose to have him tried at the Old Bailey; since that, Holloway has said, that Priddle and Stephens were nothing to him, they had used him very ill; and damn them, he would give them up, if I would intercede with Crossley not to prosecute him; subsequent to that, Mr. Holloway has, by intreaties first, then, by saying it was necessary we should make an affidavit, not to appear against each other, and he endeavoured to dissuade me; that Mr. Erskine was to appear, and he would blow me out of Court. With respect to Priddle, I believe, in Trinity Term last, there was a motion; I spoke to Priddle; I told him I thought it was a great way off, he said, I do not care a pin for the event of this motion; I will indict him for perjury in Snelling's cause; I will make him give up all my securities, and a round sum into the bargain; I never saw Stephens to my knowledge, all kinds of differences are settled between me and Holloway, nor any animosity.

Mr. Erskine. Why you and Mr. Holloway were very good friends? - Yes.

How long ago is it since you went into partnership with Mr. Crossley? - I never was in partnership with Mr. Crossley; all is made up between me and Holloway, and general releases, my mind has given him a general release; I am upon my oath; it was an agreement between Mr. Holloway and me, that the profits should be divided; it is not so with Crossley, his are merely agency fees, he is literally my agent.

When was this conversation with Priddle? - I believe it was in Trinity Term last.

What time in the term? - I really do not know; it was a promiscuous meeting; I was standing upon the steps when he was coming down.

Had you any conversation with him before or since? - Never, I knew Mr. Priddle personally; I did not mention it from friendship to Mr. Crossley.

Was it sheer justice? - It was sheer good nature; I was sorry to see such a scene as they were engaged in at that time; I had no connection with Crossley; I was very intimate with Holloway.

Mr. Holloway. Did not you send to me to come to your house at ten last night? - No, Sir, I did not, I do not recollect I had any business in the world to send for you.

You did not send your coachman, or some of your servants for me last night? - I do not recollect that I sent for you at all last night?

Court. A circumstance of that kind could not very easily have escaped your memory? - I meant to have sent for him on Sunday, I knew there was a writ out against one Coppin, at his suit; I wanted to get Mr. Holloway's consent to discharge it; it was either Sunday night, or last night, but whichever it was, it was for that purpose; and no other.

Have not I very frequently declared to you, that I knew nothing at all of this business, that I was not on the back of the bill? - Yes, you have, since this indictment; but I have as frequently remonstrated with you.

When you and I made up our differences, did you not then treat about my interfering with Priddle, and the people that you thought were concerned in the prosecution against Crossley?

Upon my oath, as I stand here, you desired me to mention to Crossley, that you would give up Priddle and Stephens; for damn them, what were they to you; and you have repeatedly said, you was to give Mr. Erskine twenty guineas, and they were to pay Mr. Mingay.

THOMAS LOWES , Esq; sworn.

I am a Barrister at law.

Have you been occasionally employed in business for Mr. Priddle? - I have.

Do you remember any meeting on the Surry side of Blackfriars-bridge, at which you was present? - I do.

Was that after a trial, Snelling against Crossley? - It was.

Do you recollect the date of that meeting? - I do not.

Do you recollect who were present at that meeting? - Mr. Priddle, Mrs. Priddle, Mr. Holloway, and Mr. Crossley; I was desired to attend that meeting by Priddle, in order to settle some matter between him and Crossley; there was some matter which they had settled, and some papers which had been lodged with me, which I was to keep till they called for them from me; Mr. Priddle was not there when I arrived; he came in soon after, he said then that he did not chuse to do any thing, but in the presence of his client, which I understood to be Snelling; his client, I understood from him, then was in the Borough, at a Mr. Stephens's; and it was then agreed to go from thence to the Borough, where Snelling was said to be, for us all to go there; but Mr. Holloway did not go; Mr. Priddle, his lady, and Crossley, and me, went there; when we arrived at Stephens's, neither Stephens nor Snelling were there; we staid sometime; and then they both came in; upon that, Mr. Priddle retired with Stephens and Snelling to a different room; after a few minutes Mr. Priddle came into the room where we were; and said, Mr. Snelling and Stephens were coming; they did so, and it was said by some of the company, I do not know by whom, whether Snelling was agreeable to what had been proposed; Mr. Snelling appeared rather to be in liquor, he gave some answer, but in such a way that I could not understand him, upon which, Mr. Stephens immediately said, it should not be settled, unless Crossley would pay a sum of money, and if he did not, he should be prosecuted, upon which, Mr. Crossley asked what he meant by a sum of money, the reply of Stephens was, that 100 l. or 200 l. should be paid, or he should be prosecuted; and Stephens said, he would find money for the prosecution; upon that, Mr. Crossley desired to know what was to pay; he paid, and he and I went away together without replying to that answer of Stephens's; Mr. Crossley said, if that was the case, it was not worth his while staying, and called for the reckoning, and paid it, it was sometime after that,

I do not know her long, there was a meeting at the Mitre Tavern, in Fleet-street; I was not there; Mr. Priddle or Mr. Holloway came to my chambers, and told me, that Mr. Crossley was at the Mitre Tavern, if I would have the goodness to go there; matters between them would probably be settled; I went there in consequence of that desire, with the person that came for me, there was Mr. Priddle, Mr. Holloway and Mr. Crossley; as soon as I came into the room, after the common compliments, Mr. Priddle and Mr. Crossley retired to a window to look over some papers, then they were put into a sort of loose cover, then it was said to me, that Mr. Crossley would pay 50 l. or guineas; I believe it was guineas, upon these papers being lodged with me; upon which, Mr. Priddle immediately went with me to my own Chambers, and delivered the papers, which they looked at, and which I have never seen; and I opened a drawer in my library table, and put the papers in, and locked the drawer again, then we returned back to the tavern, where Crossley paid Priddle fifty guineas; I believe there was, at the same time, a note given to Mr. Holloway, by Mr. Crossley, as I took it for fifteen pounds; I did not know the consideration of it; I do not recollect any thing more that is material passing at that meeting; I staid but in very short time; these papers continued in my possession for many months; at last Mr. Priddle demanded them of me; I told him I could not deliver them without the consent of Mr. Crossley, if he brought his consent to me, I would, with great pleasure, give them up; some time afterwards Priddle applied to me again, I told him I could not do it unless Mr. Crossley would consent to it; he then said he should be obliged to apply to the Court of King's Bench; I called on Crossley, and told him what passed between Priddle and me; Crossley seemed rather uneasy, and he said, let them be delivered to any other gentleman at the Bar; I communicated that to Priddle; Priddle agreed to that, and named a gentleman at the bar; I think the gentleman's name is School; I did not know the gentleman at the time; before I had delivered them to Mr. School, Mr. Priddle applied to me again, and told me the papers must be delivered to him, upon that, I mentioned it again to Mr. Crossley, upon which, Mr. Crossley immediately said, I do not care what becomes of them; you may deliver them to Priddle if you please.

Did Crossley desire you, or did you yourself take any particular precaution about them? - I had not till then looked into the papers, and then I gave them to my stationer, and had a copy made of them.

Did you examine that copy by the original? - I did.

Did you make any mark on that copy, to certify its authenticity, and during the whole time you had those papers in your possession, had Mr. Crossley them any one moment out of your possession? - He had not.

Did he make any alteration in them the whole time? - No, Sir.

Did you, or did you not, permit any body else to make any alteration? - Not a soul living.

Could any body make any without your observation? - No, no alteration could be made in them while in my possession by any means whatever.

The copies, were correct copies of the originals as they were delivered to you, had Crossley ever seen them during the whole time they were in your possession? - Never, nor no one person whatever; nor had I ever seen them myself; I delivered the originals after they were copied, into Mr. Priddle's own hands, in Westminster Hall, at the bottom of the steps, going to the King's Bench; I desired Priddle to look them over and see if they were all there; he opened them, looked them over, and said, they were all right.

Did Priddle at that time know that you had taken copies of them? - I do not believe

that he did, nor do I know that he knows it at this moment.

Be so good as to look at these papers, and tell me whether these are your marks upon them, and whether these are the correct copies you took? - These are the copies.

Have you since this indictment, or since the indictment against Crossley for perjury, had any conversation with Holloway about the business? - Since this indictment, I believe it was upon the very sessions week that this indictment was preferred; and after it was found, I was attending the Sessions at Clerkenwell-green; as I came out of the Sessions, Mr. Holloway was at the door; he spoke to me; he then, said, that Crossley had preferred a bill against him, and it was found; and says he, since that, he has been making proposals, which were rejected by the parties; he said, had Mr. Priddle been advised by him, Mr. Crossley would certainly have been found guilty on the former indictment, for perjury; but says he, he is so fond of bills; we are preparing bills now, and he shall have enough of them; I believe that was the whole conversation; I left Holloway on the steps.

I believe you was desired by Mr. Crossley to attend on the trial for perjury? - I was, and I was subpoened at the same time, on the part of the former prosecution, and at the same time, I had notice delivered to me, saying, that I had not delivered the receipts back which were delivered to me.

Upon your oath was that true at all? - It was not true, it was grosly false, and it was desiring me to prepare myself to give reasons why I suffered the bill to be altered, that was a gross calumny, and a falshood.

Mr. Holloway. In the part originally that I took in the business of Crossley, was not it purely out of friendship to Crossley; was not that your idea of the business? - I understood you to be a mutual friend between the parties.

About the former bill, did not I say, that as to the former bill, it was preferred against Crossley; I knew nothing about that bill; it was about what my Lord Mansfield said about the affidavit that I spoke, and when all the witnesses were ordered out of Court upon the trial of that cause of Crossley's, you was present, whether I did not declare on being ordered out of Court, I knew nothing about this business of Crossley's; I can give no evidence about it? - I do not recollect any thing of that sort passing in Court; I know I was ordered out, at the particular request of Mr. Priddle, who subpoened me upon the prosecution; if that passed, it was after I went out.

Mr. Erskine. I take it for granted, that at this time when these papers were deposited, and this money was to be paid by Mr. Crossley, it was subsequent to the action for the malicious arrest; there was a verdict at that time against him for sixty pounds? - There was.

And you understood the costs must follow? - Yes.

You heard him promise to pay the remainder in November? - I heard no such promise.

Was there any demand made on Crossley, more than the costs in these causes? - Not to my knowledge; I never heard it from Priddle, about a round sum of money, but from Stephens.

Mr. Holloway. Previous to this indictment, have not you heard me declare my with, that the matter should not go on? - You wished that no such prosecution had been had.

Court. I remember myself, your telling the Court that you was not a witness.

Mr. Garrow. I recollect it perfectly.

Mr. Erskine. May it please your Lordship, and you Gentlemen of the Jury. I have been not a little surprised, at a great deal that I have heard in the course of this trial; and although I feel (and if I did not, I must be deprived of all sense and feeling) that there has been a considerable degree of evidence given against those who sent me to defend them; yet I address myself to you, at this late hour of he night not at all disconcerted, because I have the best

opinion of your understandings and disposition to do justice. Indeed, if I could conceive you capable of being led away by the prejudices which must arise from hearing one side till the other is heard, and if I could conceive the consequences of such prejudices would be, that you would not attend to me when I stand up, I should not be able to do that duty I came here with a very strong inclination to do: but Gentlemen, when I come to state to you what I have to lay before you, and what I have been witness to, in the course of my profession in other Courts, in this very transaction; I am persuaded that honest indignation that may arise at first in the breasts of a Jury, and which some of you must have felt, if you have at all conceived, that what these witnesses have sworn is truth, that indignation will turn the other way; and when you have heard my case, then it will be accompanied with a degree of commiseration for the defendants for whom I am counsel. Gentlemen, let us first see what you have to-try, what the question is for your determination; I will not misrepresent that question, I will state it, applying to the learned Judge who is to try this cause, with that integrity, and that intelligence, which so much distinguish him in the administration of justice; and if there be any one observation that I make on the subject of this prosecution, that does not meet with his Lordship's full and complete consent, I give you liberty to lay aside every thing that I shall say, and that you will apply yourselves only to the correction which I shall receive from his Lordship on that account. Gentlemen, the defendants are indicted, for having maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause, falsly, wickedly, and maliciously conspired together, to indict Mr. Crossley for the crime of perjury. Mr. Crossley is an attorney of very considerable practice, but that shews you he knew better; this perjury was said to be committed in an affidavit made by him, when he swore in October 1781, that John Snelling was indebted to him in an hundred pounds and upwards; they are charged with having conspired to prosecute Mr. Crossley upon this affidavit, not only maliciously, but without any reasonable or probable cause; or in other words, that they knowing and believing Mr. Crossley was innocent of that perjury, having no reasonable or probable cause to believe he was guilty, but believing his innocence, of their mere malice and wickedness, conspired together to indict him for this diabolical crime. Gentlemen, if they had reason to believe that Mr. Crossley was guilty, his situation in life would render that guilt the more abominable; and if the defendants afterwards believing him to be guilty, and having reasonable or probable cause to suspect that he was guilty, they did proceed against him, hoping that he, Mr. Crossley, knowing his guilt, to save his honour and character, would come to some terms of compromise, however you might be offended with persons for compounding publick justice, and under that colour attempting to extort money; if you think that the defendants, believing Mr. Crossley was guilty, although they ought to have taken a different course, and instead of giving up the prosecution, that they should in an open honest manner, have instantly brought him forwards to a publick trial, but instead of that, they omitted it, they compounded it, and for money they let him off from the punishment, although it is not a proceeding that ought to be justified; if this were proved to the full extent on the prisoners, although it is not a thing that I can at all call for your approbation upon, or desire your sanction to, yet it is quite another species of crime to that charged in this indictment; because these defendants are not indicted for having compounded the crime, or for extorting a sum of money to compound it, but that believing a man to be innocent, they maliciously prosecuted him as a guilty person, though they knew him to be innocent: the question is, whether on the evidence, (not merely on the evidence you have heard, for there is a great deal thatwill be contradicted) the question that you will have ultimately to try, will be this, whether you have any reason to think, that Priddle, or Holloway, or Stephens, or all of them together, did prefer this bill of indictment against Mr. Crossley, charging him with a perjury, and that they, or either of them, or any of them, such as you can fix by the evidence, had any reason to believe, that he was actually guilty of that offence: if they knew perfectly well that Snelling had given this undertaking, or that Snelling did make that promise to pay, which has been given in proof. - If you should be further of opinion, that all the other defendants knew it, and that therefore Mr. Crossley's affidavit was true, then I admit they are without all manner of defence. But on the other hand, if you should think Mr. Crossley to be perfectly innocent, he can never be tried for that crime again, and it never could be called into question but by his own indictment for a conspiracy; but if men are not content with an acquittal, it is impossible to prevent their being brought again into Court; if he is guilty, and the defendants can prove that guilt in this cause, it cannot be a malicious prosecution; but supposing him to be innocent, if he was not innocent with their knowledge, but that they proceeded upon reasonable and probable causes, then my Lord will tell you this to be the law, that if you should be of opinion that these people had a reasonable belief, that Mr. Crossley had taken a false oath, and that they intended not to proceed against him by indictment, but that in the hopes of extorting a sum of money, though there is no colour for that upon the evidence; but admitting even that the defendants intended to prosecute this Mr. Crossley, or to frighten and terrify him with this prosecution to get money of him, then believing he was guilty, but willing to give up the prosecution of that guilt for a sum of money, which he was well able to pay, it has no manner of connection with the crime you are trying, which is indicting him of an offence which they in their consciences believed him to be innocent of. Now I will lay before you not only some observations on the evidence that has been given, but state to you the evidence I am about to produce: Mr. Snelling most unquestionably had connections with this woman Mrs. Brumidgham, they were intimate, they were very much connected, and for any thing I know, she might sometimes pass under his name; and for ought I know, something of that sort may appear on the trial; Mr. Crossley says to-night, he was applied to originally by Mr. Snelling, that he told him in the most explicit terms, that he was to be pay master, that he knew him in 1774, and in a period of six years, never had any reason to find fault with him, or to doubt his payments, till he became acquainted with Priddle; but there has not been a conversation to night of any payment on the part of Mrs. Brumidgham; none of them have introduced Mrs. Brumidgham, but it is understood and stated by Mr. Crossley himself, that Mrs. Brumidgham, living under Mr. Snelling's protection, he promised to pay him for his labour; and now Mr. Crossley tells you, on his oath, that he was employed by Snelling, and not by Mrs. Brumidgham: after this cause he delivers in a bill on the 29th of May, 1779, and I shall prove by Mrs. Brumidgham, that the bill was not delivered to Mr. Snelling, that it was delivered to her, that it was made out, Mrs. Brumidgham debtor to Mr. Crossley, and not Mr. Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham, debtors. Now can any body believe that he should not know his own debtor, and should in the very first instance make out a bill, not Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham, but Mrs. Brumidgham? he never thought then of charging Mr. Snelling as his pay master, he never thought Mr. Snelling his debtor, all this never occurred to Mr. Crossley at that time; but his bill, which now lays before me, but which has been altered and written on an crazure, this identical bill was delivered first of all with a different title, Mrs. Brumidgham debtor to GeorgeCrossley, and the name of Snelling never made it's appearance upon it; from the proofs I have to lay before you, you will have little doubt on the subject. This was in May 1779. In Trinity Term, 1781, Snelling had employed this very Crossley to bring an action against a Mr. Marsh; and in order to get the debt and costs out of the hands of the defendant's attorney, he made an affidavit in the Court of King's Bench, in 1781, in which he positively swore, that he had delivered that bill to Mr. Snelling, on that occasion, Mr. Priddle was Snelling's attorney, and Snelling came forward, and positively denied that he ever gave any instructions to Mr. Crossley, that he ever employed him, that he ever retained him, or that any one single circumstance, which Crossley has mentioned now, is true; in consequence of that Mr. Crossley's rule was discharged: When Crossley found himself thus foiled, he brought an action (and this is the part I must particularly beg your attention to) he brought an action against Snelling, Snelling could not be examined himself, he was there defendant; then he brought his action (as you have heard from Mr. Crossley himself); that cause was referred, there was a judgment by default, it was afterwards made the subject of a general reference to Mr. Lowton; and Mr. Crossley tells you to-night, that he attended Mr. Lowton, who had a general reference, in order that the account might be taken, and it might be seen whether Snelling was indebted to Mr. Crossley or not; Mr. Crossley has been examined to-night, and he has produced his bills, and he says, that every one of the bills which he delivered, he delivered copies of to Mr. Lowton, (though he boggled at it at first), he said certainly, in every bill Mrs. Brumidgham was made jointly debtor with Snelling, and not alone: Now if Snelling was his employer, if he undertook and promised to pay him, why join Mrs. Brumidgham? On the other hand, if he knew that he had no other demand on Snelling, he had no manner to make out the bill, but to charge Mrs. Brumidgham to be debtor: Mr. Lowton after examining the accounts, after seeing his bills, declared that there was nothing due at all to him: and compelled him to pay the costs of that reference; now upon what grounds did, or could Mr. Lowton determine there was nothing due from Snelling to Mr. Crossley? if Mr. Crossley had produced the receipts I shall produce presently in evidence, Mr. Lowton will tell you he should have made a different award; if it appeared by all his books, by all his conduct, that his dealings had been with Mr. Snelling, and not with Mrs. Brumidgham; but when he saw this man had made Mrs. Brumidgham debtor and not Mr. Snelling, Mr. Lowton had no sort of difficulty in making an award in favour of Snelling against Mr. Crossley, and to make Mr. Crossley pay the costs of that reference; you will observe we are here examining all this as antecedent to this bill of indictment for perjury, which did not arise for several years afterwards; and you will see how, in consequence of this award in favour of Snelling, he brought an action against Mr. Crossley for arresting him, and holding him to bail on that very affidavit, which is the subject of this indictment; for in order to arrest him, he made this very affidavit, which is the subject of the trial to night: that action came on to be tried before my Lord Mansfield, and he told the Jury, (as I am persuaded the Recorder will tell you,) that it requires the very same evidences to obtain a verdict against a defendant in an action, for maliciously holding him to bail, and that the question is not whether by mistake, a less sum is due, but whether the affidavit is made maliciously? I have heard Lord Mansfield say, the very same evidence that is necessary to convict a man of perjury, is necessary to establish that action. Now you will attend to the observation I am about to make; when Snelling brought this action against Crossley, the question was, whether Mr. Crossley's affidavit, upon which he did hold Snelling to bail, was a true or false affidavit, and within the knowledge of Mr. Crossley who made it?and if the Jury and Judge who tried that cause had not been convinced that that was a false affidavit, they consequently would have given a verdict for him; I was Counsel for the plaintiff, and we produced in Court the affidavit which I have just now stated to you, made by Mr. Crossley in Trinity Term, 1781, in which he positively swore, that he had delivered them four bills; for the question was, to whom he had given credit; to whom he had originally given credit was to be determined by the first bill: you are to carry in your minds what was the first bill; that was the same of this date; I produced the affidavit, which was, that he delivered four bills, and each of those bills was intitused Snelling and Brumidgham; he swore that he delivered that bill to Snelling, and that Snelling was made the debtor; Mrs. Brumidgham will tell you, that it was originally made to her; and you will see what is now written, was written on an erazure; the affidavit being read, Snelling produced a bill the 29th of May, 1779; Mrs. Brumidgham, debtor to George Crossley , openly in Court; I will call witnesses who were present; I could prove it myself, it is written upon the back of my brief, in the very words in which it was produced; but it does not require any evidence, if in putting in the bill it appears to be what it was; if the bill was made out in the name of Mrs. Brumidgham, the evidence of the bill would not have corresponded with the affidavit; whereas the verdict was immediately taken, because the bill delivered in 1779, when compared with the affidavit, the instant my Lord Mansfield saw there was that variance, he told the Jury, the question you are to try is, whether Mr. Crossley has wilfully and falsely made the affidavit necessary, that Snelling was indebted to him in the sum of one hundred pounds. You see on the face of his bill it appears, that he did make Mrs. Brumidgham debtor, and therefore the plaintiff is intitled to a verdict. Now, Gentlemen give me leave to call your attention to a circumstance that strikes me to be very material indeed; Mr. Crossley was in Court at that time, he appeared to be in good health that day; he says he is ill now, and takes out his smelling bottle frequently; but he was sitting in Court when I opened the plaintiff's cause, and he said he never delivered any bill to Mrs. Brumidgham, for that I have under his own hand, and I will prove his bill. If he knew that he had given credit to Snelling and not to her; if he was conscious, as he must have been, that no such bill could have been produced; his conduct would have been, let me see this bill, let me look at it; now can any body suppose Mr. Crossley has so little sense, that when he felt himself oppressed, when Lord Mansfield declared it was the most wicked perjury he ever heard; if he knew that no such bill could be produced, that he would not instantly have called for the bill itself? But he did not; and why he did not, no reason can be assigned; but however, to-night I will put in the bill, and you gentlemen will be the Judges of it. Gentlemen, I doubt not but you will give me credit, when I assure you, that I have no connections or acquaintance with the defendants at all; God forbid I should. I come here from a sense of duty; and I assort that having opened the case in the hearing of Mr. Crossley, and having stated that I would produce a bill different intirely to the bill in 1781, made out by him to Mrs. Brumidgham alone. I say, gentlemen, that knowing all this, previous to this indictment; I thought it a duty incumbent upon me, though it was the night before term, I conceived it my duty to come in the behalf of these defendants; I thought it my duty to take care that these men should not intrust their case in the hands of another Counsel, wi, though much more capable of conducting it, had not been a witness to those transactions which my brief states, and which will be proved to you in the clearest manner. Gentlemen, let me repeat what passed before Mr. Lowton; Mr. Lowton had made his award: and he told Mr. Crossley so, Snelling being the plaintiff in thisagainst Crossley. Is not it strange; is not it incredible, is not it inconsistent with human belief, that a man who was awake, and an attorney too, and so smart and acute an attorney, and being concerned in many causes as I have very recently seen him concerned in; could sit still when I was to prove him guilty; when I was to state him guilty of perjury; and it was summed up by the Judge that the verdict should be given against him, and he never take any objection; he never says, my Lord this is not my hand-writing; he never told any one man living at the time; he does not even affect surprize, but suffers a verdict for sixty pounds, which must contaminate his character. Gentlemen, is not all this perfectly unaccountable? and now this night, when Mr. Crossley is called upon to account for it; why, he says it is a great distance of time, and he does not recollect, and he is not much given to attend to arguments of Counsel; and really wishes, gentlemen, to prevail on you to believe, that when he was there present in Court, and when his honour, his property, may his very existence, were at stake, that he was so unconcerned as not to listen to what the plaintiff's Counsel was going to produce in Court! Gentlemen, suppose the cause now trying, was against one of you, and the question was, whether you had given credit to A and B; you having sworn that you only gave credit to A, and the Counsel against you was ready to produce your own bill to contradict your affidavit, and make you guilty of perjury; would you be able to suppress your indignation? would not you be apt to break through the common rules of decency, to snatch it out of the hands of that man who held it up to you, to see by what soul practice it had been put into the hands of any Counsel to state? But instead of that, Mr. Crossley, without making an observation, and expressing no desire to look at it, not even after it was laid on the table, to see if it differed from that which he delivered out! - And Mr. Lowten will tell you, if it had been produced before him, he neither would not nor could have made the award he did! Gentlemen, Mr. Crossley gives no reason for all this, only says it is a great length of time, and takes out his smelling bottle - not at all well - might be instructing his Counsel! Now, Gentlemen, do me the favour to observe the purport of the receipts which are at different times, and of course, as he himself seems to admit in his examination were given at the times he received the money; for to be sure, when a man receives money, he gives a receipt; Mr. Crossley says that in general they were received of the persons and on the dates which the receipts themselves purport; now here are the different receipts, the first is,

"Received this 28th day of July, 1779,

"of Mr. Snelling, on account ten pounds

"ten, for Mrs. Brumidgham's business." Gentlemen, it may be said, that a man's paying money on account is the best proof that he is the debtor; but I will prove to you, as men of sense and as men of honour, after you have looked at these receipts (and you never can condemn any set of men, any of your fellow creatures, without taking a very serious view indeed of these papers). Gentlemen, what will you say if I prove to you, that on this very day he received that ten pounds, ten shillings, not from Mr. Snelling, of whom he says it was received, but I will prove to you, from Mrs. Brumidgham, that she paid him the money, and, that this is an absolute fabrication, a forgery; and had no existence before: The next is

"Received, the 3d of November,

"1779, of Mrs. Brumidgham,

"10 l. on account of the cause, Wortley

"and Brumidgham; and, in part of the

"bill delivered to her and Mr. Snelling." Now mark the art of this; I do protest, if the observation does not strike you, I shall conceive, that my mind is most singularly constituted; the receipts, by Mrs. Brumidgham's account, stood thus: -

"Received, this 28th of July, 1779,

"10 l. 10 s. on account of the law business

"under my care." He alters that to


" from Mr. Snelling." When Mrs. Brumidgham paid him the sum of money on the 3d of November, 1779, he gave this receipt,

"Received, this 3d of November,

"1779, 10 l. on account of my bill delivered;" Mrs. Brumidgham will swear that is the receipt, nay more, the person who copied this receipt, will come and swear this to be the receipt; when he had the opportunity of altering this receipt, he makes it thus:

"Received 10 l. 10 s. in

"part of my bill delivered to her and Mr.

"Snelling;" and this, to make you believe most undoubtedly, that the credit was given to them jointly: there are five receipts; they are every one of them substituted. Gentlemen, when Mr. Crossley found there was a verdict against him for 60 l. and that Lord Mansfield had made this declaration in Court; and feeling deeply, the situation he was in, he was extremely anxious to have this matter compromised; Mr. Holloway appears, on Mr. Lowe's evidence, to be a friend of all parties; and who wished to stop the very indictment that he is now charged with, Holloway knew nothing of these transactions, the name of Holloway does not appear in this cause, till after Mr. Lowton had made his award; and till after Lord Mansfield had made the declaration in a public and open Court, but Mr. Holloway knew of that sort of declaration; that Mr. Crossley had been guilty of a wilful, wicked, and deliberate perjury: in what? in the affidavit for holding Snelling to bail: Gentlemen, let me put this question to you, remember it may be your own case to be overpowered by false testimony, and remember, that the very same measure you make, it shall be measured to you again; I have the best opinion, both of your understandings and integrity; what evidence, in the name of God, is there before you? attend to this observation; what evidence is there before you, that Mr. Holloway knew, or had any reason to believe, that Lord Mansfield was wrong in the opinion that he declared in Court? What reason had he to believe, that that affidavit was not a forged affidavit? is there a tirtle of evidence of it; they want to make you believe, that the evidence was fabricated, on which the verdict was obtained for the malicious arrest; let me put this question to you, suppose you had been in Court yourselves, any of you, and had found the question was, whether Mr. Crossley had made a false affidavit or no, when he swore, that Snelling was indebted to him in 100 l? If you had heard from Mr. Lowton, that upon inspecting the books of Mr. Crossley, that upon inspecting the bills, that from his own evidence, he was clearly and conscientiously of opinion there was nothing due; should not you have had a reasonable ground to suspect, that Mr. Crossley was guilty of perjury: remember, you are not trying Mr. Holloway, for that he, believing Mr. Crossley to be a guilty person, wanted to compound his guilt; it is one thing to let off a guilty man for a sum of money; and another thing to prosecute an innocent man, knowing him to be innocent; and, gentlemen, in the name of God, what evidence is there before you, that Holloway, at that moment, did not believe him guilty? you never heard his name, but he is accidentally in court; and he finds, that Mr. Crossley is in a scrape; and all that Holloway does, is endeavouring to get a compromise; I say, taking this Mr. Crossley's evidence to be true, you will consider, that these defendants cannot be called as witnesses for one another. Now Gentlemen, with respect to poor Mr. Stephens, who stands there with a very contented countenance, what is he brought here to answer for? What is his motive? What quarrel ever took place between him and Mr. Crossley? What should induce him to ruin Mr. Crossley? What should induce him to believe Mr. Crossley to be innocent? Gentlemen, as soon as those bills were deposited in the hands of Mr. Lowes, certainly somehow or other Mr. Crossley got at them; they were proved in Court in their original state; he alters the bills and all the different receipts; having done that, he knows he is safe against the indictment for perjury; says he, I will prove that all the accounts are quite different to what the Gentlemen suppose; and he refused to pay the rest of

the money, and he said he would not pay a farthing of the debt and costs; then he brings a writ of error, and then he hangs it up: he alters the bill, it is the very same bill, he takes away the receipts and substitutes another, and now those receipts, which will be by and bye given to you, appear most evidently to be made all at one time; some are dated in 1780, and some in 1779, and it is very extraordinary, that a man, when he gives a receipt, should put it on the same paper with a former one, the very same papers will join, so that they have been all written on a sheet of paper at the same time.

Court. That applies to two of them, not to all?

Mr. Erskine. Yes, my Lord; all these receipts are on the same slip of paper, and they appear evidently to be written at the same time; I will call Mrs. Brumidgham, who will tell you positively that they are not the same, and have all been altered; if this turns out to be the case, surely it must make a great impression upon your minds, and it is not a very extraordinary thing that Mr. Snelling is not here to night, Mr. Crossley has not thought fit to bring him here, he is not standing here to be tried, and yet all the consequences of his guilt (taking him to be guilty) is to be fastened upon others: Suppose for a moment that Mr. Snelling had made this promise to Mr. Crossley, what is every attorney to be indicted for a conspiracy because he is missed by his client? Then what does Holloway do, he is the friend of both parties, and he wants to get a compromise between Mr. Crossley, Priddle and Snelling, who were going on with an indictment for perjury: when this prosecution is afterwards brought forward, Mr. Holloway's name is not mentioned, and, in my poor judgement, there cannot be any one article of evidence that can be twisted into this trial, that Holloway knew that Snelling had actually employed Mr. Crossley; you never see Snelling and Holloway in a situation together, the whole of the evidence is perfectly clear of such a charge; but even if there were, it is not the offence with which Mr. Holloway is charged by this indictment: But Gentlemen, when the cause is called on, and the witnesses are to be called out of Court, what does Holloway do? Why he declares in the open face of the Court, and my Lord had the humanity, as you recollect, Gentlemen, to say, that he remembered Mr. Holloway saying at the trial of Mr. Crossley, that he was subpoened, but did not know what he was to prove: Gentlemen, I may also observe, that Mr. Holloway is placed in a situation that may render it extremely inconvenient to the publick, if he is convicted; who will over venture to prosecute any man, or who will venture to be present when a compromise is going on? Is there any harm in supposing a man guilty, declared so by his country, and by the Judge, and by the arbitrator, whether he is guilty or not God knows; that must be left to his own conscience: has Mr. Crossley brought any one person to night to prove, that he asserted his innocence? Gentlemen, the man that is not brought before you, Snelling, is the only one that can be guilty of this charge, for he must have known it; but non constat Priddle did know it, and then he employs Priddle to bring that action; is Priddle proved to have fabricated that bill? Will any man say, that if Mr. Priddle puts in evidence, which is sufficient in the opinion of one of the greatest Judges, and of a dispassionate Jury to prove Mr. Crossley guilty? If Mr. Lowton's award is put into the scale, had not Mr. Priddle a right to believe, that Mr. Crossley was guilty? Gentlemen, I say, that even if you believe Mr. Crossley, you can have no colour or right to convict any of the defendants; for if you should be of opinion, that Holloway and Stephens knowing that this man was guilty, or believing him to be so, thought it a fit thing to get a sum of money out of him; that does not weigh one feather in the balance of this case; and I submit it to your consideration, whether you ought to consign men over to penalties,

and drive them from society; when the question you are to try on your oath is, whether Holloway knew Mr. Crossley was innocent or not? and there is no man who has stated a circumstance, that can lead you to say, that they have any reason to believe Mr. Crossley was innocent: and if not, there is not a colour for treating them, as they have been loaded to night: Holloway appears to have been the friend of all parties, and as a compensation, Mr. Crossley thought fit to pay him, by giving him ten guineas: Mappleback is a man of some note, but as to Mr. Sambridge, he is the enemy of Holloway in his profession; and with respect to his evidence, it is very extraordinary, that Holloway should be so extremely unguarded, and so very foolish, as he represents him to be. Gentlemen, thus the case stands; if you are of opinion this bill was the actual authentic bill delivered into Court, then nobody is guilty of the conspiracy; for there never can be a conspiracy to prosecute a man that is guilty: The first thing to be shewn is, that he is innocent; and the next thing is, to shew that there was reasonable or probable cause to believe him guilty; suppose you should not believe that this bill was as I assert it to be, but that Snelling actually did give that order that Mr. Crossley states, that would be evidence to convict Snelling; but in order to convict any other of the prisoners, it must appear, that they knew that Snelling had given that order, Snelling was so far from telling them, that he made his affidavit in the face of the Court, got a verdict in that action, and there is not any one conversation in which you find Snelling communicating to any one of these defendants, that in fact he had no cause of action: If Snelling is guilty, and it was known to the other prisoners, they are connected most undoubtedly in the iniquity; but because a man is wicked enough to bring a false action, is his attorney to be indicted as a conspirator. There would be an end to the administration of justice, if that was the case.

With respect to Holloway and Stephens, it does not appear that they ever were connected with the business, till after the trial in the King's Bench, and that trial was reasonable and probable cause for them to believe Mr. Crossley was guilty, even if they were proved to be prosecutors, which they are not. Gentlemen, I am extremely sorry you have been detained here so late at night; you have had a great deal of abuse thrown out against these persons; they cannot give evidence for one another; and there is an observation that will well become you to attend to; whenever you have reason to doubt the evidence of living witnesses, who come to speak under the influence of malice, even if they were of a higher description than Mr. Crossley is, whom I do not mean to impeach, that observation is this, that the safe resort of all Juries, is to have recourse to written evidence, which cannot lie, and which could not be fabricated. If you believe that written evidence, will not you be of opinion most clearly, that there is something foul and something dark in this business; and will not you see most clearly that the conspiracy turns the other way; that Mr. Crossley has conspired with other persons to ruin these men? Gentlemen, I shall trouble you no longer, only to remind you this is a severe prosecution, that the consequences are extremely heavy, and I am sure that you will never subject any of your fellow citizens to such consequences; when you must see that none of these defendants could possibly believe that Mr. Crossley was innocent, and that every thing they have done is perfectly legal, and nothing censurable in their conduct, except their wishing to prevent Mr. Crossley the disgrace of that prosecution.


I served a notice on Mr. Crossley for him to bring his books; it was served about twelve or one this morning, at the Rose, over the way.

Court. If this notice had been served at eight this morning, on Mr. Crossley, at

his residence, before he left it, it would have been in time.


Mr. Erskine. Did not Mr. Crossley produce his books before you? - Yes.

Did you examine the books? - I did, and from his books I judged on his case; I wish his books were here.

Did you examine them fully and correctly? - I did.

Did he deliver any bills? - He did not deliver any; there were bills laid before me on the behalf of Mr. Snelling.

Did Mr. Crossley attend you? - He did.

Had he an opportunity of seeing those bills that were delivered on the behalf of Mr. Snelling? - Yes.

There were bills delivered to you, purporting to be bills which Mr. Crossley had delivered? - Yes.

Were those bills seen by Mr. Crossley? - Yes, they were.

Did he object to any of them, as spurious, or fabricated, or different from what he had delivered? - He did not; Mr. Crossley was heard, and produced his books, and I examined his books; he never complained of what I had done.

Put in the award.

Mr. Garrow. I object to the award; one single fact, that Mr. Lowton made an award, is all I conceive that can be stated.

Mr. Erskine. Which way did you make the award? - In favour of Mr. Snelling.

Was it known to Mr. Snelling that the award was in his favour? - Yes.

To West. Did you examine the record in the cause of Snelling against Crossley? - I did.

Look at that, and see whether that is a copy of the record? - It is.

Was you in Court when that action was tried? - No, I was not.

To Mr. Lowton. You was examined in the course of this cause? - I was.

Do you recollect Mr. Priddle's being in Court? - I do, Priddle was attorney for Snelling; Priddle knew also of the award that I had made.

Was Mr. Snelling in the Court, during that time? - He was.

Mr. Erskine, to Mr. Crossley. Was Holloway in Court? - I believe he was; he told me he was a witness.

Was Stephens in Court? - He was examined as a witness.

To West. Did you make any copy of a bill in the possession of Mr. Priddle; is that your hand writing? - This is my hand writing; I copied it from this.

Where did you get the bill, you copied this from? - Mr. Priddle gave it me.


Mr. Erskine. Did you employ Mr. Crossley to defend any action for you? - Yes.

Was it yourself that employed him?

Court. I think you are not at liberty to give evidence to prove Mr. Crossley's evidence false.

Did you receive any bill of fees and disbursements from Mr. Crossley? - I certainly did.

Do you recollect the date of it? - I cannot recollect the date.

What did you do with the bill when you got it? - I put it by; he delivered the bill to me, and I put in a little drawer, in a bureau or book-case.

What became of it afterwards? - I should think I did not part with it till I gave it to Mr. Priddle; I paid him several sums of money; he gave as good receipts as any man in the world.

How many sums did you pay him? - I cannot say.

How many receipts had you in all? - I cannot tell.

What sums did you pay him? - There was 10 l. and 12 l. there were more than two of 10 l. I think.

What did you do with the receipts? - I put them by.

Where are they? - I gave them to Priddle.

Should you know the receipts if you saw them? - I think I should; they were receipts to me.

Can you read? - Yes.

Read that, is that one of the receipts that was given to you? - That certainly is one.

Look at that? - That is not it; my receipts were worn very much; Mr. Priddle certainly has my receipts.

Look at that? - These were mine.

Were they as clean? - I am not clear, but I rather think that I folded them, if not in the common way as they sold them up, in four, and put them into a little drawer.

Then they are not your receipts? - No Sir, not all, on my dying pillow, I could have the sacrament administered to me on that.

Did Mr. Crossley ever make any demand on you? - He never did, he always treated me like a gentlewoman.

Court. Are you sure you folded them up, and put them in a drawer? - Yes.

Then you gave them to Mr. Priddle? - Yes.

You did not carry them about in your pockets? - No.

Mr. Fielding. How long have you resumed the name of Brumidgham? - Ever since the year 1763.

How are the accounts settled between you and Snelling? - They are not settled at all.

How much is he in your debt now? - In May 1783, Mr. Crossley sued out a writ against Snelling at my suit, the sum is 400 l. and Snelling gave me this bond for 300 l. this man had owed me a great deal of money that was in his hands; Mr. Crossley knew that; Mr. Crossley was intimate with me a considerable time; he knew of my distresses; I am at work now for my daily bread.

Your situation at present is rather an unhappy one, you are obliged to work for your living? - Yes Sir; at the time I applied to Mr. Crossley to get this money out of the hands of Mr. Snelling, my circumstances were better; I had then about 300 l. by me, which put me into the shop I have now; I had 300 l. by me when I gave Mr. Crossley those directions; Mr. Snelling lived in Bandy-leg-walk; he was down at Warley Common occasionally.

Who kept the booth there? - I did.

Was not he there the better part of the week? - No, he was a man of business at that time.

Did not you live with Mr. Snelling and pass for his wife? - Never in my life; Mr. Crossley never knew me but to be Mrs. Brumidgham.

Did you never go by the name of Snelling? - Never by my consent or by my desire.

Were you never called Mrs. Snelling? - I certainly have Sir, I never can account for what people call me; it never was my desire; all the business that I transacted in my life, was by the name of Brumidgham.

How ever disagreeable it was to you, the fact was, that the people called you Mrs. Snelling? - Some persons did; they might probably.

Am I to understand that the people, (however disagreeable to you) did call you Mrs. Snelling? - I certainly have been called Snelling, there is not a doubt of it.

In the publick way, at least the people use to take the liberty of calling you Mrs. Snelling? - Yes.

This for a considerable time? - I do not know Sir.

The people used to take the liberty of calling you by this name for several years? - The people that did not know me; but nobody that knew me or any of my private concerns.

Mr. Erskine. Did Mr. Crossley ever call you by the name of Snelling? - No Sir, never; he knew me to be Mrs. Brumidgham.

Mr. Fielding. How came you to load your pockets with all these papers and parchments? - I did not know but they might be wanted.

Do you know whether Mr. Snelling was ever impudent enough to say that he lived with you as his wife? - I do not know that he ever did say so.

Upon your oath? - I really cannot say what he might say, he was a man of business at that time.

Do not you know that he gave out to people, that you was his wife, and that he lived with you as such? - I do not think he ever did, or that he ever gave me the appellation of wife in his life.

Court. Whose house did you live in? - I lived in Mr. Snelling's house; he was bail for me in the action when I was first arrested.

How many more inmates were there? - Sometimes nobody, sometimes the house was let to other persons.

How long did you live in this house? - I should suppose for six years; I was always Mrs. Brumidgham, with Mr. Crossley.

How came it that Mr. Snelling should be possessed of the full half of your property, four hundred pounds? - The bond is but three, however.

Well then, I will take it for three; how happened it that you should intrust so large a sum of money with Snelling? - I do not know, so it was; I had his note that had been for two or three years standing, and that writ was sued out by Mr. Crossley; he sued out that action for this note.

Had you any husband alive at that time? - Yes Sir, I had; I knew where he was, and so did Mr. Crossley; he went to his sister, to subpoenea her upon the trial, and when the trial was at Westminster, Mr. Crossley knows that my husband came there, and eat beef-stakes and onions.

Have you seen Snelling lately? - I believe it may be five or six weeks since I saw him.

Did he ever tell you that he attended the trial of Mr. Crossley for perjury? - I was turned out of Court and every body else was.

Then you did not hear him say in Court, that you had lived with him as his wife? - I did not.

Did he never tell you that he said so, afterwards? - No, Sir, he did not, indeed.

Did you never ask him how Mr. Crossley became acquitted so easily? - I heard how it was in the Court.

Mr. Erskine. Mr. Crossley always called you by the name of Brumidgham? - Yes.

Mr. Fielding. Upon your oath, did not you desire Mr. Crossley to call you by the name of Snelling in particular company? - I do not think he ever did; I am sure he could not.

You know Mr. How's, in Tower-street? - Yes.

He was an acquaintance of Snelling's as well as your's? - Yes, I never assumed any other name in my life.

Snelling's business was country business; he never had any in town? - It was Snelling's house, and I was called Snelling in it, and so at the camp.

How came Mr. Crossley to know any thing of your confinement at Warley-common? - Snelling came to town to him, and he came to me.

When he wrote to you, he always addressed you by the name of Brumidgham? - He certainly did Sir.

Did Mr. Crossley know you was a woman of property? - Yes Sir, he soon became acquainted with it; he never asked me for money in his life but he had it.

Mr. Holloway to Alexander. When I saw you at Guildhall, when I was subpoened against Mr. Crossley, whether I did not express a little dislike to appear against Mr. Crossley, and whether I did not ask him how he could think I was his enemy? - What I know of what Mr. Holloway observed to me in the Hall was, says he, I came here on this business; but says he, I know nothing of it.

Mr. Garrow to Mr. Alexander. Was you acquainted with Snelling? - I have seen him at Mr. Crossley's; this woman was backwards and forwards there; I knew her by the name of sometimes Snelling, and sometimes Brumidgham.

JOHN HALL sworn.

What are you? - A butcher.

Do you know Mr. Mappleback? - Yes.

Have you seen him here to day? - Yes.

How long have you known him? - Five or six years.

Would you believe Mappleback upon his oath? - I would not from the character I have heard of him.

Mr. Garrow. Master Hall, you have got a fine waistcoat on, we are dressed most of us for the term, which of the Courts do you go to from here? - None at all.

That trade of bailing (as money is scarce) is pretty well knocked up with you, they tell me? - I never had any trade there.

Do you know Westminster Hall? - Yes.

When you swore yourself worth 2000 l. the Court of Common Pleas would not accept you for ten pounds? - I am not worth so little as two thousand pounds; then nor now, I am worth it; they did not accept of my bail.

That strange Court of Common Pleas would not take your bail; the Court of Common Peas, insisted on having the money first paid, as it was so small a sum, do you swear that? - That was the answer that my Lord Chief Justice gave me.

Perhaps his Lordship asked you where you came from, where did you describe yourself to live at that time? - I dare say it is five or six years ago since I attempted to justify for any body.

By what description did you attempt to justify? - It was to oblige a person.

By what description, how did you describe yourself? - For what I know I might live in the Kent road.

But by what description did you attempt to justify bail for that ten pounds? - I cannot attempt to recollect that; I described myself as a salesman.

Where do you keep your shop? - In the Borough, High-street; I am a butcher; I live there now.

Where did you describe yourself to live? - It might be at Kilbar; it is so many years ago, I have forgot.

Do you know Mr. Nayler? - Yes.

Has not he a judgement against you for six pounds? - I believe not; I do not suppose he has.

Has not he had it for six years, and cannot get it, do you mean to swear that is not true? - I will not swear that, I did bail one Dr. Fitz Jo, at the request of a friend.

Who was the gentleman that you attempted to bail for that ten pounds? - A Gentleman in the country, a person that asked me as a favour; I was to have nothing for my trouble; I was an hired bail.

Holloway to Mappleback. Did not you meet me on the other side Westminster-bridge, and I then said to you, Mr. Mappleback, to my astonishment, I hear you are to be an evidence against me, and you took me by the hand and said, you knew nothing of it, and could prove nothing against me? - I was riding over Black-fryars-bridge, and Holloway called after me, and Mr. Sambidge was with him; says he, I have sixteen or twenty pounds to pay; oh! says he, what a damned thing it is, we cannot make it up; says he, here is Priddle in the coach; says I, how do you do Priddle; I went to Sambidge's to meet him, but he never came.

Where was I to meet you? - At Mr. Sambidge's that night.

Mr. Garrow to Mappleback. Do you know Hall? - I know nothing of Hall, but he borrowed three guineas of me and I never got it again.

Is Hall to be believed upon his out? - He is a man not worth two-pence; I can borrow 100 l. where he cannot borrow a penny.


I served Mr. Holloway with a subpoenea, on the 8th of November last, to attend that trial.

Mr. Garrow. Who are you? - David Finley .

You served a subpoena; who are you? - I am in the profession of the law.

Whose clerk are you? - I am not clerk to any body, nor have not been for years.

In what character did you serve the subpoenea on Mr. Holloway? - As a friend to Mr. Priddle, without fee or reward.

In what character did you attend the trial? - Merely out of curiosity.

Do you know, Mr. Hall, the witness, who has been examined here? - Hall the butcher; I have seen him I believe, once or twice in my life, in the Borough.

Have you never seen him in Westminster-hall? - Never in my life that I know of; I never heard of it.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, we have done.

Mr. Silvester. May it please your Lordship, and you Gentlemen of the Jury, to favour me at this early hour with attention, to a few observations in reply; I am sure I do not wish to take up more of your time than is absolutely necessary, but it is a duty which I owe to the publick as well as to myself and to make some remarks, not only upon the curious defence set up by my learned friend, but on the evidence given, both on the part of the prosecution and of the defendants; my learned friend set out with saying, that he was shocked and surprised at a great deal which he had heard in the course of this trial, and that he imagined you must have felt as he did, to hear such a charge against persons of the character and situation of his clients, or, as he very singularly and remarkably expressed and described them from those who sent him hither: But Gentlemen, the question will be, whether he has either by his observation, or by his evidence in any manner, impeached the testimony I have adduced, in support of that charge? he talks very much about the probable cause these defendants had for instituting this indictment; whether they had or not a probable cause, is a matter of fact as well as law, which you are the judges of, and upon which you must determine by your verdict; my learned friend stated, that I had not paid any compliments to the prosecutor of this indictment, I own I forbore, however ample the field might be; it was not my wish, and I trust never will be my practice to prejudice the minds of a Jury; I therefore left the case to its own merits, stating only that these defendants had been guilty of a foul conspiracy, to deprive Mr. Crossley of his character, by accusing him of perjury. I have now a right to say, (because it has been found in evidence, because a Jury of his country have decided it) that he was not guilty of the perjury in the indictment hatched by the defendants. And I am further warranted to assert, that so far as my learned friend endeavoured to insinuate imputations of perjury even on the evidence that has been called this day, you will by and by see on which side that evidence attached, and on which side that evidence deserves credit: My learned friend stated to you, that Mr. Crossley had altered the bills delivered to Mr. Priddle, and he pledged himself to you, that he would prove, that the bills delivered by Mr. Crossley to Mr. Snelling and Mrs. Brumidgham, were afterwards altered for the purpose of this prosecution; a little recollection will shew how malicious that accusation is; the bills were delivered to Mrs. Brumidgham, and from her they came to Mr. Priddle; Mr. Priddle delivered them to Mr. Lowes, and he brings them into Court; upon the face of the first bill, you will see that alteration does not exist in fact; of course then that assertion falls to the ground: But says my learned friend, there must be a forgery in this business, so there undoubtedly was, and there is no question on which side that forgery was committed; was it not committed by the defendants, or one of them and his associates, for the purpose of proving Mr. Crossley guilty? Mr. Erskine says, as to the bill, he Mr. Crossley said, he delivered the first to Snelling, and now proceeds Mr. Erskine; I will prove to you Gentlemen, that the first bill was delivered to Mrs. Brumidgham; has he proved that fact? far from it, for Mrs. Brumidgham does not recollect the date of the first bill delivered, again my learned friend says, what influence had Holloway over Priddle? Why says he, Mr. Holloway; was sebpoenad upon that trial? Is that the fact? Is Mr. Holloway that unwilling witness? Is he that man, forced contrary to his inclination to attend? He afterwards said so, it is true; but he told Mr. Sambidge himself, that it was a concerted

scheme, it is therefore clearly part of the conspiracy itself, it is a part of the very fraud, that Mr. Holloway's name did not appear on the back of that indictment; my learned friend says, Stephens had no interest; then how came he on the back of the bill? How came his name there together with Mr. Snelling's and Mr. Priddle's? The question is, whether or no it has not been a conspiracy by these four persons, to prosecute Mr. Crossley, for this supposed this trumped up perjury? An observation has been made likewise, that Snelling is not here before you. Why, Gentlemen, a moment's consideration gives that observation quite a new aspect, for by Snelling not being here, we are precluded from giving in evidence before you, several conversations that would have explained the whole of that transaction; my learned friend concludes his speech, by attacking Mappleback, and stating, that Mr. Sambridge having quarrelled with Mr. Holloway, is a foe to him; Mr. Crossley he says also comes here a bitter foe to him; there is no imputation upon Mr. Crossley or Mr. Sambridge's character, yet they are both above the reach of malice, nor within the Pale of censure, but from the misfortune of ever having any communication with the defendants, yet they are to be attacked; my learned friend at the same time throwing such an imputation upon Mr. Lowes, a Barrister of high respect, and unimpeachable character, that if what he says is true, Mr. Lowes must be guilty of perjury; for he has sworn, that these very papers, which he received of Mr. Priddle, he returned to Priddle's hand; nobody altered them, and if they had been altered, he must have known it: Gentlemen, after this, Mr. Erskine proceeds to call his witnesses: The first evidence he produces is Mr. Lowton, and after having attempted by all his ingenuity to bring before you what he knew was not evidence, that is, what Lord Mansfield and Mr. Lowton had said at a different place; and having dwelt much on the indignation that noble peer expressed at the time, he tells you, that it had that effect on the mind of Priddle, as to induce him to believe, that Mr. Crossley had been guilty of perjury; suppose it had, should they on a surmise, prefer an indictment against Mr. Crossley, without any enquiry into the transaction? But is that the case? Had it that effect on their minds? Were they impressed with any idea that he had been guilty of perjury? Did they take up that idea immediately and prefer an indictment? No, they staid to attempt to make an advantage of Mr. Crossley; they had an eye to Mr. Crossley's property; they endeavoured to frighten him; was it from the motive of what they heard in the Court? No, it was for the purpose of getting money, that he was a good milch cow, and from him they would get hundreds: that was their motive, it is proved in evidence by several witnesses, that the defendant said, that if Mr. Crossley would come down handsome, they themselves would not go on with the prosecution; shall they then shelter themselves by what was said in a Court of Justice, when that learned Judge was misled by those very papers which Holloway boasted had only been fabricated seven days? Gentlemen, whatever Mr. Holloway may express now, I wish he had felt a little before he had done it: was Mr. Crossley mistaken in the information he received from Mr. Snelling? What passed in company with Mr. Alexander, a man of reputation, a man of character? Snelling was angry with Crossley, because he wanted to put an end to the whole transaction, but Mr. Crossley did not expect false bills to be produced against him; therefore Mr. Alexander did not attend that trial: Gentlemen, when you consider what is proved in evidence, of Holloway's boasting the day after that trial, and laughing at Crossley, and calling him a fool, because he did not know his own hand writing, but saying to Mr. Sambridge, that he was a good milch cow, that he had had two ten pounds, and would have more of him; you cannot suppose for a moment, that Holloway ever believed Mr.Crossley was guilty of the perjury? So far from it, that he admits that the cause of this prosecution was to have money; on but says Mr. Erskine, you never saw Holloway's name till after that trial; why who was the go-between? Who was at the Leaping Bar? Who went to Mr. Lowes's? and who attended at the Mitre when the money was paid? - Holloway and Priddle. Was there no connection then? But pray was there no connection between them? Why how came all these people at the trial, and when the bill is preferred, Holloway boasts, that he had instructed the witnesses what to say? that Priddle, on consultation with him, previous to the indictment being preferred, thought it was better to leave him out of the bill; and as to Stephens, why they all go together to consult Priddle, and Priddle and Stephens go out together; and when they come in again, says Stephens, by God it shall not be settled under 200 l. and if the Jury find a bill of indictment, then we will have 500 l.? Did he do this for the sake of justice? No. Gentlemen, is there a single witness to prove that at any one time they ever prosessed to believe that Mr. Crossley was guilty? Did Snelling himself believe that affidavit to be false, because that is an argument made use of; for if he had believed it, then he had a probable cause for the prosecution of Mr. Crossley: Could he believe it? it is inconsistent with his conversation throughout the whole transaction; and when they all separately wished to make it up; nay even Snelling himself wanted to make it up; he says he is urged on by Holloway and Priddle; Stephens says, when Priddle wants him to be bail for a man of the name of Grant; no, says he, he shall not; I will do nothing for him, unless you indict Crossley; says he, we shall get a thousand out of him; he has money, and will not have the scandal of a trial: Well but my learned friend says, Mrs. Ann Brumidgham is to be a very material witness in this business; she is to prove that those receipts are not the receipis she received from Crossley; and an observation is made that two of the bills are written on the same paper; that is likely enough, and Priddle has ingenuity enough to do that; now it seems to me that the making the two edges meet is not a very difficult thing; supposing two pieces of paper, and these are taken together, laid level, and cut down with a knife, and then notch them a little, and they will match pretty near together; but if by accident they should, is that sufficient for you to impute perjury to Mr. Lowes? - What will you say to Priddle applying to Mr. Lowes to get these papers; and on receiving them from him, looks them over and says they are right; if he meant fair, Priddle should have preferred his indictment first, and given Mr. Lowes notice to produce the bills; no, but he threatens Mr. Lowes to move the Court of King's Bench against him; and at last forces Mr. Lowes to give up the bills; What is Mr. Crossley's conduct, but the conduct of a very innocent man; says he, give them to him; but Mr. Lowes had the precaution to take copies of those bills before they were delivered, knowing the man he had to deal with; therefore it is clear that these bills came back into the possession of Priddle, for him to make any alteration he thought proper in; and with respect to Mr. Crossley knowing Mrs. Brumidgham's name too, that was perfectly clear; that was proved before, because Mr. Crossley is employed on the behalf of Mr. Snelling, and pleads that she is a married woman, and married to a man of the name of Brumidgham, and therefore is not liable to the debt; at last it did come out that many people called her Snelling; and she confirms Mr. Crossley in another part of the story, that he went to Warley Common to bail her. The next evidence is a curious one, Mr Hall, the butcher; and Gentlemen, you know, when a debt is to small as 10 l. few enquiries are made into the ability of the person that becomes bail; but I have a right to say that he was not worth 2000 l. If the Court thought fit toreject him for 10 l. and I think you are of opinion that not much credit is to be paid to such witnesses. The next witness has proved just nothing at all; but the service of a subpoena. Now, Gentlemen, as you have heard the evidence of Mrs. Brumidgham, of Mr. Lowton, of Mr. Hall, I have a right to ask you is there any thing in their testimony that alters the case I opened at first? if there is not, you have my learned friend's opinion, that the charge is so strong against the defendants as to convict them; I need not call a better witness than Mr. Erskine himself; for if you lay Mr. Crossley's evidence intirely out of the case, you then have the evidence of Mappleback; if you believe him, whom my learned friend admits to be a man of undoubted character, that is sufficient to convict them. Damn him, says Holloway, I will do him over, by God, I will indict him; we shall get 1000 l. out of him; you know I was at the making the agreement; he is a good milch cow; I have got 20 l. out of him already: that was before the indictment was found; and after the bill is found, his language is, that bill is found, damn him we will do him up, if he does not come down: are you acquainted, Mr. Mappleback, with Crossley? No, he was a perfect stranger, says Priddle to Mappleback, (who like a good-natured man wishes he could put an end to this business) says Priddle, you shall give 300 l. (and he said he would bo damned it he took less) then they came to 200 l. Holloway less diligent in his part of the scene, urges Crossley, and argues; this indictment will be the ruin of you! And with respect to the testimony of Mr. Mappleback, his son married Priddle's daughter: what connection there may be, I cannot say; but if you believe the evidence, it is sufficient to convict all the three defendants; for do they pretend at any one time that they believed the story of the perjury to be true, and that it was for the sake of justice? no, give me my securities and 300 l. and here is an end of the whole transaction. But Gentlemen, when Mr. Sambridge comes to give his evidence, be opens such a scene against Mr. Holloway, that it makes me shudder to think there is such a person, so vile a miscreant, such a disgrace to human nature, and the honor of mankind as Holloway, to be found in the world; and I have a right to say what you must be convinced of, that Mr. Sambridge comes here to give his testimony as an honest man; and has delivered it with much steadiness, eandour and impartiality. With respect to Stephens; why in the presence of Mr. Lowes, Stephens says, that he would find money to prosecute. Gentlemen, I have hastily run over the heads of the evidence, and I must make this observation to you, that if you believe the testimony on the part of the prosecution, in point of law, all three of the defendants are guilty of the conspiracy: four men conspiring together to indict another, unless they have good and probable cause, which must be proved to you by evidence, and legal evidence; not by suspicion, not by surmise; I say you must find them guilty: the only way you can judge of their mind and intentions is from their conduct at the time of the first trial for the malicious arrest; they are all there, and Mr. Erskine makes it an argument in favour of the prisoners; but it convinces me that they had then some plan in contemplation to attack or ruin Mr. Crossly; which plan, I say, rests in their breasts, and they all meet there for the purpose of carrying it on. What is their conduct afterwards? Why they discover the fraud to Sambridge, who they thought was their friend, and that long before the bill was found. Gentlemen, had these defendants any cause to say that this Mr. Crossley has committed the crime of perjury. A Jury of his country have acquitted him of that charge; they thought the charge foul, and these men knew it to be so, better they came before a Court of Justice. These men have evaded the justice of their country, for a long time; but justice though slow, is sure, and I trust the time is now come when it has overtakenthem; when they by their own folly have discovered their iniquity, and that the measure of their iniquities is now full; it is high time that a stop should be but to their niquity, for the measure of it is now running over: God knows who they may apply to next, whether some of you Gentlemen, or even my laarned friend himself, may not be the subject of a foul conspiracy, conducted by men who are so artful, so hackneyed in the ways of wickedness that nothing could resist them; well then might Mr. Crossley be frightened and shudder at the idea of the hands he had got into; and it has been made an argument, to prove Mr. Crossley's guilt; because he was silent when these false papers were produced in a Court of Justice. Now I confess it is the conduct of any honest man, to hold down his head, and say, good God! I am a ruined man; here is a forgery against me; and this forgery so executed, I cannot distinguish it from reality; why Gentlemen, perjury is the next step to forgery, and I do not wonder Mr. Crossley should say, if my property is not worth having, my life they will have next: he suspected forgery from the evidence he heard in Court, but the next day he had full proof of the transaction from the mouth of Holloway himself; and because Mr. Crossley did not instantly bring them to justice, it is now to be made an argument against him, that he had not resolution enough to combat it: it was enough to strike any man dumb; it did strike Mr. Crossley dumb; and Mr. Erskine says, he never moved for a new trial; but what advantage could he have had from a new trial? he had no evidence of the fraud, but that man; with what evidence therefore could he come before the Court; if they got the first verdict by forgery, they would have kept that verdict by perjury; and Mr. Crossley would have found himself in a situation to make an affidavit, that would be contradicted by four men in Court, who had the bills in their power. Gentlemen, you will consider therefore the whole of this case; I am sure you will exercise your judgements, and determine impartially; I have to lament at this late hour, it should fall to me to make a reply in a case of such length; and having been in Court so early as I was, I have done it very imperfectly; but I have observed your great attention to the witnesses who have been examined, and you will have it summed up to you by the learned Judge. I entrust the case of Mr. Crossley, therefore in your hands; and when I say, I entrust his case, I also entrust his honour, his character, and his reputation in your hands: I have a right to demand for him the justice of his country, as my learned friend had on the part of the defendants; if you believe the evidence on the part of the prosecution, Mr. Crossley has a right to your verdict; his character is as dear to him as the defendants can be: all I wish for him is, that you would do to him as you would be done by; if you think he deserves redress; if you think he is an injured man, as I am conviced he is, by a foul conspiracy of these three men now before you, that you will give him that redress by your verdict. Gentlemen, I leave his cause in your hands, being fully satisfied that justice will be done.

Mr. Holloway. My Lord and Gentletlemen, would you permit me to say a few words, I must confess that after what I have heard to night, it is desirable to me that my existence might end this night; for in my life, I never heard so much before, and I hope I never shall again: I find my Counsel has omitted reading Mr. Crossley's former letter, wherein he calls me his friend, and thanks me for my attention to this perjury business; I now tell it before Mr. Crossley, that the very evening of the trial, after Lord Mansfield had expressed the words, you have heard; Mr. Crossley came to me and said, you have influence over Priddle, I feel my situation, and I fear I never shall get the better of it; we have had several meetings from the time that these papers were deposited in the hands of Mr. Lowes for Crossley's quiet and safe, from that hour till the hour I was subpoened, I never knew that Mr. Crossley was indicted;

I never told Mr. Sambridge any of the words that he has made use of; nor did I ever speak with Mappleback till I met him over the bridge, and asked him what he could have to say to me: I wish Mr. Crossley still would do me a little justice; I think Mr. Sambridge would relent of the foul story he has told, not one sylable is true, as God shall judge me.

Court. Gentlemen of the Jury, the three prisoners are indicted for a conspiracy, for falsly, and without probable cause to indict; and in pursuance of that conspiracy indicting and prosecuting George Crossley , for wilful and corrupt perjury: I am afraid it will not be in my power to state to you the law, and the material observations of so long a cause, with that distinctness and precision, which justice would require; but I must trust to your great attention, to supply any defects on my part, with respect to that: I will however endeavour as clearly as I can, to state to you the points of this indictment, which I conceive are necessary in point of law to be proved to your satisfaction, before you can find the prisoners, or any of them guilty of the charge. The charge is this, for conspiring (together with one John Snelling , not now upon trial) without any reasonable or probable cause to indict Mr. Crossley, for perjury, in an affidavit made for the purpose of holding John Snelling , one of the conspirators to bail, for the sum of 100 l. and for causing in consequence of that conspiracy, Mr. Crossley to be falsly and without probable cause, indicted for that offence: It is necessary in this case to prove first, that at least two of the persons contained in this indictment, are guilty of the charge; because the indictment, stating it to be the result of conspiracy and combination; the law as well as common sense, says, that the offence cannot be committed by a single person, and therefore, one person alone, cannot be convicted of a conspiracy; but I conceive the law to be, that where more persons than one are indicted for a conspiracy, though some of them are absent and not on their trial at the time; if the Jury are satisfied that any one of the prisoners at the bar, conspired either with their fellow prisoners, or with an absent person, that one may be found guilty. It is necessary to support this charge, not only that the indictment should have been founded upon insufficient ground, which it is proved to be by the acquital of Mr. Crossley; but it is necessary that the Jury should be satisfied, that at the time of confederating together, the defendants had no reasonable or probable cause to believe, that the charge was well founded at the time, though it might appear to be otherwise. If it is done corruptly, the law considers that as maliciously; whatever indictment is prosecuted against a party for any other purpose, than that of publick justice, whether personal malice or resentment, or from the corrupt purpose of making use of the weapons of the law, that is considered as a malicious prosecution: but in this particular instance of an indictment for a conspiracy to prosecute without probable cause; it is not sufficient in point of law, that even the strongest degree of malice should be clearly proved, provided the defendants can shew, that they had a probable cause for doing that which they did, even on a malicious motive; so that though you should be satisfied that the defendants were actuated by malice, or the corrupt view of acquiring money to themselves; yet if they can satisfy your minds, that they had a reasonable ground to believe themselves at the time, that Mr. Crossley was guilty of this offence, though they made a corrupt use of belief; they are not guilty of the crime charged in the present indictment: that I conceive is the state of the law on the question, you will therefore attend to the evidence as applied to that law, and observe whether all the points are made out necessary to prove this charge.

Here the learned Recorder summed up the evidence which took up two hours.

The Jury conferred a few minutes and found a verdict.



Prisoner Stephen's. I hope your Lordship will consider me; I have a mother eighty years old, and a wife and five small children.

Prisoner Holloway. I submit to the Court; I do assure your Lordship, that however I may appear culpable as I here stand; I stand the most dreadful example that ever fell to revenge, and the time is at no great distance when it will so appear; I can say, that this is the first time, that that ever my enemies can say, I was brought to trial or convicted; and, in the courts where I practiced, I never yet, I believe, had a motion made against me; if I had known the evidence that would have been preferred against me, I could have brought such evidence, some of whom would not have been strangers to your Lordship; that would have proved my innocence; I beg leave to observe, that I have laboured under a scene of oppression for some time; I have been convicted now on the evidence of Sambridge and Crossley chiefly; this is only one out of nine indictments preferred against me; bills in chancery, articles of peace; Sambridge indicted me for perjury, when I never took an oath; Mr. Sambridge arrested me for 1000 l. and never proceeded against me from that hour to this, but if I would forego an indictment against him, then he would give me a general release; last night that ever was he sent for me about making up this busisiness, and unfortunately, it did not strike me again, or I could have brought people into court that could have detected him in the falsehood, which he asserted while he stood here. My Lord, under the unhappy circumstances I now am, with an aged father to keep, and a large family; I only intreat, that your Lordship will be as mild as possible in the sentence; for here I stand; and I avow to God and man, I would rather have been capitally convicted, than to lay in prison, or to suffer any ignominious punishment, that I dare not go abroad afterwards; My Lords, circumstanced as I am, I believe it is too late to appeal to Mr. Crossley; but the money that was talked of; (for I will, at this dreadful moment, once more appeal to him the 15 l. he gave me by the note, as stated by Mr. Lowes, was strictly true, but it was fifteen pounds out of thirty, which he took from me in the moment of distress; and this letter would have proved it: with respect to Mr. Sambridge, your Lordship knows the bickerings there has been between us; he took me in execution for 160 l. and he invited me to go to supper; Crossley was there; he took me in execution again, instead of settling the matter.

Prisoner Priddle. For my own part I feel myself no way affected, for I came here with as much confidence and assurance, that we should go off, in a very little while, with great honour; but Mr. Crossley and Mr. Sambidge, whom I do not know I ever saw him before, have got the better of us; I hope your Lordship will take our sentence into consideration.

Prisoner Holloway. A man in another situation is not deprived of his bread, after he has suffered the sentence of a conviction of this kind; but the only consolation I have, is; if I out-live the punishment I have to undergo, I shall make it appear to your Lordship, how unjust and wicked a prosecution this is; how well it has been managed, the gentlemen who have managed it best know.

Court. William Priddle , Robert Holloway , and Stephen Stephens : you have been convicted after a very patient and attentive hearing of many hours; and a full examination of every circumstance on both sides, by a very cautious and attentive Jury, of an offence, in itself extremely dangerous in its nature; and perhaps that danger is aggravated by the situation in which two of you stand, as men in the profession of the law; whose talents and knowledge of their

profession, ought to have been employed to better purposes; for your profession gives you a very dangerous opportunity of ruining the innocent! The measure that justice seems to point out, would be, to inflict on you, the like punishment, which the court would have thought proper to have inflicted on the object of your malicious prosecution, if that object had been found guilty: The court will however, always remember justice with mercy; and, as a necessary consequence of the sentence, which it is the indispensable duty of the court, to pronounce upon you, in such a case as the present, may probably carry with it an additional degree of punishment to you Mr. Priddle and Mr. Holloway; therefore, the court will, in some degree, take that into consideration, as also, what has been pleaded by the other defendant Stephens: Your cases seem to be liable to no other distinction than this: That Mr. Priddle being the person immediately concerned as Attorney for Snelling, appears to have been the principal fabricator of this business, though you, Robert Holloway , and Stephen Stephens appear to have very readily followed up the plan which probably, was originally concerted by him; the sentence of the court upon you, therefore is; that you, and each of you, be fined 6 s. 8 d. and that you William Priddle be imprisoned in his Majesty's jaol of Newgate, for the term of two years; and that you, Robert Holloway , and you Stephen Stephens be imprisoned in the said gaol, for the term of eighteen months .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

N. B. This trial began at a quarter past five in the afternoon; and lasted till half past seven the next morning.

View as XML