The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

 

1423.   JAMES CHARLES CLIFFORD was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MESSRS. JAMES and GIBBS conducted the Prosecution.

— SCARLETT. I am marshal to Lord Abinger. I produce the record on which an action was brought on a bill of exchange—this is the bill which was produced at the trial—I have had it ever since.

  GEORGE FREDERICK HUDSON . I am a solicitor, and live in Bucklers-bury. I was concerned for the present defendant in 1835—he sent for me to the Queen's Bench Prison, where he was in custody, and gave me a memorandum of his demand against Lady Parker—the paper I have in my hand, I believe are the written instructions he gave me—they are his handwriting—(reads)—"Lady Fanny Parker to J. C. Clifford.—1836: March 11, Bill 40l.; June 30, ditto 21l. 15s. 8d.; up to July 13, ditto 1l. 6s.: Total 63l. 1s. 8d."—I lodged a detainer against Lady Parker—60l. I think was the amount sworn to—I proceeded in the action—these are the particulars of it—(looking at some papers)—the cause came on for trial, and the cause and all matters and differences were referred.

Q. Is this the order of reference? (handing a paper to the witness) A. This is a copy, I rather think—I am not certain it is a copy—I believe it is the original.

Cross-examined by MR. PHILLIPS. Q. On your oath, are you prepared to swear positively that it is the original? A. No, I would not—I believe that it is.

Q. Look at this paper; read that on the back ?—(reads)—A. "Clifford versus parker. Copy Order of Reference."

MR. JAMES. Q. What is the ordinary practice; are there two originals made out on paper, one for each party? A. I believe there are.

COURT. Q. When a case is referred at Nisi Prius, there are two parties, the plaintiff and defendant, and do you not know that there are two papers given? A. I believe there are.

(Read)—"12th December, in the seventh year, &c. This cause, and all matters and differences, including the rule now pending, between the two parties, are hereby referred to John Busby, Esq., Barrister-at-law, to order what he shall think proper to be done."

Witness. I or my clerk took up the original award, but I have not got it, as I have since delivered all my papers to Mr. Clifford's then attorney.

Q. In February, 1837, was any money paid to you by Mr. Austin in respect of that action? A. There was—this is the receipt I gave him for 128l. 10s., in full, for the debt and costs—the debt was 40l. and the rest were the costs—I never saw Mr. Clifford after I gave that receipt—I sent him the balance due to him, which was 26l.—there were 14l., the costs of a rule due from Clifford to me, and I think these were costs out of pocket—I deducted all that was due to me, and sent him the balance—I never saw him again on the subject of tins action.

Q. From the time the action commenced, till the settlement, was any thing ever said to you by Clifford about two bills? A. I believe there never was—he said nothing to me at that time, except about one bill—(looking at a bill)—I believe this to be the bill on which I brought the action.

COURT. Q. What do you mean by the word "believer A. It is now three or four years ago, one does not like to speak positively.

MR. JAMES. Q. Have you a moral certainty in your own mind that that is the same bill? A. I have; I must have had it at the time I took the instructions, or shortly after—my attention was not called particularly to it more than to any other transaction—the prisoner was in the habit of tending from the Bench to me—I have, received letters from Mm, in his handwriting, by French—I sent the money to the prisoner, I think, by my clerk, in February—and in March, 1837, I received a communication from him, and I sent him, by French, the bill on which the action was brought, and some cheques—I believe I sent the bill on which the action was brought—I had no other, but I have said that I am not certain that this is the bill.

Q. Is it your belief, to the best of your memory, that yon sent back this bill of exchange with the cheques by French? A. I cannot speak any other way than to the best of my recollection—not having seen the document for three years, I will not speak to it more positively—I believe that bill had no indorsement beside Clifford's—that bill was in the same state as this, except that it had not Gibbs's indorsement, which it now has—to the best of my recollection, this is the bill certainly.

Cross-examined by MR. PHILLIPS. Q. Have you not sworn you were not certain that it was the bill? A. I am not certain other than to the best

of my belief—I will not speak to the certainty of a document I have not seen for three years.

Q. You said you had a moral certainty, what did you mean by that? A. I will give you my definition of it—that while there is a possibility of its not being so from some exact imitation of it, still, as there is no ground for believing it has been imitated, I believe it to be the same—when we see a bill we sometimes see it only once—I saw that perhaps half-a-dozen times—I believe there was no other indorsement on it—I will not say my recollection of it must have been very slight—the reason I will not swear positively to it is because I have not seen it for three years.

COURT. Q. The bill was produced before the arbiter? A. Yes, I had the bill there—the signature to these two affidavits are the prisoner's writing, and this paper of instructions is his writing, (read.)

In the first affidavit, dated 13th September, 1838, the defendant deposed that Lady Parker was not detained in the King's Bench on or about the 14th July, 1836, on the 40l. bill on which the present action was brought, but on another bill of the same date and amount, which the said Lady Parker had accepted in addition to the first—in the second affidavit, dated 20th October, 1838, he deposed, that when he first instructed his attorney, Mr. Hudson, in 1836, he delivered to him a bill of exchange for £40 on Lady Parker, and that he never bad the said bill back from Mr. Hudson, nor had he, to the best of his recollection, ever seen the same since.

  LADY FANNY PARKER . I am widow of the late Sir Hyde Parker—I reside in Park-lane—in the year 1835 I employed the defendant as cook—I was then in the King's Bench—I was indebted to the defendant for cooking—he applied to me for money about December, 1835, and I gave him a bill on the 16th of December—I think Mrs. Grimes was present when the defendant made his application for money—I said I expected money from a verdict against Lord Lake, and that I could not give him any money then—40l. was the amount I then owed him—I think, to the best of my recollection, he delivered me an account at the time he made the application for some money—I then offered to give him a bill, and a bill was brought up to me to accept, which I did accept, in presence of Mrs. Grimes—the amount was 40l.—this is the bill I accepted at that time—I did not accept two bills, only this one.

COURT. Q. Did you at any time accept two bills of the same date, and for the same amount, 40l.? A. No, that I am sure of—I swear the prisoner made no application to me for payment of a second bill of 40l.

MR. GIBBS. Q. Did Clifford, after that, bring an action against you for that bill? A. Yes, sir, in 1836, I think—the amount of that bill, the debt and costs in that action were paid by Mr. Austin, my attorney—this is an affidavit I made in the cause—the signature is my hand-writing, and the contents of it are true—(read)—This affidavit was dated the 6th of September, 1838, in which the deponent swears, that on or about the 14th of July, 1836, she was detained, in the Bench at the suit of Clifford, and that the particulars of the plaintiff's demand, 88l. 10s., and bill 40l. was, about the 20th of February, paid to the plaintiff's attorney; and that she never, to the best of her recollection, had any other transactions or accounts with Clifford; and that she never, to the best of her recollection or belief, accepted any other bill for 40l. but the one mentioned in the declaration."

Cross-examined by MR. LORD. Q. It was in 1835 you employed the

prisoner as your cook? A. Yes, I went there in 1833, But it was not immediately after that I employed him—I did not give him the money when be first applied—I gave him one bill for 40l., that was the whole of his claim on me at that time—I owed him no more money whatever—he did not give me a bill at that time, to my recollection—I am sure no account was delivered to me at that time—I gave the bill on the 16th of December, in the large room in the state-house—Mrs. Grimes was present—the prisoner had had a cheque or two of mine, two, I think, they were duly paid—every thing was paid at that time but that 40i.—I had had frequent negotiation with him before this bill—I paid him generally in cash in small sums—I never accepted a bill before—I hive never given him a cheque since that time, and all the cheques I gave him prior to that time have been duly paid to the prisoner—I know this cheque for 9l. 4s., 7d., this was included in the money Mr. Austin paid—it was all paid at that time—I am sure this was included—it is prior to December, 1835—when I gave the bill Mrs. Grimes was present—I don't know whether she read the bill—she was close to me, it was at breakfast time, about ten or half-past ten o'clock—I am quite positive there was no other bill that I signed—I never gave any cheque as late at 1836.

MR. GIBBS. Q. Was this one of the cheques you gave previous to the 40l. bill? A. Yes, it is in October, 1835—it was paid at the time of the reference to Mr. Busby.

COURT. Q. Has Mr. Austin indemnified you for the expense of this? A. No.

  DANIEL EDWIN AUSTIN . I paid the sum of 128l. 10s. to Mr. Hudson—I had not a bill of exchange in the action Clifford versus Parker returned to me by Mr. Hudson, nor did I ask for the award—I have never had the bill from Clifford—I applied to him and Mr. Hudson for it.

COURT. Q. You never received the bill of exchange on which this action was brought, and which was the subject of the case referred? A. No, the order of Nisi Prius was for all matters in difference—there was nothing said about another bill of exchange for 40l., if there had it would have been embraced in the order.

  GEOROIANA BEATRICE GRIMES . I am a widow. I reside at Blackheath—I resided with Lady Parker while she was in the Bench, merely as her friend—I don't remember from what time, I think it was about 1833 or 1834, I was there at the latter end of 1835—I remember the defendant calling on Lady Parker for the payment of his bill—I was present—I don't remember that I saw the amount of his claim—her ladyship gave him a bill of exchange to the amount of 40l.—I saw Lady Parker write upon the bill—she did not give more than one bill—after that bill became due I saw the defendant upon it—he did not state to me then that he had two bills on Lady Parker to the same amount.

Cross-examined by MR. LORD. Q. When the prisoner came to Lady Parker for this bill, did he state what the amount of his claim was? A. I don't recollect that he did—he asked for the amount of his bill, but dm not state the amount that I recollect—he did not talk long about the bill, I don't think he was there ten minutes—he asked her if she could pay him his bill—she said she could not, because she had an action pending against Lord Lake, and till that was settled she could not pay him—he then asked her to give him a bill—she said yes—he went out and returned with the bill, which I saw Lady Parker sign—I did not read the bill, but I

heard him say it was for 40l.—he did not say there was more due—Lady Parker never gave any other bill that I know of, neither before nor after—she has frequently given cheques—I don't know how she generally paid the prisoner.

  THOMAS PROTHEROE . I am a clerk in the Exchequer Writ Office—I produce an affidavit of debt in the cause of John Rafter against Fanny Parker—the writ is annexed to it.

  JOHN THOMPSON . I was articled to Mr. Kirk, Mr. Clifford's late attorney. He was solicitor in the cause of Rafter against Parker—the signature to this affidavit is the signature of Rafter—I think both the prisoner and Rafter came to the office to give instructions to pursue the action—the prisoner was repeatedly there—I cannot say whether he advanced any money to Mr. Kirk, I believe not.

Cross-examined by MR. LORD. Q. Was Mr. Kirk concerned in either of these actions? A. Yes, he took Mr. Rafter's retainer—this bill was often spoken of—I saw Mr. Hudson repeatedly—in preparing the brief it was necessary to have all the papers—he stated he had a faint recollection of two bills, but he had seen only one, he thought the other one was about 10l.—it was a small amount—I think two or three cheques had been given to the prisoner, by Lady Parker, after the award.

  JAMES BUCKINGHAM . I am an engineer, and live in Camden-town. I am a client of Mr. Austin's, and know him—in consequence of what he wished me to do, on the 17th of January last, I saw the prisoner, I think it was in Braddam's-row, Newington Causeway, I believe it was his house or lodgings—I had received instruction that he was to be found there—I had never seen him before—he asked me if I was aware for what purpose I had come—(he expected me to come to be a witness on the trial, as Rafter's action was then going on)—Mr. Thompson took me there, and introduced me to the prisoner as Mr. Buckingham—the prisoner asked Thompson if I was the person whom he (Thompson) had mentioned to him—Thompson said, "Yes," and that I was a friend of his, and I had come relative to the matter of which they had been speaking—I asked the prisoner what it was he wanted me to do—he said, "I want you to swear that you went with Thompson to Pitt-street"—(it afterwards transpired that Rafter lived there)—he said I must swear that I went with Thompson, and presented the bill at Drummond's, at Charing-cross—that I was to swear that the bill was not paid—that I then accompanied Thompson to lady Parker's house, which he afterwards told me, was No. 13, Park-lane—he told me that was all he wished me to swear—he then addressed Thompson, and told him that he must not only swear what I have mentioned he told me, but that he went afterwards to the King's Bench by himself, bringing the bill, which had been dishonoured, back to Lady Parker, and that it was presented at Lady Parker's, in Park-lane, for payment—after seeing the prisoner in Braddam's-row, I saw him at a coffee-shop, in Newcastle-street, Strand, on the 28th of January—I had appointed to meet him there, through Rafter, whom I had met the previous morning—I was at the coffee-house before the prisoner was—he came in and wished me to accompany him to Mr. Kirk, who, I believe, was his attorney, and was bringing that action—I was to go to have the evidence taken, which he had detailed to me, and he gave me this piece of paper as instructions to swear—he brought the paper written, and I indorsed it within a few minutes—a person of the name of Jenkins was at the coffee-shop, for the purpose of detecting this scheme—I

read this paper over several times, and asked the prisoner particularly if it was his writing—he acknowledged it to be his writing, and said that was what he wished me to swear—he had previously said he would give me 10s. if I would swear, in the Court of Exchequer what he had stated, and when he gave me this paper he said he would give me 14s.

(The instructions were as follows:—" Went with Mr. Thompson to Drummond's the bankers, at Charing-cross, to present bill of exchange, 40l., three months, drawn on Parker, paid to Mr. Clifford, endorsed over to Gibbs, and paid to Rafter—have been at Rafter's house in Pitt-street, have seen Gibbs there several times, and know his hand-writing.")

Cross-examined by MR. LORD. Q. By whose request did you go to see the prisoner? A. Mr. Austin's—he stated what he wanted me to go for—I had known Austin some time, but never saw the prisoner till the 17th of January—I went to the house with Thompson, and asked to see Mr. Clifford—Thompson told me it was Mr. Clifford, and he assented to it—I neverperformed such a duty fox Austin before, nor any one else—I asked the prisoner if I was to swear what he required, what was I to have—he looked at Thompson, and said, "I suppose we must give him the same at you have," and then Clifford said he would give me 10s.—I said it was very little, and asked him when he should require me—he said the trial would come on on Monday, and he should require me to be at the Exchequer, in the City—I said, "I suppose Mr. Rafter will pay me"—Rafter was. sitting there at the time—I asked who I was sitting in company with, and the prisoner said, "That is Mr. Rafter"—I said, "Let me look at you, stand up, in case I should be asked, I shall be able to recognise you"—I said, "What is your height?"—he said, "Five feet six inches and three quarters"—no money was paid me—I did not agree to perform this office, I said, "If I did it"—I never went by any other name than Buckingham—I have been an engineer four or five years, under my own patent—I have lived in Camden-town since 1834—I was an agent before I was an engineer—I was never charged with any offence in a court of justice.

  EDWARD JENKINS . I am an appraiser and broker, and live in Southampton-street. I do the business of Covent-garden parish—I went, at the request of Mr. Austin, to a coffee-shop in Newcastle-street, but I cannot say when—I went by myself, and met Mr. Buckingham there—after he had been there some time, the defendant came in, and sat in the next box—the purport of my being there was to overbear what passed-a conversation took place between Clifford and Buckingham respecting a bill of exchange, which Buckingham was to swear he had protested, and Buckingham wanted to know what he was to be paid—Clifford said 10s.—he said that would not pay him, he must have more, and Clifford agreed to give him 14s.—he gave him a paper of instructions, on which was written what he was to do—this is the paper—Buckingham read it over and said, "This, I understand, is what I am to do"—Clifford said, "Yes"—Buckingham then went out, and I went immediately after—I was in Court when the cause came on to be tried, and I heard the defendant deny that this paper was his writing most distinctly, or that he had given it to any one.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you in the same room? A. Yes, there were only us three—it is a small room—I did not speak at all—I was there half an hour—it was about eleven or twelve o'clock—Thompson was not there I am certain.

For the defendant, MR. LORD called JACOB CASTELL. I know the prisoner—I have seen him write, but I do

not know that I should be able to swear to his handwriting exactly-(looking at the instructions)—this paper looks like his writing—I have been employed by him to make out accounts occasionally—I have drawn several bills for him—I drew two bills between him and Lady Parker, on the 16th of December, 1835—I only drew the body of the bills—they were for 40l. each—I put in the dates—the reason I drew them for Clifford was because his hand shook so—this is one of the bills—(looking at it)—I did not see the bill after it was drawn, till it was shown to me before I was subpoenaed on the trial of Rafter against Parker—I was subpoenaed on the part of Rafter, and gave evidence—I saw Mr. Buckingham, and had some conversation with him on the Monday evening, four days before that trial—a person of the name of John Thompson came to my room, and he took me to the Brace, and introduced me to Buckingham—Thompson said, "This is Mr. Buckingham; he is going to corroborate my evidence on Thursday, and we are all to be of one mind"—I said I did not know what they were going to prove; all I knew was, I was the drawer of the bill that had been shown me, and I was going to prove it—I said I drew two bills, but whether they were accepted or not I did not know.

MR. JAMES. Q. You drew two bills, did you? A. Yes—the whole of this bill is my hand-writing, except the signature of the drawer—I wrote the direction—Clifford did not sign it in my presence—I did not see it after it was drawn—one of the bills I drew that any was on a wrong stamp, a stamp that would not carry the amount.

GUILTY .— Confined One Month in Newgate, and Transported for Seven Years.