JOHN STEADMAN.
28th February 1853
Reference Numbert18530228-335
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

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

335. JOHN STEADMAN was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MESSRS. PARRY and M.PRENDERGAST conducted the Prosecution.

FREDERICK SERGEANT. I am a clerk in the firm of Willoughby and Cox, attorneys. I have here the proceedings in an action of "Steadman V. Knight"—I produce the writ of summons, the issue, and the record—the verdict was for the plaintiff, damages 50l., in addition to 10l. paid into court—I remember the taxation of costs—I have a memorandum here on the final judgment paper, by which I can tell when the damages and costs were paid—it is" June 25, 1852; received 50l."—that was the amount of the damages beyond the 10l.—I have not the dates of payment here, bat they were paid afterwards—time was given for payment of the costs—I have got the subpœnas.

Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON. Q. Let me look at the subpœnas—(the witness handed them in)—I suppose you attended the trial? A. No, I did not; Mr. Cox did—I only know from representations made that Mr. Steadman was seriously injured on that occasion—I suppose I saw him about that time—I do not of my own knowledge know that he was attended by Mr. Digby, the surgeon, for the injuries he received—I believe Mr. Cox is not here—he did not intend to come; he has not been subpœnaed—he is at his office—the cause was in the paper for the 9th June, but I believe the verdict was given on the 10th—I received a memorandum of the witnesses that were subpœnaed by Shadrake—this is it (produced)—I delivered the subpœnas either to Shadrake or Mr. Steadman, I could not say which—I delivered subpœnas to be taken into the country, as I understood—I do not know now whether the names were stated on that occasion—I cannot say positively whether I delivered the subpœnas in blank—I filled up the body

of them, but whether I left blanks for the names or not I cannot positively state—the names are now all filled in in my handwriting, but that was very probably done after the trial was over, when there was a statement handed to me by either Shadrake or Mr. Steadman of the names of the witnesses who attended; it is very likely that I then for the first time filled them up in the original subpœnas, but I cannot say now—I might have delivered the copy subpœnas with directions to fill them in—this subpœna (looking at it) includes the names of William Sparks, Robert Miller, John Williams, all of Emscote, Warwickshire; and this other subpœna includes the names of Benjamin Dickerson and Alfred Carter—since the trial of this action I believe our firm has made a further application to Mr. Knight for further injury to Mr. Steadman since the issuing of the writ.

Mr. PARRY. Q. Do you know that of your own knowledge? A. I have seen the letter—I cannot say that I posted it.

Mr. CLARKSON. Q. Has Mr. Knight since the trial been called upon by any of your firm on the subject to your knowledge? A. No, not to my knowledge—I received from Shadrake or Mr. Steadman, I will not say positively which, a memorandum of the witnesses that had been subpœnaed—this is the memorandum—I cannot speak positively to Shadrake's handwriting—I think I recollect an occasion upon which I have seen him write—I believe this memorandum is in his writing; it contains the names of Sparks, Miller, Williams, Dickenson, and Carter—Shadrake acted on the part of Mr. Steadman in the course of the proceedings before they came to trial—he was at our office on several occasions; he was foreman to Mr. Steadman, I believe—I attended the taxation of the costs—I can tell, by referring to the office copy of the bill of costs, what was allowed for the attendance of these five witnesses—nothing was allowed for William Sparks, or Miller, Williams, or Carter—5l. was allowed for Dickenson—Mr. Cox, the plaintiff's attorney, was in attendance at that time, and the defendant's attorney also—I believe Mr. Knight was not present at the taxation—after the taxation I believe Mr. Knight applied for time to pay, and it was given him as far as the costs were concerned—he paid by instalments.

Mr. PARRY. Q. Just look at those subpœnas: can you undertake to say when they were filled up, before or after action? A. I cannot undertake to say whether they were filled up, as regards the names, before or after the trial—I know nothing of my own knowledge of the service of these subpœnas—I gave them out, understanding that they were to be taken down to Emscote—the sums allowed at the original taxation of costs are marked here in black ink, and those at the review of the taxation in red ink—opposite the name of William Sparks there is 3l. 10s. in red ink, and that is taken off in black ink; and the like with regard to Miller and Williams—17l. 19s. 6d. appears here as the amount taken off on the review—Dickenson was originally allowed 5l.—that was taken off on the review—other items were also taken off, which constituted a portion of the tavern expenses (reading the items)—I did not attend the review, nor was I in the Court of Exchequer when judgment was given—speaking from recollection, I believe some reduction was made on the review for the subpœnas of these four witnesses, which had been previously allowed—I have seen Mr. Steadman at our office on several occasions whilst the action was going on, not giving instructions, the instructions were generally given by Shadrake, his clerk—I did not see Mr. Steadman much till the latter part of the proceedings—I am not aware that the Judges of the Exchequer ordered this prosecution.

Mr. CLARKSON. Q. There were sixteen witnesses, I believe, subpœnaed

for whom attendances were charged? A. I believe go; that must have included the five witnesses in question.

EDWARD THOMAS DAX . I am an officer of the Court of Exchequer. I produce an affidavit.

GEORGE LOVEJOY . I am clerk to Mr. Baron Martin. I administered the oath to the parties to this affidavit—I have a faint recollection of seeing Steadman, from a little circumstance that happened at chambers—I know nothing more than his coming to have the oath administered to him—I believe him to be the man.

Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE. Q. I do not understand you to pledge yourself to his being the person? A. Certainly not; it is a joint affidavit—I believe, in the first instance Mr. Steadman was not present; Mr. Cox came over first, and Mr. Steadman afterwards—the affidavit was produced to me in the usual way, and they swore to their name and handwriting—I do not know whether Mr. Steadman was sent for; I rather think he was to meet Mr. Cox there, but he did not come till a few minutes afterwards.

Mr. PARRY. Q. How did you administer the oath? A. I tendered the Testament, and used these words: "You swear (that is, both of them,) this to be your respective names and handwriting, and the contents of this your joint affidavit, so far as relates to each of you, to be true, so help you God;" that is the usual form.

FREDERICK SERGEANT re-examined. I believe the signature to this affidavit to be Mr. Steadman's writing.—(The affidavit was here read, in which Steadman stated that Sparks, Miller, Williams, Dickenson, and Carter (with others), were in attendance at Westminster two days, on 9th and 10th June, and were necessarily absent from their places of abode four days; that they came to London solely for the purpose of the trial, and that he had paid them for their attendance as follows: viz., Sparks, Miller, and Williams, 3l. 10s. each, and Dickenson and Carter, 5l. each.)

BENJAMIN DICKENSON . I am a licensed victualler of Emscote, in Warwickshire. I was there, and at Leamington, on 9th and 10th June last—I was not at Westminster Hall on those days—I did not attend on those days a trial at Westminster Hall, of Steadman v. Knight—I was never subpœnaed on such a trial, and was not there—Steadman did not pay me 5l. expenses as a witness—Shadrake and his clerk, and Mr. Steadman, had been boarding and lodging at my house, they occasionally doing work at the Asylum; and they might want me, but I never was subpœnaed and never was paid—I know William Carter; I cannot say whether I saw him on 9th and 10th June at Emscote, for I saw him most days—he is an iron founder, and his foundry is close to me—I do not think it probable that there was an interval of four days at that time without my seeing him—I cannot say whether I ever saw him for four days together, or two days together—I know William Sparks; he was down working there in June last, but could not swear whether I saw him on 9th and 10th June—I know Robert Miller and John Williams, but cannot swear whether I saw them on those two days; but they were at work, and came to my house two days afterwards to be paid their wages—I do not know of their leaving; they were backwards and forwards at my house every two or three days—the first time I heard that my name had been put down as a witness was a few days after the trial.

Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON. Q. What state was Mr. Steadman in when he came down? A. He seemed in pretty good health then—he was not down till quite the end of June or the beginning of July, after the trial.

Mr. PARRY. Q. How did he appear in May, and the beginning of June? A. Pretty well—I had seen him in February; he was very poorly then.

WILLIAM SPARKS . I am a working smith and engineer, of Drury-lane, I know Mr. Steadman—I have been employed from time to time at the Lunatic Asylum at Emscote—I have been there three or four months altogether—I was not present at the trial of the cause Steadman v. Knight—I was not subpœnaed as a witness—I did not receive 3l. 10s. as a witness from Mr. Steadman, nor did any one on my behalf—on the 8th, 9th, and 10th of June, I was at Emscote—I know Mr. Dickenson; his house is where we went to receive our wages on Saturday nights—I know that Mr. Dickenson was down there on 9th and 10th June—John Williams and Robert Miller were mates of mine on the job at Emscote—I know Carter, an iron-founder, there; I cannot swear whether he was up here or not—I first heard of the trial after I had come home from Warwick, about three weeks after the trial—I had worked for Steadman one or two years prior to this; he knew me very well as a workman; he was not down at the job very often in June—he was aware that I was working at Emscote—I do not think he came down after the trial; he came down a month or so before the trial—he came to look how his workmen were going on—before the trial came on, there was a little affair between him and me about wages; that was before I went down to Warwick—I heard of the trial about three weeks afterwards, at Mr. Steadman's shop in Bull and Mouth-street—I heard it from Mr. Steadman, at his shop—I came up from Emscote because we had not heard from Mr. Steadman or his clerk for a fortnight; I came up about the wages—I saw him, and he said, "You have come up, then?" I said, "Yes, it is no use stopping down there: you never sent us word where we were to get our money from for our wages, or anything else; I thought it was most time, then, to come up;" he said, "Oh, that is all right, I expect some money in a few days, and that will be all right; I will pay you when I get the money"—after that he asked me whether Mr. Bushel had called at my house (that is a party that used to work at Steadman's shop)—I said that he had: he said directly, "He is trying to do me all the injury he can"—this was about a fortnight or three weeks after I now know the trial to have taken place, but Mr. Steadman never said a word about the action—in consequence of what Mr. Steadman said to me, I went down to Warwickshire again to finish some particular work at the Asylum, but I only stayed there a few days—I then came up to town by myself, and Williams and Miller-came up two or three days afterwards—we did not all go to the shop together, I was the first that went; we were to meet there on that day—I had seen Mr. Steadman in London before, about eight or nine days before they came up; that would be about a month after 10th June—I went in first—I did not see Mr. Steadman when I first went in (I saw his man), he was upstairs; I afterwards saw him, and he said to me, "I intended to give Mr. Shadrake a subpœna to give you down at Warwick"—he said that because he had heard that Bushel had been at my house, and found I was not at the trial—he told me that he had charged for us at the trial, and said that if anybody should ask me if I was at the trial, I was to say yes; and to avoid my telling a falsehood in one way, he would send his man along with us to take us down to the Court, and show us the Court where the trial was at Westminster, so that if anybody asked us if we were at the Court, we could merely say we were at the Court; and with that he gave me a subpœna enclosed in an envelope, and 1s. with it—this is it (produced)—this was a month after the trial—after that conversation Williams and Miller came in, and he spoke to them in a similar way: I heard him tell them they were to go down to the Court along with this man, who would show us the Court, and if anybody asked us if we had been at the Court we could say "yes"—he did not serve them with subpœnas himself; his man did, in the shop, but not in his presence—he was upstairs,

and sent them down by the man—we then all four left together, me, Miller, Williams, and Yorston, and went from there down to Westminster, into the Court of Exchequer, I think it was: and Yorston said, "Here is where the case was tried; you will know if anybody asks you where it was"—there was some cause or other being tried there then, but we did not stop long enough to know what it was; we only stopped about a couple of minutes in Court—we came out and went into a public-house, and Yorston said, "This is the public-house where we stopped and had some refreshment, and you can say this was the public-house where you were when the trial was going on"—Yorston was sent by Steadman himself—we had some refreshment, a drop or two of beer and a bit of steak, and parted in the evening—Mr. Steadman never mentioned this matter afterwards—it is from three to four months ago since I was applied to to give evidence in this matter.

Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE. Q. The man must have made you very angry when he suggested that you should tell all these lies? A. It was no lies at all—I did not intend to state that falsehood about being at the public house, if I was called upon; I never would have done that, but my intention was this; I had money owing to me at the time when I went down there, and of course I thought by going down to the Court and that, I might get my money back; but if I had been called upon to swear to that falsehood I would never have done it—I meant to give all the appearance of agreeing, but in point of fact did not do it—I did not mean to sell anybody; I meant to try to get my money back—I not intend to commit perjury; I did not show any indignation, and did not say I would not do it—I am not ashamed of it, I meant to do as I have done now, to tell the truth—I did not promise to tell a lie—he told me to go to the Court with this man, and said, "If any body asks you if you were at the Court, that will not be telling a falsehood, will it?" and I said, "It will not"—I agreed to that of course; I agreed to it that I might get my money—there has been no inquiry before a Magistrate, that I am aware of in this case; this is the first time that the defendant has heard my story; I am now in service of Mr. Knight, the prosecutor, and have been so from three to four months—the defendant agreed to give me 24s. a week wages, but I only got part—I had been in his service between one and two years—I get now 5s. 6d. a day, that is 33s. a week—that increase has taken place between three and four months, ever since I have been with Mr. Knight.

FREDERICK SERGEANT re-examined. This subpœna produced is from our office—the body of it is in my writing; the name is filled in, I should say, in Shadrake's writing.

ROBERT MILLER . I am a smith and engineer—I was at work at Emscote on a job of Mr. Steadman's, all June; I did not leave there at all—I was not in London at a trial of Steadman v. Knight, at Westminster, on 9th and 10th June—I did not receive any subpœna to attend the trial—I received no money for having attended as a witness; neither 3l. 10s., or any sum—I heard of the action before it was tried, and had seen Mr. Steadman down at Emscote once or twice; I cannot say the date, but he was there several times about a month or so before I left—Alfred Sparks was with me at the time at Emscote, on 9th and 10th June—I came up to town about the end of June; I finally left the job, I think, in July—when I came up to town, I, Sparks, and Williams, went to see Mr. Steadman about our work—I remember being at Mr. Steadman's with Sparks and Williams; we saw Steadman, the first thing he asked me was, how my health was, and how we got on with the work; I said we could not get on for materials, and we came to

London, we thought it was the best way—nothing was said by Mr. Steadman as far as I recollect, about our being witnesses in the action; I have never said so—I had a subpœna served on me there by one of my workmates, Robert Yorston; we were speaking about the work, and Yorston put the subpœna into my hand—I was not called on after the accident to make any affidavit, or to swear to one—I did not make one—I know what an affidavit is; it is speaking the truth—the signature to this paper (produced) is my writing—after I was served with the subpœna, Sparks, Williams, Yorston, and me, went to Westminster, and into the Court of Queen's Bench, I think it was—Yorston took us there; I do not exactly know what it was for, out we were to go up to the Court, and return to Warwick in the morning—we then went and had some dinner, and went back again to the shop—we afterwards went down to Emscote again—I knew nothing from Steadman of why we went to Westminster; I do not recollect that he said anything of why we went with Yorston.

JOHN WILLIAMS . I am a working smith and engineer. I was at work at Emscote the whole of June, and of course on the 9th and 10th—I did not come up to the trial of Steadman v. Knight; I was not subpœnaed on that trial—I never received 3l. 10s. as my expenses on that trial; I did not hear of the trial till after it was over—about a month afterwards I was at Mr. Steadman's, with Sparks and Miller, and saw Mr. Steadman; he did not say anything about my being a witness on the action—Sparks was there before Miller and I arrived—I received this subpœna there that day from Yorston, and 1s. with it; we were then taken by Yorston to Westminster, and he showed us the Court, and then took us to a public-house; he had the expenses to pay for Mr. Steadman; I know that, because I saw Mr. Steadman put some money into his hands to pay our expenses before we started—Yorston paid for the whole of our refreshment.

FREDERICK SERGEANT re-examined. This subpœna came from our office—the indorsement and the body of it is in my writing, and the other part, I should say, is Shadrake's writing.

Witnesses for the Defence.

WILLIAM SHADRAKE . I was foreman to Mr. Steadman about four years, and was so at the time of the trial between Steadman and Knight—I have since left—before that trial, Mr. Steadman's health had been very bad for some time, and he was very ill then, from being thrown out of his chaise; he was not able to attend to business, and I attended to it for him—I remember receiving some subpœnas from Mr. Sergeant—these are them (produced)—I received them two days before the trial—after I had received them, I received some money; it was either from Mr. Sergeant or Mr. Steadman—I think it was about 5l.—it was to subpœna the different witnesses—I was to pay them when I served the subpœnas on them—I had more subpœnas than these—my directions were to subpœna those in town, and at Emscote, in Warwickshire, also—I did not go to Emscote; I had not time—I went to the railway station the day before the trial, but was too late for the first train, and the next train would not have taken me in time to get them up for the trial; I did not go—it was half-past 11 o'clock at night before I subpœnaed the last in town—I did not see Mr. Steadman afterwards till the morning of the trial—I did not say anything to him about not having subpœnaed these persons—I was a witness at the trial—the witnesses were not allowed to be in Court—Mr. Steadman came out, and asked whether the witnesses were all there; and I said, yes, they were all there—(looking at the paper already put in) one side of this paper was written by me, the side containing the list of

witnesses—the heading is (reading), "Witnesses in attendance on 9th and 10th June, 1852, on a trial between J. Steadman and Thomas Knight"—the names of Williams, Miller, Sparks, Dickenson, and Carter are here; there are the same names that are in the parchment subpœnas—I do not know the exact day when I made out that memorandum—I do not think it was before the trial; it might be the day after—I think I gave it to Mr. Sergeant—Mr. Steadman gave me some money after the trial; I do not exactly know the amount; it might be 20l. or 25l.—it was to pay all the witnesses—I went down to Birmingham and Warwick, but could not find the witnesses; they were all gone to London, and I sent the subpœnas up to London—I wrote up to Mr. Steadman, and told him the witnesses were not at Warwick; that they had come to London—I did at the last tell Mr. Steadman that the witnesses had not been subpœnaed by me—I did not tell him at the time; he was so unwell, I did not want to worry him about it; I told him of it about three weeks afterwards—I saw him but once during that time—I am not at all used to law business; I never had anything to do with it—I was not at all aware that an affidavit would be required.

Cross-examined by Mr. PARRY. Q. These subpœnas are not filled in by you? A. No; when I received them some were filled in, and some were not—I heard of the names of Sparks and Miller as witnesses two days before the action was tried—I was in London—I came up for the trial from Warwick—Mr. Steadman sent for me or Mr. Cox, one or the other, I do not know which it was—I left Sparks, Miller, Williams, and Dickenson at Warwick—it might be three days or four days before the trial—I was brought up three or four days before the trial, and sent down again the day before the trial to subpœna the witnesses—I subpœnaed those in London—I had not time to do it at Emscote; I only had one day to do the lot in—Mr. Steadman was at Westminster two days, I think—I did not hear him examined—the witnesses went to a public house at Westminster, but Mr. Steadman did not—he was not allowed to take anything, I believe—he was in the Court all the time of the trial—I went occasionally to a public house—it might have been six or seven days after the trial that the 25l. was given me by Steadman—I think he gave it me at Bull and Mouth-street, some of it—he gave it me in two payments; I think 15l. first, and 10l. afterwards—six or seven days after the trial I went down to Birmingham—I was there two or three days, and then went to Warwick and Emscote, which is next to Warwick—Williams and Sparks were gone to town, Dickenson was there—I did not pay him—I had laid out the money at Birmingham in some copper work; I dare say about 30l. worth—I had paid the witnesses in London out of the 25l.; I cannot say exactly how much I paid them, it might be 10l., I think—I might have had 15l. when I went to Birmingham; I cannot say exactly—I was ordered to go to Birmingham by Mr. Steadman—we had a job at Warwick, and we had to get some things from Birmingham to finish the work, end they would not let me have the things without some part of the money—I paid all within about a pound (looking at two subpœnas); these two names, Williams and Sparks, are in my writing, but not the other part—I cannot say when I wrote that; it must have been when I received them or when I went to Warwick, I cannot say which—I did not serve them; I sent them back to London the same day I got to Warwick—I do not know what became of them afterwards—I did not come up for some weeks—I had been at Emscote about five months before I came up to attend the trial—my master came down twice for a day or so, that was all—I do not know whether he was there in May; I think he was for a day or so—he was down there about three weeks after the trial,

I think—I got 5l. for my expenses as a witness from Mr. Steadman—I did not have it all at once—I went to Mr. Jay's office, because I was sent for—I did not offer to make an affidavit that I only had 2l.—Mr. Jay told me he should not ask me any questions; I had better not say anything because I was employed by Mr. Steadman—that was not after I had said to him that I was willing to make an affidavit that I had only received 2l. from Mr. Steadman for my expenses—I never said such a thing; nothing was ever said to me about it—I did not say so in the presence of Mr. Jay and one of hit clerks—Mr. Jay asked me if I had had the 5l., and I said yes—I swear that; and then he said, "Well, I shall ask you no further; you had better not say anything, because you are employed by Mr. Steadman"—I heard lately that 4l. was deducted from my expenses by the Master.

Mr. BALLANTINE. Q. You swear you never offered to make any such affidavit? A. No, I never did; I told Mr. Jay distinctly I had received 5l.—my master had been very bad I should think seven or eight months—that was after he had been injured—before that time he had been in very good health, but from the time he received the injury that was the subject of the action he suffered very much—he did not attend to business for some months—from time to time I made statements to him on the subject of the business, the subpœnaing witnesses, and so on—I never told him I had not subpœnaed the witnesses till I saw him three weeks after the trial.

COURT. Q. Why was that list copied from the subpœnas? A. I was asked for those that attended, and I made it out from the copies of the subpœnas—it was Mr. Cox or Mr. Steadman asked me.

Mr. PARRY. Q. Did you not know when you put down these names that they had not attended? A. I knew they were not subpœnaed, and I knew they had not attended—I copied them from the subpœnas as attending—I did not know whether it was right or wrong.

THOMAS COX . I am a solicitor, carrying on business in the name of Willoughby and Cox; it is a firm of long standing. We were employed to bring an action against Mr. Knight, and in the ordinary course we learned what means he had of proof—there would likewise have been a question of the amount of damages he sustained; there was a count for special damages—for the purposes of proof it was necessary that certain witnesses should be subpœnaed from the place where his works went on—Sparks was one of those witnesses, Miller was another, Dickenson another, Williams another, and Carter another—it was not to prove special damages in the ordinary sense of the term—it was for the purpose of proving his absence through inability to attend, through illness—all those names were on the brief, excepting Carter, whose name was by accident omitted—I had his name in the instructions—I received those instructions from Mr. Steadman, and he gave me those names—on the trial I did not know what witnesses were present, but before the trial began I asked Steadman if all his witnesses were there—on that he left the Court for a minute or two—I do not know whether the witnesses had been turned out of Court, but Shadrake was out of Court—Steadman came back in a couple of minutes, and told me that all the witnesses were there, and upon that the trial proceeded—none of those witnesses were called, as they were subpœnaed for the purpose of proving his not attending to his business, and his illness had been so perfectly proved by the medical man that it was not necessary—my counsel were Mr. Crowder and Mr. Pitt Taylor—during the proceedings Mr. Steadman appeared to be suffering from what the medical men said was the effect of this accident—his head was tied up till shortly before the trial, and his arm was in a sling at the time of the trial—he appeared

to me to be suffering from ill health—I saw Shadrake several times in the course of the proceedings—I got the case up myself—my clerk Sergeant was not more directly in communication with him than me, till after the trial was over—Shadrake appeared to be taking an active part in the matters, as Mr. Steadman seemed very much excited, and his memory appeared to be affected in some manner—he had received an injury on his head—it was stated by counsel that we could not recover for damages after the writ issued; whatever moneys had been disbursed after the writ issued could not be recovered—in consequence of that, I after this action made a communication to Mr. Knight—we did not say anything about another action—I endeavoured to act as mediator, but did not succeed—I should not have brought another action; I was very sorry to go on with this—I had no difficulty in getting the costs—they were not paid all at once—an application was made to us by a client of ours, whose name I do not wish to mention, and we gave some little time—if we had said we would not give time, I believe they would have been paid—we gave our client time for his damages on an application of the then defendant—the affidavit in which I unfortunately joined was, I think, made on 17th June—the first taxation was on 19th. June, but Mr. Jay could not attend, and I believe it was about 22nd or 23rd June—something was struck off on that taxation, but merely for tavern bills and matters of that kind—nothing further was struck off on the review of the taxation—that was not after the long vacation—the meeting to review was held in Michaelmas Terms—it was quite unnecessary for me to have joined in the affidavit, except as to the materiality—I have no doubt, and had none, of the materiality of those five witnesses; if I had not known that they were there at she time the Jury were sworn, I should not have gone on with the case, without the advice of counsel, because counsel had advised them to be subpœnaed—I should say that on the morning after the trial Mr. Steadman called at the office, and I requested him to get the christian and surnames of the witnesses who were in actual attendance at the Court—he afterwards brought back the paper, with the names of the witnesses on it in Shadrake's writing, and then I said, "As my clerk will have to draw the affidavit of increase, hand that list to him?" and I see here is my clerk's writing the "eight miles" where "distance" is written, and I really had nothing more to do with it till the affidavit of increase was made—affidavits of increase are not in printed forms—there is a form in the practice from which our clerk draws the affidavit—I cannot say much about the state of Steadman's health on the day we made the affidavit jointly—he seemed quiet.

Cross-examined by Mr. PARRY. Q. You did not yourself prepare the affidavit? A. No: it was read over to Steadman either by me, or by my clerk in my presence—I consider, as a respectable practitioner, that making any affidavit is of the first importance—Steadman's attention was called at the time to the sums of money that he was prepared to say he paid to them—if we had known that that was not true, we should have kicked him out of the office; but Mr. Steadman himself gave me the amounts paid to those witnesses—on 15th June I. took down a statement that they had not all been paid, and I gave him a cheque for 10l. 5s. to go and pay the balance—he stated on the 15th all the sums that the parties had been paid, and said that Yorston had not been paid, and that there were some other sums to pay; the amount of the list he gave me two days before was 32l. 6s.—he said he had exhausted his funds, and I gave him the cheque for 10l. 5s. to go and pay the rest; and on the morning of 16th or 17th he said that they had all been paid, and I gave him an affidavit to go to my clerk and till in the names.

Q. If Mr. Steadman was in a state of mind not to understand the contents, should you have allowed him to swear the affidavit? A. He was perfectly in a sound state of mind, there is no doubt about it—I do not recollect advancing any money to Steadman before the trial after the trial we did—I should say I saw Shadrake as long as a week before the trial; I will not swear it was not longer, I saw him off and on, because the case was in hand several months—I lost sight of him about a week before the trial: I should say here, that short notice of trial was given, from the 4th to the 9th, and there was very little time to subpœna the witnesses, who, being in Warwickshire, I desired my clerk to issue the four subpoenas, and to fill up the copies and give them all to Shadrake, and desire Steadman to be very particular, and see that they were all subpœnaed; and then Shadrake went down to subpoena them, as there was not time to send the subpoenas down to an agent—Shadrake never told me that he missed the train going down to Emscote, I never heard that before to-day—if I had I should not have gone on with the trial without speaking to counsel—these two copies, of subpoenas were issued from our office either on 5th or 6th June, and all the paper copies—I did not give any out, Mr. Sergeant gave them out, but the parchment subpoenas I do not believe ever left our office.

COURT. Q. Mr. Sergeant said he could not tell whether the subpoenas were filled in before or after the trial; what is the meaning of that? A. You cannot fill in the witnesses names in full till you know them, and therefore the subpoena is always issued in blank, and when the name is put in the copy, of course it is in the original; but it ought not to be put in after the trial, if it was so it was not done with my knowledge: there is no doubt that the moment a trial is over the parchment subpoena should be left in the same state, and if this has been touched it is not with my knowledge.

Mr. PARRY. Q. When was it that you first heard that these witnesses were not in attendance? A. On the day we attended to tax the costs Mr. Jay said some of the witnesses were not present, and I replied with considerable warmth, and said they were there; I did not think he meant the imputation against me, but it came on me by surprise—at that time I had before me Steadman's affidavit—in what I have stated in my affidavit as regards the attendance, I have relied on the statements that Steadman made to me; and but for the experience I have had, I should not have hesitated in doing the same over again, in reference to any other client who I believed to be respectable; afterwards, when I found out the cause of this unfortunate matter, I paid their solicitor all the money that it had cost.

Q. How came it that Shadrake's bill of costs was turned into 1l.? A. We received the money and paid it to Mr. Shadrake; after the order to review, Mr. Jay said he was informed that some witnesses did not come from Warwickshire, and I said to them, "I have had enough of affidavits, make your statement to the Master;" and they did, and were treated as town witnesses, and the bill of costs was reduced from 5l. to 1l.—that had been actually paid to Shadrake—we did not also pay him 5l. for Dickenson—Steadman never paid me back, he was in prison—I have no doubt Mr. Jay believed Dickenson had not come up to London on purpose, I am sure Mr. Jay would not make a statement unless he believed it was true—three sums of 3l. 10s. allowed on the original taxation for Sparks, Miller, and Williams, were disallowed because the Master said that we had too many witnesses to one fact; I drew the Master's attention the counsel's opinion, and he said, "Well, I sometimes differ with counsel, and I do here"—it was Master Walton—it was not on the ground of their not having been paid, but because they were not necessary; if they were

necessary, the affidavit would have carried them—there would be no inquiry about them on the review, only they were put into the affidavit—there would be no question about them on the review as to the sums; for the purpose of getting anything back it was unnecessary, because nothing had been paid—that would also refer to Alfred Carter 5l. deducted, and 5l. allowed to Benjamin Dickenson—we should have banded over every 6d. to Mr. Steadman, we do not keep another person's money—we waited for the trial to come on at the Exchequer all day on the 9th, and the case came on about 12 o'clock on the 10th—Steadman was examined as a witness for about an hour or an hour and a half; he was obliged to sit down while he was being examined—he was not ordered out of Court with the other witnesses, it was arranged that the parties themselves should not go out, either before or after—he was in Court on the 9th and on the 10th—I saw him next morning at ay office, and on the 13th.

Mr. BALLANTINE. Q. By arrangement he remained in Court, the other witnesses being out? A. Yes; that was the case on both days—he remained in Court on the day the cause was tried—from the beginning to the end Stead man never told me that be had subpœnaed the witnesses himself; he never conveyed that to me—Shadrake was constantly assisting him; I had a great deal of trouble in getting the evidence together—since this case, Steadman has taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act; he was only out of prison a few days before the last Sessions

Mr. PARRY. Q. Do you know whether be has been a bankrupt before this; and also, whether be has compounded with his creditors? A. I do not know whether he has compounded with his creditors before; all I can say is, he has been a client of our office for fifteen years, and I always considered him a respectable man—he employed a good many men at one time, as many as forty—they had full notice that these parties had never been paid—I took the office copies to Steadman, and being considerably excited that we should hare been led to adopt the course we had, I read them to him and said, "Will you venture to make an affidavit that you knew they were there, or believed them to be there?" and he said, "No, I will not; but at the time I made my affidavit, I believed they were in attendance;" we felt bound to do it in showing cause against the rule, so as not to let him slip through, merely because he was in prison.

COURT. Q. Was your proposition to make an affidavit that they were there, or that he still believed they were there? A. I said, "It is my duty to read to you these affidavits;" and having read them, I said, "Will you now venture to swear you knew they were there, or that you now believe they were there?" he said he would not, and said, "but at the time I made my affidavit I believed they were"—I did not understand from him that he had subpœnaed the parties himself, and I should not like to say that I understood from him that he had personally paid them, but he said they ware paid; I do not think my inquiries at the time went to that—what he told me did not necessarily imply that he had paid them himself—my memorandum is," Alfred Evans has received one guinea, "and the others in the same way" has received. "

EDWARD DIGBY . I am a surgeon, of 205, Fleet-street. I know the defendant, and remember an injury that he sustained by a collision of carriages in Nov., 1851—I did not attend him till some time afterwards; he was under the care of a medical man at Walthamstow—I attended him when he came to London; it was about June—I did not make any memorandum of the time; it was some weeks before the trial—I was rather shocked at his appearance; he was rather in a weak state, and had received serious injuries

on the head and shoulders—I should think there had been concussion; there were symptoms of it, but he was not labouring under it at the time—I looked upon him with some apprehension—I continued to attend him down to the trial—at the time of the trial he was in a very unfit state to attend to business—I do not know whether, while I was in attendance upon him, he went down into Warwickshire; I constantly recommended quiet—I continued to attend him for a week or two after the trial, and then I lost sight of him; and he came to me again about a fortnight ago; he was then much better, but certainly not in good health—I attribute the state of his health to the injury he received—I attended him six or eight weeks in the summer months of 1852—I had claims on him for medical attendance during that time.

COURT to Mr. COX. Q. Can you fix the date when you showed him the affidavits, and asked him if he would undertake to contradict them? A. I can within a day or two; it was in Nov. last; the meeting was, I believe, on 5th Nov., and the rule to show cause was a few days afterwards—on the day of the first taxation I drew his attention to it—I did not draw his attention to the names of the witnesses, as there were no particular names of witnesses, but I said, "Mr. Jay alleges that some of the witnesses were not there"—he was exceedingly indignant, and said they were every one there, and that they had all received the moneys due to them; and my clerk drew his attention to it again before he went before the Master for his allocator.

(The prisoner received a good character.)

NOT GUILTY .


View as XML