GEORGE CROSSLEY.
17th February 1796
Reference Numbert17960217-70
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

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

224. GEORGE CROSSLEY was indicted (with Sir JOHN BRIGGS , Bart. HENRY HOLLAND , and WILLIAM AUSTIN , not in custody), for forging and counterfeiting, and uttering and publishing the same as true, on the 29th of April , a certain paper, purporting to be the last will and testament of Henry Lewis , with intent to defraud Thomas Morgan .

(There were several other Counts charging the like forgery, varying the intentions).(The indictment was stated by Mr. Dauncey).

Mr. Sergeant Adair. May it please your Lordship Gentlemen of the Jury. - It becomes my duty on the part of this prosecution, to state to you the nature of the charge against the prisoner at the bar; and of the evidence by which it is supported, in order that you may be able to direct your attention to the principal points of that evidence, and to do that which will be extremely material to the prisoner, and to public justice, to distinguish the application and bearing of the evidence that will be laid before you; because it will be necessary for me to produce a considerable portion of evidence, which of itself will not criminate the prisoner at the bar; in order to establish a fact, without which, we cannot even begin to make a charge against the prisoner. It is certainly equally necessary to justice, that your minds should be prepared, that no further than that evidence is distinctly brought home to the prisoner, by facts fixed upon himself, or clearly within his knowledge, can any tittle of that evidence affect either the life or character of the prisoner; and no man, I am sure, will be more anxious than myself, not even my learned friends, to whom his defence, against so important a charge, is entrusted, will be more anxious than I shall be to point out that distinction in any evidence that I may offer to the Court, and in the outset to do that which my learned friends are not permitted to do, to caution you myself, to strip your minds of every thing which you may have heard or read respecting the transaction in question. The charge against the prisoner arises from a transaction of great public notoriety, and many things may have passed which are entirely unfounded in truth, and, therefore, from any thing you have heard, or any impressions made upon your mind, well or ill-founded, ought you to suffer, in the flightest degree, to enter your minds, but to wipe off, as far as it is possible for human nature to do, every recollection upon the subject, as if you were perfect strangers to every thing but what you may hear in Court, and from that, form your opinion, whether the charge is so made out, as to justify you in finding a verdict that will affect the life of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar.

Gentlemen, the crime of forgery is one that is destructive of all security of property, and which tears up by the roots, the confidence necessary to be placed in solemn legal instruments; in short, leads to every kind of plunder, and is therefore justly estimated, by the law, the highest order of crimes that can be committed in a state of civilized society, and punished with death. It is the duty of Juries, in all cases to take care in judicial enquiries, not to proceed upon vague grounds of suspicion, and certainly peculiarly so, in cases that affect the life of the party.

Gentlemen, having thus shortly called your attention to the importance of your duty, it becomes necessary to give you as distinct and concise a narrative as possible, of this transaction; I will afterwards point out the more important facts, which apply to the questions you are to try; and give you a general statement of the nature of the evidence by which it is to be supported.

Gentlemen, the will in question purports to be the will of a gentleman of the name of Lewis; and the first question for you to decide will be, whether that is the genuine will of the party or not; because, if upon the evidence in this cause, you should find reason, when you have heard both sides, either to think that this is in fact the will of Mr. Lewis, or to entertain any considerable doubt, whether it is or not, we certainly cannot proceed

one jot further; for no evidence of suspicious circumstances, no evidence of mysterious conduct, nothing that tends to involve the prisoner in general suspicions, can have the smallest effect; if you are doubtful whether this is a genuine instrument, for the prisoner is not in the outset called upon to prove that it is a genuine instrument; God forbid that he should; but we are called upon to prove, in this case, something which partakes of the nature of a negative, but which is, however, an affirmative proposition, capable of proof that it is a forgery. The first point, therefore, for you to consider is, whether this is the genuine will of Mr. Lewis, or whether it is a forgery; which, if we should establish beyond any reasonable ground of doubt, for you are not to expect mathematical demonstration in the proceedings of the administration of justice; but you are not to pronounce him guilty of a forgery, if a reasonable doubt can be entertained, by conscientious men upon their oaths, fairly considering the circumstances of the case. And, gentlemen, if we should make out that proposition, still the prisoner will stand unaffected, unless we bring home a knowledge and participation of the prisoner in the acts of those persons who fabricated the instrument.

Gentlemen, Mr. Lewis, the real or supposed testator, was a clergyman, a gentleman of a liberal education, and of considerable accomplishments; a man respected in the neighbourhood in which he lived, for the character of a man of letters, and for a peculiarity of character, which may not be immaterial for your consideration, in estimating the probability of his having first made any will at all; or, secondly, a will of the kind which is the subject of this indictment; he was, besides being a man of letters, a proud and reserved man; not extremely communicative of his affairs; little disposed to confer with strangers, even upon trisling matters, much less upon matters of importance; and still less with persons of inferior rank, or of doubtful and suspicious characters. Mr. Lewis had been, through a considerable part of his life, involved in a litigation respecting the authenticity of his mother's will; it appears from some of the evidence in the cause, that that circumstance had made a strong impression upon his mind; what the nature of that case was, is totally immaterial; and it would only be wasting your time to allude to, further than to explain some of the declarations of Mr. Lewis himself, which have reference to the subject of this charge; it is sufficient that he had a strong impression of the forgery of his mother's will; and that that circumstance weighed so much in his mind, as, joined with other peculiarities in his character, to produce a determination in him, which appears to have continued to the time of his death, never to make a will himself; but, to use his own expression, to let the law make his will, and dispose of his property: you will find, therefore, that upon several different occasions, and to several different persons, for some time antecedent to Mr. Lewis's death, which happened in the month of January, 1795, he has declared, cost he never meant to make a will, and never would; and sometimes with allusions to the transactions of his mothers' will.

Gentlemen, you will find also, that he had no great esteem or affection for the family of a person named in this indictment, who is not now forthcoming to public justice; a Baronet, of the name of Sir John Briggs , who had married a cousin of Mr. Lewis's; and in whose favour, as to a very considerable portion of Mr. Lewis's effects, the will in question is supposed to have been made; I mean in favour of Lady Briggs, and her posterity, not to Sir John himself; you will find, however, that the unfavourable impression he had received of the character of Sir John Briggs, had induced him to declare, at a period not very distant from his death, and long subsequent to the date of the supposed will, that none of the Briggs' family should have any portion of his property.

This gentleman, so circumstanced, resided at Hygga, in Monmouthshire, a few miles distant from the town of Monmouth; he used to go frequently into Devonshire, partly on account of his health; he returned from thence to his own house, with a fevere indisposition, which terminated in his death, which happened at Monmouth, at the house of a relation, Mrs. Kane, the mother of Lady Briggs, in whose favour the will disposes of one half of his real estates, during her life; notwithstanding that circumstance, I believe you will find no hint was ever dropped by him, that he either had made or intended to make any disposition of his property by will; the universal impression by all his family, that this gentleman had died intestate; notice was given of his death to his different heirs at law, for he possessed several estates, some of which came to him by his father, and some through his mother; to his estates at Monmouth, the present prosecutor, Mr. Morgan, was maternal heir at law; there was no trace of a will found among his papers, nor no suspicion entertained, at that time, that any will was made. In that situation, the parties entered into possession of the different estates, and things remained in that situation from the time of his death, the 11th of January, till the 5th of April following; when a very singular transaction happened; a letter was received by a gentleman of the name of Lewis, at Monmouth, from a person of the name of Isgar, dated Bath, who stated, that the Rev. Mr. Lewis was indebted to him for witnessing his will; and, desiring to know where he might address him, in order to be satisfied for the trouble he had taken upon that occasion. This was a very singular occurrence, both in its nature and the time and circumstances, under which it came forward; and it was a singular sort of charge, for, I believe, it is one of the first instances of a bill brought in (at a distance of so considerable time from the date of the will) for being a witness to a gentleman's will. This extraordinary letter excited a great deal of speculation; and Sir John Briggs thought proper to set out for Bath, to enquire for this person, of the name of Isgar; he went with other persons, to Isgar; he asked him, if he knew any thing of a will of Mr. Lewis's; he replied, that he did; and, what is still more surprising, this man, an obscure man, resident at Bath, at this distance from Mr. Lewis's family, not only was a witness to the will, but had the will in his possession. Isgar produced the will; and, on the 5th of May following, this will was brought by Isgar to Monmouth; delivered to Mrs. Kane, the mother of Lady Briggs, who was appointed one of the executrixes,

Gentlemen, I ought now to state to you, what the will was; it bears date the 10th of August, 1791; near four years before the death of the testator, so that you will find, that most of the declarations of Mr. Lewis, the testator, that he never would make a will, are posterior to the date of the will; that he never had made a will, and never intended to make a will. The will is drawn formally, not with the appearance of having been drawn by a gentleman in Mr. Lewis's situation-a man of letters, a gentleman, and a clergyman; but drawn formally and scientifically; as if it was drawn by a man of the law, as you will find by the provisions.(Reads the will, for which see the evidence).

Gentlemen, the parties claiming under the will brought an ejectment for a moiety of the lands lying in Montgomery, against Mr. Morgan, the maternal heir at law of those estates, which had come to the testator from his mother, and who had entered upon them, upon the presumption, that Mr. Lewis died inteslate; that ejectment was tried at the last Summer assizes, at Hereford; and it becomes necessary to state, that upon the trial of that ejectment, a verdict was found against the authenticity of that will, for the defendant, the heir at law; and, here again, I think it my duty, on the part of the prosecutor, to state to you, that you are far from being bound or concluded by that verdict; that verdict does by no means prove this will a forgery; I will go further, I will say, that as against Mr. Crossly it is no evidence, that it is a forgery, because Mr. Crossly was not a party to that cause; nor appeared as an attorney in it, and therefore it is extremely possible that all the evidence may not have been distinctly laid before that Jury; or if it was, that that Jury may have formed a wrong opinion; you are therefore not bound by that verdict even to believe that this will is a forgery, which is the first thing we have to prove; but it is necessary to state that fact to you, that such a verdict was found. The noble and learned Judge, who tried that cause, thought it his duty, in furtherance of public justice, and in order that a transaction of so soul a nature, if that verdict was right, might be the subject of further investigation in a Court of proper jurisdiction; for it then became the subject of criminal jurisdiction; it was thought proper to detain the will: and Austin and Isgar, the witnesses to that will, were apprehended by warrant, and committed to Hereford Gaol; and while they were so in custody, one of those witnesses, whom I have already mentioned as residing at Bath, in an obscure situation, and of no very good character, thought proper to give intimations that he was ready to make a discovery of, what he alledged to be the whole truth; he purports to be a witness to that will; he therefore must have knowledge as to the question whether it is or not the will of Mr. Lewis; it was thought deserving of attention, and conducive to public justice, to attend to his offer; the Mayor of Hereford, accompanied by some other persons, with Mr. Stoke, the attorney for this prosecution, and attorney for Mr. Morgan, upon the trial of that ejectment, attended; Isgar repeated his offers of disclosure, and, in fact, gave an account before the Mayor of, what he stated to be, the truth, of that transaction. You will see, therefore, that that person, who stands in the light of an accomplice, who has witnessed a will, which he now says was a forgery, who upon the trial swore to the execution of that will, must necessarily for public justice, be brought to-day before you as an evidence: I need not, after giving this description of him, tell you, with how much caution you ought to receive testimony from so soul a quarter; I will even go the length of saying, that that testimony is wholly undeserving of credit, unless it is very materially confirmed by circumstances proved by unsuspected witnesses. Upon this verdict, however, and upon this disclosure of Isgar, other parties were apprehended; Sir John Briggs left the kingdom; that circumstance, however it might affect him, if he was now upon his trial, can have no influence upon your judgment with respect to the prisoner. Mr. Holland, another of the parties, has also withdrawn himself from public justice; Bowden, the other witness, being dead.

Gentlemen, I have thus given you a narrative of the transactions which have led to this prosecution; it will now be necessary more particularly to state to you, the nature of the evidence, by which you will be enabled to form a judgment upon the two questions that will be submitted to your consideration; first, whether you are clearly satisfied that this is not the will of Mr. Lewis, which it purports to be, but is a forgery; and secondly, if it be a forged will, whether you have sufficient proof brought home to the prisoner at the bar, to satisfy you that he was one of the persons concerned, either in the immediate act of the forgery, or in publishing that will, with the knowledge that it was forged.

Gentlemen, that the will is a forgery will be to be collected from the substance of the will itself; from the characters and descriptions of the witnesses that have subseribed it; from the declarations of the testator upon the subject, compared with the will, the date of the will, and certain other evidence in the testator's hand-writing, found in different papers belonging to him, which are pretty strongly applicable to the question, whether the will is or not a genuine will: you will find that this will is made principally in favour of that very family to which the declaration of the testator was applied, long after the date of the will, that they never should have any part of his property; and the authenticity of the will will be still more materially affected by the will itself, which, pursuing the legal form which men of the law are used to, revokes all former wills made by Mr. Lewis, the said testator; from that, you are to infer, in the very teeth of all the declarations that you will hear, that this was not the first will he had made, but that he was in the habit of making wills from time to time; that it was necessary to revoke all former wills; and that applied to a person who repeatedly declared, subsequent to the date of the will, that he had never made a will at all.

Gentlemen, you observe the will bears date the 10th of August, 1791, that it purports to be witnessed and executed at Bath; and in point of fact you will learn, if it is necessary, from the noble and learned Judge, who tried the ejectment, that the witnesses swore to the eexcution of it at Bath; and they are, I believe, all of them, residents at Bath; now it will be pretty clearly, and unquestionably proved to you, that on the 10th of August, when this will bears date, Mr. Lewis was at home at Hygga in the county of Monmouth, and it will be prov

ed to you, by something more positive than vague recollection, by accounts of transactions at Hygga in his own writing, of things brought in, and payments made by him to different persons distinctly and regularly from a day prior to the 8th of August, down to the 12th of the same month, and afterwards to the 20th; but, from the 20th to the 27th of the same month, there is no entry made by Mr. Lewis in that book; the possible conclusion at least from which is, that he might have been absent from Hygga at any time, or the whole time, between the 20th and 27th of August. Mr. Lewis having been at home at the time the will bears date, proved clearly that the will could not have been executed by him at Bath; and this being more generally talked of than the prudence and reserve that ought to have been used, would admit, it became pretty well known that there would be strong evidence against this will, if that will was attempted to be applied to the day of its date, it appearing therefore, that that could not be the true date, and that unless the will was antedated, it could not be the will of Mr. Lewis; it is pretty remarkable, that afterwards, upon the proof of the will, the witnesses admitted that the will was antedated, and fixed the time of the execution in that very period in which the blank in this memorandum-book occurred, and a very lame apology indeed was made for antedating it; the reason given, was, that the draft of the will was left blank, and that it was filled up with the word tenth, because there was not room to write a longer word in the blank. Now, when you come to find, that this account was not given till after it was known, that the will could not have been executed on that day, that will be a circumstance of very strong suspicion indeed.

Gentlemen, from these circumstances, therefore, there seems to be strong evidence, that that was not the will of Mr. Lewis, and having laid that foundation of probability, I will add direct and positive testimony, by persons long and well acquainted with the character of his hand-writing, and who, I am told, will be extremely clear upon that point, that this is not his hand-writing. Gentlemen, besides this, you will find a very strong body of evidence, extrinsic of the will, to shew that a will was intended to be forged, and was actually forged for Mr. Lewis; you will find a meeting held with Sir John Briggs , the person interested in the will, on the very evening preceding the burial of Mr. Lewis, in which the possibility of supplying the want of a will was much agitated by the parties at that time, and even under the then circumstances, was agreed upon by the parties, a conversation took place, which necessarily led to, and indicated, the plan of forging a will; two of the parties present, were Sir John Briggs , who has left the country, Mr. Holland, who has also left the country, and both of whom are implicated in this indictment. Gentlemen, in furtherance of that you will find, that when Mr. Holland's house was searched, several very material papers were found, which will be applicable to the two different heads of evidence that I have stated to you; at present, I shall confine myself to the general proof, that that will was a forgery, for that Mr. Holland was concerned at least in that forgery, does not at all affect the prisoner; but at Holland's there was found a paper, purporting to be the will of Mr. Lewis, which makes dispositions of the property of Mr. Henry Lewis , similar to those contained in the will, that is now contended to be his genuine will, similar exactly in the principal demises of the estate, the legacies somewhat differ in their amount, but are to the same persons, and in short there seems to be little doubt, that with the alterations which it would occur to a man of business, to make in this instrument, this paper was the prototype of the will now produced as the genuine will of Mr. Lewis; but that will is so ignorantly drawn, so illiterally expressed, so full of mispelling, in short, upon the face of it, so impossible to be the will of Mr. Henry Lewis, a gentleman and a clergyman of learning and education, that the moment it was read over by a man of sense, or a man of business, the observation which you will find afterwards was in fact made, must occur-this will not do, this can never pass as the will of Mr. Henry Lewis, but there is to that draft a signature of Henry Lewis, much more like his writing, than the will in question; but that is not all, for that paper contains absolute demonstration, that some persons were attempting to forge a will for Mr. Lewis, for it appears most distinctly, that when that draft was rejected as impossible to pass for the true will of Mr. Lewis, persons have been practising upon that sheet of paper, for you will find the name of Henry Lewis written over twelve or thirteen different times, sometimes Henry Lewis, sometimes Lewis only, and sometimes Henry only; in short, to imitate the handwriting of the testator, as will be proved by this paper.

Why then, Gentlemen, that naturally leads me to the principal evidence in the cause, I mean the evidence Isgar, the accomplice; you cannot expect that many witnesses can give precise and positive testimony to an act of forgery, it will never be committed in the presence of any person who is not implicated in the guilt; it seems to me, therefore, that it can rarely, if ever, by any thing but accident, occur, that a Court, or Jury, can have direct evidence of the fact of forgery from what may be fairly called a credible witness; and in this case, the only direct evidence will be that of an accomplice; and, of an accomplice, I will fairly state to you, as little deserving of credit in himself, as any accomplice that can be called into a Court of Justice; because, he not only comes to tell you, that for hire and reward he became a subscribing witness to a forged will, but afterwards, that he came into a Court of Justice, by perjury, to support that forgery, stating himself to be present at the execution of that will by Mr. Lewis, which, he now says, never was executed at all; therefore, you will certainly not feel yourselves called upon to believe any thing that Isgar says, merely because he says it; or because he says it upon oath. I will now read to you the account Isgar has already given, and will, probably, again give of this transaction. Isgar states, first, a conversation which passed in London, in the month of February, with a person of the name of Clarke, an attorney, in Nottinghamshire, who will make a considerable figure in this transaction; and another person, respecting the writing of a will upon a blank sheet of paper, upon which the persons name should be subseribed. Holland was also present, and a reward was promised, at that time, to Isgar; and, he admits himself, from the pressure of distressed circumstances, to have assented to this wicked

plan, and agreed to lend his assistance. He then states, that Holland, in the month of March, brought to his house, at Bath, a draft of a will, purporting to be the will of Henry Lewis; and that this was after the death of Mr. Lewis, that he produced a sheet of paper with the name Henry Lewis written upon it; he says, Holland, at that time, told him, that the paper was old enough; you see the meaning of that; that the will purporting to bear date four years before the testator's death, if the paper had been made a few weeks before, it would have furnished a means of detection. He admits that he himself copied that will upon the piece of paper so prepared he says, he sent it by the post, with a direction that he received from Holland; that Sir John Briggs called upon him with the will which he had so sent, and said, that that will would not do, for that the testator was a very particular man, and certainly would not have signed such a will as that. Sir John took it away, and, afterwards, Holland called again with the same copy, and asked if he could find a witness who could make good marks; upon which, he says, he soon after saw William Austin, the other witness to the will in question, and told him, that he knew how to put him, Austin, in the way of getting 100l. that he told him it was to put his name to a will; and Austin said, that he would do it; he says then, that Holland, Austin, and himself, went to a public-house in Bath, where Holland produced the will so copied; and Holland himself then went through the form of publishing that as the will, and then gave Austin a note for 100l. for value received, payable at Nando's coffee-house; he says, that for some time afterwards, and in his original account, given before the Mayor of Hereford, it appears, that the first time he saw Sir John Briggs was the first of May; that must be, and is, a mistake as to the time; you will give that circumstance as much weight as you may think it deserves; but in point of fact, if the transaction is true, it must have been in the month of March; Sir John Briggs said, that will will not do, we must have it done another way; and then said, that fellow Holland brought me one George Crossley , and asked the witness if he knew Crossley; the witness answered that he did; and that Sir John Briggs then said, he believed Holland had let him in, and would be his ruin; it is certain that Holland had managed this in a very bungling way up to this time; he asked the witness if he would go to London to Crossley, and if Austin would go with him; he says, that Austin and he consented; and here it will appear clear to you, that the month must have been a mistake, and probably not an intentional mistake on the part of the witness, because you will find, that Austin and he did, in fact, go to London together, about the 25th, or 26th, of March. He states that they were sent by Sir John Briggs , to attend Mr. Crossley, at the Golden-cross, Charing-cross; he then says, he afterwards heard conversation with Sir John at Mr. Crossley's house, he being with Austin in an adjoining room; George Crossley brought out to him and Austin two copies of the will of Henry Lewis, which appeared to have the name of Henry Lewis, together with the dates, all ready subscribed and filled up, but without any witnesses' name; and he told the witness and Austin to set their names as witnesses to the will. He says Austin wrote his own name, and then the name of Thomas Bowden , who had been dead about six monthes before; and then he says, that he himself wrote his name to both the copies; he says, Mr. Crossley held the door in his hard during that time, and made use of some particular expressions which you will hear from the witness. He says, after drinking some wine, he and Austin went away. A day or two after this, he says, he saw George Crossley , and asked him why two should be signed? George Crossley said, in case any accident should happen to one, that he and his clerks might then come forward, and say, it was left by the old gentlemen in his hands; that he took one of them with him, and the other was left with Mr. Crossley, who told him, that he had taken care to see that the paper was old enough for such purposes. He says, Mr. Crossley dictated a letter for him to write to Mr. Morgan, at Monmouth, which he accordingly did. He says, that he was to receive 500l. for his share; and that he did receive a bill, of Holland, for 50l. at two month's date, which he paid to George Crossley , being indebted to him for some business that he had done for him. He says, Mr. Crossley having received a sum from Holland, further paid him the sum of 10l. and he also believes, that the two wills were written by one Upfell, a nephew, and one of the clerks of the prisoner at the bar.

Gentlemen, I have now gone through the account of this nefarious transaction, by a party confessing himself to be an accomplice. Gentlemen, from the difficulty of bringing forth transactions that in their nature shun the light; the wisdom of the law does not wholly reject the restimony of accomplices, but directs Juries to receive it with great caution; unquestionably, because a man who comes into Court to impute to himself a degree of guilt equal to that of the prisoner at the bar, is not entitled to the same belief as what the law calls a fair and credible witness; but it would be perfect nonsense if the law admitted such evidence to be examined, and at the same time said, that when he is examined, you shall in no case be permitted to believe it; that would be an absurdity, which cannot be imputed to the laws of this country. The law therefore takes the middle line, which is the line of justice and common sense; it says, we will hear what a man has to say, who even stands (to make use of that vulgar expression) in that blasted situation that I have described; but we will hear him with caution; we will attend very minutely to the circumstances of the story that he tells; we will judge of its probability; but we will go further, we will examine whether he is so confirmed by written evidence, or by facts proved by credible witnesses, as to satisfy the Jury, that though the story is told by a person who himself is not worthy of belief, is nevertheless a true story.

Now, Gentlemen, I have endeavoured fairly to state the point of view in which you are to consider the evidence that is to be given by Isgar, and it now becomes my duty to state to you, what the circumstances are, by which this evidence of Isgar is to be consumed. Then, Gentlemen, the first material thing that Isgar states is, that Richard Holland brought him the draft of a will prepared, and he states Sir John Briggs subsequent application; now that will be confirmed in the most clear and satisfactory manner, by the fabricated draft, upon

which I have already observed; with that number of names to it, found in Holland's house; that therefore Holland was possessed of a paper, as described by Isgar, is certainly true; for that is proved beyond a possibility of doubt. Another very particular circumstance that confirms it is, that this very paper is in the hand-writing of Isgar, who says he wrote it. Another very remarkable thing is, Holland saying to him, that the paper was old enough; now you will find, that in a letter found at Crossley's house, from Clarke, couched in very mysterious terms, which indicated pretty strongly, that they were engaged in some nesarious transactions together, and which concludes with this remarkable expression,"I have some very choice paper forty years old:" so said Clarke to Crossley, on the 6th of March, 1795. The other parts of the letter are so unintelligible, that I have not ingenuity enough to apply them to this or any other transaction. Gentlemen, when you find that, and also the other correspondence that will be produced to you, between Clarke, Crossley, and Holland, writing to one another in this enigmatical manner, will confirm that part of the testimony of Isgar.

The next point in which Isgar's testimony is confirmed will be this, that after Austin had subscribed his name to the paper produced by Holland, and had agreed to become a witness, Holland gave Austin a note for 100l. payable at Nando's coffee-house, for value received. I will give you unquestionable proof that that part at least of Isgar's testimony is true, because that when Austin was apprehended at Hereford, that very note was found in Austin's hat. That note is antedated; for it is stated by Isgar to be in March, 1795; and the note is dated the 12th of December, 1794; and when that note is produced, you shall have the examination of it; you shall hold it up to the light, and you will see very clearly, that though it bears date upon the face of it on the 12th of December, 1794, the note was written some time in 1795; because you will see that the figure 4 is written over a 5; that therefore must have been written in 1795: it was delivered to Austin in March 1795; the 12th of December, 1794, therefore, could not have been the date of it. That part of Isgar's testimony, therefore, is true beyond all doubt.

The next confirmation of Isgar is this, that in April he and Austin came up, at the desire of Sir John Briggs , to London, to meet Crossley, where the forgery was committed. Now I shall prove that Austin and he appeared in London together about that time; that will be proved by the person with whom Isgar lodged, in St. Martin's-lane; and by the sister of Austin, who will prove that Austin was in town at that time; and the person with whom Isgar lodged will prove that Austin came to him while he was there: that is another confirmation of Isgar's evidence. His connexion with Crossley will also be proved; from some very material circumstances it will appear to you, that Crossley was seen with these men, by credible witnesses; and the witness says, that Mr. Crossley made use of the same expression to him that Holland had before done, in telling the witness that he had taken care in seeing that the paper was old enough for these purposes; there it is only necessary to remind you again of Clarke's letter to Crossley, stating, that he had got choice paper forty years old. He says then, that Mr. Crossley dictated the letter he wrote to Monmouth, respecting the will; that may or not be true; it is no further confirmed than shewing that they were together; but that such a letter was received is certain, for it bears date upon the 5th of April, and being antedated, it was not received till a period late enough to be written after the time he met. Crossley in London; it was not actually received, I believe, till the latter end of April, some days after Isgar had been in town, and had been seen with Mr. Crossley. Then Isgar states, that he was to have 500l.; that he received a bill of 501. which he paid to Crossley, and 10l.; in that you will find him confirmed by a letter of Crossley's, on the 2d of May, to Holland; in which he states that fact; and in another letter of the 2d of June to Holland, he says, "I have now advanced 70l. 10s."60l. on account of his bill for the goods, in which"your 50l. is included." So that it is a proof that Mr. Crossley paid 10l. and this bill for 50l. makes exactly the 60l.; in which Mr. Crossley himself states, the bill is included."The ten guineas is paid by order of"Monsieur." We cannot say who that was; it was likely to be Sir John Briggs ; but we can only guess. Then, he says, "however let me have the 70l. 10s. by" return of post, and it may be best to let him have 40l."more, as he so much presses; but of this do as you"please; I told him, you ought not to pay for the"goods till the sale money was paid to you." Now these are circumstances which do pretty strongly confirm the testimony of Isgar. There is also in this letter of the 2d of May, very strong matter of crimination against the prisoner; for you will find him giving a false account of some transactions, in which he was then concerned; in that letter you will find the prisoner had the andacity to make use of the name of that very respectable gentleman who at this moment attends here, I mean Sir John Scott , his Majesty's Attorney General, from whose-well known character, I am sure, if you had not been sitting where you are, bound to decide, by evidence, upon oath alone, you would not have required witnesses to state that it was not true, that it applied to Sir John Scott; if there is any other Sir John Scott to whom it does apply, it will be incumbent upon Mr. Crossley to shew which, if he can, I shall be extremely happy; but writing to Mr. Richard Holland upon the 2d of May, Mr. Crossley says,"When I saw Sir John Scott here, he then advised,"and it was agreed, that Mr. Eberno should be at the"King's-head, upon Monday at eleven. I have since"then settled the matter of Eberno, which Mrs. Allen"last wrote about, and the bail was put in, so that"nothing can, but his own want of prudence, prevent"his attending to the appointment; he set off by the"coach at four this morning." Now that part of the letter leads into a very extraordinary transaction indeed, and I believe I may venture to prophesy, that Sir John Scott will tell you he never gave such advice, and that he has not any knowledge who this Mr. Eberno is; it is necessary, however, that you should know who he is, and I think I can prove that Mr. Eberno is no other than Isgar, the witness; I will shew you that Isgar, who will swear to the forgery at the time I have stated, staid in town after that, till the 2d of May, which is the date of

this letter, that he did set out from town at or about four o'clock on that morning; and I will prove, that on the preceding day, bail was put in for Isgar, by a Mr. Stephen Price , and paid for by Mr. Crossley, which I will prove by a book found at Crossley's, and that Crossley gave to Isgar two guineas, with three guineas and a half which he states was given to him before. I will shew you that Isgar left town that morning at four, as Eberno is stated to have done, and that no bail was put in for any person of the name of Eberno. You will also find that Eberno was to be at the King's-head on Monday, and that Crossley writes to Holland, and expresses great uneasiness at not hearing of Isgar's arrival; it will apear that Isgar was not at the King's-head, as Eberno was expected to be, but was prevented, as he says, for want of money; he goes, in fact, to Bath, and from Bath to Monmouth, but not till late on Tuesday the 5th, when he carried the will in question; and Mr. Crossley afterwards had advice from Mr. Clarke of the arrival of Isgar at Monmouth, upon which you will find he sets his mind at rest, which it was not till then, owing to the non-arrival of Eberno at the King's-head on the 4th. He says, "I hope Sir" John Scott will not fail to meet him," (that is, to meet Mr. Eberno at Monmouth; I believe I hardly need call the Attorney-General to prove that he did not meet Mr. Eberno at Monmouth); "that he may at"once dispatch his business; for he is much too apt to"get drunk; the sooner he returns the better; for I"cannot answer for his prudence, if in liquor; and"when any thing pleases or displeases Mr. Eberno, he"is generally drunk on the subject; I am well satisfied"you may trust him, as he will faithfully bring the"money to account;" for you will find that he did bring the money,

"so you not fear him on that"head; but a man that gets drunk is not a fit person"for business, and therefore I would have you to act"more cautiously in future; the 50l. you gave him last"is accepted." I shall shew you an entry in Crossley's book, of the receipt of the 50l. on the account of Holland, described to be payable in two months.

"I told"him where he was to get the money, and he had it, the"full 50l. Sir John Scott told me to advance him five"guineas more, which I did; you might as well request"the payment of that five guineas, as it is best to keep"no account but what is clear." The conclusion of the letter says, "I hope Mr. Eberno will not be kept an"hour at the King's-head, as I have given him orders to"depart as soon as possible." So that as soon as Isgar had done his business, that is, carried the will, he wished him to get away as fast as possible, and I believe, when you are satisfied that Eberno means Isgar, you will have as little doubt that Sir John Scott means Sir John Briggs, as that Eberno means Isgar.

Gentlemen, Isgar gives an account also of a meeting held near Bath. You will find him confirmed in that, first, by positive testimony, that he and Austin did go to such a meeting, and I think, in the beginning of April; you will find at Bath, brought together upon the scene of action, Isgar, Austin, Holland, Sir John Briggs , and Mr. Crossley, the prisoner at the bar you will have Mr. Crossley proved to be at Bath at that time, by a person who asked him how he came there, and he shewed his anxiety that it should not be known that he was there, declaring, that he would not, for 1000l. that it should be known; and I will prove Isgar and Austin going together on horseback to a public-house on the Bristol road, four miles from Bath, and meeting with Sir John Briggs and Mr. Crossley; after that, Mr. Crossley returned to London, and you will probably find that the forgery was there planned, which was afterwards executed at Mr. Crossley's house.

Gentlemen, another circumstance will strongly confirm the account given by Isgar; he tells you the way in which he received the 60l. he says, Mr. Crossley gave him change out of it; he says, that Mr. Crossley gave him two Abergavenay bank-notes for five guineas each; I will prove that two such notes were seen in the hands of Isgar at that time; he tells you further, that Mr. Crossley paid him that 10l. by a draft upon his bankers, Morland, Hammersley, and Co. in Pall-mall; I will prove by the clerks of that house, that that draft was received by a man of the name of Isgar, so that in many points his story is confirmed, and in many points that connect him with the prisoner at the bar.

Gentlemen, there is, besides that, a letter found in Mr. Crossley's possession, from Clarke, manifesting some intelligence he had received from Mr. Crossley, by means of a person of the name of Vincent, who is referred to in some other of the letters, in which he says, on the 13th of September, 1705, (a letter found at Crossley's, after Holland's house was searched);

"I"have received your's, and am sorry Dixon's sample"is found; what a fool must he be to write so many"names as you say he hath done." Now I will prove Dixon to be a name by which Holland was known; and when I produce the draft of the will, with so many names subcribed to it, it is impossible to doubt that this will is a forgery, and that this letter had reference to it. He says, "What a fool must he be to write so many names,"as you say he hath done; you may be certain it is all"his own doing; I have had no letter. - Vincent called"here while I was with you; he said, he should call"again before he went back into the West, and from"him I shall have the whole history."

Now, gentlemen, these circumstances confirm very strongly the testimony of this witness, in points directly connected with the prisoner at the bar. - And, Gentlemen, at the time Mr. Crossley was apprehended at his house, in the Adelphi, the first paper that appeared lying upon his desk, was the blank cover of a letter, having the Hereford post-mark upon it; and being of a date referrable to this transaction, it suggested itself instantly, that some light might be thrown upon the transaction by this letter; Mr. Crossley went to his private drawer, but upon being asked respecting that cover, he he denied having any knowledge of the letter from which that cover was torn; he supposed it was something that had been destroyed by some of his clerks; upon opening the private drawer; there were two particular papers, upon which Mr. Crossley made this observation, I suppose this is what you want. - Now you shall hear what that was which Mr. Crossley supposed they wanted; you will find it was the half sheet torn off the cover I have already described to you, and as that will be matter

of eye-sight, I shall say but little to you upon the subject; if you place them together, it will appear that the waterlines in the paper correspond, and the water-merk is torn in the middle; you will therefore be convinced, that that is the letter which belonged to that cover; it is a letter from. Hereford, written by Austin to Crossley; the evidence of it, as against Mr. Crossley, is, its being found in his possession, under the circumstances I have stated; it is a letter complaining of the hardships they had suffered in jail, Isgar and Austin being then in jail; upon this charge, Isgar not having at that time made any discovery; it is dated the 29th of September,

"I"shall be glad of your answer as soon as possible, to"know what we are to do, &c." (See the Evidence). Now this letter from Austin is found in a private drawer at Crossley's; it is first denied by him, and then he said, this is, I suppose, what you want. This is a very strong circumstance, which seems to have nothing particular in it, except from the story of Isgar; and is a very essential paper to implicate Mr. Crossley in the transaction.

Gentlemen, I beg pardon for having taken up so unreasonable a portion of your time; I have endeavoured to point out, as clearly as I could, the circumstances brought home to the prisoner at the bar, by which the evidence of Isgar will be confirmed; and the greater part of those circumstances are by written evidence, proceeding very much from the prisoner himself, or found in his possession; if therefore the evidence of a person, totally discredited as to his own veracity, can meet with belief in a Court of Jutice, and if it cannot, I know no purpose for which the law receives it; the circumstances of confirmation do appear to entitle this evidence to be received at least, with much attention, and well weighed by the Jury. It is not my duty to press it further upon your minds, you will judge for yourselves; assisted by the directions you will receive from the learned Judge on the beneh, whether applying the whole of those circumstances that fairly do apply to the evidence of Isgar, weighing on the one hand the character of the witness, and on the other the material circumstances in which he is confirmed, you will pronounce your judgment whether you believe that evidence or not.

Gentlemen, I shall call the evidence on the part of the prosecution, again asking pardon for having trespassed so much upon your time, in the sincere hope that the evidence may not come up to my statement; no man will be better satisfied, if, upon a full and fair examination of all the circumstances, you should feel yourselves authorized (in point of conscience, and with attention to your duty, and the oath you have taken) to acquit the prisoner at the bar, than I shall be; but if you should entertain no rational doubt, and your minds are clearly satisfied(as in a case of this nature you ought to be) of these two propositions - that the will is a forgery, and under the knowledge of the prisoner; then it is a duty you owe the public, to bring to justice the perpetrators of so foul a transaction as this.

Evidence for the Prosecutrix.

BENJAMIN PRICE sworn.

Produces the will.

Mr. Fielding. Q. From whom did you receive that? - A. It was read by me, given in evidence in Court, and I was ordered by the Court to take possession of it.

Q. From whose hand did you receive it? - A. I believe Lord Kenyon's; I am not certain.

Q. Further than from the belief that his Lordship delivered it to you, you don't know from whom you received it? - A. No.

Q. You won't affect to be positive that the noble Lord delivered it to you? - A. No; I will not.

Mr. Fielding. Q. As to whether that instrument was read in the cause or not, that of course you can only speak to from memory of the supposed contents? - A. I marked it at the time, and have had it ever since.

Q. Be so good as to tell my Lord and the Jury the title of the cause? - A. Doe on the demise of Kane and others, against Morgan, Esq.

THOMAS STOKES sworn.

Examined by Mr. Mils. I am an attorney, at Monmouth; I was acquainted with Mr. Lewis till the day of his death.

Q. For what length of time? - A. For about eleven years.

Q. During that time, were you employed by him to transact any business; or were you acquainted with his house? - A. For upwards of seven years I was attorney for him in several causes.

Q. What was Mr. Lewis? - A. A clergyman.

Q. What fortune had he? - A. I believe he had estates, freehold and copyhold, to the amount of 800l. a year.

Q. Had he any personal estate? - A. Very trisling.

Q. Do you know his habits of life? - A. Yes.

Q. What were they; with whom did he associate? - A. With Mrs. Kane and me; at Sidmouth and Monmouth he passed most of his time.

Q. Did he live with persons of his rank, or persons of inferior rank? - A. With persons of his own rank.

Q. I believe he was a scholar? - A. Yes.

Q. How nearly was Mrs. Kane related to him? - A. I believe they called one another cousins; but I don't know whether they were so related.

Q. Have you often seen him write? - A. Many times.

Q.Have you seen him write his name often? - A. Very often.

Q. Look at that signature and say what you believe of it? - A. I have examined it frequently, and my opinion upon my oath is, that it is not Mr. Lewis's hand writing.

Q. State any thing you see particular in that hand-writing that makes you think so? - A. It is wrote more formal, not with that degree of freedom and case with which Mr. Lewis generally

wrote; from the observation I have made upon it, it appears to me as if some part of the pen had went over after some of the letters were formed.

Q. From your knowledge of his hand-writing, and your observation upon that, what is your opinion? - A. That it is not the hand-writing of Mr. Lewis.

Q. Did you, in the course of your acquaintance with Mr. Lewis, hear him at any time, and when did you first hear him, speak about his will? - A. In 1789, I was concerned in Iitigating a cause for him about his mother's will; I was in London with him.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, we humbly conceive, that this can be no evidence; it is most truly, most distinctly, and most honourably stated by my learned friend, who has just now opened the case for the prosecution, that it cannot be, unless this will is brought home to the prisoner. My Lord, if we were in a civil cause here between persons, litigating this property, connected with this family, and capable of course from that connexion of applying for evidence to counteract evidence of the description that is now given; I understand the objection was not taken before the noble and learned Lord who tried the cause, but supposing it was taken; if it was admissible there, it is not admissible here: Mr. Crossley stands (a mere stranger to the deceased), charged with a crime, and therefore, if the authenticity of the will is first to be settled or destroyed, and if Mr. Crossley cannot be affected till that authenticity is destroyed, the authenticity ought not to be effected by the evidence now offered before your Lordship; because having no concern with this testator, undoubtedly he has not the opportunity of answering it.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord, the evidence, now offered, is, declarations of the testator, of two sorts; with respect to his being testate or intestate, and with respect to his intention, whether he should die without a will or not; and to be sure there are many persons, very honourable persons, have, during their life-time, stated such declarations, that they have made no will, when it has turned out afterwards that they have made one; I speak from my own experience; declarations of this kind are frequently made, when the persons themselves have actually made a will; and therefore I conceive it to be extremely dangerous to admit this upon the first branch of the cause; the question, whether this be or not Mr. Lewis's will, I submit, is not evidence; it is impossible to enlarge upon it, it is a simple question.

Mr. Fielding. My Lord, I think I am merely to consider it from the situation in which Mr. Crossley stands; Mr. Crossley, being here in this situation, has a right to object to any part of the testimony, however it may appear to the Court, only to be matter of form or not; he having a right to object to that testimony, so he offers his objections to your Lordship; now, my Lord, a declaration made by this gentleman, he not now being living, there is no posible way in the world in which that declaration, as I conceive, in a criminal cause, could be produced here. My Lord, if he had made that declaration in articulo mortis, it could not have been produced; no situation could have been given to render that declaration available, and indeed it passes as a mere hearsay, not applicable to the case, but only applicable to that first part of the case, which the learned Sergeant has acknowledged he must establish, before he can go to the immediate corpus delecti here, but having a reference by possibility; here the prisoner calls upon your Lordship to pause before you receive it, and before it is received, I take it for granted, that your Lordship would expect from the gentlemen on the other side, to say under what sanction this declaration would be made evidence in a Court of Justice; that it has a bearing upon the first part of the case, which we, as counsel for the prisoner, are bound in duty to take; it appears to me, without troubling your Lordship further, that it is impossible in the nature of things, that any thing that gentleman has said, in the course of his life, under any sanction whatever, could be made evidence in a Court of Justice, in a case where the prisoner is trying for his life.

Mr. Justice Rooke. My brother Adair stated, in the opening, very properly, two points to consider, whether it is a forged will or not; and whether it was forged by Mr. Crossley. As to the first, if Mr. Crossley had nothing to do with it, it is of no consequence whether it is a forged will or not; but it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to make out that this is a forged will; I think it is evidence subject for the observation of the Jury; his declarations are, in my opinion, evidences.

Mr. Russell. Q. State the declarations you have heard him make respecting a will? - A. I was in London with him in 1789; I was then concerned for him respecting litigating his mother's will; he lodged at Peele's coffee-house, in Fleet-street; and there, in the act of writing a letter, fell down in a sit; I thought it a very proper opportunity to remind him of the unsettled state of his own affairs; he told me then, he had not made a will; he never would make a will; the law should make his will; in the year 1791, I received a letter from a Mrs. Harman, of Bristol, who was the heir at law of Mr. Lewis, and in very distressed circumstances.

Court. Do not tell us the contents of that letter. - A. I made an application to Mr. Lewis, to relieve her necessities; this he refused, on account of his own pecuniary embarrassments; saying, that she must wait till he was dead, then she would have all; she being his heir at law.

Q. That is the person, I believe, who is now claimant? - A. It is upon the paternal side; he had frequently told me, that she was his heir at law; in the month of October, 1793, I received a letter from a Mr. Jacobs, of Bristol against Mr. Lewis, desiring to have him arrested; Mr. Lewis and I had a little shyness in consequence of it; I thought it my duty to send for him; I informed him of the circumstance of having a writ against him: on the 22d of October he was at my house, for the purpose of putting in bail to that writ; I joined in a bail-bond with him.

Court. We don't want all those circumstances. - A. I am coming to it; he then told me that he had never made a will; he never would make a will; and that the law should make his will; this I am positive was on the 22d of October; I don't confine myself to these three times only, he has many times told me so; but I don't fix my memory as to the times.

Q. Did you ever hear him make any contrary declarations? - A. Never; they were constant and uniform.

Q. When did Mr. Lewis die? - A. The 11th of January, 1795, and was buried on the 16th of the same.

Q. How long before any mention was made, or any report made of a will? - A. I heard of a letter being sent to Monmouth the latter end of April.

Q. Mrs. Kane lived at Monmouth? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did he die? - A. At Mr. Kane's house.

Q. I believe you have some papers here? - A. I have.

Q. Produce those you had from Mr. Phillips first? - A. All but one, which I had from the officer that searched the house, James Francis Lewis .

Q. You had better mark them? - A. These papers I found in Mr. Crossley's house, (ties them together and marks them).

Q. When did you go to Mr. Crossley's house? - A. On the 7th day of October last, I went with a search warrant, backed by one of the officers at Bow-street; and a warrant to apprehend Mr. Crossley at the same time; Sayer, an officer, went with me; I found these papers I now hold in my hand, and a cover of a letter, on Mr. Crossley's desk.

Court. Q. Did you come upon him by surprise? - A. Yes; he did not resist any thing; I asked Mr. Crossley for the contents of that cover; I saw the Hereford post mark upon it; and that made me so pressing for the contents of it; he made me some kind of an evasive answer, either that they were destroyed, or he knew nothing of them; we then proceeded to our search, and I permitted Mr. Crossley to take his papers out of his private drawer; the key of which he had: and I observed that he kept under his left hand two small papers; and appeared anxious to conceal them; I told him, he must let me have them; and then he gave them to me, saying, I suppose this is what you want; and he then gave me the two papers I now hold in my hand.

Court. Q. Did he point to one of them particularly? - A. No; he did not; he gave them me both at the same time.

Q. Did you say any thing to him upon the letters appearing to be signed by the name of Clarke? - A. Yes; he told me it was Mr. Clark of Worksop; I then took the papers away; there were some books also.

Q. Where did you get those papers from? - A. Millar, the officer, gave them to me; I made him mark them; and they have never been out of my possession; these books have been out of my possession some time: upon Mr. Crossley going to Hereford, he wished to have access to these books; I gave them to Mr. Barrow, the Mayor of Hereford, on the 10th of October; I think that was the day that Mr. Crossley was committed; I did not take the books from Mr. Crossley's house; Sayer, the officer took them; he has marked them, and I marked them also.

Court. Q. They were found at Mr. Crossley's, and you have them here? - A. Yes; I received them from Mr. Barrow, in December last; since which they have not been out of my custody.

Q. I believe you have the register of Bowden's death, the other witness to the will? - A. I have,(produces it).

Q. Have you examined this? - A. I have.

Q. Is it an exact copy? - A. It is; from the parish of Bethwick, in the county of Somerset; he was buried the 10th of November, 1794, (the witness produces a copy from the bail-book, of the bail put in for Isgar upon the 1st of May, 1795).

Q. Did you search for any bail put in by Isgar? - A. I have searched in the Crown office for the whole of Hilary term, 1795, and Easter; there is no recognizance in the name of Eberno: I made the same search at the Prothonotary's of the Court of Common Pleas; afterwards at the Three Secondaries of the Court of Common Pleas; afterwards at the Four Judges Chambers; the Court of King's Bench; Exchequer office; Lincoln's Ian; I searched through every office, and could find no such thing: this is an office copy of the record of the judgment in the cause of Doe, on the demise of Kane and others, against Morgan, (producing it).

Mr. Mills. Q. I believe you were present, or applied to by Isgar, before he was admitted to bail? - A. Yes.

Mr. Garrow. You cannot, in this stage, go into that, (produces the attachment upon which the bail was put in).

Th Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKINS sworn.

Examined by Mr. Russell. Q. Where do you live? - A. At Sidmouth, in Devonshire.

Q. Were you acquainted with Mr. Henry Lewis of Monmouthshire? - A. I was acquainted with him more than twenty years.

Q. Did he spend much of his time at Sidmouth? - A. The latter part of his time; he left Sidmouth a few days before Christmas-day, 1794.

Q. How long had he been there at that visit? - A. I suppose he had, to and fro, for two or three months.

Q.During that last visit, had you frequent opportunities of seeing and conversing with him? - A. Almost every day.

Q. Did it happen that any part of the family of Sir John Briggs were near Sidmouth at that time? - A. Yes; his eldest son was near Sidmouth with the militia, and sometimes at Sidmouth.

Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. Lewis upon the subject of the family of the Briggs's, and particularly respecting his will? - A. The conversation I had was, I used to ask Mr Lewis about Sir John Briggs; he said, he knew little or nothing about Sir John, and he should not concern himself about it.

Q. Had you any conversation with him about this son? - A. I had; I told Mr. Lewis that Sir John's son would probably be at my house with the other officers of the militia, and asked him to come and spend the evening there; he told me, as Sir John's son was there, he should not come; I said, if he was displeased with Sir John, why with his son; that as he had some property to leave, he said, he should never give any thing, directly or indirectly, to Sir John, or any part of his family.

Q. Did you ever hear him say whether he had or not made a will? - A. I never heard him say it.

Q. You have frequently seen him write. - A. Yes

Q. Have you frequently seen him write his name? - A. Frequently.

Q. Be so good as look at that will, and see if you believe that to be the hand-writing of Mr. Lewis? - A. I do not think it is.

Q. In what does it appear to you to differ? - A. Mr. Lewis would take his pen from the end of the n, before he made the r; and frequently be a break off between the n and the r.

Q.Upon the whole, do you believe that or not to be his hand-writing? - A. I believe it is not his hand-writing.

THOMAS PHILLIPS sworn.

Q. You were attorney in the cause tried at Hereford, between Mrs. Kane and Mr. Morgan? - A. Yes; for the defendant.

Q.Were you at London at the time of the death of Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes; he died at the house of Mrs. Kane.

Q. Were you acquainted before that time with Mrs. Kane? - A. Yes; intimately and confidentially.

Q. Were you called in upon the death of Mr. Lewis? - A. I was; in consequence of a note that I received, I went to Mrs. Kane's.

Q. Did you make any searches when you were there? - A. Yes; I searched the pocket-book of Mr. Lewis, and the other papers brought to me.

Court. Q. What day was this? - A. The 11th of January.

Q.Upon that search, did you or not find any will of Mr. Lewis? - A. No; I did not.

Q.(Hands him a book). Do you know that book? - A. Yes; I saw this book with some other papers sent me from Sidmouth, by Mrs. Jenkins.

Q. Do you know the hand-writing? - A. I have very frequently seen Mr. Lewis write, and I believe this is hand-writing.

Q.Look at that will, and tell me, whether in your opinion that is the hand-writing of Mr. Lewis? - A. I don't think it is.

Q.Do you speak generally, or are there any particular circumstances in the writing that induce you to say so? - A. It appears differently from the signature that I have seen him sign several times.

Q. What is the difference between this signature and that you have seen him sign several times? - A. The letters appear to be rough, and not with the same freedom and ease that he was used to write with.

Q. By rough, do you mean jagged? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you deliver any to Mr. Phillips; and where did you get these papers that you did deliver to Mr. Stokes? - A. I had received a number of papers that I had received from Francis Lewis , and I delivered them to Mr. Stokes exactly in the state in which I had received them.

Q.Look at that book, do you know that? - A. A Mr. Robert Williams sent it me with a trunk of Mr. Lewis's papers.

Q. Who is he? - A. He was the attorney for Mrs. Kane and Sir John Briggs , in the trial of the ejectment.

Q. Do you know the hand-writing in that book? - A. It appears to me to be Mr. Lewis's writing; it was sent to me by Mr. Williams.

Q. Do you happen to know whether Mr. Thomas Morgan was in possession of the estate at Treleek house? - A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you know who took possession of the estate upon Mr. Lewis's death? - A. Grace Cornish , Mary Williams, Mary Harman , James Williams, and Susannah, his wife; Thomas Webber has since come over from America.

Court. Q. He did not take possession at that time? - A. No.

Q. Have the tenants attourned? - A. They have made formal attournments.

Q. Do you happen to know whether any rent has been paid to the heir at saw? - A. I have sold coppice wood and timber upon this estate, and accounted to the paternal heirs at law for it.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. Now, my Lord, I shall state to your Lordship the next head of evidence,

which your Lordship has received in many late causes, the authenticity of signatures.

Mr. Justice Rooke. As to that kind of evidence, as far as my own practice has gone, it is such slight evidence, that forte persons will say one thing and some another; I have heard witnesses say, that in their opinion a signature must be a forged one; and on the other hand, others have said, that they did not believe it to be a forged one.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. I will not press it, my Lord.

Mrs. CHARLOTTE STOKES sworn.

Examined by Mr. Mills. Q. You were acquainted very well with Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes, for several years.

Q.Shortly state if you remember hearing him make any declarations respecting his will? - A. He has frequently declared to me he never intended to make his will; that the law had made his will.

Q. How lately before his death? - A. As nearly as I can recollect, about two years ago.

Q. Do you recollect in what way he expressed himself; did he speak of his intention to make one? - A. That he had had so much trouble with his mother's, that he never would make one.

Right Hon. Lord KENYON sworn.

Mr. Sergeant Adoir. Q. Does your Lordship recollect examining the witnesses to the will in question, when it was produced at Hereford assizes? - A. Yes, perfectly well.

Q. Will your Lordship have the goodness to state to the Court the account given by one of those witnesses, Austin, with respect to the execution of that will?

Mr. Erskine. If I could, in point of form, appeal to the noble and very learned Judge to pronounce upon the competency of the evidence, I should not trouble the Court; because, if my own life was at stake, instead of the gentleman's at the bar, I should be very glad to have that matter decided by the noble Judge who is called upon to give evidence, and I shall only say it does appear to me to be so extraordinary a proposition, that I shall not offer another sentence upon the subject.

Mr. Justice Rooke. I should wish my brother Adair to state how it can affect the prisoner.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. I conceive that upon the question whether this is or is not a genuine will, the account given of that will by the witnesses who attested the execution of it, is evidence against the prisoner.

Mr. Justice Rooke. Where are those witnesses?

Mr. Sergeant Adair. Austin is in the indictment.

Mr. Justice Rooke. You cannot examine his Lordship certainly to that.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. As far as they do go upon the question of its being a genuine will or not, though it has not the least relevancy, and if I had been informed that he had said one single word respecting Mr. Crossley in that examination, I am sure I would not have called the noble and learned Lord.

Mr. Justice Rooke. Do the witnesses swear that it is a forged will?

Mr. Serjeant Adair. No, my Lord, it is perhaps a little awkward upon the question of admissibility.

Mr. Justice Rooke. If Austin was here, and they were both upon trial, I certainly could not resist the evidence; but as it is not so, I certainly must.

THOMAS MORGAN , sworn.

Examined by Mr. Russell. Q. I believe you were the defendant in the ejectment tried at Hereford? - A. Certainly.

Q. At the time that ejectment was brought, were you in possession of the estate for which it was brought? - A. Yes.

Q.From whom did you inherit it? - A. I was in possession of it as maternal heir to Mr. Lewis.

Sir JOHN SCOTT sworn.(A paper handed to him).

Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Do you know a person of the name of Eberno? - A. Certainly not.

Q. Did you ever give any advice to Mr. Crossley whatever, touching the subject matter of that letter? - A. Certainly not.

Q. Have you any knowledge of the facts referred to in it? - A. Certainly not.

Q. You had no idea perhaps of going into the West at that time? - A. Certainly not.

Mr. Morgan. Cross-examined by Mr. Garrow.

Q. You inherited that estate as maternal heir at law? - A. Yes.

Q. At what distance did you reside from Mr. Lewis during the latter part of his life? - A. About five miles.

Q. Then I take it for granted, as you were to inherit a considerable part of his property, that you frequently visited, and were upon very intimate terms? - A. Not for the last two years of his life.

Q.I don't mean to ask any improper question; but was the property, supposing this will to be out of the question, devolving to you, considerable? - A. To the best of my recollection it is worth nearly 200l. a year.

Q. Now, though there was no particular intimacy between you for the last two years, did you meet occasionally upon friendly terms? - A. I cannot say we did.

Q. Very much the contrary, I believe? - A. Yes; he had taken offence at some part of my conduct, and refused to speak to me when I accosted him.

Q. So that if accidentally you met in the street, and had civilly accosted him, he would not notice you? - A. After he had refused me once or twice, I never attempted it.

Q. How lately might you have seen him before his death? - A. I cannot speak with any accurate precision; it might be within three or four months to the best of my recollection.

Q. Did his resentment continue down to the time of his death, as far you know? - A. We were not upon speaking terms, as I told you, for the last two years of his life time.

Q. You know Mrs. Kane? - A. Very well.

Q. The mother of Lady Briggs? - A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Lewis pass a great deal of his time at her house; we have heard that he died there? - A. I cannot say as to that.

Court. The last witness said that he did.

Mr. Russell. Q. Do you know what proportion the part that you took, as maternal heir, bore to the whole property? - A. In the proportion of 170 to 830.

Court. Q. You have not been intimate with him for the last two years of his life; upon what terms were you with him the two years before? - A. Upon very good terms.

Q. Were you friendly? - A. Yes; he visited me frequently.

ELIZABETH PARRY sworn.

Q. Whose servant were you in July 1790? - A. Mr. Henry Lewis 's.

Q. Do you remember the receipt of any wages from him in the month of August 1791? - A. I received my wages in the month of August.

Q. Do you remember what day in the month of August you received those wages? - A. I cannot say rightly.

Q.Early, or the latter end of the month? - A. I believe it was the beginning.

Q. Do you know the hand-writing of Mr. Lewis? - A. I partly know it; I have seen a great deal of it.

Q. Did he enter what he paid into a book? - A. Yes; he generally did at the moment.

Q. Do you remember whether he did that in this month of August? - A. I cannot rightly recollect it.

Q. Look at that book; is that his hand-writing? - A. I think that is his hand-writing. (An entry of August 10, 1791, paid Elizabeth Parry 19s).

Q.Where did you live at that time? - A. At a place called Hygga, six or seven miles from Monmouth.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. We mean to shew, from repeated entries, from the 5th of August to the 12th, that he was at Hygga all that time.

Mr. Erstine. We have no objection to its being so taken, without examining further to it.

JOHN EDWARDS sworn.

Examined by Mr. Mills. Q. Where do you live? - A. I live near Bath; I lived there in 1791.

Q. Do you know William Austin? - A. Yes.

Q. Should you know him if you were to see him? - A. Yes.

Q. What is he? - A. A carpenter and a builder.

Q. Have you ever been at his house? - A. No.

Q. Do you know any thing particularly about his way of life; whether he was in a low way of life or not? - A. I believe he is poor enough now.

Q. Did you know any thing of him in 1791? - A. I did not know any thing of his circumstances, only that he kept on building.

Mr. Garrow. Q. He was a builder, and when the Bath bank failed he failed? - A. I don't think the Bath bank hurt him much.

Mr. Mills. Q. Do you know Isgar? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember his going from Bath to Monmouth with you? - A. On Tuesday the 5th of May, 1795.

Q. What time did you get to Monmouth? - A. Between eleven and twelve; we staid there till eight o'clock the next morning.

Q. Did you see any body in company with Isgar at the King's-head? - A. I saw only one lady; and I don't know who she was.

Q. At what time was it? - A. After supper, about eleven o'clock.

Q. Was she present while you were together in the room? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Isgar deliver any paper to the woman? - A. No.

Q. Did any thing pass between them?

Mr. Erskine. The conversation with Isgar, with respect to that instrument after its publication, cannot be evidence.

Q. You went away at eight next morning, and saw no body with Isgar but that lady; did you see any thing in his possession? - A. Nothing but a letter, directed to Mrs. Kane.

Q. You remember seeing a paper, on which there was a direction to Mrs. Kane? - A. Yes.

Q.You only saw it in his hand? - A. I never had it in my hand.

Q.(A paper shewn him.) Look at that, have you ever seen that before? - A. That is not what I saw.

Q.(Another paper shewn him.) - A. I believe this is the same.

Q.You believe that is the paper you saw in Isgar's hand? - A. I believe it is.

Mr. Garrow. Q. You saw it in his hand; that is all the opportunity you had of seeing it? - A. Yes; the first time I saw it in his hand was at Hygga.

Q. Had you seen it more than once? - A. No.

Q. When did you see it at Hygga? - A. Ten

o'clock at night; that is the place before we came to Monmouth.

GEORGE GRIFFIN sworn.

Q. Do you know William Austin ? - A. Yes.

Q. How long have you known Austin? - A. About thirty years.

Q.For the last part of his life, what business was he in? - A. In the building way.

Q. Did he live at Bath? - A. Yes.

Q. What fort of a house did he keep? - A. A very bad house.

Q. Did you know Bowden? - A. Yes.

Q. What was he? - A. A builder likewise; I knew him to the day of his death.

Q. What occupation was he in before his death? - A. A builder; I never heard any thing against his character.

Q. Did Isgar live at Bath? - A. Yes; he undertook a little small business in the Country Court; he acted as an attorney.

Q. Did you ever see Austin write? - A. Yes; I have some of his writing in my pocket.

Q. Look at that, (shewing him a paper); do you believe that to be his hand-writing? - A. Yes; I will swear that is his name; (another paper shewn him,) that likewise has the appearance of his handwriting.

Cross-examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. You are very snort upon the subject of Isgar; do not you know him? - A. I know him perfectly well; I don't know as to his business.

Q. A good many lines he has been in; you knew him as a baker? - A. No; that was before I came to Bath.

Q. Perhaps he was a banker before you came? - A. I don't know that.

Q. You knew him as clerk to an attorney? - A. I know that he wrote letters to different people for money, and threatened them with law.

Q. Did you know him when he was an auctioneer? - A. No.

Q. Did you ever know a worse fellow in your life? - A. I heard he bore a bad character, and I believed it.

Q. Did you ever know a man of a more infamous character? - A. That was his general character.

THOMAS WEAVER (the younger) sworn.

Q. Do you know Sir John Briggs ? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Richard Holland ? - A. I have seen him several times.

Q. Do you know James Morgan ? - A. Yes.

Q. Where does James Morgan live? - A. At Norton, in the parish of Skenfreth.

Q.How far that from Monmouth? - A. About six or seven miles.

Q.Do you remember the funeral of Mr. Henry Lawn ? - A. I have heard of it.

Q. Did you see Mr. Holland and Sir John Briggs at the house of Mr. Morgan? - A. On the night before, as Sir John said he was going to the funeral as chief mourner.

Q. On that evening, who were at Mr. Morgan's? - A. My father for one, and one Michael Jones, and one Crump, I don't know what his name is besides Crump.

Q. Was Sir John Briggs there at first, or did he come in after the others? - A. He came in after we were there; Mr. Morgan asked me to stop, as he expected Sir John.

Q. When Sir John came in, what was the conversation that passed; you have said, he said was going to the funeral as chief mourner of Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes; when Sir John came in, be was in a violent passion, cursed and swore, and said, through the faults of Madam Kane, and his sister-in-law, he had lost a fortune of upwards of 2000l.

Q. Who was his sister-in-law? - A. He married a daughter of Madam Kane's.

Q. Did he state what the fault of Madam Kane was? - A. He said, if they had only spoken to Mr. Lewis to have made a will, he would have one it; but, said he, had I been at Mrs. Kanes, I would have made him make a will, and then I would have choaked him; Mr. Holland said, it was not too late yet to make a will, Mr. Holland asked Sir John, had he any of his writings by him; he said, he had letters of Mr. Lewis's, and that he could forge his hand to a nicety, or any other man's he had been used to; Sir John said, Madam Kane was very silly woman to deliver up the key and writings to Mr. Thomas Phillips , for Mr. Philips had the care of them: Sir John, or Mr. Holland, I don't know rightly which, said, if it had not been for that, he could have put a will among the writings; that was now put an end to.

Q. Was any thing else said? - A. No, nothing at all.

Q. Did you and your father go home before the company separated? - A. We went home, and left Mr. Holland and Sir John, at Mr. Morgan's-house.

Q. What are you? - A. I live with my father, my father is a farmer in Herefordshire, about seven or eight miles from Monmouth.

Cross-examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. This hapened at Mr. Morgan's? - A. Yes.

Q. What is Mr. Morgan? - A. A farmer, a freeholder.

Q. There were a good many people present besides those you have mentioned? - A. No; this was in the parlour, the other people were in the kitchen.

Q. It was very cold weather? - A. I don't recollect.

Q. Don't you recollect what weather it was the the 15th of last January? - A. No.

Q. You kept yourselves warm? - A. We were sitting by the fire in the parlour; Crump was not there nor Jones.

Q. You did not know much of Sir John Briggs ? - A. No; my father had dealings with him.

Q. Not very extensive dealings? - A. He owed him nine or ten pounds at a time.

Q. Your father is a very honest man? - A. I believe so.

Q. He is not that fort of man that would take a share in such a scandalous thing as forging a will? - A. No.

Q. I suppose you would not? - A. No.

Q. How long might all this conversation last? - A. I cannot tell the hour, they left it about two o'clock in the morning.

Q. How long did this conversation last? - A. It was most part of the discourse that night.

Q. Sir John was in a violent passion the whole of the time? - A. He came at in a passion.

Q. Did he get rid of his passion? - A. He was more quiet after.

Q. Was Mr. Holland in a passion to? - A. No.

Q. So Mr. Holland said it was not too late yet to make a will, and asked Sir John if he and any writings of Mr. Lewis's? - A. Yes.

Q. And Sir John answered, he could forge his hand to a nicety, and any other man's hand he had been used to? - A. Yes.

Q. All this was said in your prefence? - A. All in my presence.

Q. Soon after you came into the room? - A. I cannot say how soon.

THOMAS WEAVER (the elder) sworn.

Examined by Mr. Mills Q. Were you at Mr. Morgan's house when Sir John Briggs came in the day before the funeral of Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes.

Q. Who was with you? - A. My son and Mr. Holland; we went into the parlour.

Q. Was Sir John there when you first came into the room? - A. Sir John was not come when I went into the kitchen; Mr. Morgan said, don't go away yet, I expect the Baronet presently, he is gone in search of Mr. Lewis's will, I hope he will bring good news with him; soon after he came in, and Mr. Morgan asked what news, he looked very down, and said, he could not find a will; we went into the parlour and stopped till two or three in the morning.

Q. Did you hear Sir John say any thing more about the will? - A. Mr. Morgan asked him if he had met with any intelligence of the will; he said, no, he blamed Madam Kane, and said, through her conduct he had lost 2000l. or upwards; I said, sure, was it so much; he said, at least that; he said Mr. Phillips came up from, Monmouth to give us the possession of the effects; I refused it, he said, had he been there, he would have had a will, or would have choaked him. Mr. Holland said it was not too late to have a will; Mr. Holland said, if you had a will, how would you do as to signing it; Mr. Holland said he would trust no man to sign it, he would do it all himself; Mr. Holland tapped me on the shoulder, and said, I will run the risk of my neck for Sir John; and Sir John, and Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Holland, went all three out of the parlour together, and left my son and I in the parlour; they stopped out some little time, it might be from five to ten minutes for what I recollect; Mr. Holland then returned in by himself; he desired me to be absent; in a few minutes in came Sir John and Mr. Morgan.

Q. Did you go out? - A. I did not at that time; when they came in, as is always a custom, in Mr. Morgan's house, he said, Weaver, clear the board, and then be going home; I said to my son, it is time for us to be going; I looked for my hat, and felt for some silver, I had none, Sir John gave me a thilling, I went out and gave the shilling to the girl and went home.

Q. After this, did you see Sir John before the will was produced? - A. No.

Q. Do you remember at any time seeing a man of the name of Vincent? - A. I saw him several times, particularly one morning after the affizes at Heretord.

Q.Have you ever seen him at Mr. Holland's house? - A. I had never been at Mr. Holland's house when Vincent was there, till that day, after the affizes.

Q. Was he in the family? - A. Yes; I took him to be a part of the family.

Q. He was at the trial? - A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen him in the neighbourhood? - A. Yes, several times.

Q. Do you know any thing he did there? - A. He bought and sold horses.

Q. Did he buy and sell any thing else? - A. Not that I know of.

Q. Do you know Mr. Holland's hand-writing? Yes; I have seen him write.

Q.Were you present when Mr. Holland's house was searched? - A. Yes.

Q.Who was present with you? - A. Francis Lewis , the sheriss's-officer.

Q.Did you see any papers that were found there? - A. I did.

Q.Should you know them again? - A. Yes; I read every letter of them; Mr. Lewis searched the drawers, and every letter he found, he handed over

to me, and I read it, and carried off every thing I thought of consequence, (a paper shewn him).

Q. Do you remember that? - A. I recollect it very well; I wrote my name upon it with a pencil; Mr. Lewis took the papers away with him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. You have had occassion to repeat this story several times in public and in private? - A. Yes.

Q. And always in the same way? - A. As near as I recollect; I might not recollect every transaction of the night.

Q. Was the fire lit in the parlour before you went in, or after? - A. I believe, before we went in.

Q. It was very cold at that time? - A. Very cold.

Q. It is a remarkable expression you have used-Mr. Holland tapped you on the shoulder and said, I will run the risk of my neck for Sir John? - A. Yes.

Q. You are quite as certain of that as any other part of the conversation? - A. Yes.

Q. It was a remarkable part of the conversation? - A. Yes.

Q. You were examined at the affizes of Hereford? - A. Yes.

Q. You did not say a syllable of this at that time? - A. I believe, I did not recollect it at that time.

Q. You certainly did not state it at that time? - A. No.

Q. Was Mr. Holland there at that time? - A. I did not see him.

Q. You don't happen to know whether he was there or not? - A. I believe, he was ill at that time.

Q. You did not state it at Hereford? - A. I might forget a great many expressions.

Q. Sir John was very much cast down? - A. He seemed to be low, when he came in, his spirits recoverted, and he damned, and swore pretty well.

Q. He complained he had had a fruitless journey? - A. I think he said he had been at the Star in search of the will, between the passage and Hereford.

Q.Whether you or your son recollect the cir-cumstance of Mr. Holland saying he would run the risk of his life for Sir John? - A. I told my son to recollect as near as he could every passage that happened that night.

Q. When was that; since you came to town, of before? - A. Before.

Q. Before the Hereford affizes, or after? - A. Before the affizes.

Q.Your son Tom told you what he had recollected? - A. He shewed it me, he had put it down upon paper; after Mr. Phillips had been at our house, he wrote down his recollections upon paper, and I did the same as near as I could.

Q. Before the affizes? - A. Yes.

Q. Have you taken the trouble to write down since, any thing that you have recollected? - A. Yes; before I came to London.

Q. Have you brought it with you? - A. Yes.

Q. When was it this circumstance of Mr. Holland's tapping you on the shoulder, and telling you he would run the risk of his neck for Sir John, first struck you? - A. I made a memorandum of it before the affizes; but I had forgot it.

Q. Was it in your son's memorandum? - A. I cannot say, I believe he did not recollect it, when of course we compared papers together.

Q. Sir John had no shyness about this at all; he spoke of it as you and I should about buying beasts at the market? - A. It was publicly enough.

Q. Mr. Holland asked, how would you manage respecting the signing of it; and then Mr. Holland said, I would trust nobody to sign it but myself? - A. Yes.

Q. You are sure Sir John made no answer to it? - A. I am positive he did not; there was nobody present in the parlour when he tapped me upon the shoulder, but my son and myself; Mr. Morgan was gone out.

Q. Sir John was not in the room? - A. No.

Q. But I am speaking as to the time that he tapped you upon the shoulder? - A. He was in the room then.

Q. And nobody answered the question? - A. No; he put the question and answered it himself; he said, I would not trust any body; I would do the will myself.

Q. At this time Mr. Holland and Sir John and your son were all present? - A. Just so, and Mr. Morgan.

Q. You were attentive to the question he put to Sir John? - A. Yes.

Q. And therefore, if Sir John had made an answer, you are sure you must have heard it? - A. I am positively sure he made no answer.

JAMES WILLIAMS sworn.

Examined by Mr. Russell. Q. Did you find any thing upon Austin? - A. Yes.

Q. Have you got it with you? - A. I have, (produces a note for 100l).

WEAVER (the younger) called again.

Q. Look at that, do you believe that to be Mr. Holland's hand-writing? - A. Yes, I do.

Q.(To Williams). Did you at any time search Austin? - A. Yes; I went with another, to take Isgar and Austin; I brought him before the Magistrate that evening, and he was sent to prison for

further examination; when committed for trial, I went to the prison, and was present when the turnkey searched him.

Q. Was that paper you shewed to Weaver just now, found upon Mr. Austin? - A. Yes; it was pinned within side the lining of his hat.

WILLIAM BARROW sworn.

Examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. I believe you were Mayor of Hereford? - A. I acted as Mayor.

Q. Did you take any examination from any person respecting this business, from a person of the name of Isgar? - A. Yes.

Q. Have you got that examination? - A. I have. (produces it).

Q. Have you figned your name to it? - A. I have.

Q. Were you present when that examination, whatever it contains, was taken? - A. I was present.

Q. Did Isgar give that account of himself freely or voluntarily, or were threats made use of? - A. As free as man could possibly do; he gave his evidence very free.

Q. Did you at any time receive any books; if you did, tell us from whom you received them, and to whom you delivered them again? - A. This book I received from Mr. Stokes.

Q. Did you return them in the condition in which you received them? - A. I did; I put a private mark upon them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. This examination, taken by you, of Isgar, was taken without threats or promise of any kind? - A. Yes.

Q. And, I take it, in a matter of this moment, it was taken with deliberation, and read over to the man? - A. Yes, deliberately; and read over to him.

Q. So that he knew of course the contents? - A. Yes.

Q. And might have made any alteration in it if it was not consistent with what he pleased to declare? - A. Just so; that is quite a fact; for that part that is erased, he objected against.

Q. And if he had made any other objections, of course, any other parts would have been also erased? - A. Yes; the examination was taken previous to the trial.

JACOB ISGAR sworn on the voire dire.

Mr. Erskine. (To Stokes). Q. This is the man who proved the will at the affizes? - A. Yes.

Mr. Erskine. (To Isgar). Q. You heard just now, what was mentioned by Mr. Stokes here, which you can confirm; I take it for granted that you are the person who proved the will, as one of the witnesses to it, at the affizes at Hereford? - A. Yes; I did.

Q. We have also had the Magistrate here, Mr. Barrow, who delivered this into Court as your voluntary declaration upon oath? - A. It is so.

Q. He tells us further, that it was read over to you, and that that erasure was made at your request, not containing that matter you could swear to; and that all the rest was deliberately sworn to, by you, after you had heard and read the contents; is that true, sir? - A. It is.

Q.Take it into your hand; that information which you have in your hand, you know, of course, as you have reason to know, and to recollect, the contents of that information you have sworn to?

Mr. Sergeant Adair. This is a cross-examination before he is sworn in chief.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I certainly could, if I chose, read the whole of it: you have, in that information, contradicted directly, the oath you made at the affizes? - A. Yes; I believe I have.

Mr. Erskine. Now, then, you will withdraw.(The witness goes out of Court.)

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, the objection I am about to make is, to the competency of this witness; and, my Lord, I make that objection after very long deliberation, and after much discussion of the subject. Your Lordship may depend upon it, that in what I now say, I am strictly addressing myself to the Court; I could indeed give your Lordship my honour, if it were necessary, that I rise simply to address the Court upon that point of law, and not by a side wind to depreciate the witness in the understanding of the Jury.

My Lord, the objection that I take to Isgar is this, that the whole foundation of the credit which is due to any witness in Court, as Mr. Sergeant Adair has well expressed it, is, that he speaks under the solemnity of an oath; your Lordship can hear nothing from any man under any other fanction. My Lord, I admit, if any credit whatever can be given to his oath in a Court of Justice, he must be examined, however blassed his character may be, however he may be a witness totally unworthy to stand in a Court of Justice, however in the opinions of all who receive his evidence, and are to deside upon it, he may he perjured; upon subjects collateral to the subject in question, I would not waste your Lordship's time upon the objection; because, however infamous a man may be, however it may be his ordinary habit to impose no rules of veracity upon himself, he is still a witness; and upon this plain ground, that a man, however wicked, is not always wicked; he has not always temptations to wickedness; and although a man may have forsworn himself a thousand and a thousand times, unless the mark is set upon him, by a judgment of perjury, he shall be received as a witness, because his oath may have some value in the particular instance in which he is to be sworn; because his oath has never been opposed by his oath in the particular instance; and it is impossible for the Judge to say, that the man is not entitled, perhaps in the opinion of the Jury, to some scintilla of credit upon which other testimony may be built. But, my Lord, the objection which I take to the witness is this, that he is called up here, or he is called up for no

thing; to say that that will to which he has given authenticity upon his oath before the learned and noble ludge, who sat here some time ago, at Hereford, which he swore he saw executed in the presence of the deceased Henry Lewis , and in the presence of the witnesses Austin, himself, and Bowden now deceased, is no will of Henry Lewis ; that he did not see him execute it; that it was not signed in his presence, or in the presence of the witnesses. Now, my Lord, the first matter I have to ask your Lordship is this, and by the answer I receive to that proposition, let my objection stand or fall, are these two propositions collateral to one another, or are they not? - If they are not absolutely inconsident, and abselutely and directly repugnant to one another, my objection falls undoubtedly as it ought. Suppose I had asked him-did you not, at the affizes at Hereford, swear you saw a man on Thursday: and after that, swore you did not see the same man on Thursday? in matter, collateral to the subject, it might have been said, and truly, to destroy all credit due to this man; because, how can the Jury take the oath of a man who has acknowledged in public Court, that he has forsworn himself? yet, peradventure, the man who has forsworn himself upon these different occasions, may not have the same temptation to commit a perjury in the instance before the Court; and therefore it is for the Jury to weigh, in point of credit, and not for your Lordships, in point of competency, to repel the oath of a witness standing under such derestable and abhorrent circumstances; but, my Lord, that is not this case. This case is-that the man having sworn two ways, first that it is the will, and then that it is not, offers, by his oath, to give one of those propositions a preponderance over the other, so as to build something in addition to that oath, by telling your Lordship that this will is not the will of Henry Lewis .

Now, my Lord, the question is, whether any credit can be given to that? any credit-my Lord, I should ask what credit? if a man has sworn to two propositions diamettically repugnant and contradictory of one another, which involves him, upon his own confession, not only in a perjury, but a perjury in the direct instance before the Court; how is it possible? I speak to reasonable men, and I speak in point of competency, not in point of credit, that if the competency of a witness is to depend upon any authenticity that he can give to a transaction upon his oath, if his oath is divided between these two propofitions, and has equally belonged to both of them, how is it possible to give him any credit. Now, my Lord, in order to try this case; and I observe your Lordship turning to some authority, which is natural enough. My Lord, no man feels more reverence than I do for the collective wisdom of ages, which constitutes the law of this country; no man bows more implicitly than I do to the authority of precedents, which, undoubredly, build up, and cement the fabric of our laws and constitution; and wherever I find a precedent, although the inclination of my judgment is strongly drawn against the foundation upon which that precedent is built; I bow to the precedent, unless I find it in the situation of those precedents, if any such there are, that are diametrically repugnant to the principles of jurisprudence everywhere, and aspecially to the principles of justice as immecmorially acted upon in this country, My Lord, it is a maxim which cannot he broken in upon, that it is only the sanction of the oath that consers the competency upon the individual; if a man knows nothing of the Supreme Being, the internal appeal to whom constitutes the fanction of an oath, he cannot be sworn at all; he may, if he is of another religion, because, in whatever view the mind of man has the impression of the Divinity stamped upon it; it is supposed that person speaks under the insluence of the education he may have received; but what is the case here? the man has sworn that it is the will, and he has sworn that it is not. Now, my Lord, I mean to give Isgar something that does not belong to him, in order to try this case; I will suppose he is no accomplice, and was now to be examined, and was to swear, that upon some given day, the 26th or 27th of April (no matter what day) this forgery was committed by Mr. Crossley, and the case so closes, could your Lordship leave it to the Jury? would there be any thing to leave to the Jury, with no other circumstances added to it? and we shall come to see whether when a thing is nothing, any thing added to it can make it something; good God! is it possible for any man, whose reason is not disordered, to say, that when a man has sworn the will was a true will, and the same man has sworn the same will was not a true will, that your Lordship upon his single unsupported evidence could desire the Jury to guess at which of his oaths is the true one, and to put the man's life in jeopardy, by even stating it to be evidence to go to the Jury. Now I am either wrong in this, or I am right, and I desire to have the opinion of your Lordships upon this, whether the man, blasted as he is, if that could be removed from him, so that your Lordship might, when the man is examined, put the cause upon his evidence, aye or no; could the Judges of England state that a man who had sworn two propositions staring one another in the face, upon which you have nothing to do but to arraign him according to the law of England, upon his own oath, without any extrinsic evidence, laying hold of him-as such a miscreant ought to be laid hold of, what could he avow, but that one of the two propositions was uttered by mistake; but here, the man admits that he signed the oath with deliberation, and was subject to no mistake; that he took the second oath also with deliberation; and that the one is true and the other salse, would your Lordship's leave it as a matter of evidence, which of the two are true, upon the evidence of a man who alone is to tell you, which is true, the very same man who has shewn himself to be entitled to no credit whatever, when he has sworn to these two repuguant propositions?

Now, my Lord, let us see whether what I have now stated is broken in upon by any of the rules and principles of law. My lord, I hold in my hand the observation made by my learned friend; Mr. Sergeant Adair, upon the law concerning accomplices; and I agree with him, it has been lucidly and properly stated; and I know that the favour and tenderness shewn to human life in this country, so remarkable for its justice, has frequently led to a delicacy upon the subject of accomplices, that I never felt, whether an accomplice shall be examined first or after he is corroborated; I think he ought to be examined first, for the best of all possible reasons, because

he is a competent witness, though the humanity of the law is such (but I am not addressing you upon urbanity) that it is only from tenderness, that after an accomplice is admitted, the Court will not build any thing upon his testimony, unless he is confirmed, because of the great danger there would be of admitting such a man as a witness; but I do say, that though he is a worthless witness, and though undoubtedly he deserves what Mr. Sergeant Adair stated of him, and which I shall not repeat, yet still his evidence must go to the Jury, because he has not, by swearing both ways, destroyed, by his own conduct, the foundation of all credit due to his testimony, which foundation is alone the fanction of an oath.

Now, my Lord, I come to the last point, and I do confess, I think, and, my Lord, I have thought of it a great deal, that it is impossible for a greater fallacy to be imposed upon the human understanding than this. This man is a worthless incredible witness, and taken by himself, my learned friend says, he is of no value at all; he does not put it of small comparative value with other witnesses, but he states boldly that he is of no value at all; but he says, though it may be true that his oath cannot receive any fanction from a Court, yet that there may be circumstances arising from Mr. Crossley's own act accumulating upon one another, which may fasten the crime upon Mr. Crossley, I agree to it; and though, undoubtedly, I should do my duty to the utmost to the prisoner, yet, most undoubredly, if I saw such transactions belonging to him, I should say, he must suffer the law upon that evidence; but the question is, whether by taking Isgar's evidence as the foundation, and taking it as nothing, you can erect it into something, by surrounding it with other matters, which, as far as they throw light upon one another, do, I admit, constitute a body of evidence which may, peradventure, in this case, be sufficient for conviction; but I would humbly ask your Lordship, (I speak earnestly, my Lord, because I speak feelingly,) how can that confirm the evidence of that man, which was before stated as nothing; and how can that nothing be converted into something, by the addition of other materials by which that nothing is to be supported?

My Lord, I know there is no other way to support moral truths, but by turning back to that which is the foundation of all certainty, I mean the calculations of matter; the calculations of matter, and the truths belonging to them, must be the foundation of all your reasonings in the world; then I would add this: I want to make up a sum, and for forms sake I begin with nothing but a nought; I put down that nought, and then I am to make up a sum by the progression of numbers, by a great number of units, which will amount to a particular sum in the calculation, be it so; those different units may be sufficient to answer the purpose of the calculator, and may answer the purpose of material demonstration for which they are produced; but will the adding them together, or multiplying them together, erect a nothing into something; and will you make that progression of numbers different, when added to that which was before nothing, and make them tell differently in any quotient, because there is that before it, which it is admitted, by itself, is nothing; but which having lost its nothingness. acquired a local habitation, and a name? My Lord, I can only say, my mind revolts at such a propossion, and I shall think I am getting into a second childhood, when I find my mind stagger from the contrary proposition.

Then, to bring your Lordship back again, added to this, you have the man as an accomplice, I have been trying him as not being an accomplice; and the reason why I have tried him as not being an accomplice is, because it entitles me to give your Lordship a view of the subject, that I could not have given you if he were an accomplice; because, if he were not an accomplice, your Lordship would be driven, perhaps, in the coarse of the cause, to come to this very principle, that after the man had finished his evidence, and the case was finished, your Lordship would be driven to say to the Jury, that it was matter for them to deliberate which of the two contrary propositions is the true one; and which none but he can divulge, by only the same oath which had been given equally first to the one and then to the other; why, then the only answer is this, if a man swears to two propositions, the oue extremely improbable, the other very much probable: that the one has nothing to give credibility to it, that the other is confirmed by every thing that confers credibility, would you not then admit it? - yes, certainly; but not that the witness shall add any thing to it, upon his oath; I can examine the proposition as it is an intrinsic proposition; I can examine all the probabilities by which that intrinsic proposition is supported upon the one hand, and by which the improbability is made stronger upon the other; and when I have done that, I have sufficient, by the rules of criminal law, to direct a Jury, upon all those circumstances together, to find a man guilty of forgery; I should do it with a calm spirit, and with a consciousness that I was performing my duty to the country; but what I dread and tremble at is, - that upon your Lordship's judgment, which I should be sorry to hear pronounced, that man, as he has described himself, is to be set up here, and is to lay a foundation, and that the Jury are to suppose, under your Lordship's judgment, as they must undoubtedly, if your Lordship sets him up as a witness; it is telling the Jury some credit is due to him; it is leaving it to them undoubtedly; but it is allowing him some credit; when, I contend, not a scintilla of credit is due to him; and which it is admitted at the very moment it is received, to be in fact good for nothing. I confess, it does make a strong impression upon my mind; it appears to me, to be making use of evidence of no value at all for that is my proposition); and after you have got it, then you build other things upon it, by taking a foundation which is, in fact, no foundation at all; and if the man is ultimately convicted, it will not be upon the circumstances themselves to which credit is due, coupled together, but upon these circumstances built upon that which in the opening is admitted literally to be nothing.

I beg your Lordship's pardon, for having detained the Court so long; I feel this objection strongly, and I therefore have expressed it strongly.

The objection to laizar's competency was supported also by Mr. Garrow and Mr. Fielding; when Mr. Sergeant Adair rose to answer them.

Mr. Justice Rooke. Brother Adair, you need not trou

ble yourself; I have paid great attention to Mr. Erskine and Mr. Garrow, as I always do; they are very able men, but they have not brought conviction to my mind; and it is a singular stage in which they have taken the objection, after having sworn the man upon the voire dire, because he has perjured himself in the very fact in question before the Court; that the man has sworn contrary ways before, there can be, I presume, no doubt; I know nothing but from the opening on the one side, and the statement on the other; I will suppose this man has sworn to facts directly contrary one to the other, but he is brought here now, not with any conviction upon his head, he is brought here as a person who labours under very great suspicions; but he has not been convicted of the crime of perjury. Now, it is admitted in the course of this argument, that, if this man had been convicted of the crime of perjury, and pardoned, or if he had been pardoned without any conviction, his evidence might have been received; if that be so, I cannot point out to myself any ground upon which that man, who, if he was pardoned, might be received as a witness, should not be an admissible evidence, when not having been convicted, no pardon can be necessary. I do not now chuse to say a word about the credit that I think may be due to him; - not a word about what the Jury ought to think of the witness; here after we shall hear what he says, and how he is corroborated; but, in my opinion, in strict point of law, this witness is admissible.

JACOB ISGAR called in again.

Examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Do you know Richard Holland ? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember his being in London at any time about the month of February, 1795; this time twelvemont? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you recollect about what time in the month it was? - A. I believe about the 17th.

Q. Did you see Richard Holland in London at that time? - A. Yes.

Q. Upon what occasion did you see him, and in company with whom? - A. I saw him in company with one Mr. Clark an attorney; I believe his name is Mr. William Clark.

Q. Where did you see them in company together? - A. At the Cock, at Temple-bar.

Q. What was the subject at that time; had it any relation to the subject matter that the Court is now upon? - A. No; not then; the business was this-the Court was moved against me in the Common Pleas.

Q. You must not tell us that, it is not material; while you were there did any thing pass relative to the subject matter of this enquiry, relative to any will of the Rev. Mr. Lewis? - A. No; not on the part of Mr. Holland; Mr. Clark asked me, if I made wills.

Q. Where did you live in the month of March last? - A. In the parish of Lincoln and Whitcomb.

Q. Did you live at Bath? - A. In the suburbs, not in the city.

Q.Whereabouts? - A. In Timber's-court.

Q. The other side of the old bridge, at Bath? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember Richard Holland coming at any time to your house, in the month of March? - A. Several times in March and April.

Q. Upon what business did he come to your house? - A. Respecting making a will for Mr. Lewis, who had been dead some time past.

Q. Did he at that time produce any paper to you? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what bacame of that paper afterwards; or did he request you to do any thing? - A. He requested me to copy it upon a paper, which paper I copied.

Q. In your own hand-writing? - A. I did.

Q. Did you copy it upon paper in your own house; or who brought the paper upon which you wrote the copy? - A. The paper was brought by Mr. Holland; and Mr. Lewis's name put thereunto.

Q. Was the name of Lewis to it when Mr. Holland brought it to you? - A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Holland say any thing to you with respect to that paper which he brought? - A. He said, the paper that he brought he took care that it was old enough; that it should not be found out that way.

Q. Upon that paper he so brought, you copied something? - A. Yes.

Q. Should you know the copy again if you saw it? - A. Yes, I should, (the will shewn him); I know it very well; I wrote it.

Q. Are you sure that is the paper that you wrote at that time? - A. This is the paper that was brought to me; and I sent it to the Abergavenny Post-office or Monmouth; I have written letters to both places; I am not sure which.

Q. Do you recollect how it was directed, or do you not? - A. I believe it was directed for Peter James; to be left at the Post-office till called for.

Q. When you sent it, was the name of Henry Lewis written upon it once or oftener? - A. No more than once.

Q. However they have come there has been since? - A. Yes,

Q.That is the paper, and it is in your handwriting? - A. It is.

Q. Do you know Sir John Briggs ? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you at any time, and when, see him at Bath? - A. I saw him several times.

Q. About what time of the year? - A. I believe the first time I saw him that that will was not then drawn, though he asked me for it.

Q. Do you recollect upon what subject did Sir John Briggs call upon you? - A. He called upon me when he received that will; he said, this will

not do; Mr. Lewis was a very particular man, and therefore we must get a better one; do you know one George Crossley.

Q.Throughout your evidence you must not tell us any thing about Mr. Crossley, except what passed when Mr. Crossley himself was present; do not tell us what any body said about Mr. Crossley, except when he was present, or you communicated to him afterwards; what did Sir John apply to you about, excepting every thing that relates to Mr. Crossley? - A. He said, that would not do.

Q. He had not the will with him at the time? - A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. You had seen him before that? - A. Yes.

Q.After you had sent this will, you saw Sir John Briggs, and he said, the will you sent would not do; had you sent any other will than that at that time? - A. I had not.

Q. Did he tell you why it would not do? - A. He said, Mr. Lewis was a very particular man, and therefore, that will would not do; we must get a better; he would have a little alteration.

Q. Do you remember, at any time, Sir John Briggs having that will any of the times that he came to you? - A. I never saw him with it.

Q. Do you remember Holland coming to you after you had seen Sir John Briggs? - A. I saw Holland in London afterwards.

Q. Do you recollect whether you saw Mr. Holland at any time after you sent that will to Bath? - A. I did.

Q. Upon what occasion did you see Mr. Holland there? - A. He told me there was a person wished to see me there; I went and it was Mr. Crossley.

Q. What time was that when you went and saw Mr. Crossley? - A. I do not remember the day of the month in particular, it was about the 10th or 11th of April, perhaps.

Q. How long have you known Mr. Crossley? - A. Four or five years.

Q. Where did you find Crossley when Mr. Holland took you to him? - A. At the Three Tuns.

Q. Who keeps that house? - A. One Mr. Ballinger.

Q. Who did you see at the Three Tuns, besides Mr. Crossley and Mr. Holland? - A. I did not see any body else there in the business.

Q. Did you see any other person in company with them, or did you take any other person with you, during the time you were then at Bath? - A. I believe, William Austin.

Q. Do you recollect whether you did or not? - A. I cannot be positive.

Q. What passed at that meeting while Mr. Crossley was present at the Three Tuns? - A. He desired that me and Austin might accompany him and Mr. Holland; at least to meet them at the Globe, at Newton, the morning following, which was on a Saturday, I think, the 11th of April.

Q. Where is Newton? - A. Between Bristol and Bath; Austin went before with Mr. Crossley; and Mr. Holland and I rode after.

Q. Did you, upon that, see Austin either then or afterwards? - A. Austin went with me the morning following.

Q. Did Mr. Crossley tell you, or any body else in Mr. Crossley's presence, for what you were to meet at the Globe, at Newton? - A. I don't recollect, but it was some conversation about this will.

Q.Was it stated to have been respecting any will at all, in Mr. Crossley's presence? - A. Mr. Crossley and Mr. Holland went forward first together; there was nothing particular passed.

Q. Had you at any time before you went to the Globe, at Newton, disclosed to Mr. Austin the business that you had been concerned in? - A. Yes.

Q. What had you said to Mr. Austin about it? - A. I told Mr. Austin this, that I knew a person that wanted a witness to a will, and that he might get 100l. if he wanted to get 100l.

Q. Did he refuse, or did he agree to it? - A. Mr. Austin said, I would put my name to an hundred wills for that money, or something of that sort.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Holland and Mr. Austin together at Bath? - A. Yes.

Q. Did any thing pass between Mr. Holland and Mr. Austin relative to the will? - A. Yes.

Q.What passed between them? - A. Mr. Austin and Mr. Holland were at a public-house with me, the French Horn, or Seven Stars; Mr. Austin would not agree to do any thing in the will without a note for 100l. to make sure of his money; he said, he could not give him a note of 100l. unless they should recover the property.

Q. Did Mr. Holland at last agree, or refuse to give the note of 100l.? - A. He gave the note.

Q. Should you know it, do you think, if you saw it again? - A. Most certainly I should; (it is shewn him); this is it; here is an alteration; he would not have "or order," and it was interlined"James Smith."

Q. Was it ready written? - A. No; I believe the stamp was out of my own pocket.

Q.Have you any particular recollection as to the date of the note? - A. No, I have not.

Q. Who went with you to Newton? - A. Mr. Austin and I went, and Mr. Crossley and Mr. Holland; we rode there.

Q.What day was it? - A. I think the 11th of April, but I cannot be sure of it.

Q. Do you recollect of whom you hired your

houses? - A. I believe it was Aborfield or Merrifield, a man that keeps horses, in Corn-street.

Q. Did you find Mr. Holland and Mr. Crossley there, or how? - A. When we went to get the horses, we saw Mr. Holland and Mr. Crossley riding by before us, about 100 yards distance.

Q. When you got to Newton, did you see any body there? - A. Nobody else, and Mr. Austin did not come in at that time.

Q. What passed there in the presence of Mr. Crossley? - A. Mr. Crossley drew up a long copy of a note to send to Mr. Lewis, to inform him that I had a will of such a person's, one Lewis, a corn-factor, of Monmouth, I believe.

Q. Did any thing more pass at that meeting, relative to that will? - A. Not in particular.

Q. At that time you had not drawn the will? - A. No.

Q. Do you recollect whether any thing more passed with respect to that will, before you parted at the Globe? - A. Nothing particular; upon Mr. Crossley's return to Bath, I received a note from him, as I was going to Eath.

Q. Have you that note? - A. No, I destroyed it; I saw him afterwards at Bath, and he asked me if I had a note drawn by a nephew of his, one John Upsell; I told him I had; it came to me in a letter directed to Jacob Isgar , Bath.

Q. Had you such a bill? - A. I had; he said, you owe me some money, will you give me a bill; I said, I have no objection; says he, I will give you ten guineas, and cry quits with you, and then he gave me two five guinea bills of the Abergavenny Bank; the note was for 50l.

Q. After that transaction had passed, did any thing further pass between Mr. Crossley and you at that time? - A. Not in particular that night as I recollect; I had got a great deal of liquor.

Q. Did you after that night that you had given Mr. Crossley the bill, and he had given you the two five guinea notes, did you see him again before he left Bath? - A. I saw him on the Monday at the same place.

Q. Did any thing pass then? - A. Not in particular, further than one Mr. Dean was there, and he asked Mr. Dean if he would be security for the payment of the money that I owed him the balance of the bill.

Q. Was that before or after you had given him the bill? - A. After; that was to blind Mr. Dean, that he might know I was satisfied.

Q. Did any further conversation pass before Mr. Crossley left Bath, between you and him, relative to this subject matter? - A. Nothing in particular.

Q. Do you recollect about what time Mr. Crossley left Bath? - A. The same day, I presume.

Q. Did you at any time after that go up to London? - A. Yes.

Q. For what purpose did you go to London, and at whose desire? - A. Sir John Briggs desired me to go; I went on the 25th of April in the morning.

Q. By what coach? - A. I believe the coach went from the White-Lion; I cannot tell; I took my chance of the road; Sir John Briggs gave me two guineas.

Q. Did any body go with you? - A. Yes; William Austin .

Q. Was it by the desire of Sir John Briggs that you both went? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did you arrive when you got to London? - A. I went to the Golden Cross, Charing-Cross; Mr. Austin stopped at the White-horse cellar; I enquired at the Golden Cross for Sir John Briggs, and saw him there.

Q. Did you see any body else? - A. No.

Q. Did Sir John Briggs desire you to go any where else in London at that time? - A. Mr. Crossley's.

Q.When did you go in pursuance of that direction to Mr. Crossley's? - A. About a quarter of an hour after; this was on the Sunday morning.

Q. Did you see Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes.

Q.Did Mr. Austin go with you at that time? - A. No.

Q. Did you see any body besides Mr. Crossley at that time? - A. I don't recollect that I did.

Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. Crossley at that time? - A. I told him Sir John Briggs would be glad to speak to him at the Golden Cross.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Crossley what Sir John Briggs wanted him upon? - A. I really don't know whether I mentioned any thing of that sort or not.

Q. Did Mr. Crossley go to the Golden Cross to see Sir John Briggs? - A. He did not; he desired me to go and tell Sir John Briggs to come to his house, which I did, and I went part of the way with Sir John Briggs to his house.

Q.Where did you lodge at that time? - A. One Mr. Noad's, in St. Martin's-lane; I understood Mr. Austin had been there while I was out.

Q. How soon after that did you see Mr. Austin? - A About three o'clock that day.

Q. Where did Mr. Austin lodge during the remainder of the time that you remained in town? - A. I believe, he lodged at the house where I lived.

Q. Did he or did he not? - A. I believe he did.

Q.Was he with you there? - A. Yes, he was.

Q. When did Mr. Austin go out of town? - A. Not for two or three days after that, I believe.

Q. Did you go out of town with him? - A. No.

Q. Now between that time and the time that

Mr. Austin went out of town, did you see Mr. Crossley again? - A. Yes, at his own house.

Q. Did Mr. Crossley ever come to Mr. Noad's, While you were in town? - A. I believe not then, nor during that time of my being in town.

Q. Did you see Mr. Crossley then at any time before Mr. Austin went out of town? - A. I saw him on the Sunday that we arrived in town.

Q. Did you see him again, before Mr. Austin went out of town, after you had sent Sir John Briggs to Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes; Mr. Austin went with me.

Q. Was that on the same day or another? - A. The same day.

Q. When Mr. Austin and you went to Mr. Crossley's, who did you see there? - No person that I recollect, except Mr. Crossley; whether the servant came to the door, or him, I don't know; I went up into the back dining-room.

Q. Was any body in that room besides you and Mr. Crossley and Mr. Austin? - A. No.

Q. What passed between you at that time? - A. There was a bottle of wine upon the table and two glasses; he asked us to take a glass of wine; he went into the front dining-room, and brought out two pieces of paper, purporting to be the will of Mr. Lewis.

Q. Were there any other persons in that room? - A. There were; I think I heard Sir John Briggs ' voice, but I am not sure; the two pieces of paper had Henry Lewis wrote upon them, but no witnesses' names.

Q. Was the one a counterpart of the other? - A. I think it was, they were both signed by the name of Henry Lewis .

Q.Were they completely written before they were brought to you, or was any thing done to them afterwards? - A. Nothing was done to them afterwards.

Q. For what purpose were those two papers brought into the room to you? - A. For us to attest it as witnesses.

Q. Did you do so? - A. Yes; William Austin wrote his name first, and then he wrote the name of Thomas Bowden, and then I wrote mine.

Q. Did you know Thomas Bowden? - A. Yes.

Q.Was he dead at that time? - A. Yes; sometime before.

Q. Was he known to be dead by Mr. Austin? - A. Yes, well known.

Q. By whose direction did you and Mr. Austin subscribe your names to that will? - A. By the direction of Mr. Crossley.

Q. Do you remember any particular expression that Mr. Crossley made use of upon that occasion? - A. When Mr. Crossley brought the two papers, purporting to be the will, he laid them upon the table, and said, now sign your two names, and take care the devil don't tap you upon the shoulders.

Q. Did any particular conversation pass at that time before you parted? - A. Not in particular:

Q.After that, did you yourself see Mr. Crossley again before you left town? - A. Yes.

Q.How soon after? - A. I saw him on the Monday following; I wanted some money of him to send Mr. Austin home again.

Q. You and Mr. Austin went home together, did not you? - A. No; Mr. Crossley gave me three guineas, or three guineas and an half, I am not quite sure whether it was Monday or Tuesday.

Q. Did you at any time ask him, or he you, any questions about the will? - A. I asked him about the will, I asked him why he made two parts; he said, that he made two parts for this reason, in case I should be detected, and Mr. Austin at the trial, that he and his clerks might come and prove that the old gentleman left it with him.

Q.What became of the two parts of the will? - A. One was put up in a cover directed for Mrs. Kane, after I had left the will on the table, and the other Mr. Crossley kept.

Q.What became of the other? - A. I left it.

Q.What day was it when you left town? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Do you recollect any thing of your own affairs happening before you left town? - A. Not particularly.

Q. Was any business of your own transacted while you were in town? - A. There was an attachment against me in the Court of Common Pleas, at least the rule was made absolute, and I was bailed before his Lordship.

Q. Who transacted the business of the bail? - A. Mr. Crossley got me the bail, and procured me the attorney, his name was Price, I believe.

Q. The bail was put in? - A. Yes.

Q. How long did you stay after the bail was put in? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Did you go out of town that day, or the day after? - A. I don't recollect.

Q.After the bail was put in how long did you stay there? - A. I don't know.

Q. Did Mr. Crossley, after you had asked him the question about that will, did he say any thing more about the will, that you can recollect? - A. Not in particular; he said he took care that the paper should be old enough, that it might not be discovered.

Q.What became of the letter you wrote to Mr. Lewis, at Monmonth; when did you send it? - A. I suppose, about the 12th or 13th of April, I am not quite sure to the day, it bears date before that, I believe.

Q. Do you recollect about what time in April that letter was actually sent? - A. I don't recollect particularly the day of the month.

Q. Is this the letter (shewing it him)? - A. Yes, it is the letter.

Q. Did you ever receive any other money from Mr. Crossley than the change of that 50l. bill? - A. Yes.

Q. What further sum did you receive from him? - A. I think, ten pounds or guineas; I am not sure which, it was an order upon his banker.

Q. Do you recollect who that banker was? - A. Ramsden, or some such thing, it was No. 57. I think, in some street, I forgot what; Hammersley, or some such thing, if I was to hear it I can tell.

Q. Was it in St. James's-street, or the Hay-market, or Pall-mall? - A. In Pall-mall, I think; I am not sure.

Q. You got the money for it? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell them your name? - A. Yes; they asked me, and I told them the name on the bill was not mine.

Q. How soon after your return from London did you go over to Monmouth? - A. Two days.

Q. Do you recollect what day you returned from Monmouth? - A. I don't.

Q. What day of the week? - A. I cannot say; I was to be with the will at such a time, at Monmouth of the Monday following, I think at eleven o'clock; but I could not go, and therefore it was some time first.

Q. What was it stopped you from going to Monmouth at that time? - A. I did not get from London in time.

Q. But how long after you reached Bath was it? I cannot recollect.

Q. Who did you go with? - A. One John Edwards.

Q. What did you go to Monmouth for? - A. With this said copy of a will.

Q. Did you carry it? - A. Yes.

Q. Who did you deliver it to? - A. One Mrs. Kane.

Q. When did you receive this money? - A. The 10l. was after the will was made.

Q.Were you in London after that? - A. Yes.

Q. Is it or not, the paper you carried to Monmouth? - A. It is.

Q.Look at that; is it the same paper you had from Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. This, my Lord, is the cover at I have now shewn the witness.

Q.Look at that, (the will), is that the same that was afterwards produced upon the trial at Hereford? - A. It is.

Cross-examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. I have been looking at you, and listening to you, for a great while, with profound admiration, and think I never saw a gentleman so much at his ease as you seem to be; perfectly tranquil and happy, are you not?

Court. You are not bound to answer that.

Q. Look across to the Jury; you did not know at all the deceased Henry Lewis ? - A. I did not know him.

Q. Then it is not true at all that you knew him about five years before 1791? - A. No.

Q. It is true that you swore that though? - A. I am very sorry I did.

Q. So I see; and you swore also, I believe, that he came to your house, and that the will was made at your house, and attested at your house, you are sorry for that too, I suppose? - A. I came into this Court, I wish to do justice, and to let the truth be known; I think it has nothing to do with the case.

Q. It has; and I shall apply to his Lordship to make you answer every question I ask. You did swear that? - A. Yes.

Q. With as much ease as you are swearing now the contrary; now, how am I to know, if what you were swearing then, or what you are swearing now, is the truth? - A. I came now to do the honest justice.

Q. Suppose I had been at Hereford, and was asking the question - whether you did not come to speak the truth, what would you have said; were you not asked that? - A. I likely might.

Q. Then your answer was, that you were come to speak the truth; was it so? - A. I cannot recollect.

Q.You know very well, after you had made that oath, you were commited for the forgery; that you were taken up, and sent to prison? - A. I know I was sent to prison, and am now.

Q. Now, how long after you had been in prison did you begin to tell the story you have been telling to-day? - A. Some time after.

Q. Then you had, some time after, confessed that you committed this forgery? - A. I had not.

Q. What do you call signing your name to a forged will; do you mean to swear you did not know you were guilty of a capital offence for having unered a will knowing it to be forged? - A. I did not know it then.

Q.Perhaps you don't think that wrong? - A. I don't think that was right.

Q. You don't think it a very wrong thing not for once or so. What do you think of the one that you did over now with the name of Lewis to it; do you think that a forgery? - A. I don't know; it might be a forgery.

Q. Do you mean to say, that when the blank paper was said to be old enough, as it was said by

Holland, and you were desired to copy it over the name of Lewis, you did not know it was a forgery? - A. I positively swear I did not know it was a forgery then; I did not think it right not withstanding.

Q. You practised as an attorney? - A. I was an auctioneer.

Q. Upon your oath, did you ever practise as an attorney? - A. I have been an attorney's clerk; I don't deny that.

Q. Upon your oath, did you not practise as an attorney, state yourself to be an attorney, and do business as an attorney? - A. I never stated myself as an attorney yet.

Q. Did you not practise as an attorney? - A. Not by myself.

Q. I will give you the names of a few causes, and see whether you practised in any of them: in Parry against Pyander; did you practise in that? - A. I had nothing to do with it.

Q. Do you mean to swear that? - A. I was not concerned in the business any more than the gentlemen here.

Q. You don't know any thing of it? - A. I served the process for the attorney, one Akerman.

Q. You were his clerk, were you? - A. No.

Q. How came you to serve the processes? - A. It was sent to Bath.

Q. Upon your oath, was not Akerman acting as your agent, in that very cause? - A. He positively was not.

Q. When you got into prison, you underwent an examination before Mr. Barrow, the Justice? - A. Yes.

Q. You had then a perfect recollection of all the circumstances that belong to this transaction? - A. I recollected some of them.

Q. Does your recollection get better after a long course of time? - A. I was at a nonplus.

Q. Had you not been two months in goal before you were examined? - A. It might be.

Q. Don't you know so? - A. I believe it was.

Q. You have told those gentlemen, all this abominable business you have been describing, was planned before you came to London, when Mr. Crossley was at Bath; that you took horses, and that Mr. Holland and Mr. Crossley rode together, and you and Austin together; that one went to Newton, and then to Linton; that strikes me as the most important part of the business, does not it you? - A. I cannot say; what I have said now, is, before God and man, positively true.

Q. How did it happen, that though the Magistrate has said it was read over to you deliberately, that you made erasures where you could not swear to it, that there is not one syllable of having seen Mr. Crossley at Bath? - A. Because there is a part of it told, and part not; there was not time to take it all down.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Barrow that circumstance? - A. I cannot tell.

Q. Will you swear you did not? - A. I don't mean to swear about it; I don't recollect.

Q. Do you mean to say, that when you were admitted an evidence for the Crown, that at that time you did not recollect? - A. I did not know I was to be admitted an evidence for the Crown at that time.

Q. Did you prosess to tell the truth to Mr. Barrow? - A. I did; but Mr. Barrow did not ask me, and I did not tell him; and there may be some more yet, perhaps, that was not put down.

Q. If I recollect you right, Mr. Holland, when at Bath, told you that would not do, for that Mr. Lewis was a very particular man? - A. I did not say so.

Q. Who said so? - A. I did not say so.

Q. What did you say? - A. Sir John Briggs told me so.

Q. Was it before, or after Mr. Crossley went to London? - A. Yes.

Q. So that this was managed before Mr. Crossley went to London? - A. Yes.

Q. And you have said nothing about it in your examination? - A. It was all managed before, I tell you.

Q. Were you ever asked, at the assizes, whether you had seen Mr. Crossley before; what did you answer to that? - A. I said I had.

Q. Did not you say, you only saw him once by accident, coming out of the King's-Bench? - A. I did not say that I had not seen him any more than that.

Q. Will you venture to swear that you did not? - A. To the best of my recollection, I did not swear that; I don't recollect any such thing.

Q. Will you venture to swear you did not? - A. I cannot; I am come here to tell the truth, I hope, and I will do it.

Q. Did you not say you saw him coming out of the King's-Bench, and that was the only time you ever saw him in your life? - A. I don't know that I did.

Q. Look at that examination; did you give an account to the magistrate of all you knew, and did he write it down? - A. I did not say I did.

Q.Did not you prosess to give an account of all you knew? - A. No, they did not ask me; I did not give every particular instruction, every word, that I knew of it.

Q. Did you tell the Magistrate that Mr. Crossley desired you to write that letter you sent to Mrs. Kane? - A. Mr. Crossley wrote that letter, and I copied it.

Q. Did you tell the Magistrate so? - A. I don't recollect.

Q. Do you believe you told him so? - A. I cannot tell.

Q.Suppose it should turn out that you did not tell him so, why did you not? - A. I cannot answer the question.

Q. I ask you, if you can account for not having told the Magistrate; supposing that when that comes to be read, you should not have told the Magistrate one syllable of having seen Mr. Crossley at Bath; how can you account for it? - A. I only described the heads of it, and this was left out, perhaps.

Q.Do you know Mr. Gray, the jailer? - A. Yes; I know him very well.

Q. Had you ever any conversations with him upon the subject of this? - A. Yes; previous to my giving this relation to Mr. Barrow.

Q. Did you give any previous information of what you have laid before the Court to-day? - A. Not in particular.

Q. Will you venture to swear you had no communication with him after that time? - A. I have talked to him several times, but not in particular.

Q.After Mr. Crossley was committed to prison, had you not conversed with the jailor, Mr. Gray? - A. I don't know but I might, several times, as he comes to lock me up in the evening.

Q. You don't recollect whether you had or not? - A. Not private conversation.

Q. Then I understand you to say, that, subsequent to the time of Mr. Crossley being committed, you never did speak to Mr. Gray upon the subject of Mr. Crossley being brought there? - A. Previous to the time of Mr. Crossley being brought there, I had said, to be sure, that the will was a good will, till I told Mr. Barrow the rights of it; and after that, if I did say any thing to the jailer, I certainly did say, that Mr. Crossley was concerned in it with Austin and me.

Q. So that after Mr. Crossley was committed, and after you had laid an information against Mr. Crossley, you said the same thing to the jailor that you had said in your information; that is to say, that Mr. Crossley was concerned with you? - A. Yes.

Q. You have never said the contrary since Mr. Crossley was committed? - A. I might have said, that Mr. Crossley was not the first person that pointed out the will to be made, because it was Mr. Holland.

Q. Did you not say to Mr. Gray, after Mr. Crossley was committed, that Mr. Crossley did not know certainly any thing of the will, but that you were obliged to swear to it? - A. No; never in my life.

Q. That you positively swear? - A. Yes; positively.

Q. I have now given you time to recollect yourself, and my Lord has got your answer down; now let us see how long you will stand by a thing, and in how short a time you will swear and unswear Mr. Gray asked you, whether Mr. Crossley had any knowledge of the will; and that you said Mr. Crossley did not know any thing of the will, but you were obliged to swear it; and upon being asked, how you could accuse Mr. Crossley, you said, that you, to your knowledge, could not possibly accuse Mr. Crossley of it? - A. I deny saying any such words to the jailor, or to that effect.

Q.Vastly well, sir; now I want just to see whether I have got the rest of your evidence correct; I shall trouble you with very few questions now; you went, at the desire of Sir John Briggs, to London, and Austin with you; you went to the Golden Cross; Austin went to the White Horse Cellar; you went to Mr. Crossley on the Sunday morning, and told him, that Sir John Briggs wanted to speak to him, &c. (repeats his evidence)? - A. There are words there that are wrong.

Q. In the morning you went first of all and saw Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes.

Q. You delivered your message from Sir John Briggs to Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes.

Q. And he gave you three guineas, or three guineas and a-half; now what time was that? - A. Monday morning, near twelve o'clock.

Q. And you asked him why he made two parts of the will; and he said, he made two parts of the will in case you should be detected, and Mr. Austin, at the trial; that he and his clerks might come and prove that an old gentleman left it with him; now that is a very remarkable expression, that must have struck pretty deep; it was not a thing one would hear and forget very much; did you tell that to the Magistrate? - A. I believe I did; I am not sure.

Q. You think you did? - A. I think I did; I think you will find it in the paper.

Q. Do you remember receiving this letter from Akerman, in which, he says, he is sorry to be informed, the public term me the notorious Jacob Isgar's agent; now, upon your oath, do you mean to say, you did not employ Akerman in any of the causes in that paper? - A. Only in my own; three or four of my own.

Q. Who was employed in those causes? - A. No attorney but Akerman.

Q. How comes Akerman to speak so in that letter? - A. Because one Wilmot sent it to him.

JOHN DEANE sworn.

Examined by Mr. Mills. Q. Where do you live? - A. At Bath.

Q. Were you in Bath, in April last? - A. Yes.

Q.What are you? - A. I keep on the mealing-business.

Q. Do you know the Three Tuns, at Bath? - A. Yes.

Q. By whom is that kept? - A. By one Henry Ballinger.

Q.Look and see if you know the prisoner, Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you know Jacob Isgar ? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Jacob Isgar at the Three Tuns, in April last? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Mr. Crossley there? - A. Yes.

Q. Were you there when any conversation passed between Mr. Crossley, him, and you? - A. No further than (the 13th of April was a Monday) Mr. Crossley called at my house, between twelve and one o'clock; he left word for me to go to the Three Tuns; I went there, and there was a bowl of punch upon the table; I asked Mr. Crossley how he came down there; he said, he was going upon business to Gloucester, and round there; he asked me for some money that I borrowed, in London, of him; he asked me to pay him that, which I did, we sat down and drank a glass or two of punch together, and presently in came Isgar; and Mr. Crossley said, will you be bound for Isgar, for what he owes me; I said, no; I was bound too much already.

Cross-examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. You are a merchant at Bath? - A. I have been.

Q. In what commodities? - A. In wheat and flour.

Q. In different sort of things; have you not a good many people in your house? - A. No.

Q. You have left off that business; have you no lodgers in your house? - A. No.

Q.How long have you ceased to have any? - A. Two or three months.

Q. You have no dislike to Mr. Crossley? - A. No.

Q. You never expressed any displeasure or resentment at Mr. Crossley, or use any expression of illwill with respect to him? - A. Not that I know of.

Q.Look at those gentlemen, and tell me, if you mean to abide by it? - A. When I heard of his being taken up, I said, he had not used me well.

Q.Nothing more violent than that? - A. Nothing that I know of.

Q.Should you recollect your own expressions, if you were to hear them again? - A. I dare say I might.

Q. Did you ever say you would sport an hundred to hang him? - A. I never did that I know of.

Q. I will put you in possession of a remarkable expression that accompanied it; that if it was necessary, you would be the hangman? - A. I might say so.

Q. Upon your oath did not you say so? - A. I don't know but I might.

Q. Did you not say it? - A. I might.

Q. That won't do for me? - A. I might say, if nobody else would hang him, I would, or something of that sort.

Q.And that you would sport an hundred to hang him? - A. I have no hundreds to sport.

Q. Upon your oath did not you use that expression; your memory is not remarkably short; upon your oath, did not you say so when you were before the Grand Jury? - A. No.

Q. Were you ever at Clerkenwell? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you not, upon that occasion, use these very expressions; look at those gentlemen; cannot you look an honest man in the face; upon your oath, when you were subpoened upon that occasion to Clerkenwell, did you not say you would sport an hundred to hang him; and you would be the hangman yourself, if it was necessary, and nobody would hang him, you would be the hangman? - A. I might the latter part of it.

Q. You have no resentment to Mr. Crossley? - A. I have been very much injured by him.

Q. Upon your oath, since he has been in custody, have you not been arrested for a debt of 170l. at his suit? - A. Yes.

Q. Have you compounded that debt? - A. No.

Q. Have you settled it? - A. I gave him 50l. in Hereford gaol for it.

Q. Is it since that that you made use of these bitter expressions? - A. There was not that money due to him.

Q. I like that; so much the better; there was nothing coming to him? - A. I believe he is in my debt a good deal.

Q. And since he has been in custody you have made use of these expressions respecting him? - A. I may as far as I know.

ELIZABETH BALLINGER sworn.

Examined by Mr. Russell. Q. Does your husband keep the Three Tuns, at Bath? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see the prisoner at your house, at Bath? - A. I don't recollect the gentleman's face, if the gentleman in black is the prisoner.

Q. Do you recollect having seen him before? - A. I do not recollect that I ever have.

Q. Do you remember Isgar being at your house? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember Austin's being there? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you know at what time they were at your

house? - A. I believe it was the 4th of April that he was there; the gentleman that Isgar waited on.

Q. Do you recollect whether that gentleman, or Isgar, or either of them, went out of town on horseback? - A. I have heard so from our hostler.

Q. Is he here? - A. No; I heard that there were horses had.

JOHN MERRYFIELD sworn.

Examined by Mr. Dauntey. I am a hackneyman, at Bath.

Q. Do you let horses there? - A. Yes; in Crown-street.

Q. Do you know the person of Jacob Isgar ? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the person of William Austin ? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you recollect at any time letting horses to Isgar? - A. Yes.

Q. At what time was that? - A. I believe the 11th day, I have got the book about me.

Q. Was the entry made at the time? - A. Yes; my wife makes the entry when I am not at home; but I saw the horses go out.

Q. See the day on which these horses were lett? - A. On the 11th day of April last.

Q. Did you, on the day that entry refers to, see Austin and Isgar upon those horses? - A. I did.

Q.What was the hire that you received for those horses? - A. Six shillings.

Q. Was it one day, or two? - A. They returned the same day, in about two hours and an half.

Q. Did you see the entry the same day? - A. Yes; I took the money of Isgar for both the horses.

Q. Did you know the place to which they were to go? - A. To Newton.

Q. How do you know that? - A. They hired them there; if it is for a day, I ask where they are going; if they go for longer, I cannot pretend to say; they told me they were going no farther than Newton.

WILLIAM STOWEL sworn.

Examined by Mr. Knowlys. Q. You keep the Globe, at Newton? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you keep it in April, last year? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Jacob Isgar? - A. Yes, when I see him; I remember seeing him there have a glass of punch along with another man.

Q. Do you know who he came with? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Did he come on horseback? - A. I don't know; I came in while he was there.

Q. Do you know whether he had any thing to do with other people in the house? - A. I don't know, only from the servant maid.

Q. Did you see them at any time in company with any other person in at your house? - A. No; I did not.

Court. Q. You say you saw Isgar at your house, you cannot recollect when, can you recollect the month? - A. I cannot say to a quarter of a year, that I know of.

Q. Do you know whether it was summer, or spring, or winter? - A. I cannot say I do.

Q.Nor any person that he met at your house? - A. Not one person.

STEPHEN NOAD sworn.

Examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Do you know Isgar? - A. Very well.

Q. Did he ever lodge at your house, when in town? - A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me when he was in town in the course of the last year? - A. Yes; he came to town in the month of February.

Q. Do you remember his being in town any time after that? - A. Yes; he came to town after that, the 26th of April.

Q. Do you recollect what day he went out of town again? - A. Yes; on the Saturday following, the first of May.

Q. Are you sure it was on a Saturday? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember whether he went out in the morning or evening? - A. In the evening; he went by the six o'clock stage from the Bull and Mouth.

Q. Do you recollect any person being with him when he was in town? - A. A person came to town with him, but did not lodge at my house with him; it is a person that I have since heard called Austin.

Q. How long did he stay in town? - A. I cannot say; he slept one or two nights, I cannot be certain which; my wife and I know that he did one, but don't know whether it was two or not.

Q. Do you know the prisoner, Mr. Crossley? - A. Perfectly well.

Q. Did you ever see him with Austin? - A. I have seen him with Isgar a score times, I believe.

Cross-examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. And I believe one of those times was to arrest him? - A. He was arrested at Mr. Crossley's suit.

Q. Do you remember saying that you did not like to see Mr. Crossley there, for he always came to give some trouble to lodgers? - A. I don't recollect.

Q. Which of the times that Isgar was in town was it that he was arrested at Mr. Crossley's suit? - A. The second time, on a Saturday evening.

Q. He complained of being taken on Saturday evening? - A. I did not hear him complain.

Q. You don't know the sum I suppose? - A. No.

Q. Did you know there was an attachment against him? - A. I did not.

Court. You say you have seen Mr. Crossley many times with Isgar at your house? - A. I have.

Q. Do you recollect whether you saw him there in the month of April, 1795? - A. I did.

Q. You have told us of a person came to town with Isgar, whose name you don't know? - A. He went by the name of William Austin .

Q. Have you ever seen Mr. Crossley with Isgar and Austin, all three together? - A. I never did.

MARTIN HESLOP sworn.

Examined by Mr. Russell. Q. You were clerk in the house of Morland and Hammersley, in June last? - A. Yes.

Q. Be so good as look in your book, and see if in the month of June last you paid a draft of Mr. Crossley's, either of 10l. or ten guineas, and to whom? - A. I paid one of 10l. on the 10th of June, to a person of the name of Escar, or some such name; I took it from the person who received it.

Prisoner. Who was it made payable to? - A. Thompson, or bearer.

Q. Mr. Crossley kept cash with you sometime, I believe? - A. Yes.

Q.Do you know his hand-writing? - A. I believe I do.

Q. Look at that, and tell us if you believe that to be Mr. Crossley's hand-writing? - A. I cannot swear that it is.

Q. Do you believe it to be? - A. I really cannot tell.

Court. Have you seen Mr. Crossley's handwriting? - A: Yes, I have.

Q. What is your opinion about it? - A. I cannot exactly say.

GEORGE GABELL sworn.

Examined by Mr. Russell. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Crossley write? - A. Yes, I have.

Q.Look at these letters, and see if you believe any of them to be Mr. Crossley's hand-writing? - A. That is, I believe: the body of this, another, is not, but I think the signature is. Another; this is Mr. Crossley's, the whole of it. Another; I think the signature only of that is Mr. Crossley's writing. Another; this, I think, is all Mr. Crossley's. Another; this is, I think, Mr. Crossley's. Another; this I think is Mr. Crossley's. Another; this I think is Mr. Crossley's, but I am doubtful about this part of it, "keep all my letters till I see you."

Q. Look at the top entry in that page? - A. I believe this is his writing; (reads) "Friday, 1st May, 1795, Mr. Isgar at suit Rex. To Isgar, 2 guineas, and before, 3l. 13s. 6d.;" reads another entry,

"paid Mr. Price 2l. 2l." I think that is Mr. Crossley's writing.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. This, my Lord, is Mr. Mr. Crossley's own book, found in his house.

(Shews him another book). Look at that? - A. I dont't think any part of this is Mr. Crossley's hand-writing.

Q. There is another entry there, 1st of April; it seems to be the entry of the payment of a bill; whose hand-writing is it? - A. It does not appear to me to be Mr. Crossley's.

(Shews him another book). A. From the words Richard Holland , down to the bottom, is, I think, Mr. Crossley's writing.

JAMES PRICE sworn.

Examined by Mr. Dauncey. Q. Look at that,(a notice of bail); is that your name at the bottom of the note? - A. Yes; I put in this bail.

Q. What is the title of the cause? - A. The King, and Jacob Isgar ; Mr. Isgar and Mr. Crossley were together, and applied to me to put in that bail.

Q. When was that? - A. The 29th of April.

Q.State what passed? - A. Mr. Crossley said, there was a person from Bath, that he wished to have bail put in to answer-interrogatories.

Court. Q. Isgar was with him? - A. Yes; he asked me if I had any objection to put in bail for Isgar.

Q.Was bail put in for him upon that applition? - A. Yes.

Q. On what day was the bail perfected? - A. Upon the 29th of April, 1795; there was no objection to them.

Q.Look at the copy of the bail bond, and see if that corresponds? - A. They are the same bail.

Q. Who paid you for it? - A. Mr. Crossley.

Q. What was the sum that he paid you? - A. Two guineas.

FRANCIS LEWIS sworn.

Examined by Mr. Knowlys. Q. Where do you live? - A. At Monmouth; I am a sheriff's-officer.

Q. Did you at any time go with a search warrant to the house of Richard Holland? - A. I did, with the elder Weaver and an officer; his house is in the parish of Stanford and Grisford, eight or nine miles from Monmouth, I will not be particular.

Q. Did you find any papers in that house? - A. I did.

Q.What did you do with those papers? - A. I gave them all to Mr. Phillips, the town-clerk, except one which I gave to Mr. Stokes.

Q. Do you know any person of the name of Vincent? - A. I know a man who went by the name of Vincent, we met that morning as we were going to search the house, a little man, with a fresh colour, told us his name was Vincent.

Q.Do you know, of your own knowledge,

whether that man is an acquaintance of Mr. Holland's, or not? - A. He told me he was.

Q.Is that the only knowledge you have of him? - A. We met him as I was going to the house, and he returned with us.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. This is a letter in Mr. Crossley's hand-writing, found at Mr. Holland's. (The Clerk reads).

Addressed to Mr. Richard Holland , to be left at the Lamb Inn, Abergavenny, Wales.

"Sir,

"There is a letter in the Post-office, at Abergavenny, by this post, directed to John Montague , Esq. Post-office, Abergavenny; be so good as to take it, and he will come by your house, then give him it; the New Bank will very soon open, &c.

I am, your's, &c.

G. CROSSLEY."

London, 2d May, addressed to John Montague , Esq. Post-office, Abergavenny.

"DEAR SIR,

"When I saw Sir John Scott here, he then advised, and it was agreed that Mr. John Eberno should be at the King's head, on Monday, at eleven; I have since then settled the matter of Eberno, which Mrs. Allen last wrote about, and the bail was put in, so that nothing can, but his own want of prudence, prevent his attending to the appointment; he see off by the coach at four this morning, and has faithfully promised to keep his appointment. I hope Sir John will not fail to meet him, that he may at once dispatch his business; for he is much too apt to get drunk, and the sooner he returns the better; for I cannot answer for his prudence, if in liquor; and when any thing pleases or displeases Mr. Eberno, he is generally drunk on the subject. I am well satisfied you may trust him, as he will faithfully bring the money to account; so that you need not fear him on that head; but a man that gets drunk, is not a fit person for business, and therefore I would have you to act more cautiously, in future; the 50l. you gave him last is accepted; and I told him where to have the cash, and he had it, the full 50l.; and Sir John Scott desired me to advance him five guineas, as it is best to keep no accounts but what are clear. Mrs. Allen has a desire you will write her fully on the business, and how it is managed, and what is done (that she may know her money is properly laid out). You must be prudent and diligent in the business, and there is no doubt of success, the security is so good, and so very perfect the title, that no one can miss of approving the matter; so that there need no begging the question; and if the money is not advanced, on the security, when Mr. Eberno brings it, it may be got elsewhere - so I would have Sir John Scott told when you see him. Pray any compliments to our friends; and, I think, if Sir John comes into your part this summer, you may shew him this; he will the better understand how to act; and as I have, when I saw him, told him the whole truth of the case, I am satisfied he has too much understanding not to see it is right; besides, as he is in the habits of approving titles, he must be better and more perfectly satisfied by an open behaviour and disclosure of the full truth, than by any thing kojt back. I hope Mr. Eberno will not be kept an hour at the King's-head, as I have given him orders to depart as soon as possible. I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant.

G. CROSSLEY.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. We shall now read a paper found at Mr. Holland's; the drase of the will in Isgar's handwriting. The will read,(Copied verbatim).

"In the Name of God Amen I Henry Lewis of the"of the Parish of Treleck in the County of Monmouth"Clark being of sound mind and memory and being"desirous to settle my Worldly affairs Do make this"my last Will and Testement in manner and form fol-"lowing that is to say I give unto my Kinswoman Mrs." Mary Kane of Monmouth Widow one half part of"all my Estates of what nature or kind soever and"wheresoever the same may be found or be situated"which I may be interested or entitled unto at the time"of my decease for and during her natural life and"after her decease I give the same before mentioned"half part of the said Estates unto her daughter Francis"Teresa Brigges and her Hires and Assigns forever"subject to payment of such Legacies hereinafter men-"tioned and paying thereout the sum of Two thousam"pounds after the deceas of Mrs. of Mrs. Mary Kane"their mother to Mary Kane and Grace Kane equally"to be divided between them share and share alike"I all so give Ten pounds per anum to each of my"Cousins Maria Williams and Grace Cornish of Bristol."to be paid them out of my Estates during their na-"tural lives I give unto Mrs. Susannah Harman of"Bristol the sum of five hundred pounds to be paid her"out of my Estates twelve months after my decease"I give unto Francis Rumsey of Treleck the sum of"five hundred pounds to be paid out of my decease"I give upto Francis Rumsey of Treteck the sum of"five hundred pounds to be paid out of my Estates at"Twelve Months after my decease. I give unto"Mrs. Kane aforesaid Widow and Francis Teresa Briggs"aforesaid all my Goods Chattels Plate Linning Chinia"Bonds Bills and personal Estates wheresoever charge-"able with my debts and funeral Expencies And I do"appoint the them my Executrix of this my last Will"and Testament and do hereby revoke all former Wills"by me made in Witness whereof I the said Henry"Lewis Hath hereunto sett my hand and Seal this 27th"day of July 1791.

"Sined sealed and delivared by"the said Henry Lewis the"Testator as for his Last"Will and Testment in the"presence of us who at his"request and in his presince"have subscribed our names"as Witness Heneunto. Henry Lewis Henry Henry H Henn Lew Henry Henry Henry Henry Henry Lewis L Henry Henry Lewis . g. J Henry Lewis .

Mr. Sergeant Adair. The next piece of evidence is the 100l. note found in Austin's hat. (It is read).

London, 12th Dec. 1794.

Six months after date, I promise to pay James Smith the sum of an hundred pounds value received.

R. Holland,

Nando's Coffee house, Fleet-street.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. Now, my Lord, it is necessary to point out to your Lordship and the Jury, what appears upon the inspection of that; when it is examined, the 94 appears originally to have been 95; for the truth of that observation, I must appeal to the eye sight of the Jury and the Court, and that bearer is struck out, and James Smith put in.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. The next is a letter addressed to Mr. Crossley from Clarke, 6th March, 1795, in which he speaks of the good old paper that he has by him, signed William Clarke , dated Worksop, 6th March, 1795. addressed Mr. Crossley, Adelphi, London.

"DEAR SIR,"I have got you four deed stamps, which are all I can get here; I cannot find a 15s. bond stamp, as I promised; they are all on one

stamp, and a figure of three upon it, which I think would not do; shall be going shortly to another place, and will try there; and hen got, send it you; or an old sheet may be stamped; I have me choice paper forty years old. I have no doubt but Mr. Bill stand mark; Mr. John Urton , I know, would do any thing you sopose; Tell me, and I'll fix it properly; I think, Mr. Urton ill not live long; I suppose I shall be his executor.

"Old I' - hath sent nothing; therefore I can do nothing of what were talking about. I shall put in our answers to interrogatories, Monday, (Mr. Clay attend). I have seen G. R - k - vs, afterday; he comes to crave my favours and forgiveness; he is ped of Robin Hooding , and abuses young Jonathan Wilde much, but is R. H. and he says he was a villian to cheat me; you will be what return in so little a time; I have forgiven him, and he must now be quite white-washed."

Another Letter read, dated 25th May, 1795, signed W. Clarke, and addressed to Mr. Crossley. Attorney at Law, Adelphi, London.

"DEAR SIR,

"I have received your letter last post; it is not convenient, at this me, to come to London to meet Mr. Dixcy, as I am not well, and noble, at present, to take so long a journey. I want much to go Leicester; I must go there next week. I hope Dixcy hath got is accounts allowed before the Master (I suppose 2000l.)

"I have sent Dixcy a jobber, a man of judgment and money; he ath set off to Dixcy's house well mounted, by way of Worcester; suppose he will be there some day this week; he comes to take view, and see situation, before he fixes; his name is Vincent; I hope he will find Richard at home, and that all things will be made greeable to them both. If Richard should come to London this week, he must hasten back to see the merchant; he will go to the King's-head, Monmouth, and send over for Richard.

"We have a great miss here; you may tell Richard, Old Nick went over to Worksop manor last night, and took his old acquaintnce, Wake; he was an idle devil not to fetch him ten years ago; he also fetched, last week, Briggs Rotherham, the Justice of Drauseld - they will make a good hroil together.

"I have both seen and sent to Gillet's brother, to do something or him, and have had a deal of trouble about it; they have put off o consider from time to time, &c.; I sent again yesterday; his brother Thomas seems to be now most forward to assist him, and promises to come to me here on Wednesday next; I will do all I can o serve the poor man, you may depend upon it; and I will write o him as soon as I know what will be done; I will do my best for his interest."

Mr. Sergeant Adair. Your Lordship fees, in that leter, there is mention made of Richard and of Vincent.

A Letter dated the 29th May, 1795, signed G.C. addressed to Mr. R. Holland, Skinsreth, the Lamb Inn, Abergavenny,(read),

"DEAR SIR,

"The last letter I had, told me of your intended journey to London; but I have not heard or seen you since; I came from the country today, and think there is a house, at Wickham, might suit one of the company, but wish to advise you on it.

"I had a letter from Mr. Clarke, in which he says, he has sent a Mr. Vincent to you; be careful what you do; but fail not to let me hear from you; if I do not see you, remember I stopped the writings till you came.

"Let me hear by return of post. Adieu."

Mr. Sergeant Adair. This is a draft to Mr. Crossley' and found at Mr. Crossley's, signed W. Cl-k, 13th Sept. 1795, addressed Mr. Crossley, John's street, Adelphi, London, (read).

"DEAR SIR,

"I have received your's; I am sorry Dixon's sample is found; what a fool must he be to write so many names, as you say he hath done; you may be certain, it is all his own doing. I have had no letter-Vincent called here when I was with you; he said he should call again before he went back into the West, but hath not yet done so; when he comes, I suppose I shall be acquainted with the whole history. I have seen the party which I told you I would; I have every reason to think I can get it; but you know there is no promising, certainly now, till you have the sum in hand. I have told you, I would do every think I could to serve you, and he assured I will; I hope I can do it shortly; but remember, I have never said absolutely I could do it; you know I told you how I was situated; I'll do my best, and hope I shall be able to oblige you; but don't depend upon it till you have it hand. Your's,

" W. Cl-K."

Mr. Sergeant Adair. The next is, Mr. Crossley's letter to Mr. Holland; 4th April, 1795, signed G. Crossley, Adelphi, 4th April, 1795; no address; (read).

"SIR,

"I received your remittance on account of Bataille, 57l. 10l. for which I am obliged; I will meet you at Gloucester at eight o'clock on Thursday morning, at the King's-head inn, there I shall come by the coach from the Bolt-in-Tun; I wish you to write for the 50l. bill back, it can be of no use to the party, and may be productive of much evil, as the gentleman you sent it to can do nothing with it, and he has not a single connexion, but what knows the person on whom it is drawn; if you had set your head at work to rain the concern, you could not have done it more effectually than by this chance business. I wish I may see you before your other affairs are to ripe. I wish the meeting had been nearer Bath. I shall bring hills with me such as you may want, and let me have all you can in return, and we will finally settle what is to be done. You will have a long letter of yesterday's date; observe the contents, and by no means fail to meet me at Gloucester, on Thursday morning, when the coach come, in, which is at eight o'clock."

Another Letter signed George Crossley , London, 11th May, 1795' addressed to Mr. Richard Holland , Skinsreth, Abergaveney'(read).

"SIR,

"I was much hurt till I had your letter of this date; it has cased my mind much, as things seem to be going right; and pray give my compliments to his Worship. Inclosed you have a hill for 150l. but you must, the same day you pay it away, give me information, and I will see the party on whom it is drawn, and take care it has due honour; the Banks shall be established without delay, but in takes great time, and the payments are coming heavy. 20th May, 100l. due the 2d of June; 50l. the 4th of ditto; two bills 50l. each the 4th, making 200l. all due, &c.

"Don't fail to do your part, I will mine; but other affairs have taken up my attention, and I do own, that till I had your letter, I was unhappy, as I did expect it last Thursday; don't spare postage I want to send you the bonds and deeds of Claysdown; say how I can do it safe; and as Mr. Clarke did not approve of the counterpart being exhibited, and has given the original ones for the purpose, say what coach I can send them by safe; and you must then go again to Bath, to make the affidavit; or if you please, you may do it at Bristol which is nearer; and, in that case, say by what coach they shall be sent, and to what in for you to fifith the business; I will apprize you the day they are sent, and by what coach. Don't fail to write, for this also is a good thing, and will now be properly managed."

Letter, 2d June, 1795, found at Mr. Holland's, signed George Crossley , 2d June, 1795, (read).

"SIR,

"I saw the client you recommended; but on any future occasion pray do this business yourself, as he only wanted to borrow money.

"I have now advanced 70l. 10s. sixty on account or his bill for the goods, in which your 50l. is included; the ten guineas are paid by order of Monsieur; however let me have the 70l. 10s. by return of post; and it may be best to let him have 40l. more, as he so much presses, but of this do as you please. I told him you ought not to pay for the goods till the sale money was paid to you; let me have that, as I shall be short of cash. Remit me the 70l. 10s. and if you like to pay on account of the goods in hand, remit that also, and it shall be paid as you direct. I am, your's.

"GEO. CROSSLEY."

Mr. Upsell, 10th April.

Bill by Meeke on Upsal, (No. 105), 1st April, 1795, at two months, for acceptance this day, for 50l. 21st April, Holland. Bill 1st April, 1795. 50l.

Due the 4th June.

A Bill the 8th April, 1795.

Court. That we have nothing to do with.

A Letter signed William Austin , Hereford Jail, dated Sept. 29, 1795, addressed to Mr. Crossley, Attorney at Law, John's-street, Adelpbi, London, (read).

"SIR,

It is now almost nine weeks since we have bin in confinement, and have had no support from nobody. Mr. Isgar tells me he have wrote several times, and cannot get no answer; therefore I shall be glad of your answard so soon as possible, to know what we are to do, or what we have to trust, as we have no money to support us beare; have bin some man for the copy of our commitment; he promise to call again in two or days, but have not called since; Mr. Isger have it ready. We should be glad to know how we are to be defended at the Assizes, or how to be maintained; I have been solicited to give evidence, but have declined it yet; but if we are kept in distress, it will be the worse for some people; therefore I should be glad of your answard as soon as possable. We lent Sir John three guineas when he left us, of which we have had two from Lady Brigges, and that is all. Please to direct for William Sweet , at the Ficas, Hereford.

"From, Sir, your's,

" WILLIAM AUSTIN ."

Prisoner's defence. My Lord, I have scarcely been able to hear one half that has passed; I wish your Lordship would permit Mr. Erskine to make some observations for me, as to the letters; I have not been able to distinguish any thing.

Court. I cannot suffer your counsel to speak for you.

Prisoner. In the situation then in which I stand, I will content myself with my counsel calling evidence; all that is possible for me to relate, is, that I know nothing of the charge; those things which relate to money transactions, have no relation to this will; I know nothing of the will, and have not the least conception; I gave no other answer to Mr. Clarke's letter, than this, I certainly received the letter on Monday, in which it was stated, that some papers were found; but so little it struck me, having no knowledge of this will, that I wrote to Mr. Clarke, charging him, that I suspected, if there was any thing in the business, it must be a draft of his own, and that letter is his answer to me; if the letter is reffered to, it will be seen that it is a letter in answer to one of mine, in which I must have charged him with something. As to the letter of Austin, it is well known, after Sir John Briggs applied to me, to defend him,(there are letters to prove he employed me); he told me he was entirely innocent; I never saw Sir John in my life till after the assizes; as to the evidence of Isgar, there is not a word of truth in it.

Court. There is a letter in which you say you have consulted Sir John Scott .

Prisoner. That is a letter Mr. Clarke desired me to write, respecting the sale of Mr. Holland's estate. With respect to the entry in the day-book, I have no doubt I shall be able to give a satisfactory account of that, and that the evidence of Isgar in that part cannot be true. That letter, where Sir John Scott is mentioned, must have been wrote from dictation; I have something on my memory, that something of a title to the Holland estate was enquired into.

Mr. Erskine. Without breaking throught any of the rules your Lordship has laid down, I shall merely state to your Lordship what I mean to call to first; as the rest of the evidence is all in confirmation of Isgar's evidence; therefore I shall begin with contradicting him, in every part of his testimony that relates to the cause; he denied having spoken to the jailor any thing respecting Mr. Crossley's innocence.

(For the prisoner).

JAMES GRAY sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. You are jailor at Herford? - A. I am.

Q. Had you, in your custody, this Mr. Isgar? - A. He was a prisoner with me.

Q. He was committed under a warrant of Mr. Barrow, the mayor of that place? - A. He was.

Q. Do you remember the time when the information was taken by Mr. Barrow, when he came into the prison? - A. I cannot remember the day, there was an information taken by Mr. Barrow.

Q. Do you remember the prisoner at the bar being also committed to your custody? - A. I do.

Q.At that time Isgar had been two months in your custody? - A. Near about that time.

Q. Had you any conversation with Isgar, previous to the time Mr. Barrow came into the prison to take the information? - A. Not before.

Q. Do you remember conversing with him after Mr. Crossley's commitment? - A. I remember his speaking to me after Mr. Crossley was committed to my custody.

Q.After Mr. Crossley was committed to your custody, and committed on his information you know? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you ask Isgar any question, when he came to accuse Mr. Crossley? - A. I did.

Q.What was it you said to Isgar? - A. I menmentioned to Isgar one night, when I was locking him up, particularly on account of having the misfortune of losing some prisoners, I lock them down with a chain; I said, for what, do you accuse Mr. Crossley? I thought there was enough of you without him? Isgar said, I am hauled into a hobble, and must get out as well as I can.

Q. That was the answer Isgar gave to your ques

tion, how he came to accuse Mr. Crossley? - A. It was.

Q. Do you remember, besides that expression you have just now repeated, any other expressions he made use of at the same time? - A. Yes; I do particularly; I asked that in the first place of Isgar, and he said, he was hauled into a hobble, and he must get out as he could; he said particularly he was obliged to swear, in order to get out of the hobble himself; it was as near those words as could be.

Q. You have no doubt about what you are now stating? - A. No; none at all.

Q. Go on to state the rest of the conversation that took place between you and Isgar? - A. It was not only that time, but several times, he spoke those words, that he was hauled into a hobble, and must get out as he could; I believe not one, two or five times only; he said, he did not think he was so much concerned as some others; I cannot exactly remember the day, it was about the 19th, the words were, he mentioned it particularly, he wished to say to me, I was mentioning it before the prisoner in the kitchen; but he said, he did not think Mr. Crossley so guilty, as to the will in question, as some others, meaning Sir John Briggs , and Mr. Holland.

Q. Did he mention their names? - A. Yes.

Q. Did he make use of those words before the debtors in the prison? - A. He did, repeatedly, not less than five or six times.

Prisoner. Q. State the whole conversation that passed before Justice Combe; I wish you would relate the conversation, and whether that is true? - A. The particulars of the conversation respecting Isgar and me, speaking together, I have mention ed; as to any other parts of the conversation, I have not any thing to say or speak; he positively told me as I have mentioned.

Q.Did you say any thing as to your belief? - A. I said, how could you wish to accuse Mr. Crossie, respecting the will; he said, he was obliged to swear it.

Q. Did you give any account of the conversation as it took place between you and Isgar, to any Magistrate? - A. I did not, till Dr. Combe called upon me.

Q. Was the account you gave him, the true account? - A. It was.

Q. If your memory served you to give the same account you do now? - A. Yes.

Q.Was it put down in writing? - A. It was afterwards, by my own desire, and Dr. Combe, and Mr. Underwood saw it.

Q.Was it by the desire of Dr. Combe and Mr. Underwood? - A. No.

Q. Who made it? - A. A prisoner in the jail; it was made the day after; I have the paper in my pocket now.

Q.At the time you desired the prisoner in the jail to take it down; when he had taken it down, did you look at it? - A. I looked at it, and read it.

Q. You had a conviction it contained the truth? - A. Yes.

Q. Can you swear what was taken down by your desire, was what passed between Isgar and you? - A. I have no doubt of it.

Court. Q. Do you mean the paper was written the day after the conversation with Isgar? - A. The day after the examination by Dr. Combe.

Q. Who is the prisoner that took it down? - A. John Collinson , he is a man under sentence of death.

Q. Is he an attorney? - A. No.

Prisoner. Upon the 19th of December, the jailer told me exactly what passed as in that paper; that he said, he was obliged to swear it; it remained in that state two months; when I wanted to adduce evidence, I asked him if that was true; and Dr. Combe undertook to examine this man; and Dr. Combe sent to inform me what passed; and Mr. Underwood said, he could say a great deal more; Mr. Gray said, he could say a great deal more; and Mr. Underwood said, let me hear it now.

Q.(To Gray.) How long was this paper written after the 19th of December? - A. I think, in the month of January 1796.

Q.What time in January? - A. I cannot tell the day; it was the sore part, before Isgar came from Hereford.

Court. Q. What you could recollect a month after, you may recollect now without the paper; you can swear with positive certainly, that this man made use of the words you have repeated before? - A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. You are the jailer of the county of Hereford? - A. Yes.

Q. You received a writ of Hobeas Corpus to bring up a prisoner to-day? - A. I did.

Q. What is the reason he is not here? - A. (Produces a paper as the reason).

Q. I see what that is; it is a certificate, signed by the person who took the information. What was the person you did not make a return to the writ of Habeas Corpus? - A. He was in such a state of health he could not be removed with safety to his life.

Q. If you don't obey the King's writ, why do you not return the cause? - A. I had no cause but from the physician and surgeon.

Q. Why did you not return the cause? - A. Because I left the Habeas Corpus to be returned with the body.

Q. When did you leave Hereford? - A. This day week, to appear here by a subpoena last Wednesday morning.

Q. Look at that paper again, and tell me whose hand-writing it is? - A. Mr. Thomas Combe, the surgeon: Dr. Combe, who is the Justice of Peace for the county and city.

Q. When you entered into this conversation with the prisoner Isgar, how long had Mr. Crossley been in your custody? - A. I cannot say how long; it was some time.

Q. I ask you a plain question; how long Mr. Crossley had been in custody when you first asked Isgar any question? - A. I suppose some weeks; two or three.

Q.Had you known Mr. Crossley before? - A. No.

Q. In what part of the jail was Mr. Crossley confined? - A. In a safe room, opposite to where I lay.

Q. Where did he board? - A. I found him for a few days, and afterwards he found himself.

Q.Did he find your family too? - A. No.

Q. How came you to be so anxious about Mr. Crossley? - A. It was mentioned by Isgar first; he said he wanted to get out of this hobble.

Q. That was before Mr. Crossley was in custody? - A. After; I asked him again, after he had said something about Mr. Crossley; I asked why he accused Mr. Crossley? he said he had got into a hobble, and must get out by what means he could.

Q. Had Isgar said any thing to you upon the subject before he said that? - A. He mentioned particularly, that Mr. Crossley was come here now, or something of that kind: Mr. Crossley is come here now, or come at last.

Q. And then you asked him as you have stated to us? - A. Yes.

Q. He said he had got into a hobble, and must get out as he could; and you told him you thought there was enough of them already? - A. I did.

Q. Are you always so attentive to your prisoners, to prevent more of them coming? - A. I mentioned it to Isgar; he said, he was not so guilty as he thought some others; and particularly mentioned Sir John Briggs and Mr. Holland.

Prisoner. I would not have called this man, if I had thought this was all he had to say; I with he would state the whole he has to say. After he told me the story, I sent for the Magistrates, and they came, and examined him, therefore I could do no more; I had doubts of him, left he should turn the tables upon me.

THOMAS PRICE sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. Do you know Sir John Briggs? - A. Yes.

Q.Had you occasion to see him in the month of April, in the year 1795? - A. Yes.

Q. Were you in his service? - A. Yes.

Q. Had he given any orders, which you, or one of your fellow-servants, was to execute? - A. Yes; he gave me orders, on Sunday the 26th of April, to go to Monmouth, for twenty-five bushels of oats.

Q. What oats were they? - A. Oats for selling.

Q. Who had Sir John bought the oats of? - A. I cannot tell.

Q. You were to go to Monmouth for them? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did Sir John give you those orders? - A. In Blackborough-house.

Q. How far from Monmouth? - A. Nine miles.

Q.About one hundred and forty or one hundred and fifty miles from London? - A. Yes.

Q. You are quite certain Sir John gave you those orders? - A. Yes.

Q. Are you quite certain as to the day? - A. Yes.

Q.Whether any thing passed between Sir John and you, that fixed it on your memory? - A. Neither I nor John Ainsley went, because it was not sitting for the horses to go; it was the Sunday before May-day, when there is a wake in our village.

Q.You are sure the Sunday he gave the orders, was the Sunday before the wake? - A. Yes; I have no doubt of it.

Q. Did you get any displeasure of Sir John about it? - A. No; only some words about it.

Q. Did you get a good scolding about it? - A. Yes.

Q. When did Ainsley leave Sir John? - A. On the Monday following; he stopped a shilling of his wages, because he did not go for them.

Q. You are sure he parted with Sir John on that day? - A. Yes.

Q. You are sure the May-day was between the Sunday you ought to have gone, and the Monday when he was turned away? - A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mills. Q. Where do you live? - A. In the parish of Skintreth; I live still under Sir John.

Q. Do you know where he is? - A. No, I do not.

Q. How long have you lived with him? - A. Two years, in May.

Q. Who did you first mention the story of the oats to? - A. To my brother.

Q. When did you mention it to your brother? - A. The Sunday before May-day that he was to fetch the oats.

Q. Who did you first tell this story to; who has brought you here? - A. Captain Briggs.

Q. When did you tell Captain Briggs about it? - A. He examined me about it.

Q. Then he put into your head about Sunday the 26th? - A. No, he did not.

Q. How came you to remember it was the 26th? - A. Because my brother went away the Sunday following.

Q. How long ago did Captain Briggs examine you about fetching the oats? - A. About a month ago; he asked whether I was ordered to fetch the oats about that time.

Q. He fixed the time when you were to have fetched the oats? - A. He asked about the time, if I could remember upon what day that order was given to fetch the oats.

Q. Can you remember any one thing that you were ordered to do the Sunday before? - A. No; I cannot.

Q. Where was your master the Sunday after? - A. At home; because he paid off my brother.

Q. Do you mean your brother servant, or was he related to you? - A. My brother by the same mother.

Q. You cannot recollect any order on the Sunday before? - A. No.

Q. How long was Sir John from home the week before? - A. I cannot tell; what I have said I will prove, and nothing else.

Q. Who was you to fetch the oats from? - A. A man of the name of Davis; I fetched them on Tuesday; he lives almost at the bottom of Monmouth-street, in Monmouth.

Q. Is he here? - A. I cannot tell; I cannot understand that he is.

Mr. Garrow. Q. He was not at Sir John's house? - A. No.

Q. When Capt. Briggs asked you, if you remembered fetching the oats about that time, you immediately remembered the day? - A. Yes.

Q. You are certain Sir John was at home on May-day? - A. Yes.

Q.There is but one May-day in a year in your country? - A. No.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Was it new or old May-day? - A. New May-day.

Court. Q. What did you mean by telling us you did not know who you were ordered to go to, to fetch the oats? - A. I cannot tell the man's name.

Q. Did not you know from whom you were to fetch them? - A. I know where the man lives.

Q. Don't you know his name? - A. I believe his name is Davis; I am not certain.

Q. When did you fetch them? - A. On the Tuesday after the Sunday.

JOHN AINSLEY sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. Do you remember being at the house of Sir John Briggs , the end of April? - A. Yes.

Q. What took you there? - A. I lived there that time.

Q. Was Sir John at home? - A. Yes; he ordered me to go for five bushels of oats, on Monday to Monmouth.

Q.Who was you to get them from? - A. I don't know; I was to have had a letter, if I went, in the morning.

Q.Why did not you go? - A. I had not thing proper to go.

Q.How long after that did you continue in the service of Sir John? - A. Till May-day .

Q.Why did you leave him? - A. I was hired till May-day, and I had got another master.

Q.Did he grumble at your not going? - A. Yes.

Q.What do you mean by not having the thing to go? - A. I had not the tackle for the mules.

Q.Was any of your wages stopped? - A. Yes a shilling; because I did not go that day.

Cross-examined by Mr. Russell. Q. You receive the orders from Sir John himself? - A. Yes.

Q.Where? - A. In Blackborough-house.

Q.You are sure it was Sir John gave you the orders himself? - A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you where you were to go? - A. No; he did not.

Q. Then if you had had your tackle, where were you to have gone? - A. I was to have had a letter from Sir John in the morning.

Q. Had Sir John been out some time? - A. cannot tell.

Q. What time of the Sunday morning did you receive those orders? - A. About eleven or twelve o'clock in the kitchen.

Q. How long before that had you seen Sir John did you see him on the Saturday? - A. Yes; Monmouth.

Q. What time does Sir John dine; what time did he dine that day? - A. Between two and three o'clock, to the best of my remembrance.

Q. Did any company dine that day? - A. I car not tell.

Q. Did Sir John give you the letter that morning? - A. No; I did not see him till ten o'clock that morning.

Q. What did he say when you saw him? - A. He grumbled that I had not gone, and cursed an swore.

Q. Did not he ask you why you were not gone? - A. Yes, he did; he had left a letter with the cook for me.

Q. Did you ever receive that letter? - A. No.

Q. Did you ever see it? - A. No.

Q. How do you know he left it with the cook? - A. She told me, when I came in to breakfast, between nine and ten o'clock.

Q. Did she give you the letter? - A. No; Sir John had it back.

Q. How came it to be given back? - A. I was not in the house to receive the letter.

Q. When did you go to Monmouth? - A. I did not go at all.

Q.What is the cook's name? - A. Nancy.

Q. Is the here? - A. No.

Q. When did you first tell this story to any body that you were to go to Monmouth, but had not the tackle? - A. I never told it to any body.

Q.Not till you came here? - A. No.

Q. How came you to come here? - A. That is all I have to say; and if you wish to hear it, I will tell it you over again.

Q. Where did you dine that day? - A. At Sir John's.

Q. Where did your brother dine? - A. With me.

Q. Were there any strangers there? - A. Yes.

Q. In the parlour or in the kitchen? - A. In the kitchen.

Q. When were you applied to to come here? - A. Last Friday week.

Q.You never told any body this story? - A. No.

Mr. Erskine. Q. Your master knew it very well? - A. Yes.

Q. Your brother went for the oats, and you did not? - A. Yes.

Q. Who asked you what Sir John did that day? - A. My brother asked me if I recollected it.

Q.When did he ask you? - A. About a month ago.

Q.What did you say to him upon that? - A. I said, I remembered the time very well.

Court. Q. How came it the cook did not give you the letter early in the morning? - A. I lodged out of the house.

Q. Did your brother lodge out of the house? - A. Yes.

Q. Is it usual to go to work without coming into the house? - A. Yes.

Q.Where did you work? - A. In cropping the hedge, about one hundred and fifty yards from the house.

Q. What time did you come to work? - A. About six in the morning.

Q. Did the cook give any reason for not bringing the letter to you? - A. No; she did not.

Q. You and your brother both worked there, one hundred and fifty yards from the house? - A. Yes.

Q. You were told over night you were to have a letter? - A. Yes.

Q. Did Sir John tell you he would leave it with the cook? - A. No; he said, he would leave it in the kitchen.

Jury. Q. Were you a yearly servant? - A. No.

Q. What do you mean by your time being out on May-day? - A. I was hired by the week.

Q. When did you find the tackle out of order? - A. Four or five days before.

Q. Why did you not tell your master of it? - A. I found it out of order on Sunday night.

Court. Q. When did you find the tackle out of order? - A. I cannot tell, I had never used the tackle.

Q. How long had you been there? - A. Four or five weeks.

Q. You did not know it on Sunday evening? - A. Yes; I went to look at it between five and six o'clock.

Q. Was there any other tackle wanting but a bridle for a mule? - A. Yes; a saddle and girths.

Court. Q. Were you both ordered to go and fetch the oats? - A. No; I only.

Court. Q. There was no order given to your brother to go? - A. No; only me.

GEORGE TYLER sworn.

Examined by Mr. Fielding. Q. Where were you in the month of April last year? - A. At home, in Monmouth.

Q. Were you at home on the 25th of April? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the May-day in that year? - A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you keep a shop in Monmouth? - A. Yes; a shoemaker's shop.

Q. Did you see Sir John Briggs in Monmouth, that day? - A. According to my book, there was a pair of shoes entered for Miss Briggs; to the best of my remembrance Sir John fetched them himself.

Q. Your recollection leads you to the day from looking at the day-book? - A. Yes.

Q. That you have no doubt of? - A. No.

Q. You believe Sir John took them home on that day? - A. Yes; I believe, he did.

Cross-examined by Russell. Q. How far does Sir John live from Monmouth? - A. About ten miles, or hardly so much.

Q. Have you got your day-book here? - A. I have it in town; but I was told, there would be no occasion for it.

Q. If it happens to be otherwise in your book, you are wrong, and your day-book is right? - A. Yes.

Q.Who told you there would be no occasion for it? - A. Young Mr. Briggs, since I was in town; he subpoened me; he came and looked over the book, and asked me if I recollected that circumstance.

Q. How long ago did he come and look over your book, at Monmouth? - A. Last week but one;

the Thursday or Friday; it was the Thursday before I set off, or the Friday.

Q. How long has Mr. Briggs been acquainted with Mr. Crossley? - A. I know nothing of Mr. Crossley.

Q. Were you never applied to by Mr. Crossley, or any body connected with him? - A. No; I don't know any body else.

Q. Were you applied to by any body but Mr. Briggs, to come and give evidence? - A. No.

Q. Did he ever come to look over your book before the week before last? - A. No; I thought he was come to pay a bill; and he desired to look over the book.

Q. He said, he had lost the bill, and desired to look over the book? - A. There was no other reason.

Q. Did you make out a fresh bill, on his looking at the book? - A. No.

Q. You were not desired to make out a fresh bill when he looked at the book? - A. No; I will relate, if you please, what happened on his looking at the book.

Q. Did he apply to you after having looked over the book? - A. No.

Q. Did you look over the book with him? - A. Yes; he looked over the articles; when he came to the 25th, he asked, if I recollected who they were for, and I said, yes.

Q. Was the name entered to the article? - A. No; I remembered the circumstance; we sometimes enter the names, and sometimes not.

Q. How do you make out who the shoes are for, if you don't enter the names as well as the work? - A. I recollected this.

Q. How do you make out the bills if you have not the names of the persons for whom the work is made, as well as the work? - A. Sometimes by the price.

Q. If you don't put down names, how do you make out who the work is for? - A. I know by the price; I never expected to be asked any questions about it; I always know by the price.

Jury. Q. Do you keep a book for every family you make shoes for? - A. No; the same day book.

Q. To-day, for instance, you might have forty customers; how do you distinguish them? - A. I put them down, and take them off on Saturday night.

Mr. Russell. Q. What did he say to you? - A. He asked who the shoes were for; he did not give any reason; he asked, who fetched them; I said, I believed, his father.

Q. Did he say any thing about the book, afterwards? - A. No; A person told me, it would be best to bring it.

Q. Who told you at Monmouth, it would be best to bring the book? - A. Mr. Hollings; I asked him if I had best bring the book; he said, it was best; I told Mr. Briggs, I had the book in town; he said, there was no occasion for it.

Q. How came you to tell him you had the book in town? - A. I was coming this way with the book; he saw me with it under my arm; he said, there was no occasion for it.

Q. Were you coming down here to the trial? - A. I was coming to enquire when it was to be.

Q. How came you to bring the book under your arm? - A. I brought it, and left it with a friend in Newgate-street.

Q. Where did you lodge? - A. In Newport-street; I took it back to my lodging, when he told me there was no occasion for it.

Mr. Garrow. Q. When he desired to look at your book, what did you turn to? - A. To the bill of the family.

Q. Where does Miss Briggs live? - A. At Blackborough, with her father.

Q. When you turn to the bill of the family, you know who the shoes are for by the price of the article? - A. Yes.

Q. You know a pair of shoes of two shillings cannot be for the master of the family? - A. Certainly not.

GRACE BRIGGS sworn.

Q. You are the daughter of Sir John Briggs? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did you live on the 30th of April last? - A. At Blackborough.

Q. What day of the year is Skinfreth wake? - A. On May-day.

Q. Do you recollect seeing your father any day before Skinfreth wake? - A. The Sunday before.

Q. How do you know he was at home that day? - A. He brought me a pair of shoes.

Q. What day did he bring them? - A. The Sunday before May-day.

Q. Who did he bring them from? - A. I don't know; he brought them on the Saturday evening, and made me a present of them on Sunday.

Q. Was he at home on the Saturday? - A. Yes, and the next day.

Cross-examined by Mr. Russell. Q. When did you recollect about these shoes? - A. I cannot say.

Q.Did you recollect it yourself, or did any body say any thing to you? - A. I recollected it myself, and told it to my brother.

Q. How long ago? - A. I cannot say.

Q.Within this month? - A. Yes.

Q. You don't know who made them? - A. No.

Q. Then you were not measured for them? - A. My father carried a measure.

Q.What was it? - A: A piece of stick.

Q. When did your father carry the measure? - A. I don't know.

Q. Who is your shoemaker? - A. Charles Tyler .

Q. Are you sure that is his name? - A. Yes.

Q. Has he any brother? - A. I cannot tell.

Q.Do you know that hand-writing (shewing her a paper)? - A. I cannot swear to it.

Q. Did you ever see your brother write? - A. Yes; I never took notice of his hand.

Q. Have you any opinion about it, whether it is his writing or not? - A. I never took much notice of it; I cannot tell.

Q. He is in the militia? - A. Yes.

Q. He never used to write to you? - A. No.

Q. Do you mean to swear you don't know the hand-writing of your brother? - A. I cannot swear to it.

Q. Do you believe it is his writing; is it like it? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you doubt that it is hand-writing? - A. Yes.

Q.Read it (reads it to herself)? - A. I don't know; I should not like to swear to it.

Q. What is your opinion one way or other? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Have you no opinion one way or other? - A. No.

Q. How many servants did your father keep in April? - A. I did not take particular notice; there were a great many at work.

Q. Many that he might have sent for these shoes? - A. Yes.

Q. You cannot tell within three or four how many he had? - A. Three or four or so; John Ainsley , Thomas Price , John Hinton , and another.

Q. How many maid servants? - A. Only one.

Q. In what capacity? - A. To do any thing wanting.

Q. What was her name? - A. Nancy Jones .

Q. Who dined with your father on the day he brought the shoes? - A. Nobody but his children and my mother.

Q. How many dined at home? - A. Four or five of us.

Q. What was the man servant that waited at table that day? - A. Nobody but the maid.

Q. All the men servants your father kept were hedgers and ditchers? - A. Yes.

Q. Is John Hinton here? - A. No.

Q. Your father never kept a footman? - A. Not of late years.

Q. What were the other six, when he kept ten, for? - A. The farmer's business.

Q. Were your fillers at home on that day? - A. There were none old enough to remember any thing.

Q. You have a sister younger than you? - A. Yes.

Q. Where is she? - A. At her grandmother's at Monmouth,

Q. What were these shoes? - A. Common leather shoes.

Q. Do you remember the Tuesday after any of the men going to Monmouth for oats? - A. No; I do not concern myself with them.

Q. Did the servants, you have mentioned dine, on the Sunday at the house? - A. I cannot tell that; sometimes I might not be in the way, and they might not all come at the same time.

Q. What makes you remember that Sunday particularly? - A. Because it was the Sunday before May-day, and my father promised to bring them.

Q. Were you to go out any where that day? - A. No.

Q. Did you go out any where? - A. Only for a walk in the fields.

Q. Since this time have you mentioned this circumstance to any body else? - A. Yes, to Mr. Fraser.

Q.Fraser is a clerk to Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes.

Q. He examined you? - A. He asked me some questions.

Q. Was your brother with you when Mr. Fraser examined you? - A. Yes.

Q. Did he go with you to Mr. Fraser's? - A. No; he came where we were.

Q. Had you ever seen Fraser before? - A. Yes, once; he happened to pass through the country, and called at the house.

Q. Do you mean by happening, that it was by accident? - A. I cannot tell.

Q. How long is it ago that he called; is it a month? - A. More than that.

MARGARET FRASER sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. You are the wife of Mr. Fraser? - A. Yes.

Q. You are acquainted with the prisoner? - A. Yes.

Q. Your husband was his clerk? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you recollect going any where, and to what place, on Saturday the 25th of April? - A. I do; on Saturday, the 25th of April, I went from Mr. Crossley's house, in the Adelphi, with Mr. and Mrs. Crossley, in their phaeton.

Q. What time of the day, of that Saturday, did you go? - A. I cannot positively say; but in the afternoon.

Q. Where did you sleep that night? - A. At the Talbot, in Ripley, on the Guildford road; on Sunday morning I went off with Mr. and Mrs Crossley through Guildford, and stopped at Farnham, where we dined, and saw one John Upsall , who had been on horseback further in the country, to meet a Mrs.

Meeke; from there we went and stopped at the White-hart, at Bagshot, they slept there, and Up-fall also.

Q. You had come that morning from Farnham? - A. Yes, we dined at Farnham in the morning; we came home on Monday evening, about four or five o'clock to Mr. Crossley's house, and Mrs. Meeke was there waiting.

Q. You speak prositively to that? - A. Upon my oath Mrs. Meeke was there, at Mr. Crossley's house, waiting for Mr. Crossley.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Your husband was the confidential clerk of Mr. Crossley? - A. He was his clerk.

Q. The clerk that managed all his business? - A. Yes.

Q. Who was Mr. Upsall? - A. A relation also.

Q. And a clerk? - A. Yes.

Q. Who is Mrs. Meeke? - A. A lady of fortune, and had her affairs in Chancery.

Q. Did Mr. Crossley's business allow him to spend all his Sunday's out of town? - A. He generally went out of a Sunday.

Q. Perhaps he was never at home on a Sunday in the season? - A. I cannot say; I was not always at home myself.

Q. The Sunday before was he at home? - A. I was out that Sunday myself.

Q. The Sunday after? - A. I don't know; that Sunday was the last Sunday in the month, the Friday following was May-day, which we remarked, and said, we should go out in a party.

Q. Did you go out that day? - A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Crossley go? - A. No.

Q. Do you know Isgar? - A. I have heard the name.

Q. Did Mr. Crossley stay at home on the 1st of may to do any business for him? - A. I do not know.

Q. Did you see him there that week? - A. No; I have not seen him there for a twelvemonth.

Q. Have you any reason to know whether he was in town that week? - A. No.

Q. You did not see him at Mr. Crossley's that week? - A; No.

JOHN UPSALL sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. I understand you are a relation of Mr. Crossley's? - A. I am.

Q. You are employed by him in his office? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember going out of town the latter end of April, and what day? - A. Yes, on a Thursday; I went to Wickham.

Q. How did you go? - A. On horseback.

Q. Who did you go to see there? - A. Mrs. Meeke.

Q. When did you return from Wickham? - A. On Friday night.

Q. Did you see Mr. Crossley on Sunday? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did you see Mr. Crossley on Sunday? - A. At the Lion-and-Lamb, Farnham.

Q. Did you come to London at all till you met Mr. Crossley? - A. No.

Q. That was on the Sunday? - A. Yes.

Q. Who was of Mr. Crossley's party? - A. Mr. and Mrs. Crossley, and Mrs. Fraser.

Q. Did you dine there? - A Yes.

Q. Were they the persons you dined with at Farnham? - A. Yes.

Q. What carriage did they come in? - A. Mr. Crossley's Pharton.

Q. Where did they go from there? - A. To Bagshot, the white-hart.

Q. How long did you continue at Bagshot? - A. We slept there.

Q. When did you return to London? - A. On Monday evening.

Q. What time? - A. After dinner.

Q. What time did you meet with the company at Farnham? - A. Between two and three o'clock.

Q. Are you positive, from the time you saw him at Farnham, he was never out of that company? - A. Yes.

Q. He could not have been in London to transact business? - A. No.

Q. Where did you see Mrs. Meeke? - A. I met her coming to London.

Q. Did you hud her here in town? - A. Yes.

Q. What was the business she came about? - A. To swear'a further answer to a suit in Chancery.

Q. When was that answer sworn? - A. On Tuesday the 28th.

Q. Did you attend the swearing of that? - A. Yes.

Q. You are sure it was the 28th? - A. Yes.

Q. You are sure the Sunday you were at Farnham was the Sunday before the swearing of that answer? - A. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mills. Q. You are a relation of Mr. Crossley's? - A. Yes.

Q. You are connected with him in business? - A. Yes.

Q. Have not you been in the habit of accepting bills for Mr. Crossley? - A. Yes.

Q. They had some trouble to find you; where had you been? - A. I was in the country, but I have been publickly in town this two months.

Q. Mr. Crossley knew that? - A. He knew I was in town.

Q. Mr. Crossley said, you were not to be found; that you were gone out of the way for fear of an arrest; is that true? - A. Yes.

Q. You had written to Mr. Crossley frequently? - A. No.

Q. Do you know that hand-writing in that book? - A. I do not.

Q. Is it Mr. Crossley's? - A. No, it it is not.

Q. Look at the bottom, have you ever seen that hand-writing? - A. I don't know the writing.

Q. Look at that, (shewing him a letter,) have you seen that before? - A. I may, I don't know.

Q. Have you seen any body write like that? - A. No.

Q. Do you know whose hand-writing it is? - A. No.

Q. Do you think you have seen such writing before, and know a person who does write like it? - A. No, I do not.

Q. Wickham was the place you were at? - A. Yes; in Hampshire.

Q. What time did you meet Mr. Crossley at Farnham? - A. Between two and three o'clock, it might be later

Q. What time did you dine? - A. Between three and four o'clock; we were there some time before dinner.

Q. How many miles is Wickham from London? - A. I don't know.

Q. How many miles is Farnham from Wickham? - A. I don't know.

Q. Forty? - A. I don't know.

Q. Twenty? - A. It was more than that.

Q.Having rode it in the morning, you don't know how far it is? - A. No.

HENRY AUSTIN sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord, I am going to contradict the evidence of William Austin being at a particular place on a particular day.

Q. Are you related to William Austin? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you recollect seeing any thing of him on the morning of the 26th of April last? - A. Yes.

Q. What day of the week? - A. On Sunday.

Q. What time of the morning did you first see him? - A. About ten o'clock, to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Where did you see him? - A. At the house of Joseph Robinson Smith, No. 1, Charles-street, St. James's-square.

Q. How long did he continue there with you? - A. About half and hour.

Q. What other persons were there? - A. Mary Saxby , Mary Smith , and Joseph Robinson Smith.

Q. Did you dine there? - A. No.

Q. How long did you continue at the house? - A. About half an hour.

Q. Who went away first? - A. I went out, and Austin walked out with me; I left him with Robinson Smith, he came out with us.

Q. How soon did you part with him after you left the house? - A. In about ten minutes.

Q. How soon after did you see him again? - A. I went in about half past two, and found him there sitting in a great chair.

Q. Had the family dined? - A. Yes.

Q. Had he the appearance of having dined there? - A. They told me he dined there.

Q. How long did you continue there then? - A. About half an hour; we agreed to take a walk, Austin, Smith, and me.

Q. How long were you together then? - A. Till ten o'clock at night; I was not out of his company more than five minutes all the time.

Q. Except when you parted with him at eleven, you were in his company the whole of the day? - A. Yes; from half past two, till ten o'clock.

Q. What makes you remember the day? - A. He said the Bath races were to be on Tuesday the 28th, that was the Sunday before.

Q. Have you any doubt the day you were speaking of was Sunday the 26th? - A. No.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mills. Q. What time in the day did you first see William Austin? - A. Between ten and eleven o'clock.

Q. In what room was he? - A. The parlour, the front room; there was Mr. Austin, Mrs. Saxby, and Mr. Smith.

Q. What was the subject of your conversation? - A. Nothing at all; he only asked me how I did.

Q. Did you know he was in town? - A. No; I went accidentally and found him there.

Q. Did you ask him why he came to town? - A. No.

Q. Did you ask him when he was to go out of town? - A. He said he should go on the morrow, if he could accomplish his business.

Q. Did any body happen to come in during this half hour? - A. No.

Q. You walked out together? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did you part? - A. At Charing-cross.

Q. Which way did Robinson, Smith, and he go, when you left them? - A. I don't know; I left them standing still, they said they were going back.

Q. Did you see any thing more of them till after dinner? - A. No.

Q. In the afternoon, where did you find him? - A. Sitting in the chair, almost asleep, and nobody in the room but him.

Q. How long were you there together? - A. About half an hour; then Mr. Smith came in.

Q. What was the conversation? - A. Nothing; only we agreed to take a walk.

Q. Where were you to walk to? - A. Charles, Webb's. Mary-le-bonne.

Q. Did you meet any body you knew in the way? - A. No.

Q. Did you stop any where? - A. At a house in St. Martin's-lane, to drink.

Q. Do you know Isgar by sight? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you happen to see him at Noads's that day? - A. Yes; he did come in.

Q. How long did he stay with you? - A. About a quarter of an hour; we had but one tankard of beer.

Q. What did he say when he came in? - A. I don't know.

Q. Did not he speak to you? - A. No; he did not know me.

Q. Did he speak to Mr. Smith? - A. No; he did not know me.

Q. How did you know Isgar? - A. I lived at Bath, and had seen him.

Q. You are sure you met nobody you stopped to speak to in the way? - A. No.

Q. When you came to Charles Webb 's, was he at home? - A. No; but his wife was.

Q. Were there any children in the room? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you drink tea there? - A. Yes.

Q. At Webb's? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did you go to from there? - A. We returned strait home.

Q. You stopped no where by the way? - A. No; nor met any body.

Q. Do you recollect what sort of weather it was? - A. No, I do not.

Q. Was it fair, or rainy? - A. It was dry weather.

Q. Was it dark, or moon-light? - A. I cannot say.

Mr. Garrow, Q. You have seen Isgar at Bath? - A. Yes.

Q. He is a very notorious character there? - A. Yes; as far as I have heard of him.

Q. It is difficult to be in Bath without hearing of him? - A. I never heard-much of him.

Q. Did you ever hear any good of him the little you did hear? - A. No.

Court. Q. Isgar had this bad character while you knew him at Bath? - A. Yes.

Q. Did your uncle and he seem to be upon good terms? - A. They were talking, but nothing but what every man might hear; I did not hear any of the conversation at all, they drank together, I believe they came up from Bath together.

SARAH WEBB sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. Do you know the last witness, Henry Austin? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember his coming to your house at any time towards the end of April? - A. Yes.

Q. What day was it? - A. On the 26th.

Q. What makes you think it was that day? - A. Because William Austin was along with him, and he said, he must go on Monday or Tuesday morning, because it was Bath races.

Q.At what time did they come to your house? - A. As near as I can guess, a little aften four o'clock.

Q. Who came with them? - A. Henry Austin, William Austin , and Mr. Robinson Smith.

Q. Was your husband gone out? - A. Yes.

Q. Did they drink tea with you? - A. Yes, they did.

Q. How long did they stay with you? - A. Till past eight o'clock.

Q. You are quite sure, with respect to the day? - A. Yes.

Court. Q. What time did they go home? - A. Ar past eight o'clock, as near as I can recollect, and they said they were going to Robinson Smith 's.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knowlys. Q. Have you been long acquainted with Austin? - A. I know William Austin perfectly well.

Q.How long had he been in town? - A. I don't know that he had been in town either time before that year, I had not seen him for above a year and a half.

MARY SMITH sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. What relation are you to Joseph Robinson Smith? - A. I am his wife.

Q. Be so good as tell us whether you recollected, upon Sunday the 26th of April, seeing William Austin? - A. Yes, perfectly well.

Q. Do you know a person who has been examined here of the name of Henry Austin? - A. Yes.

Q. A nephew of William's, I understand? - A. Yes.

Q. Where did you first see William Austin in the course of that morning? - A. He came to our house between nine and ten in the morning; he breakfasted there; he went away after breakfast, and returned to dinner between one and two.

Q. Who was your party at dinner? - A. No one but my husband, myself, Mary Saxby and William Austin.

Q. Did you see any thing of Henry Austin afterwards? - A. Yes; Henry Austin came after dinner, and William Austin was sitting in the great chair, when he came in; I supposed he was asleep.

Q. What became of these parties after Henry Austin came in? - A. They asked one another if they would take a walk; they agreed to take a walk, and drink tea with my sister, Sarah Webb ; my husband; and William and Henry Austin went there.

Q. Who returned back with them from your sister's? - A. Mr. Webb came back with William

and Henry Austin , and my husband; they came back at eight or nine o'clock.

Q. What became of them after? - A. They all supped at my house; I think it was about half past eleven when they went away.

Q. You are quite certain the day you have been speaking of was Sunday the 26th of April? - A. I asked him when he was going out of town, upon the Tuesday, that makes me certain, I saw him on the Tuesday, and asked him why he went so soon, he said, it was Bath races, and he had promised to be there.

Q. Have you learned since, that in point of fact, the Bath races were that week? - A. Yes.

Q. You are sure this was the Sunday before that Tuesday that he went to Bath races? - A. I am sure of that.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dauncey. Q. When were Bath races? - A. On the Tuesday.

Q. William Austin is your brother? - A. Yes; he was a builder at Bath.

Q. What occupation did he follow at Bath after he was a builder? - A. I did not know that he had given up building; he mortgaged his own houses to my brother Henry in the country, and looked after his houses.

Q. Did he happen to live in one of those houses? - A. I believe, he did.

Q. Did you ever see him there? - A. I saw him there two years ago in my return to London; I slept there with my sister one night.

Q. There was a house adjoining to it? - A. I don't know; there was a row of houses.

Q. Was there any communication internally between the house he lived in and the next; don't you know who was the inhabitant of that other house? - A. No; I don't; I went in the evening, and came off with the coach next morning.

Q. How many women lodgers were there in that house that you knew off? - A. I never saw but one, and I never knew any more.

Q. Don't you know from your brother what sort of a househe kept?

Mr. Garrow. That is certainly not evidence.

Q. your brother is a man good character, I suppose? - A. I never heard any think to the contrary, till this business.

Q. Of course you never you did? - A. I never did.

Q. Upon your oath, have you never said, your brother did not bear a good character? - A. Never, upon my oath.

Q. Has your brother any other sister of your name? - A. I sister of the name of Webb.

Q. But no other sister of the name of Smith? - A. No; Mr.Stokes examined me to taht, and I denied it then.

Q.You are the wife of Robinson Smith ? - A. Yes.

Q. Henry Austin was not at your house till after dinner on that day? - A. He was not.

Q. William Austin was there in the morning? - A. Yes; between nine and ten he breakfasted, and, I believe, it was half past eleven, when he went away; he came in by the Bath coach that morning; at least he told me so.

Q. Henry Austin came after dinner; when Henry came after dinner, I think, you said, you and William were in the room, and William Austin was sitting in the chair, sleeping? - A. I thought so; I don't know whether he was or not; I was in the room adjoining; when Henry Austin came in, the room was so very close I heard him come in.

Q. Could you see into the room at that time? - A. Yes.

Q. That was the reason then that you knew? though you were in another room, that he was sitting in a chair, as if asleep? - A. Yes; facing of me, as you are.

Q. How long had you dined, at that time? - A. We had dined a little before two o'clock; it was about a little before three when they had dined; they went away about half past three.

Q. Do you mean to say you know how long they staid? - A. I cannot say to the moment.

Q. But as long as they staid with you, you saw them? - A. Yes.

Q. When Henry Austin came in, did he join in the conversation? - A. There was no conversation; only they asked how one another did, and agreed to take a walk.

Q. You staid with them till they set out to your sister's? - A. Yes.

Q. Upon your oath, was nothing said about Bath races at that time? - A. No.

Q. Nor did you know any thing about Bath races till the Tuesday following? - A. No.

Q. Then if Henry Austin ha said so, it must be a mistake of your's or his? - A. I cannot account for him or them.

Q. You have learned since that Bath races were the next Tuesday? - A. Yes; my brother, Webb, told me so.

Q. That is all the knowledge you have of when Bath races were? - A. Yes.

Court. Q. You never heard any thing of the Bath races till the Tuesday? - A. No.

Q. Then Austin told you of it? - A. Yes; I asked him why he was to return to Bath so early, and he said, he must go to Bath races.

Q. How came you to be so particular about this day; who told you about the 26th of April being

material? - A. I never heard any thing material, to my knowledge, till I was subpoened, and I thought it right to recollect myself.

Q. But who told you the 26th of April would be a day particular upon this occasion? - A. Nobody.

Q. Not till you came here? - A. Yes; Mr. Webb told me that the Bath races were on that Tuesday that he went out of town; he said, he had promised to be there on that day.

Q. Who told you before you came here that the 26th of April could be a day that would be particular? - A. I cannot say.

Q. You have taken more particular notice of that day than any other? - A. Yes; I thought it was very useful to take notice of that day.

Q. Why did you think it more useful to take notine of that day than any other day? - A. When I was subpoened.

Q. But when you were subpoened, how came you to think that day more necessary to recollect than the other? - A. I understood from them that it was the day of the Bath races.

Q. Where have you been this day? - A. Here, in different companies.

Q. What one of the witnesses have you seen since you have been here? - A. A great many.

Q. Who were the last you saw when you came in? - A. I suppose there were twenty sitting with Mr. Stokes's witnesses.

Q. You have been sitting in a room all this morning; so that you have not learned this story of the 26th of April till to-day? - A. Yes.

Q. But then you knew it was a material day before to-day? - A. Yes.

Q. How were you taught that it was material? - A. I never was taught.

Q. Then it was by mere accident that you thought it material? - A. When my brother was taken up, and I was subpoened, I thought it right to recollect.

Q. Where did he lodge when he was in town? - A. I have heard him say he lodged in St. Martin's-lane; I could not accommodate him.

Q. Do you know Isgar? - A. I have seen him at Hicks's-hall.

Q. When Henry Austin was in your house was any thing said to him, by your brother, about his having come up from Bath with Isgar? - A. not in my hearing.

Q. What sort of a day was it? - A. A sine day.

Q. You did not go to Mr. Webb's? - A. No; I never was out of the apartments.

Q. Nobody had dined with you that day? - A. only Mrs. Saxby.

Mr. Garrow. Q. Did you attend before the Grand Jury? - A. I was subpoened there by Mr. Stokes.

Q. And you have attended here upon the subpoena from Mr. Stokes? - A. Yes; a very unnataural thing, I think.

Q. Mr. Dauncey. Q. How came you not to come down when you were called? - A. I went over the way after my cloak, and left word where I was gone.

Court. Your brother came up to town on Sunday morning? - A. The 26th of April.

Q. What time of day? - A. Between nine and ten, to the best of my knowledge; I asked him what he came to town for, and he said, there was some gentleman in Bath making interest to get him into the Custom-house; I cannot particularly say that he said in Bath, but some friend of his.

Q. He did not tell you who he was? - A. No.

Q. Did he tell you before he went away whether he had seen the gentleman? - A. No; I asked him if he had succeeded in his wishes; he told me he did not know whether he had or not.

Q. When did you ask him that? - A. Just as he was going away.

Q. Was it morning or evening? - A. The afternoon.

CHARLES WEBB sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. You are the husband of Mrs. Webb who has been examined? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember seeing William and Henry Austin any time the end of April? - A. I remember seeing them one Sunday in April; they drank tea with my wife; I was not at home; I came home about eight o'clock; they were not there then.

Q. Where did you see them then? - A. They had been gone about five minutes; I went down to Robinson Smith 's about nine o'clock.

Q. Did you find them there? - A. I went on purpose to meet them there.

Q. How long did you stay there? - A. I stopped, I believe, about two hours; it might be rather more; it was past eleven before I left them.

Q. Did they remain as long as you did? - A. I left William Austin there, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith there; Henry Austin was gone; he went three parts of an hour, I believe, before I went.

Q. What is your reason for believing this was the 26th day of the month? - A. I have no reason than that I saw William Austin on the Tuesday, and he said, it being the first day of Bath races, he should have been there by good rights; and in order to know that the Bath races began on the 28th, I went to see the Racing Kalendar, and it was so.

Q. You are sure it was the Tuesday following that Sunday? - A. I am very sure of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruffell. Q. How soon after they went did you follow them? - A. I got there about nine o'clock.

Q. Did you see Henry Austin there? - A. Yes.

Q. How long did he stay with you? - A. He stopped till about ten, or a little after.

Q. Did you learn from them how long they had been there before you? - A. No; I did not enquire; it was about nine.

Q.What time did you go away? - A. About eleven or a little after.

THOMAS CRUMP sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. Do you remember being at the house of James Morgan , before the suneral of Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes.

Q. What day was it? - A. As near as I can recollect, the 15th of January.

Q. Do you remember Sir John Briggs coming in that night? - A. Yes.

Q. The night before Mr. Lewis was buried? - A. Yes.

Q. About what time did Sir John come in? - A. To the best of my remembrance, it might be about seven, or somewhere thereabouts.

Q. He came on horseback, did not he? - A. Yes; and Mr. Morgan came and asked him in; Mr. Morgan could not stop, because he was going to the funeral on the morrow; he said, he had been in the passage looking for Mr. Lewis's saddlebags, but he could not find them; he damned his sister-in-law; he said, he thought it was wrong of her, that the had not asked, whether he had made a will or not.

Q. Where was this, in the parlour, or where? - A. In the kitchen, by the fire.

Q. How long did you stay in the kitchen? - A. I stopped there till between ten and eleven; I cannot justly say for half an hour either way.

Q. Did you stay there till Sir John's horse was called for? - A. I cannot say; he was not come out however.

Q. Where was Sir John all the time you were there? - A. In the kitchen, by the fire.

Q. If any body has said he went to the parlour it is not true? - A. No; all the time I was there he was not out of the kitchen.

Q. Did you look into the parlour to see if there was a fire in it? - A. No, I did not.

Q. Who remained in the kitchen whilst you were there? - A. Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Weaver and his son, and Sir John Briggs , and one Mr. Jones, and I.

Q. Mr. Holland was not there? - A. No.

Q. Sir John Briggs was? - A. He was.

Q. Did you hear Sir John say any thing about making a will for Mr. Lewis? - A. I did not.

Q. Did you hear Sir John say he could forge any body's hand, to a nicety? - A. I never did.

Q. Did you hear him say anything about making a will for Mr. Lewis? - A. I did not.

Q. Did you hear any body say to him, it was not too late to make a will? - A. No.

Q. Did you hear any body say to him, or to any body else, it was not too late to make a will? - A. Nobody said any thing about a will, except that that he said about his sister-in-law.

Q. I ask you; upon your oath, if any body had said any thing about making a will for the man that was dead, must you have heard it? - A. There was chen never a word said about it.

Q.Must you have heard it if there had? - A. Yes, I must have heard it, because I was in the kit-all that time, till Sir John went away.

Q. I ask you, upon your solemn oath, whether that was so or not? - A. I have recollected myself before I came here.

Q. And it is as you now say? - A. It is the real fact.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Could you, in the kitchen, hear what passed in the parlour? - A. No; I don't think I could.

Q. Now, do you mean to say, that the company that night never went into the parlour? - A. I don't say that.

Q. Then what is it you do say? - A. They did not go into the parlour from the time I went there till the time I went away.

Q. What time might that be? - A. Somewhere about ten o'clock, or it might be later.

Q. And they staid till three o'clock? - A. I went away at ten, or it might be half an hour later.

MICHAEL JONES sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. Do you remember being at Mr. Morgan's house on the evening before the late Mr. Lewis was to be buried? - A. I do; it might be three or four o'clock in the afternoon, or thereabouts.

Q. How long might you continue? - A. Till somewhere about ten.

Q. Who were there during the time you were there? - A. When I went in Thomas Crump was there, a man that works for me; and, in the evening, about five or six o'clock, in came Mr. Weaver and his son, from shooting; Sir John Briggs came in about nine, cursing and swearing, and damning and sinking, or between eight and nine; he said, he had been first of all at Mr. Lewis's; that he was dead; that he expected to find a will in his possession; that he had been at the passage searching for his saddle-bags; he had been at a good many places, and could not find it; he thought the will might be contained in those saddle-bags.

Q. Was Mr. Holland there? - A. No; not in the kitchen.

Q. Was Sir John Briggs at all in the parlour? - A. No, in the kitchen.

Q. Are you certain they did not go into the parlour? - A. I am certain they did not; he swore he would not stay a moment; he said, Lady Briggs expected him; he said, he had been at the passage, and met with Mr. Phillips.

Q. Sir John was not in the parlour, nor Mr. Holland was not there at all? - A. No.

Q. How long did you stay? - A. It might be till half after ten.

Mr. Mills. Q. You went away at ten? - A. Yes; or it might be half an hour after.

MARGARET PERKINS sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. Where do you live? - A. At a place called Treleck.

Q. Did you know the late Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes.

Q. How long had you been acquainted with him? - A. These forty years, for ought I know.

Q. Did he occasionally talk to you about his affairs, and his manner of disposing of them? - A. He did not talk no great deal to me; but the last time he talked to me about it he was going into Devonshire, and he went from thence to Sidmouth; we were talking in the parlour, he said, I am growing an elderly man, Mrs. Perkins, and I wish to settle my affairs; and I made answer to him, why then, I suppose, the Morgans will have a great deal of your property.

Court. Q. Do you know when this was? - A. I think in the year 1791; because he mentioned a family of the name of Rumsey, that were at that time at Sidmouth; he told me, at the time, every thing about it, but I have forgot now; when I said I supposed the Morgans would have a great deal of his property, he said no, Mrs. Perkins, I will take care they never shall ahve one penny or it, they shall not inherit a pennyworth that I have, I will take care of that.

Q. This was before he went upon his trip? - A. Yes; and when he came back, he came to our house again, as he used to do, two or three times a week; and he said, he had been at Sidmouth, and that, in either going to Sidmouth or coming back, he had been at Bath.

Q.Did he say any thing more at that time? - A. Not about any thing of that sort.

Q. You are quite sure that, in that conversation, he said the Morgans should have nothing? - A. He said he would take care that they never should inhert a pennyworth that he had.

Q. Were you acquainted with Mr. Lewis's manner of writing? - A. I cannot say as I should know much about the writing.

Q. You have seen him write? - A. Yes, I have seen him write; but I could not say now I should like to swear to his hand writing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Have you any knowledge of the family? - A. Yes; his family on both sides.

Q. Do you know who were his heirs on the father's side? - A. I have heard, that on the father's side, it was his father's sister's children: Mrs. Harman, Mrs. Cornish, and others.

Q. Did you ever hear him say that they should never have any thing of his? - A. No.

JAMES MORGAN sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. We have heard of some persons being at your house upon the evening before the funeral of Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes.

Q. Who came to your house? - A. Sir John Briggs came, and Michael Jones , and Thomas Crump ; I suppose I might have nine or ten servants there.

Q. Were the two Weavers there? - A. Yes; they came in, as much as I remember, late in the evening.

Q. Be so good as tell us what passed when you were there? - A. Sir John came, as he told us, and said, he had been at the passage, and different places, in search of some saddle-bags belonging to the late Henry Lewis , clerk, and could not find them; he was very tired, and it was a remarkably cold night; he brought two horses of Mr. Lewis's, he put one into my stable; and, in the morning, he sent for it; I asked him to come in and take some refreshment, he seemed very much out of humour; he said he was disappointed in his journey; he came in and sat down at the fire an hour, or an hour and a half, or somewhere thereabouts; in the mean time, I think, had a part of two tankards of cyder.

Q. This was in the kitchen? - A. Yes.

Q. And the Weavers were there? - A. Yes.

Q. How late did you stay there? - A. I staid there all night.

Q. How late did you stay in the kitchen? - A. I did not go before I went out of the room to bed.

Q. Was Mr. Holland there? - A. I did not see him.

Q. What time do you go to bed? - A. Before twelve o'clock.

Q. Was there a fire any where else in the house? - A. Not that I know of.

Q. During the whole time you were there, before you went to bed, Sir John, and the rest of your company, continued in the kitchen? - A. Yes; to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Did you hear any thing said, in Sir John's presence, or by Sir John, about making a will? - A. I did not, I heard him say, if there was a will in the saddle-bags, or any where else, may be his heir at law might find it, and he might not be the better for it; and that his sister-in-law had acted very imprudent in the time of his illness; and, that if he had settled his affairs, he would have done it he was certain.

Q. After Sir John had stated this, did any body say to him it was not too late, though the man was dead; to set about making one? - A. I did not hear it.

Q. If it had been said in your room, you must have heard it? - A. Yes.

Q. Was Mr. Holland in your house that day? - A. I did not see him; I went to bed about twelve o'clock.

Q. Was there any fire in your parlour that night? - A. There was not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mills. Q. You were examined at the last Hereford assizes? - A. I was.

Q. The Weavers were examined at the same assizes? - A. I believe they were.

Q. Were you examined to this point at the Hereford assizes? - A. I was not. to my knowledge.

Q. The Weavers swore, I believe, precisely as they swear now? - A. I don't know; I was not in Court when they were examined.

Q. You swore positively that Mr. Holland was not there? - A. Not to my knowledge; I did not see him that day.

Q. You say you were not in Court when the Weavers were examined? - A. I did not hear their examination.

Q. Were you in Court when they were examined? - A. I cannot say whether I was or not; because, I think, if I remember right, every evidence was kept out of Court, and by Mr. Stokes's desire.

Q. You were examined before the Weavers; after you had been examined, did not you stay in Court and hear the remainder of the cause, or part of the remainder of the cause? - A. I did not; I might or might not.

Q. Were you in Court or not? - A. I cannot say whether I was or not, I don't really know whether I was or not; if any gentleman here says I was, I will admit it; I really cannot say.

Q. You cannot recollect, so as to swear one way or the other? - A. No.

Q. Do you mean to have it taken down, that you cannot recollect whether you were or not? - A. I cannot say, I might or might not.

Q. On the day Sir John Brigs came to your house what time might it be? - A. I cannot say to the hour exactly, it might be eight, nine, or ten.

Q. Can you six which of those two hours Sir John came to you? - A. I cannot say.

Q.Will you six any hour between eight and ten, or between eight and eleven? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Will you or not, six a time between eight and eleven? - A. I cannot.

Q. Were the Weavers there before he came in or not? - A. I cannot say.

Q. You cannot swear whether the Weavers came there before or after? - A. I think it was after.

Q. When did Crump come? - A. He came to take a little farm of me, about two o'clock; and he staid from that time till about eight or nine.

Q. Did he go away before nine? - A. He very likely might, I cannot say.

Q. Who went first? - A. Crump and Jones went away together.

Q. Can you six some time at which they went away? - A. About nine, to the best of my memory.

Q. Now, how long did the Weavers stay after them? - A. They went away before twelve.

Q. You will swear the Weavers went away before twelve? - A. I will swear my house was shut, and the Weavers did not sleep at my house, and that I went to bed before twelve.

Q. Mr. Holland was not there? - A. No.

Q. You heard nothing at that time about a will? - A. No; only that he had been at the passage, and different places, searching for the saddle-bags; and I think that Mr. Phillips, who was employed for the heir at law, had given him the key, or something.

Q. Then on that day you did not hear of any intention of framing a will for Mr. Lewis; when was it you first offered a bett, that a will of Mr. Lewis's would be found? - A. I don't know that I ever offered a bett of that kind.

Q. Will you swear that you did not offer a bett that a will of Mr. Lewis's would he found after this conversation? - A. I was one day at Monmouth with Mr. Lewis, and he told me he had received a letter from one Isgar at Bath.

Q. Have you ever offered such a bett? - A. There were wagers talked of, but not by me.

Q. Who talked of wagers? - A. Mr. Holland, and Mr. Lewis, a bailif, were at my house one day, and I had seen on the Saturday before, a letter, that there was a will of his in Bath, which he shewed me at the public-house, at Bath; I cannot say what house it was.

Q. What did that letter express? - A. To let Mrs. Kane know that there was a will in favour of Mrs. Kane in his possession.

Q. Do you recollect that letter? - A. No more than I have mentioned.

Q. Did you hear it read, or did you read it? - A. I think, I heard it read.

Q. Do you mean to say from your recollection, that that was the contents, or substance of the letter, that this Isgar had a will to deliver to Mrs. Kane, and that the will was made for the benefit of Mrs. Kane? - A. To the best of my recollection, the letter did express that word, or something to that effect.

Q. This was a letter that Mr. Lewis, the cornfactor, had at Monmouth? - A.. Yes.

Q. After that, you offered betts about the will? - A. I do not know that I did.

Q. Did you or not? - A. I cannot say; Mr. Lewis the baker was at my house, and he proposed making a bett; he asked me to go his halves; I said, I have no objection; I thought no gentleman would write such a letter, and mentioning his place of abode, would send a letter of that kind.

Q. Who would bett, when you knew he discovered it immediately to Mrs. Kane; who would bett with you? - A. It would have been no bett.

Q. Will you swear, before this letter was produced, that you had not talked about a will, that you were sure a will would be produced? - A. Yes, I do.

Q. You know Weaver (the elder)? - A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember saying any thing to him about a bett? - A. No.

Q. Did you never tell him you were sure a will of Mr. Lewis's would be produced on the next Monday? - A. I never did, before that letter came, or any other.

Q. Did you tell Weaver a will would come upon the next Monday, and advise him to bett upon that? - A. No.

Q. Is not he a farmer? - A. Yes; he is a freeholder.

Q. He is a respectable man? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you not advise him to go and bett about a will of Mr. Lewis's? - A. Not till after I saw the letter.

Q. Did you not six the Monday as a day upon which this will would probably be produced at Monmouth? - A. I did not.

Q. Did you, in fact, lay a bett about this will? - A. I never received one shilling.

Q. I ask you if you ever laid a bett about this will? - A. Dr. Powell, the surgeon, offered to lay me two guineas to one, which I agreed to, and that bett was withdrawn; that is the only bett I ever made.

Q. You know Billy Thomas ? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you not offer a bett with him upon the subject? - A. No; he used to cover my mares, and if a good will was produced, he was to cover them for nothing.

Mr. Erskine. Q. Keep your face towards the Jury, and speak out; if you had expectation of a will, so as to be making betts, I ask you, upon your solemn oath, whether that expectation of a will arose from anything you heard at your house upon the 15th of January? - A. It did not.

Q. Upon your oath, you heard nothing upon the 15th of January, which could have induced you to think Mr. Lewis had made a will, except what Sir John Briggs said about the saddle bags? - A. Nothing else.

Q. Had you any idea in your own mind, that Mr. Lewis had a will in existence, till you saw a letter, that a man seating his place of abode, and that he had a will? - A. I had not.

Q. Upon your oath, and remember you are in the presence of God, did you hear from Sir John Briggs , or any body else that might, that there was a conspiracy on foot to forge a will? - A. Genlemen of the Jury, I had not.

Q. Upon your oath did any thing pass in your house, directly, or indirectly, that led to such a suspicion on your part? - A. No.

Q. Then whatever might have been talked about a will, was the whole founded upon the improbability that such a letter should be wrote without being true, as that from Isgar? - A. Yes, from that letter alone.

Q. Now another thing I understand from you, in answer to what fell from you in cross-examination, that you were last up in your house, and locked up your house? - A. I don't know whether me or my servants.

Q. There was no stranger left in your house? - A. No; I was in bed by twelve o'clock, and nobody was left in the house but servants.

Q. Were the Weavers in your house when you went to bed? - A. No.

Q. Was Mr. Holland there that day? - A. No.

Q. Were the Weavers with a fire in the parlour talking with Mr. Holland that night? - A. No; I had no coals in the house to make a fire; I was obliged to burn wood.

Q. If such a party were sitting up, at the time you went to bed; in your parlour with Sir John Briggs , and Mr. Holland and the two Weavers, must you not have know it? - A. They were rude enough, but not so bad as that.

Q. That the Weavers were not in the parlour with Sir John and Mr. Holland when you went to bed? - A. They were not.

Q. During the whole time, from the time that Sir John came into the house, till the time you went to bed, did all the people in the house, remain in the kitchen? - A. Yes; and I will take upon me to say, there could not be less than eight or nine people in the kitchen at the time.

Jury. Q. Were your servants and Sir John and them altogether? - A. Yes.

Q. Did you never leave them and Sir John together for any space of time that night? - A. No. I did not; when Sir John came, I staid till after he was gone, and after Crump and Jones were gone; my waggoner went and got Sir John's horse, and he got leave of me to leave one of Mr. Lewis's horses, as he called it; that horse was left in my stable all night, and he sent for it in the morning; and when

Sir John went away, that was the last man; but I think Weaver went with him.

Jury. Q. Had any of the company drank to excess? - A. No; they might have drank two tankards of cyder.

Mr. Erskine. Q. Your's is not a public house? - A. I don't fell drink.

Q. What are you? - A. A farmer and a freeholder, and I rent 200l. a year of the Duke of Beaufort.

Q. What may be the value of your freehold? - A. 200l A year.

Q. It was your hospitality to invite them there? - A. Yes; I asked them in.

HENRY AUSTIN sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. You are no relation to the Austin that has been examined here? - A. No.

Q. You are servant to Mr. Morgan? - A. Yes.

Q. Do You remember Sir John Briggs coming into your master's house on the 16th of January? - A. Yes; Mr. Weaver and his son, and Mr. Crump was there, and Mr. Jones.

Q. Where were they? - A. They sat down on the settle in the kitchen, and they all sat by the fire.

Q. Do you know a person of the name of Holland? - A. I know him.

Q. Was he there the whole of that day, so far as you know? - A. No; he was not.

Q. Was there any company in the parlour? - A. Not that I know of, or heard talk of.

Q. You are quite sure Mr. Holland was not there? - A. Quite certain.

Q. How did Sir John come? - A. He brought two horses into the yard; I took his horses to the stable.

Q. What time might Sir John come? - A. It might be seven or eight o'clock; I cannot be rightly sure what time; he lest one horse there all night.

Q. And you setched the horse for him to go away with? - A. Yes.

Q. Were any of the party left when he went away? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Was Jones gone? - A. Yes.

Q. Crump? - A. Yes.

Q. The Weavers? - A. I cannot tell.

Q. Did you see Sir John go? - A. Yes; I saw him get upon his mare to go away from the house.

Q. After he went away, were any company sitting up in the parlour, or did the family go to bed? - A. I went to bed as soon as Sir John was gone; because I stopped up to give him his mare; it was before twelve o'clock.

Q. How many people were together all the time Sir John was there? - A. I cannot tell particularly how many.

Q. How many think you? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Was any of them drunk? - A. I saw no one disguised any way in liquor.

Q. During Sir John's stay particularly, did you hear (Mr. Holland, who was not there) say any thing about a will? - A. I heard no such talk.

Q. Did you hear any body talk about making a will for the dead man, Mr. Lewis? - A. I did not hear any such thing,

Cross-examined by Mr. Dauncey. Q. How long did you stay in the house? - A. I went to bed soon after Sir John was gone.

Q. What day of the week was this? - A. I think. it was on a Thursday.

Q. Do you know Mr. Holland? - A. By sight, when I used to see him.

Q. Did he use to come to your master's now and then? - A. Sometimes.

Q. Sir John is a man that don't care much what company he keeps? - A. I cannot say.

Q. He would as soon sit down and drink with you as any body else? - A. I did not drink with him.

Q. You were all in the room, servants and altogether, higgledy, piggledy? - A. Yes.

Q. Was that the common practice of Sir John? - A. There was a settle in the room.

Q. It was a cold night? - A. Yes.

Q. A good fire? - A. Middling.

Q. A roaring fire, I suppose? - A. A fire that would serve their turn.

Q. Who made the fire? - A. I cannot say.

Q. What was it made with? - A. Wood.

Q. There was no fire in any other part of the house, I dare say? - A. Yes; in the back part of the house, were the girls were washing; we fellows made up a fire there, we could not get into their kitchen.

Q. How far was the kitchen from the other? - A. Just out of it.

Q. Is your master's house a fine house? - A. No.

Q. What other rooms were there besides these two kitchen? - A. A sort of a parlour.

Q. Where is that? - A. Under the same roof.

Q. Upon the same floor? - A. No; there is a partition between it.

Q. You and the rest of the servants were in this back kitchen? - A. Yes.

Q. What passed, you don't know? - A. No.

Q. What work were you out about at that time of night? - A. I was at no work.

Q. Did not you say you were at work? - A. No; I came in to supper.

Q. Who went away first; Weaver, or Crump, or Jones? - A. Crump and Jones.

Q. How long did Sir John stop after they went? - A. It might be an hour, I cannot say.

Q. What time did the Weavers go? - A. I cannot say.

Mr. Garrow. Q. You were at first in this kitchen, where the better part of the family were sitting round the fire, upon the settle; when you found you could not get near the fire, you made up a bit of a fire, you fellows as you call yourselves, in another part of the house? - A. Yes.

Q. And there was nobody in the parlour that you knew of? - A. No.

Dr. THOMAS HOLLINGS sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. You know Mr. Lewis? - A. Yes, very well.

Q. How long did you know him before his death? - A. Fifty years and upwards.

Q. Did you ever hear him say any thing about his affairs? - A. No further than I heard him say, the Morgans should never enjoy any property of his.

Q. Did you ever hear him say any thing of this Mr. Morgan, the prosecutor? - A. It was concerning him, saying, none of the Morgans should enjoy any of it.

Q. Did he give any reason why? - A. I cannot say that I heard any thing particular, but they had had a dispute some time before.

Q. When was this you heard him say so? - A. The Friday before he died.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. You know the Weavers, father and son? - A. I know them by sight.

Q. You know who they are? - A. In Garraway's parish.

Q. Do you know what character they bear? - A. I never heard much of them.

Mr. Garrow. Q. Do you happen to know Mr. James Morgan ? - A. I have known him a great while.

Q. Is he a respectable person? - A. Yes; a very respectable character.

Q. Worthy of credit upon his oath? - A. Yes; his general character is a very honest good sort of man.

Mr. Garrow. We mean to call several witnesses to prove Isgar, independent of this transaction, so bad, that no credit ought to be given to him.

Mr. Garrow. (To Hollings). Q. Do you know any thing of Isgar? - A. I have heard him swear things that I should hardly, upon his oath, believe a word of him, what he swore there, and what I have heard him swear since.

Q. From his character, do you suppose him to be a man that, upon the most insignisicant subject, you could safely trust upon his oath? - A. From what I have heard of him, I would not believe him upon his oath.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. Then he did come to Monmouth? - A. Yes; I saw him at Mrs. Kane's; he produced the will at the assizes; it was put into my hand.

Mr. Garrow. Q. Did he produce it as a gennine will? - A. I asked him where he got it from, he said, Bath; I said, it was a good well-worded will-did you see him sign that will? I did; did you see Bowden sign that? I did - he is dead - as to Austin, he was at Bath; and who is this Isgar? it is me, says he.

Q. Then sitting as a juryman, or in any other capacity, you would not believe one word he said upon his oath? - A. No; I would not.

Q. Look at this, (the will,) and see if it is the paper he produced to you at Mrs. Kane's? - A. This, I do believe, is the same, wrote upon half of a sheet of paper.

JAMES SHIPWAY sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. Do you know Jacob Isgar? - A. Yes; I have known him about ten years.

Q. What has he been during that time? - A. In several capacities; when I first knew him he was in the baking line.

Q. A master or a journeyman? - A. A Master.

Q. What was he next? - A. He was then an attorney's clerk, with one Vaughan, at Frome.

Q. What was he after that? - A. A sheriff's officer.

Q. Did you ever know him an auctioneer? - A. No.

Q.Whether an auctioneer, or an attorney's clerk, or baker, or sheriff's officer, what was his general character? - A. Not the best of characters.

Q. Did he bear the worst of characters? - A. A very bad one.

Q. Has it happened to you to meet with many as bad; did you ever meet with a man of a more infamous bad character? - A. Very bad indeed.

Q. Is he a man you would believe upon his oath, from all you have known and heard of him? - A. No; I would not.

Q. Would you take away any man's life upon his oath? - A. No.

Q. Would you kill a fly upon his oath? - A. No.

- FOWLER sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. Do you know Jacob Isgar? - A. Yes; I have known him ten or twelve years.

Q. What might he be when you first knew him? - A. A baker and lawyer.

Q. A sheriff's officer? - A. Yes.

Q. An auctioneer? - A. No; I don't know any thing of that.

Q. In all the situations you have known him, and from what you have collected of his general character, do you, upon your oath, believe him to be a man sit to be believed upon his oath? - A. No.

Q. What character did he bear, a good one or a bad one? - A. A very indifferent one.

Q. If he should swear any thing should you think it safe to believe it, because he swore it? - A. I cannot take upon me to swear it; my opinion is, that I should not wish to take his word.

Q. Would you take his oath? - A. No.

Q. Would you venture to take away the life of any man, upon his oath, as a juryman? - A. No; I would not.

WILLIAM MORGAN sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. Q. Where do you live? - A. At Bath.

Q. How long have you known Isgar? - A. Ten or twelve years.

Q.Then you have known him a baker, lawyer, sheriff's officer, and all the rest of it; what is his general character? - A. A very bad one.

Q. From his general character, do you think him a man to be trusted upon his oath; I ask you, if you were sworn to decide a question as a juryman, would you find any man guilty of any offence upon his evidence? - A. No.

Q. You think him too infamous to decide any thing upon his evidence? - A. Yes.

THOMAS KIRBY sworn.

Examined by Mr. Erskine. Q. Where do you live? - A. At Bath; I have lived there twenty-five years.

Q. What is your situation? - A. I am no trade at all at present.

Q. How long have you known Isgar? - A. Fourteen or fifteen years.

Q. Have you known him in all his situations? - A. Yes.

Q. What is his character? - A. His character is well known to all the world; I have known him a baker; an articled clerk to several lawyers; then a sheriff's officer; I was bound one year for him to the sheriff; but the second year I declined it, on account of his conduct; and then he was an auctioneer; he had one auction, and sold the man's goods and kept the money.

Q. Did you ever hear of a worse man in your life? - A. Lately he has been very bad indeed.

Q. Is he a man you would believe upon his oath? - A. Not now, by any means.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Adair. Q. What may you be? - A. At present I do nothing; I was a brandy merchant in Bath for twenty years.

Q.And have left off business and retired upon your fortune? - A. I have.

Q. You do nothing at present? - A. Nothing.

Q. But give evidence? - A. I should be very glad not to give evidence now; they wanted me to give his character before, down at Hereford, but I never like to give characters.

JOHN PARNELL sworn.

Examined by Mr. Garrow. I have lived at Bath about eighteen years; I have been acquainted with Isgar about a dozen years.

Q. Be so good as to tell those gentlemen, from his character and conduct, whether his character is a good one or the reverse? - A. Not a good one.

Q. Is it very bad? - A. I never knew any good that ever he did.

Q. Be so good as inform those gentlemen, whether you think him a person safely to be trusted upon his oath? - A. Not by any means.

Q. I believe I heard you correctly, that from your knowledge of his character and conduct, he is a man not fit to be trusted upon his oath? - A. He is not.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. I desire, the deposition of Isgar before the Magistrate may be read; they have produced a great body of evidence, applying to different persons, and accounting for a number of persons upon a specific day, the 26th of April; they have adduced a body of evidence from various parts of the country, to speak to that particular day, I therefore now desire that the information of Isgar, giving an account of that transaction, be read, to shew that in that information there is not one single word that points at that particular day.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I cannot sufficiently express my astonishment at what I have now heard from Mr. Sergeant Adair; when I consider the humanity of his nature, I confess I hardly know where I am when I stand up, to hear my learned friend's observation. I am astonished; I meant to have asked to have it read, but I had closed my evidence; the witness, Isgar, comes to day to fasten forgery upon the prisoner at the bar; the scene of that forgery, in point of time, and in point of place, he lays at the times that I must bring home to your Lordship's recollection; he says, that he arrived in London upon the 25th, in the evening, or 26th in the morning, it is immaterial which: that he put up at the Golden Cross; that he went to Mr. Crossley; that Sir John Briggs wanted to see him at the Golden Cross; that Mr. Crossley refused to go to the Golden Cross, and desired to see Sir John with him; that he went so far on the way with Mr. Crossley to Sir John; and that upon the evening of this Sunday, the 26th of April; not upon the examination of the learned Sergeant alone, but upon my cool and cautions cross-examination, knowing the importance of the testimony, I fixed it upon him

positively and unequivocally, to be the only time he saw Mr. Crossley in London; and what is much greater astonishment, that in that information there is not an iota that leads to the idea of this meeting at Newton, or at the Three Tuns, or having had any knowledge of Mr. Crossley, relating to this will, but in London: my Lord, that is not all; but, he says, the next day, Monday morning, before twelve, he saw Mr. Crossley again; good God! am I in England! and am I here in a criminal trial, past the hour that criminal trials are generally over; and after my strength and patience is exhausted, to hear, that when three persons brought together by a witness infamous beyond the power of language to express; a witness not competent but by your Lordship's judgment, which I must reverence, because it comes from the Bench, whatever I may think of it myself; when that man, himself an accomplice, scarcely within reach of testimony, when your Lordship gives me (to your honour be it spoke) the hint -

Court. I gave you no hint.

Mr. Erskine. Then I will take it that your Lordship gave me no hint; what is the proposition now? that the prisoner is not to be tried upon what this man has sworn against him to day, in Court; that though the Jury should, peradventure, believe he did not see Mr. Crossley upon the 26th or 27th of April; that, peradventure the Jury may believe that Austin was not in the condition in which he is placed by the witness; that Holland was not in the condition in which he is placed by the witness, and that the other man also was in the condition in which he is placed by his unfortunate child, whom nothing but duty, I am persuaded, could have induced my learned friend to torture in the way he did; and the prisoner is to be tried upon the speculation that this was in May; because, when his story was to be made when he was in gaol, he states it to be in May.

Court. You mistake my Brother Adair; you had better hear the Sergeant, and you had better not speak so loud; you know, you are addressing the Court.

Mr. Erskine. I am addressing myself to your Lordship; and I am addressing myself to your Lordship in an audible voice; because I cannot speak upon a subject that agitates and affects me without speaking in the tone in which I now speak.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. It is difficult for my learned friend to know what I mean; he has, no doubt, misunderstood entirely, the purpose for which I desired to have it read; it was not for the purpose of opening a door for him to change the day, which he has unequivocally fixed, by his evidence to-day, to be the 26th of April; it was no such purpose, I should disdain such a purpose; nor was it for the purpose of shewing that he fixed another time, with that view, upon his examination on a former occasion, so as to give the go-by to those witnesses who have been produced: but, called upon, as I am, it is my duty to state distinctly and audibly, the reason why I do desire the paper to be read, and the effect it appears to me it will have when it is read, and in that I shall not be irregular. - My Lord, a great body of evidence has been adduced, prepared before-hand, brought together from distant parts of the country, that could not have been acquired since twelve o'clock today, in order to shew where three different persons were on the 26th of April; I will ask, how any body concerned for the prisoner at the bar knew before to-day that it would be material to prove where these persons were on the 26th of April.

Mr. Garrow. I must beg to interrupt the learned Sergeant, and I do it with all the temper that becomes this place; I do assure the learned Sergeant, that the reason I took the liberty of interrupting him is, that I apprehend what your Lordship called upon the prosecutor to do was, to state some legal principle, in the application of which this piece of evidence is admissible.

Court. I think that they ought not to bring forward this evidence, it is matter of observation by me to the Jury, and there is nothing more in it.

Mr. Sergeant Adair. My Lord, I am perfectly satisfied.

Summing up.

Court. Gentlemen of the Jury. - The prisoner, George Crossley, stands indicted for having forged the will of the Rev. Henry Lewis . The particulars of the will, it is hardly necessary for me to state to you, the nature of the offence you are aware of, and you know, that by the laws of this country, the forging of a will, or the assisting to forge, or the uttering after it is forged, or the causing and procuring to be forged of any will, is a capital offence. The prisoner therefore is standing here to answer, at the peril of his life, the charge that is brought against him. I believe, the best course I can take, will be to sum up the evidence to you first, and then make my observations; there can be no observations in point of law; you can have but one question to try, whether Mr. Crossley forged it, assisted in forging it, or procured it to be forged, or uttered it after it was forged.(Here the learned Judge summed up the evidence on the part of the prosecution; and then proceeded as follows:)

Now, Gentlemen, this is all the evidence on the part of the prosecution; and as this evidence stands, if you think proper to give credit to the testimony of Isgar, there can be no doubt, but that the case as it was opened by my Brother Adair, and as it is laid in the indictment, is fully and completely proved, because you have the general evidence of connections between Crossley, Holland, Isgar, Austin, and Clarke, of Worksop; you have evidence that Sir John Briggs, and Austin, and Isgar, were all in town upon the 26th of April, and Isgar tells you, that at that time the will was brought out by Crossley himself for them to sign; Mr. Crossley must know, that such a will, not being executed by the testator, must have been a forged will; indeed the man himself had been dead some time, therefore you have this case fully and completely made out, if you think proper to give credit to Isgar's testimony, without which you have not a case made out, by which you can find Mr. Crossley guilty, for without him you have nothing to connect him with Austin, or with Sir John Briggs, against both of whom there is an indictment for this forgery; but if you give credit to Isgar, you have abundant evidence to find Mr. Crossley guilty of this charge; but you are aware that those who conduct the defence of Mr. Crossley, have contradicted the evidence of several witnesses, and particularly the testimony of

Isgar. It will now become me to state to you the contradiction they give to Isgar's testimony; and you will find that Isgar fixes Sir John Briggs being in town upon the 26th of April, and Austin's being with Isgar at Crossley's house, in order to meet; that they call witnesses to prove that Sir John Briggs was else where, and to prove that Austin never was at Crossley's on that Sunday.(Here the learned Judge summed up the evidence on the part of the prisoner, and proceeded as follows).

Gentlemen, this is all the testimony on the one side and on the other, and really at this time of night I do not find myself equal to the talk, and perhaps I should rather weary you that assist you, in going at much length into it. I have summed up the evidence generally, and I will make this observation upon the testimony of Isgar; the evidence of an accomplice is a very slender, trifling evidence, but if that accomplice is corroborated materially to the point in question, it certainly will have considerable weight. If an accomplice is confirmed in certain particulars, but that as to all the circumstances which affect the life of the prisoner, he standing uncorroborated, and in many respects contradicted, it will be for you to say, in such a situation as that, whether you think that Isgar's testimony ought to be believed. Now I do not recollect, that in any one circumstance in which Isgar swears, respecting the personal interference of Crossley, in the execution of this will, that he is corroborated either by any one witness on his side, or on the part of the prisoner, but he is contradicted, and yet it is by witnesses, who labour under a very strong degree of suspicion; for those witnesses do, in some respects contradict each other. It would be idle, as my brother Adair has stated to you, to call a witness, and tell you that the law allows him to be admitted, and at the same time to tell you that the law will not allow you to give him credit; I cannot tell you that, but you will consider the situation in which he stands; you heard the way in which he gave his evidence; he now tells you that he is sorry for what he has done, and that what he said last is the true state of the case; and he is corroborated in many of the circumstances by other witnesses; but as to the material business of the 26th of April, his being at Crossley's house with Sir John Briggs and William Austin , there is no tittle of evidence in the course of this cause that corroborates it; on the contrary, he is contradicted in the alibi, both as to the circumstance of Sir John Briggs being in London at that time, and as to Austin being at Crossley's house that Sunday afternoon, and as to Crossley being in town on that day.

Gentlemen, with respect to the first part of the question, as to whether this will is forged or not, perhaps I ought to say something to you upon the subject of the will itself; and I have seen so much in the course of this trial, that I take it for granted, that it is a forged will; there are several witnesses who do not believe it to be the writing of Mr. Lewis; the circumstances of its being in the hands of such a man as Isgar, brought to Mrs. Kane so long a time after the supposed testator died, and I don't recollect immediately what other circumstances; but these two circumstances do make such an impression upon my mind, as to lead me to draw the conclusion, that this will is a forged will; but the question remains still for you to decide, whether Mr. Crossley was the person forging it, assisting to forge it, or in causing it to be forged; and as to that you have nothing but the evidence of Isgar, as to what passed upon the 26th of April. It is observed by the learned Counsel, who lead for this prosecution, that there is no way by which the prisoner and his witnesses could get at the date of the 26th of April; It is very extraordinary, that all of them should come here apprized of that day, how to account for that I cannot say; I am told, that in the examination, which is not produced before us, there is no mention of that 26th of April; therefore, what it is that has brought them so well acquainted with this day, really rests on my mind in such a state of uncertainty, that I cannot account for it.

Prisoner. My Lord, so long since as last Michaelmas Term, all these witnesses swore in the Court of King's-Bench for the purpose of my being upon bail, we traversed, and then came out the day.

Court. It must have transpired by some means or other; here they all come to prove, that Crossley, Austin, Holland, Isgar, and Clarke, of Worksop, were connected in a way that must blast the reputation of all of them in all future time; and though they prove them all connected together, yet that wicked, that bad, that blasted connection ought not to have such a weight with you, as to give credit to Isgar alone, unless you think the fact clearly brought home to him; you will pin your attention wholly to that fact of the 26th of April, which rests wholly upon his testimony, and he not being corroborated by any body, but contradicted by a number of persons, under very suspicious circumstances, you will say whether you like those suspicious circumstances, or whether you think proper to give credit to Isgar, when he says Mr. Crossley was present on that day; if so, you will find him guilty; if you have any doubt, in all cases, especially in capital cases, you will lean to the side of mercy.(The Jury withdrew at half past three o'clock in the morning, and returned at four with a verdict of)

Not GUILTY .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury, before Mr. Justice ROOKE.


View as XML