Old Bailey Proceedings.
11th January 1786
Reference Number: 17860111

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
11th January 1786
Reference Numberf17860111-1

Related Material
THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ON THE KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY of LONDON; AND ALSO The Gaol Delivery for the County of Middlesex, HELD AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On Wednesday the 11th of JANUARY, 1786, and the following Days;





Printed for E. HODGSON (the Proprietor) And Sold by J. WALMSLAY, No. 35, Chancery Lane, and S. BLADON, No. 13, Pater-noster Row.



KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY OF LONDON, & c.

BEFORE the Right Honourable THOMAS WRIGHT , LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Honourable SIR WILLIAM HENRY ASHURST , Knt. one of the Justices of his Majesty's Court of King's Bench; the Honourable JOHN HEATH , Esq; one of the Justices of his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; JAMES ADAIR , Serjeant at Law, Recorder of the said City; JOHN WILLIAM ROSE , Esq; and others his Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer of the City of London, and Justices of Gaol Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City and County of Middlesex.

London Jury.

Isaac Cullender

John Ferne

James Barrett

William Linde

Thomas Nicholls

Robert Aiflabie

Jabez Bloxham

Joseph Wright

William Hulme

Thomas Jones *

Thomas Fegan

John Rodbar .

First Middlesex Jury.

Nathaniel Morgan

John Pearson

Martin Robinson

John Bickley

Edmund Smith

John Carnshawe

Humphry Simmons

James Scarlett

Jeremiah Sinderby

James White

David Fontaine

Solomon Erwood .

Second Middlesex Jury.

William Halfpenny

William Newman

Francis Feather

William Baillie

Samuel Totty

Henry Rose

John Isaac Fanch

William Avelyn

Nicholas Lunn

Thomas Simpson

Samuel Royly

George Marshall .

N. B. Thomas Warren served on the Trial of Zachariah Bevan in the room of Thomas Jones , who was objected to by Mr. Silvester, being one of Mr. Bevan's bail.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-1
SentenceDeath; Death > death and dissection

Related Material

122. JOHN HOGAN was indicted, for that he, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, on the 26th day of June last, with force and arms, in the parish of St. Mary-le-bon , upon Ann Hunt ,

spinster , in the peace of God and our Lord the King then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that he, with a certain large wooden instrument, called a house broom, which he in both his hands then and there had and held, her the said Ann Hunt , in and upon the head of the said Ann Hunt , did violently strike and beat; and with a certain razor, value 6 d. her the said Ann Hunt , in and upon the neck and throat of the said Ann Hunt , then and there, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did violently strike, penetrate, and cut, giving to the said Ann Hunt , by means of the said striking and beating with the wooden instrument aforesaid, called a house broom, one mortal fracture, and by means of the said striking, penetrating, and cutting with the said razor, in and upon the neck and throat of the said Ann Hunt , one mortal wound, of the length of three inches, and of the depth of one inch, of which said mortal fracture and wound, she the said Ann Hunt for the space of eight hours did languish, and languishing did live, and on the said 26th day of June, she the said Ann Hunt , of the mortal fracture and wound aforesaid, did die; and so the jurors say, that her the said Ann Hunt , he the said John Hogan did kill and murder, against his Majesty's peace .

(The case opened by Mr. Garrow.)

May it please your Lordship, and you Gentlemen of the Jury: It becomes my duty to state to you as shortly as possible, the circumstances of this case. Gentlemen, you have collected from the indictment, which has been distinctly read to you, that the charge against the prisoner is that of a murder, committed by a violence almost unexampled; this unfortunate young woman was servant to Mr. Orrell, an attorney, by whose activity and ability which is very singular, the prisoner is now brought before you; the prisoner was a porter to Mr. Chapman, a cabinet maker; in April last he had occasion in that capacity, to go to the house of Mr. Orrell with chairs; it appears since from the conversation of the deceased, that the prisoner asked her for something to drink, for some water or small beer, this was the first conversation he had with her, she then good naturedly gave him some, he thanked her, and told her he would bring her a ribbon, he accordingly brought her one, and he apologised that it was not quite so good as he wished, but that on some other day he would bring her a better; this caused a degree of intimacy, and in short it appears, that upon every Sunday from that time, to the time of the poor woman's death, this man constantly watched an opportunity of visiting this unfortunate servant in the absence of Mr. and Mrs. Orrell: on the Sunday of the death, Mr. and Mrs. Orrell having dined at home, they afterwards went out to take a walk in the fields, they were not gone very long, not quite an hour, they left the young woman at home, apparently in very good health and spirits, she had done part of the business of the day, and was left at home to go on with the remainder; when they returned they knocked at the door, nobody answered; they knocked again repeatedly, and loudly, but still nobody answering they went to church, when they came back they could not get in then, and they were quite astonished, as the girl was a careful honest sober person; however, Mr. Orrell went to the next door, and asked them to let him get in over the leads, he then came and let in Mrs. Orrell, and she had the misfortune first to go down into the kitchen, and there a spectacle, as dreadful as ever presented itself to the human eye, appeared before her: this young woman was sitting on the floor, reclining on the two corner walls of the kitchen; Mrs. Orrell was much affrighted, and instantly ran to inform her husband; on his going down he will describe the miserable object he beheld; this unfortunate young woman had her throat cut from ear to ear, her breast cut in many places, one of her arms broke, and one of her fingers broke, and a dreadful fracture upon her scull; in short, the most miserable object that can be conceived: Gentlemen, the first suspicion was that this poor woman must have destroyed herself, however that could not possibly consist with all the circumstances

I have now stated to you, and they found in the house a house broom, which appeared to be bloody, it was sprinkled with blood, they concluded that from that the fracture of the head had come; they found on the next day the blade of a razor which had been thrown on the fire, and in a tub in the kitchen they found one of the silver spoons, which the person who had committed the murder had stolen, but had left it there, having washed his hands. The poor woman was not dead, she appeared to have some remains of sense; but indeed if her sense had enabled her to make any representation, my Lord will tell you, you would not much rely upon it, in the state in which her mind was: Mr. Orrell immediately insisted on an enquiry how this could possibly happen, and then he was for the first time acquainted with those visits, and it was discovered that a man of the complexion of the prisoner at the bar, had been seen in the street about the time of Mr. Orrell's leaving his house, he had been laying about in the street, and a milkman will describe to you some very particular observations that he made upon him; but I must draw your attention to one: Gentlemen, in circumstantial cases very often, very small and trifling events, as they seem when they stand alone, become a vast body of evidence when connected with others; the milkman observed that this black fellow had a large nosegay composed of cabbage roses, and in the kitchen where this poor woman was found murdered was such a nosegay: Gentlemen, the prisoner on this and some other circumstances, was apprehended, he was examined before a magistrate, and he was discharged; he afterwards came to this bar to be tried for a felony, and he was sentenced to be transported; and Mr. Orrell, whose attention has been awake from the moment of the murder to this time, he examined the Sessions Paper, and he found that the evidence against him, was that of a pawnbroker, who received some of the goods that he had stolen; he went to that pawnbroker, and in his custody he found a cloak of Mrs. Orrell's, that had been stolen at the time of the murder, which these people had received from a woman on the Monday morning after the robbery and murder, who lived with the prisoner at the bar, of course that woman was applied to, and the story she told, was that she received that cloak from the prisoner on the morning after the murder, he took it from under the bed, and told her he had bought it, and was to pay for it by weekly payments; she likewise said that when he came home on the Sunday evening, after having just been out the space of time sufficient to have committed the murder, he desired her to get him a kettle of water, for he wanted to wash his coat, it was bloody, he told her he had been fighting, and she washed it; when he was first apprehended there was some marks of blood on his waistcoat, the fingers of his right hand were cut: when he was before the magistrate, as it was suspected that this poor woman had made a very strong resistance, and this man's fingers had been cut with a razor; he was asked how his fingers came to be so cut, and he said it was done by a knife in the trimming of chairs; now it turns out that the knife with which they trim the chairs must of necessity be blunt, for it is only to take off the glue; but Mr. Orrell, whose ingenuity upon the occasion cannot be too much applauded, gave him a knife out of his pocket, and desired him to shew him how it happened; the man took the knife in his right hand, he being a right handed man, and could not therefore cut his hand in that way, he said he had had these wounds a fortnight, but upon the examination of the surgeon, it was found that these wounds bled afresh, and had been very lately received: Gentlemen, these are a part of the circumstances, and a part only to bring the guilt of this murder home to the prisoner at the bar: I have stated these things to you, because as there is a confession to be proved to you, by a person who knowing of the murder afterwards, had concealed it for some time, it is necessary that she should be confirmed by other circumstances; if she is believed, there can be no question of the guilt of the prisoner: Gentlemen, to this woman the prisoner has confessed the murder, she has lost some degree of credit most certainly, but she will be restored, if you find her confirmed by other witnesses of credit and reputation. The circumstances that will be proved before you are these; to shew that this man was acquainted with the deceased, and visited her for a considerable length of time, in the absence of the family, and on that very Sunday, he was seen in this neighbourhood; on the very day after, in the morning, the cloak stolen by the person committing the murder, together with other things, was pledged by a hand carrying it from the prisoner: These are some of the circumstances of the case; but I had rather you should hear the whole case from the witnesses; and if you are satisfied with the evidence, it is your duty, without passion and without prejudice, to find the prisoner guilty; but unless you are satisfied he committed the murder, however atrocious, however shocking it was, it certainly ought not to be charged to him; if, on the other hand, you are convinced that he is guilty, it will be very fortunate that society should be rid of a man so perfectly destitute of all humanity, and whose conduct has been the most barbarous that ever came before a Court of Justice for their enquiry.

Mr. ORRELL sworn.

The unfortunate deceased woman was my servant, she behaved very well, and there was nothing to impeach her character: on the 26th day of April last, being Sunday, I dined at home with Mrs. Orrell, between two and three o'clock in the afternoon; after dinner, about three, we walked out in the fields, near to Charlotte-street; we left the deceased to dine, and to do the business of the house, in good health and spirits, we left her, as we supposed, alone; we walked for about an hour, and then returned; on our return, which was about four o'clock, we knocked at the door several times, and nobody answered; I looked from the area across the front kitchen, but could see nobody; we left the door, after remaining there for about ten minutes, and we walked towards the bottom of the street, and then returned, perhaps, in the space of six or eight minutes, knocking again at the door, and not getting admission, we supposed that the servant was gone out, or that she was fallen asleep, as she had received instructions from her mistress to put clean linen on the bed; we sauntered about near the house for a few minutes longer, and then went to church, to Fitzroy chapel, the service begins there about five in the afternoon, we were in the church, I think about half an hour before the service began; on our return home from church, I again knocked loudly at the door, that was a little before seven; knocking loudly at the door, and not getting admission, I was alarmed; I went to Mr. Stephenson's, the adjoining house, I went through their house, and got over the wall to my house, and so opened the door, and let in Mrs. Orrell.

Mr. Garrow. Were both these doors in their usual state? - Yes.

Unbroken? - Yes.

Court. How did you open your back door? - It was on the latch, it was not bolted, Mrs. Orrell came in, and said to me in the passage, I will go into the kitchen, and see what is become of the girl, she went down stairs, and shrieked out immediately on getting to the bottom of the stairs, and she ran up again, her expression was, O dear! something very bad has happened in the middle kitchen, I am afraid the poor girl is dead: I ran down immediately into the middle kitchen, which is at the foot of the stairs, but the floor was covered over with blood; the deceased was sitting in the further corner reclined against the two walls, a most shocking spectacle she appeared indeed; her head dress was laying on the floor, appearing to have been torn off her head, her gown was likewise on the floor, and it appeared as if it had been rolled in blood, the woman appeared to me then to be most exceedingly cut and mangled, and my conclusion was, that she had cut her own throat.

Court. Did not those parts of her dress being torn and separated about, cause you to suppose something else? - Not then, my Lord; I saw she was alive, and I said to her, good God! Nanny, what is it you have been doing? Finding she could not articulate, though she attempted it, I immediately

ran up stairs, and beckoned to an opposite neighbour, who was sitting at an opposite window of their house, Mr. Oliver, who is not here, and is indisposed; I ran immediately for a surgeon, a Mr. Pooley, a gentleman who lives at the top of the street, and in five minutes, I brought him to my house, he looked at her, and said, she certainly cannot survive, she is most exceedingly mangled, but the kitchen being dark, we could scarcely see in what state she was; Mr. Pooley then took hold of the deceased, and I believe I gave him assistance to remove her to the middle of the kitchen, to give a better light, we then saw she had her throat cut very much in several places, the throat and neck were cut very much, and a wound on the head over her left eye; Mr. Pooley then advised me immediately to get her to the Middlesex hospital, by reason that there we should have more assistance to save her life, if possible; I had her removed to the hospital, and I suppose in twenty-five minutes from the finding, I had her placed in a bed at the hospital; on being examined by the surgeons and Mr. Pooley, we found a large fracture on the scull over the left eye, the eye was swelled and stood out in a manner that was shocking, the bones of the face and the cheek bone were broke, and several deep cuts on the left side of the neck, the throat and windpipe were cut in several places, several gashes or stabs were on the breast, particularly a large circular cut under the breast; the cheek and chin had several deep cuts, the left arm was broke, a compound fracture, above and below, the elbow shattered to pieces, the right arm was cut, and the right hand very much cut on the back of the fingers, as we then supposed by guarding her throat; the fourth finger on the right hand appeared to me to be broken, but the surgeon said it was not, but it was a leader had started; upon finding that the woman was cut and abused in this manner, which appeared to be done with a sharp instrument, or with a razor, it was immediately concluded she could not do it herself, we then supposed some person had been in the house, and that she was murdered by such person: there is a little circumstance I have omitted, Mr. Pooley took up from the middle of the floor, the handle of a razor, I saw him pick it up, it was broke, and appeared to be broke by violence, as if laid hold on by another hand, and twisted off.

Mr. Garrow. Were the inside of the girl's hands cut? - They were both inside and outside cut on the right hand; finding this part of the handle of the razor, we examined to find a blade to it, but did not then; I immediately returned with Mr. Pooley to the house, and upon coming to the house, I searched to see what was lost, and the first thing that I missed was a silk mode cloak of Mrs. Orrell's, and which I knew she hung on the back parlour door; upon further search, I missed eight silver spoons, a large table cloth that had gone down at dinner time, and other articles that I did not miss at first: Mr. Pooley with myself searched the house, and examined all the chimnies, under the beds, and every room and closet in the house, supposing we might meet with the murderer concealed, we did not meet with any person; there were some suspicions raised in my mind of a mulatto man, from what I had gathered, and I immediately applied to Sir Sampson Wright the same evening, and communicated to him my suspicions, and we immediately went and distributed a printed handbill, which I have a copy of, this was on the Sunday night, a few minutes after nine; I was told of some suspicions of the prisoner, who was a porter to Mr. Chapman, and I went to Mr. Chapman, he is a chair maker in Peter-street, Saffron-hill, from whose warehouse I had purchased some chairs.

Mr. Garrow. Were these chairs brought to you after Ann Hunt came to your service? - They were.

Court. Do you know whether these chairs were brought home by the prisoner? - I do not know, I endeavoured to apprehend that man that night, but I could not, but we took three housebreakers that night; on the Tuesday morning the prisoner was apprehended, and brought to the house where I then was, which was at Mr. Hodgson's in Charles-street.

Mr. Garrow. Now tell us what you observed? - Upon the man being brought to me, I looked earnestly at him, I did not recollect him, but upon the right side of his waistcoat I observed two or three spots of blood, there were a few other marks upon the waistcoat, which appeared to me to have been done with stain from chairs, they were red, but it was easy to distinguish between these red stain marks, and the marks of blood; I likewise then observed that an upper surtout coat which he had on, had been washed recently, as if it had been dirtied a day or two before; I then took the man in the coach up to Charlotte-street, that those who had said they had seen him, might recognize him.

Court. Now before we leave this part of the case, will you examine the impressions of your own mind, whether you recollect the observation of the coat at the time, arose from what you observed then, or from what has occurred to your recollection since? - It instantly struck me at the first sight of him, at the moment I saw him it struck me.

Court. You understand the distinction? - I do, it was at that time that it struck me, and I mentioned it even then to the people that were about me.

Mr. Garrow. Did the coat appear to be partially washed, or wholly so? - Wholly washed, but the sleeves appeared lighter, but whether it was from further wear, or whether it had been more washed I cannot tell; I then took him down to Bow-street, I took one of the officers with me into the Borough, to enquire out from intelligence that I had, where this man's lodgings were, and with some difficulty I found out his lodgings.

Mr. Garrow. I believe you at a subsequent time found him in those lodgings? - Yes, at a subsequent time, I took him out of bed with one Pugh a witness; when I reapprehended him, the officer and myself scrambled up to the window, got into his room and examined it, he was in the room, nothing of my property was found; not finding any thing, I returned to Bow-street; we had a long examination of the man, and could make nothing out, and were under the necessity of discharging him the next day for want of evidence; I took him up to the body, to see if that would have any effect upon him; that was on the Tuesday evening, the 28th of June, the day but one following the murder, the woman was dead then, she died about one o'clock on Monday morning, I saw her dead myself; on the Tuesday evening I took him up to the body, and put many questions to him, to some of which he gave answers that were very well, and some that shewed confusion; I requested him to put his hand upon her breast, he put his hand on, and shewed less sense of horror than I should suppose any innocent man could; there was one of the officers of the police there, and he burst into tears, and could not stay in the room.

Mr. Garrow. Did the prisoner use any expressions which shewed his acquaintance with the deceased? - He looked at her, and said, my dear I do know you very well, I never did you any harm in my life; I said what do you mean by knowing her very well, he said I do know her very well, I do remember her; I then asked him whether he recollected that before the magistrate, he had said that he never saw her but two times, when he came up with two parcels of chairs, he hesitated a little, and then answered yes, but I do remember her; I then observed in the prisoner's hearing, it was astonishing a man that had only been twice with chairs, and stopped a moment at the door, should know her in the state that she was then in, so bruised and so lacerated, that had I not seen her placed on a bed at the hospital myself, I should not have known her; he made very little answer to me then, and he gave me to understand, that as there was no magistrate there, he considered our questions as impertinent.

How did he give you to understand that? - In this manner; he said I do not know that I am to answer, I speak before the magistrate; one of the gentlemen present said, let me look into your hands, as I had observed cuts in his hands before, at the publick office the morning after the murder, this I observed on the examination, after I returned from the Borough.

Court. Tell me your first observation in

the morning about the cuts? - Nothing more, than that there were cuts in the inside of his fingers, particularly on the second finger on his right hand, when the gentlemen desired to look in his hands, he was asked by myself, and by one or two of the surgeons that attended, how long these cuts had been on his hands, and by what they were caused, his answer was, that they had been ten days or a fortnight, and it had been done with a knife or a chissel; one of the surgeons upon that opened one of the wounds, which appeared to be the larger wound, and which appeared to be quite a green wound, and the blood would have dropped if he had opened it further; the surgeon then declared that it was quite a new wound, and not of the standing the prisoner declared it to be; other questions were asked him, how long he had been married to this woman who he cohabited with as his wife, and is now here; he said he was married, and he was not married, that he had lived with her a year and a half, but could not tell her name.

Mr. Garrow. Did you ask him where he lodged? - He said near the Borough market, I asked him the name of the street, he said he did not know, he had never heard the name of the street, I then questioned him how long he had lodged in that place, he answered six months; I then remarked to him it was very strange, that he should live with a woman a year and an half and not know her name, and lodge six months in a street, and not know the name of the street, he made no answer whatever, he did not then know that I had found out his lodgings; after his examination the day following, he was discharged by the magistrate for want of evidence, I was dissatisfied with the man's discharge, and I applied to Sir Sampson Wright, I told him I was not easy with this man's discharge; Major Gilbert said, then he would grant me another warrant, and he did so, Major Gilbert granted me a warrant, Sir Sampson backed it; I took three of the officers belonging to Bow-street with me into the Borough, and we broke into the man's room, and I took him, and the person who lived with him as his wife, they were in bed, and I likewise took another woman of the house, whom I suspected to know something more than what she was willing to declare; I carried them to Bow-street, we had an examination before Mr. Gilbert, and I produced some fresh evidence; the man had then declared himself to be a Portugueze, (I find he has since passed himself off for a Lascar) a native of Madeira; Mr. Gilbert's observation to me in the presence of the prisoner was, Mr. Orrell, this man is a Portugueze, to be sure we have not evidence, what can we do, we must discharge him, you can take him at any time; I omitted a little circumstance; at the first examination on the waistcoat, where there was the largest spot of blood upon the breast, it was as if it had been nipped out, so as to take out a great deal of it, but to shew that there was some left; he then denied having done anything to it, and that it was in the same state as when I first saw it; after the examination of the morning he was sent to the watch-house, to be brought up in the evening, after which examination I took him to the body as I have mentioned: on the second examination I took him to the body; he said his coat was dirty, it was washed between ten and eleven o'clock on the Sunday morning, and by the account of one Ann Jackson in the prisoner's presence, who attended to prove an alibi for him, she said it was washed about five or six on Sunday evening; this she said in the presence of the prisoner, he having called her to prove an alibi, they both stated it to be washed by his wife, as she was called, that is by Pugh, this was on the first examination.

Court. What did he say in reply to Ann Jackson 's contradicting him as to the time? - He made no reply to me.

Did you observe any thing in the kitchen? - On the Sunday evening we did not find any thing more than the handle of that razor, on the Monday morning I went into the kitchen to see if I could find anything there, I had stirred the fire in the front kitchen to light a candle to search the house the Sunday evening, and on the Monday morning the blade of a razor I took up from under

the front kitchen grate, (the razor produced) and it appeared to me to have the stain of blood upon it, notwithstanding it had been thrown in the fire; in the afternoon there had been a good fire which had cooked the dinner in the front kitchen, and it was into that that it had been thrown: a hair broom in the same kitchen was sprinkled with blood, and upon the handle were the marks of bloody fingers, which still remain, though it has been in constant use since; in the back kitchen there was a cistern with eight or ten gallons of water in it, I poured it out, it was stained with blood, and at the bottom of it was one of the meat spoons that I had missed.

Did you find any thing else that appears since to have been material? - Nothing material.

Recollect a little? - At the latter end of December, I had information from three or four different quarters that the man was in Newgate.

Mr. Garrow. Do you recollect to have found any thing in the house, that you have since learned to be material? - As to the nosegay, I did not find it myself; when I apprehended him the second time, I desired the prisoner, and the witness Pugh that was in bed with him to dress; I endeavoured to keep them asunder, that they might not speak to each other; the prisoner had shoes, and there was one circumstance which will be spoke to by a witness; I asked him where his shoes were, I looked and found none that had been recently worn, excepting that pair, he said they were the shoes he had on, on Sunday, and had worn them ever since; I looked at the bottom of them, which appeared to have been in water, they were so wet that no marks could be discovered; I was very careful that he should put on the same shoes: an observation was made by the magistrate, in the presence of the prisoner, that one of the shoes was torn from the strap to the welt, and it immediately struck me, he declaring these were the same shoes he wore on Sunday, that that was the shoe that had been described to me.

Court. Then the shoes he declared he had on, on the Sunday, you made him put on? - Yes, and I found no other shoes that had been recently worn.

Court. What was there on that shoe to your own sight? - It was torn from the strap to the welt, it was torn two or three ways, but there was a circumstance that I observed to him, says I, have these shoes been mended John since you wore them on Sunday, no, says he, I mended them on Sunday morning as I sat on the bed.

Mr. Garrow. After his discharge, from reading the Sessions Papers you was induced to suspect him afresh? - Yes, I was informed he was in Newgate; I examined the newspapers, and from them, and some information I had had from the Sessions Paper, I was induced to go to Mrs. Broome's.

What did you find there? - At Mrs. Broome's they produced a black silk mode cloak, which was Mrs. Orrell's property, I had not a doubt of it, but Mrs. Orrell was along with me, she immediately knew it, and I likewise; that cloak was lost on the Sunday, the day the murder was committed; the prisoner was at that time in custody, under sentence of transportation, and he has not had any further examinations; I then took up the woman, and she gave an account, and she is here now, this is all I know of the matter.

Court to Prisoner. Do you wish to point out any questions to me, that you wish to have asked of Mr. Orrell the witness? - Yes.

What shall I ask him? - Ask him what you please.

No, he has been already fully examined by me and the counsel.

Prisoner. Please your honor, I wants to know, that I never was in that gentleman's house but twice.

Court. He has said that you have said so.

Mr. Orrell. On the second examination on the Saturday, I searched under his bed, and there I found a shirt, I asked him if that was the shirt he had on on the Sunday, his answer was yes it was, he had only one shirt he said, and an old one he had on, then he said it belonged to somebody else; looking

on the outside of the wristband it appeared a little bloody, as if by friction against the sleeve of a coat.

I think you say he acknowledged this to be the shirt he had on on Sunday? - Yes, and said it was the only one he had, except an old one which he had on, I questioned him how it came marked in that manner, after hesitation, in two or three minutes he said it was by killing vermin, at the same time it struck me he must have a great number of them; I took this shirt with me to the office: on his first being brought up and examined, he said he had the itch, and the consequence of that was, that the magistrates started off, and he was ordered to stand a little further; the surgeons at the hospital were particular in examining his hands; I have got the itch gentlemen said he, and I tell you of it; they were not much in fear of the itch, having the means of curing themselves in their own hands, and they examined his hands; the Major insisted upon his stripping, come says he, John, strip.

Court. Had he in fact got the itch? - I apprehend he had not, he had a cutaneous complaint, but he had not the itch.

Court. He might suppose that to be the itch? - I have nothing further to say.


I am a chair maker, I remember selling some chairs to Mr. Orrell, half a dozen of stained chairs, the prisoner carried them home, I did not take notice of the day of the month, it was on a Monday, it was in the month of April; after Mr. Orrell had them a little time, I had orders to change them; the prisoner carried them a second time, and I thought then he staid longer than he should have staid.

Do you remember any thing passing on the prisoner after this Sunday? - Yes, I found myself that he was in great agitation, that he was not able to do his business.

Did he make any application to you about leaving his business? - To my son, but I was not present.

Mr. Garrow. I call Mary Bruce to the conversation of the deceased.

Court. I cannot receive that, the declarations of the deceased are no more evidence, than the declarations of any other persons; the only ground for receiving the declaration of dying persons as evidence, is because the obligation to speak truth, on the impression of the mind of a dying person, is presumed to be equal to the sanction of an oath; now the declarations of the deceased, after the mortal blow is given, probably made at a time when there were no apprehensions of danger, though death afterwards ensued, I conceive not to be evidence.


You are a neighbour of Mr. Orrell's? - I was acquainted with this young woman, I assisted in cleaning the place after her death; I found a nosegay with three roses in it, and other little flowers, this was on the Wednesday after the Sunday when she was killed; we found it in the blood; the woman that was cleaning the place called, and said, Mrs. Bruce, the man had a nosegay; Oh! I said, mistress, take and throw it into the dust-hole; the kitchen was all over blood; and the nosegay in the middle of it, her head dress and all her clothes were all over blood; they were cabbage roses, not moss roses.

Court to Prisoner. Do you wish to ask any question of this witness? - Yes, to be sure.

What would you ask? - That I never was in this place.

Court. That she does not know, and does not say? - Then I know nothing about it.


I live at Mr. Kirkwall's, opposite Mr. Orrell's; on the Sunday before the murder, I was sitting at the parlour window, and I saw a man go in, he was on the upper step of the door; the maid had got the door in her hand, I did not see his face, I could not see his complection; he had long dark hair, and very dirty clothes on.


I am a milkman, I serve Mr. Orrell with milk; on the Sunday of this murder, about

twenty-five minutes after two, when I came to Mr. Orrell's door with some milk, I called milk, and the maid came to the area door, and told me no milk; with that I took my kettles in my hand, and came along on the same side of the street where Mr. Orrell lives, about three doors nearer to the town, there lay a mulatto man on his left side, with his body on the steps, with his legs extended out on the footpath; I had a large kettle in one hand, and I lifted up my foot with intent to give him a trip; I looked at him, and I could see the upper leather of his shoe was torn by the welt, it is what you call wax leather, it was torn in this manner from the welt along the welt, and he had a nosegay of cabbage roses in his bosom, and he had a drab coloured coat on, much inferior to this, it is what is generally called Bath coating; I took no further notice till the next morning, when I heard of the murder, two or three days after, I took no notice but I mentioned the circumstance to the last witness, Mrs. Bruce, soon after, I was examined on the Saturday before the magistrate, the prisoner was there, I told this circumstance, I could not positively swear it was him, he had on just such a coat; and the shoe that I saw at the Magistrate's taken of this man's foot, appeared to me in my mind at that time, to be the shoe, though I could not swear positively to it, but the coat the prisoner had on at the Justice's appeared like the coat that the man had on that I saw on the Sunday afternoon in the street.

Was that shoe at the Justice's a wax leather shoe? - Yes, it was; I could not say whether he was the man.

Court. Can you say whether the man you saw at the baker's door was a different sized man? - No, I cannot say positively to his person one way or the other, the man I saw had his hair tied, queued, and laid with his head in a doleful situation, I saw his side face.

Court to Mr. Orrell. It seems extraordinary, that this nosegay spoken of by the witness Bruce, should not be found before Wednesday, because Mr. Pooley and you examined the house. - The kitchen is a back kitchen, not very light; we looked for some weapon, which we supposed might occasion her death; there was blood in several places, and large cakes of blood, we did not put our hands into it, and this was found in one of those cakes, for I did not think it proper to have the place cleaned till the coroner's inquest had been taken.


I am a surgeon.

Was you present when the prisoner was examined where the dead body laid? - I was.

Did you particularly examine his hands? - I did.

Now, Sir, of what nature were these cuts? - The cuts appeared on the fourth finger, and the others were just here, whereabouts the grasp is, it appeared to me as if it had been done by some instrument that he had made use of.

Did they appear old or fresh cuts? - The larger cut appeared to be a recent wound.

I presume a wound of ten days or a fortnight standing, would be healed before that time? - Yes. I heard Mr. Orrell's description of the state of this poor woman, it was perfectly right; I have no doubt of this producing her death.


I am a pawnbroker in Park-street, in the Borough.

Do you remember Mrs. Orrell's coming to you? - Yes.

- IVES sworn.

Where did you get this cloak which you produce now? - I found it in the possession of the pawnbroker, it has been in my custody ever since, it is the same that I found at Mrs. Broome's.

Mr. Garrow to Mrs. Broome. Where did you get that cloak? - Of a person that went by the name of Elizabeth Hogan , on the 27th of June, between eleven and twelve in the forenoon, it was on a Monday, I am sure it was that day, I lent half a guinea upon it; it continued in my possession till I delivered it to Mr. Ives, here is a ticket upon

it which was put on then, it is in my own hand-writing, she had a duplicate on it, the ticket has been on ever since; I am sure this is the same cloak that was pledged by Elizabeth Hogan .

(The cloak deposed to by Mr. Orrell.)

Mr. Orrell. I know it by the general wear, Mrs. Orrell wore it for twelve months, I am convinced by my general view of it that it is hers.

Mrs. ORRELL sworn.

Mr. Garrow. Will you take the trouble to look at that cloak? - I know the cloak to be mine by the lace and the making, as well as I should know any other thing I had worn the time, I have worn it twelve months; at the time of the murder it was hanging up on the back parlour door, and a bonnet upon it, when I returned it was gone, and the bonnet that hung upon it was thrown upon the ground; I had seen it on that Sunday, I have not a doubt, I knew it as soon as I saw it in the pawnbroker's shop, before it was open.

Court. Had you bought it ready made, or did you make it yourself? - I did not make it myself, but I bought the lace and the mode, it was made in Fleet-street.

Is there any thing particular that will enable you to distinguish it from another cloak that had been worn twelve months by any body else? - I am sure this is my cloak.

You will understand me, I am not asking you these questions from the smallest doubt of the truth of what you say to your belief, but it is necessary the Jury should know the grounds on which your persuasion is founded, now you may be conscientiously persuaded that this is your cloak, but I want to know by what you know it from another cloak of the same sort and size, that has been worn exactly the same time? - I should have known the cloak from a thousand cloaks, I know the make of it in particular.

There is no particular place torn or worn, or any particular observation made on the cloak? - There was a tear which I recollected immediately when I saw it again; after examining the cloak very minutely, I knew the cloak perfectly, and I recollected the tear as soon as I saw it again.

Mrs. Bruce. Mrs. Orrell was out one evening, and lost her dog, and the dog was so glad to see her, that he dirtied her cloak, and I cleaned it with spirits, and there remain some marks of the feet on now.

Mrs. Orrell. I remember the dog leaping up against me, and it was cleaned by Mrs. Bruce.

Mrs. Bruce. I am positive this is the cloak I cleaned.

Shew us the part where you apprehend the marks are? - At the front on each side.

Court to Mrs. Orrell. From the appearance of the front of the cloak could you observe that it had been cleaned at all by any thing? - It is cleaned so trifling, and done with a little gin, which does not make any difference at all in the mode.

Mrs. Bruce. I knew the cloak from the first day it ever came home from the maker's.

Court. Here are marks that are perfectly visible to me who have not a very good sight; but they appear to me to be fresher, and of a whiter colour than would arise from street dirt? - The dirt was taken off, it is my cloak, I have not a doubt, I am positive of it.


Court. In the first place I must ask you, if you are not the wife of the prisoner? - No Sir.

You are sure of that? - Yes.

Mr. Garrow. How long have you been acquainted with the prisoner? - About two years.

Have you lived with him all that time? - No, Sir.

How long? - Sixteen months before he was taken up, and at that time.

Where was he on Sunday the 26th of June? - He dined about one, after dinner I went and laid down on the bed, he was sitting in a chair, about two he went out, he said, he was going to take a walk, I did on the bed till he returned which was

pretty nigh five, between four and five, I cannot positively say which, he startled me by opening the door, I said nothing at all to him, a little while after Mrs. Jackson came into the room, and asked me if I would wash a shirt for her, that was on Sunday evening after his return.

How was the prisoner dressed on that Sunday? - With his coat that he usually wore at his work, a whitish surtout coat, a sort of a drab, rather a Bath drab; when the woman asked me to wash a shirt, I said to him, John, blow the fire, he accordingly pulled off his great coat, it was warm weather, he threw it on the back of a chair where he sat to blow the fire; I went on and washed the shirt, while I was washing, he said to me, I wish you would let me wash out this elbow, which had been greased three weeks before, by working for Mr. Chapman, I said, why do you want to wash it to day, let it alone till another day, and I will wash it all over, it will look very odd to see the elbow clean and no other part, with that he put the sleeve quite into the water, and had the brush and brushed upon the elbow, then I thought he was brushing the grease out, and I said, your brushing will not get the grease out, without warm water; then I turned round and saw him brushing at the wrist, I asked him the reason, he said, he had some stain of blood, that he had been fighting, and with that he took and threw it all into the water, and I took and did it all out into the suds, as they happened to be good, and I washed the coat all over, not knowing anything of the transaction.

Did you perceive any blood upon it? - Yes, upon the wrist I did, but on no other part.

On which arm was it? - I cannot recollect, I look upon it to be the right arm, but I am not sure.

Did any thing more pass that evening? - No more at all till the next morning, the next morning he got up to go to his work as usual, and he went in a blue jacket and his waistcoat sleeves, he did not go in his coat, because it was not dry; on the Monday morning he pulled a cloak from underneath the bed, and said he had bought it for me, and that I was to pay for it at so much a week.

What sort of a cloak was it? - A black mode cloak.

What did you do with it? - I said to him, what did you buy a cloak for, I am not necessitated for one, I want money to pay my rent more than a cloak, and I must make money for it, it is of no use to me; so that morning I went, and pledged it with Mrs. Broome, in Park-street, where I frequently use; after this I heard the prisoner was taken up, I went out on the Tuesday morning from the Borough, and I met the landlord of the house, says he, Mrs. Hogan, something has been the matter; and the landlord went with me, and enquired for him, and we found him at Bow-street, he was acquitted that time, and taken up again as Mr. Orrell has said, he was again discharged, and soon after he was discharged the second time; he has been very uneasy at times, I frequently asked him what made him uneasy, he said, it was for want of employ, for he did use to work, and I thought he had lost his bread though innocently; I said, what is the reason you are so uneasy, he said, he could not rest; why says I, I hope you are not guilty; this might be a month or five weeks after the murder; I said, I hope you have not been guilty of the murder, he said he was very unhappy, for he had done that fact, and he was guilty of that he had been accused of.

What fact? - Of the murder of this woman, he did not describe any thing about it, he never told me any more than what the newspapers expressed, I read it one morning to him, before I knew he was guilty; I said it was advertized, and I hope they will come to justice that did it, I told him I would go and tell of it, he said, if I did, I should be hanged, which deterred me from making a discovery, he is at the bar, now, and you may ask him; I could not get rid of him, he has staid out four or five nights together, and I never

saw a farthing nor a halfpenny; I went away from my own apartment on the Monday; I told him, says I, there was some plate missing, which the paper expressed besides the cloak, and he told me he had thrown the spoons over London-bridge; I asked him how he could commit such a thing, and he said he had no intention of doing any such a thing, but that he wanted to be great with her, and she resisted.

When he told you, you would be hanged, did he tell you where he got the cloak? - He said, if you tell of me, you will be hanged, he did not explain why.

Did you ever go to see him in prison after he was cast for transportation? - There was a young body, an acquaintance of mine, went to see him; he sent for me, I went to him, and he said he was going abroad, I said, I hope you will not return again, if you do, you will be hanged for returning before your time; but says I, there is that that troubles me, I never shall rest till it is divulged, O says he, that will not come to light; I left my own home, on the Monday before he was taken to Newgate, because I could not get rid of him.

Court to Prisoner. Do you wish to ask this witness any questions? - Yes, please your Lordship, ask her, Sir, if she ever saw me throw any spoons over London-bridge?

She does not say, that she saw you do it, but she says, you told her that you had done it? - I told her no, please your honour.

Mr. Garrow. I have done.

Court. Now, prisoner, you have heard the charge that has been made against you and the evidence that has been given, have you anything to say?

Prisoner. Yes, please your honour, I am innocent of it, and whoever takes my life away, I will never forgive them.

Have you any witnesses? - I have plenty on the other side of the water, here is Mr. Howes I see.

Do you wish to call any witnesses either to fact or to character? - Here are two gentlemen that can give me a character.

- HOWES sworn.

I have nothing to say about the prisoner concerning this affair, that can be of any service to him, the woman took a room of me, they behaved very honestly.

Court to Jury. Gentlemen, before I state the evidence to you, it is proper to take some notice of the circumstances of this case, and the prisoner that stands before you, because it is at all times necessary to justice, that the Court and Jury should proceed to the consideration of the evidence, that necessarily and immediately affects the life of the prisoner at the bar, with coolness and deliberation, and divested of every prejudice that from any circumstance may have been raised in their minds: the crime in itself is of a horrid nature, and this crime in particular has been attended with circumstances of unusual violence, cruelty, and brutality; but you should proceed to the consideration of this evidence with your minds perfectly indifferent as to the question, whether the prisoner has any relation with the crime or not, for the indignation that human nature necessarily is impressed with, against a crime of such magnitude, should never be transferred to the person that is accused of it, till a cool deliberation has satisfied you, that he is clearly guilty; you ought therefore to divest yourselves, as this is a matter that has been publickly talked off, of every thing that you may have heard or read out of Court, before the prisoner was brought to the bar on this charge; you ought also to divest yourselves of any circumstance in which the prisoner stands not extremely favourable to his character, his being accused of a crime of a far different nature, is far from being proof that he is guilty of one of this magnitude, and above all, I am sure you will suffer yourselves to have no impression from the difference of complection or country, but that you will try this man that stands at the bar, just as you would a man of your own country and complection and whose character before this stood unimpeached; it is with that impression upon your minds, that you ought to proceed to the consideration of the evidence,

and in proportion to the magnitude of the crime, ought to be the strength of the evidence, upon which that accusation is supported: I will, therefore, proceed to state to you, the evidence that has been given, and then to point out some observations upon it: first, considered as independent of the principal witness, Elizabeth Pugh , and in the next place, as connected with her testimony; for with respect to her, she certainly stands before you under circumstances of some discredit; for if this charge against the prisoner is true, and founded in fact, she stands in the situation of having long cohabited with this man, the badness of whose disposition and character, she cannot be supposed to have been wholly a stranger to, though she might not be at all privy to the particular fact, and also was possessed of a knowledge of this fact a considerable time before she made any discovery, and the discovery when made is not perfectly voluntary on her part, but brought about by a circumstance which immediately connects herself with the accusation; she therefore does not stand in the light of a witness in full credit, and intitled to implicit confidence to what she shall say on oath, and therefore, as far as her evidence is unsupported, it certainly ought to be received with some degree of caution, though she does not stand in the light of an accomplice, and though her evidence is admissable, as it is of such a nature that it may be received even where it is unsupported, for she by no means stands charged as an accomplice in this fact, or as having any previous knowledge whatever with the commission of it, but she stands not in a degree of perfect credit from the circumstances I have pointed out to you: the first witness is Mr. Orrell, &c. (Here the learned Judge summed up the evidence, and then added) The circumstance of the cloak arises whoby out of the evidence of Elizabeth Pugh : let us see what the circumstances are independent of her evidence, they are these; that the prisoner had a knowledge of the house of Mr. Orrell, that he had also a knowledge of the servant maid, that he affirmed that knowledge to have arisen only from being sent there twice in the course of his business by Mr. Chapman; but that upon the view of the body of the deceased, he expressed a degree of knowledge of her, more than could be accounted for on his going twice to the house, on that business; and that a man of the same complection was seen near the house of Mr. Orrell, laying in that street, a very short time before this fact was committed by some person or other, that he was dressed in the same coloured coat that the prisoner appeared afterwards to have on, and had a shoe on torn in the same manner, and which the witness swears he believed was the same shoe the man that he saw had on; then the prisoner, when taken up, has marks of blood on his waistcoat, and cuts on his hands, of which cuts he assigns a reason that appears by the evidence of the surgeon, not to be a true one; that the coat he had on also had the appearance of being recently washed, and he ackno wledges it had been recently washed. but says it was washed on the Sunday morning, in which he is flatly contradicted by a witness produced by himself. Gentlemen, these are the circumstances which apply directly to the person of the prisoner, and the circumstances of the cuts appear in this manner, when compared with the situation in which the deceased was found, because from the razor being broken, the handle twisted off, and the extreme marks of violence found on the body of the unfortunate woman, it appears extremely clear, she made a considerable resistance, and therefore there was a probability that the murderer might be cut: Gentlemen, if you believe the application of the evidence of the milkman, that lets in another strong circumstance; for if, from the circumstance of the shoe and the great coat, you are clearly satisfied, that the prisoner was the man that was laying at the baker's door, there is then another circumstance, that that man had a nosegay in his bosom, and that nosegay was found in the place where this horrid fact had been committed, but that circumstance of the nosegay does not apply to the prisoner, unless you are satisfied, that the man that lay at the baker's steps, was the prisoner: now you are to proceed to the consideration of the additional evidence of Elizabeth Pugh , you are to consider how far this witness is either confirmed or contradicted by the other witnesses; she had a cloak in her possession, her story is this, that the prisoner went out about an hour before this fact, by the evidence of Mr. Orrell, appears to have been committed, for he states, it must have been committed between the hours of three and four, for he went out about three, and he returned, for the first time, about four; Elizabeth Pugh states, that the prisoner returned home about five o'clock; now the distance is considerable from the Borough to Charlotte-street, Portland-place; but it certainly is not more than the time would very easily permit to perform it in, it is not above an hour's walk there; first she speaks of the blood on the sleeve of his coat, and of her washing it; she says, the morning after his return, he produced this cloak, and afterwards she speaks of his confession, that he threw away the spoons that were missing: it is shewn, that a person answering the description of the prisoner, was in this street a little before the hour of three, it does not exactly tally with that, in point of time, because he was seen by the milkman, about, or very near half past two, which is a short time, supposing the witness to be accurate, as to the time he came from the Borough; and the circumstance of his coat being washed, was agreed on all hands, that it had been recently washed, and washed by this woman, which he himself confessed, only he differed as to the time. Gentlemen, the effect of the circumstances upon your minds, independent of the evidence of Pugh, and the degree of credit you pay to her testimony, rest clearly with you, it is my duty to point it out to you, you are to decide upon it free from any passions, but what arise from a full consideration of the evidence itself, if you think there has been any reason, under all the circumstances, to disbelieve the evidence of Pugh, then you will consider the case, under all the circumstances, and judge if they are sufficient to convict the prisoner without her evidence; or if you can find in the whole case, any reasonable ground of doubt, though you are not to go to conjectures and probabilities, to let a man escape justice, yet unquestionably, if you find any reasonable ground of doubt, you ought to acquit the prisoner.

GUILTY , Death .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Clerk of the Arraigns. John Hogan , hold up your hand; you stand convicted of the wilful murder of Anne Hunt , what have you to say why the Court should not give you judgment to die according to law.

Proclamation of silence being made, Mr. Recorder passed sentence, as follows:

John Hogan , you now stand in the most wretched situation, which human nature can possibly be reduced to; for you have been convicted upon evidence which excludes all doubt, of a crime of such enormity, and attended with such circumstances, that human nature shrinks back with horror, at the relation of the facts that have attended it. The crime of murder does not depend on the laws or policy of this or that country, it is equally an offence in all, it is a direct offence against that God who is the creator alike of all mankind, and alike the governor of all nations upon earth: it is the laws of that God, and not of this particular country alone that you have violated, the voice of nature, of reason, and of all mankind has at all times cried out, that whose sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; a crime so enormous in itself, receives in your case, the most dreadful aggravations, from the circumstances of horror with which this fact has been attended; the violence and cruelty of the act, to whatever motive it is to be ascribed, argues a disposition savage in the extreme, whether it arose from avarice and the desire of plunder, or whether from that motive

which you yourself assigned for it, it is almost equally guilty, but if it can receive any aggravation, it must be upon the latter supposition; for, to butcher, in that savage and inhuman manner, the unhappy object, who had been but a few minutes before the object of your brutal desires and appetites, argues a degree of savage inhumanity and ferocity, unknown to the nature of the fiercest beasts, reserved for man alone, and thank God, only for such as you! Loaded with such a degree of guilt on your mind, you have shewn a hardness of heart, that has enabled you to view the unhappy victim of your cruelty without emotion, a spectacle so shocking, that it melted into tears, even those whose situation and profession has necessarily made them acquainted with the greatest scenes of horror, whilst you, the guilty object, was the only person that could refrain from sorrow at the sight of such a spectacle; the only circumstance therefore, under such accumulated horrors, that leaves the smallest room for hope for you, for that mercy hereafter, that the laws of the country deny you here, is that trouble and uneasiness of mind, that in some part of the evidence you appear at times to have laboured under; happy will it be for you, if that trouble and uneasiness is, in the short time you have to live, increased to the utmost degree of horror and remorse; for it is the utmost degree of horror and remorse alone, that can wipe from the guilty conscience the stains of innocent blood, and obtain that mercy from your offended God, which you cannot expect from man: it remains therefore for me, after earnestly exhorting you to reflect on the malignity of your crime, and the horror of your situation, and praying that that reflection may produce some effect upon your guilty soul, to pronounce on you the dreadful sentence of the law, which is, that you be taken from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence be carried on Monday next, to the place of execution, there to be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and that your body shall afterwards be delivered to the surgeons, to be dislected and anatomized ; and the Lord have mercy upon your sinful soul!

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-2
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

123. NATHANIEL GOODRIDGE , LEONARD GOODRIDGE , and JAMES EVANS , were indicted, for that they, on the 14th day of December, 1782 , with force and arms, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, and willingly act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting, a certain paper writing, with a seal thereto affixed, purporting to be the last will and testament of one Thomas Sawtell , deceased , and to be signed with the mark of him, the said Thomas Sawtell , in the life time of him, the said Thomas Sawtell , to wit, on the 14th of December, 1782, on the first sheet thereof; and to have been signed, sealed, published, and declared by the said Thomas Sawtell , as and for his last will and testament; which said false, forged, and counterfeited paper writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of the said Thomas Sawtell , is to the tenor and effect following, that is to say,

"This is the last will and testament of me Thomas Sawtell, late of Saffron-hill, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in the county of Middlesex, tallow-chandler, but now of Brook-street, in the said parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in the said county of Middlesex, gentleman. First, I will, order, and direct, that all my just debts be paid and discharged as soon as conveniently may be, after my decease, by my executors hereinafter named; I give and bequeath to my sister Mary Allen and her assigns, one annuity, or clear yearly sum of twenty pounds, of lawful money of Great Britain, to be paid by my executors quarterly, by equal portions, the first payment thereof to be made within one month, next after my decease. And whereas my late brother, Gilbert Sawtell , by his last will and testament in writing, bearing date the 27th day of December, in the year of our Lord, 1767, amongst other things, gave and bequeathed to Gilbert Carr therein named, the sum of one hundred pounds, to be paid him at the age of twenty-one, which said sum now remains in my hands, as the surviving executor of the last will and testament of my late brother Gilbert Sawtell , now I do hereby direct my executors hereinafter named, to pay interest for the said sum of one hundred pounds, from the last time they should have paid interest for that sum, until the said sum shall become due and payable. And whereas I have by bond secured the payment of twenty pounds a year to Margaret Enos , for her natural life, now in full payment and satisfaction of that bond, which is hereby to be cancelled, and in order to make a further provision for the said Margaret Enos , I do hereby give to her and her assigns one annuity, or clear yearly sum of fifty pounds, of lawful money

of Great Britain, payable quarterly, at the four most usual feasts or days of payment in the year, viz. Lady-day, Midsummer-day, Michaelmas-day, and Christmas-day, the first payment thereof to be made on such of the said days of payment, that shall first happen, next after my decease: I also give and bequeath to Elizabeth Goodridge , wife of Nathaniel Goodridge , of Saffron-hill, in the county of Middlesex, broker, the sum of one hundred pounds; I also give and bequeath to the said Elizabeth Goodridge , my gold watch, chain, and seals, for her natural life, and from, and immediately after her decease, I give and bequeath my said gold watch, chain, and seals to her son George Haynes , I also give and bequeath to the said George Haynes , the sum of three hundred pounds, to be paid him by my executors, hereinafter named, at the age of twenty-one, or when my executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I will and direct shall be paid by my said executors, for and towards his cloathing; I also give and bequeath unto Henry Erod Bonstabin Haynes; the sum of three hundred pounds, to be paid him by my executors hereinafter named, when he shall attain the age of twenty-one, or when my said executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I will and direct shall be paid by my said executors, for and towards his maintainance and education; I give and bequeath to George Evans , of Fore-street, in the parish of Cripplegate, silver smith, one hundred pounds, and to George Evans , son of George Evans , the sum of hundred pounds, to be paid to him by my executors hereinafter named, when he shall attain the age of twenty-one, or when my said executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I order and direct shall be paid by my said executors, towards his maintenance and education; I also give and bequeath to Elizabeth Evans , daughter of the said George Evans , three hundred pounds, to be paid by my said executors, when she shall attain the age of twenty-one, or when my executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I will and direct shall be paid by my executors, for and towards her maintenance and education; also I give and bequeath to the treasurer for the time being, of the charity school of St. Ethelburga, in the city of London, the sum of twenty-seven pounds, for the benefit of the said charity school; also to Messrs. Jonathan Price and Wentworth Ogle, executors of the last will and testament of my said brother John Sawtell , deceased, the sum of fifty pounds each, hoping they will use their endeavours to preserve my interest in my late brother John's will, for the benefit of the person or persons who shall become entitled thereto, under this my will; also I give and bequeath to William Hunter , of Saffron-hill aforesaid, merchant, the sum of three hundred pounds; also I give and bequeath to - Hunter, wife of the said William Hunter , the sum of twenty pounds; also I give and bequeath to Elizabeth Slack , wife of Daniel Slack , of Newgate-street, London, merchant, the sum of twenty pounds; also I give and bequeath to the said Daniel Slack , the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, and ten pounds for mourning; also I give and bequeath to Robert Slack , of Greenwalk, in the parish of Christ-church, in the county of Surry, brother of the aforesaid Daniel Slack , the sum of one hundred pounds, and ten pounds for mourning; I also give and bequeath to William Atkinson , of Newgate-street, aforesaid, merchant, one hundred and fifty pounds, and ten pounds for mourning; also I give and bequeath unto John Noble , of the city of Bristol, gentleman, the sum of one hundred pounds; also to Luke Noble , of Taunton, in the county of Somerset, the sum of one hundred pounds; also I give and bequeath to my servant, Elizabeth Spraggs , the sum of three hundred pounds; and to my servant Edward Price , the sum of five hundred and fifty pounds, and I give to the said Edward Price , all my wearing apparel and body linen: which said legacies to my said servants, Elizabeth Spraggs and Edward Price , I direct to be paid by my executors, to such of them as shall be living at the time of my decease: all which said legacies, except as aforesaid, I hereby order and direct my executors hereinafter named, to pay within twelve months, next after my decease; I give and bequeath unto my friends John Power , of Carter-lane, gentleman; James Evans , of Saffron-hill, aforesaid, victualler; William Colton , of Holborn, aforesaid, cheese-monger; Edward Botham , of Charles-street, in the said parish, bricklayer; William Cochran , and Humphrey Hall, of Peter-street, in the said parish, butcher, each of them a mourning ring: and, as for and concerning the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate and effects whatsoever, both real and personal, in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy, I give, devise, and bequeath the same to the said Nathaniel Goodridge , his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns for ever; and I do hereby name, constitute, and appoint, the said Nathaniel Goodridge and Daniel Hunter , my executors. In witness whereof, I have to this my last will and testament, contained in two sheets of paper, to the first sheet, set my hand or mark, and to this sheet, my hand or mark, and seal, this 14th day of December, 1782. Thomas Sawtell X his mark. Signed, sealed, published, and declared, by the said testator, as and for his last will and testament, in the presence of us, who in his presence, and at his request, and in the presence of each other, have signed our names, as witnesses hereto, the words

"a mark" being first twice interlined. James Evans , Leonard Goodridge , John Underwood ." - With intention to defraud one Daniel Slack .

A second count. For falsely forging and counterfeiting a will, to the same purport and effect exactly, with intention to defraud Mary Allen , and Mary Spence , wife of George Spence , and the said George Spence , against the statute.


William Halfpenny ,

William Newman ,

Francis Feather ,

William Baillie ,

Samuel Totty ,

Henry Rose ,

John Isaac Fanch ,

William Avelyn ,

Nicholas Lunn ,

Thomas Simpson ,

Samuel Roye ,

George Marshall .

Mr. Justice HEATH tried the Prisoners, Mr. RECORDER was also present.

Council for the Prosecution.




Council for the Prisoners.





The Indictment opened by Mr. Fielding.

The Case opened by Sir Thomas Davenport , as follows:

May it please your Lordship and you gentlemen of the Jury, I am councel also on the part of this prosecution, against the unfortunate prisoners now at this bar, who stand there for a crime which it is impossible for any words or any imagination, in my opinion, to aggravate; its heinousness and the pernicious consequences of it, are of such a nature, that every man of common understanding must observe them; this matter has been of very long expectation, it is not impossible, it is more indeed than probable, that many reports, many sayings, many paragraphs in news-papers, may have come to the ears and sight of almost every man; I am clear if it was possible that any prepossessions in point of opinion (I do not say prejudices) should find their way into your minds, you, on this occasion, would naturally dismiss them, because you must know that on this question you, as men, must attend to the feelings of men, and with that attention which, while the lives of you fellow-subjects are in danger, is required from you; at the same time you must know it is your duty to yourselves, your families, your country, and posterity; to prevent the effects which must arise from a subversion of those invaluable rights, which the subjects of this country enjoy, for disposing of their property

freely, and absolutely without any controul on the part of the crown, or any interposition on the part of their fellow-subjects. The free disposition of property will be totally prevented if sche mes and manoeuvres of the kind that will be laid before you should obtain to gain credit before a Jury: Gentlemen, I am aware of the difficulty there will be, as well from the pain that every feeling man must entertain, on such a subject as this, as from the vast variety of matter this cause has passed through, and the number of sheets in which it is contained, particularly in Doctors Commons, I say I am aware it will be extremely difficult so to arrange the matter as to make it completely comprehensive on the first state of the case; I will endeavour, however, so to separate the circumstances attending this matter, as to make them as clear as I can to my own understanding, which is the best way of conveying them to yours, and in doing that I shall try likewise to bring several circumstances together, so as to shew you the view in which they appear to me, in order that it may be better understood both by my Lord and by you. The evidence must in its nature take up a considerable length of time, it must consist, as I said before, of a great variety of matter, and it may possibly be so laid before you, and so put together, that it may be comprehended notwithstanding the extent of the matter and the variety of it: Gentlemen, you all of you know, and must feel, that there are a thousand cases in which the actual fact of forgery, and the fabrication of it cannot be proved; there are others, where that impossibility is taken away, sometimes by the admission of accomplices themselves; and, Gentlemen, give me leave now to observe, with respect to accomplices, that they come, as, my Lord will tell you, always under circumstances of suspicion, and are witnesses, of whom juries always are, and always ought to be, very jealous; I mean those accomplices whose confessions arise either from motives of personal fear in themselves, or hopes of rewards from others, or of revenge or malice towards those persons with whom they were themselves concerned; but, at the same time, you very well know that there is a necessity, which the policy of the laws of this country has admitted, of receiving their evidence in some cases, and that where that necessity arises, accomplices have been admitted; they are what the law calls competent witnesses, and their testimony is to be heard; but the weight it is to have, the credit that is to be given to it is, as one of the greatest blessings of this land, left to the consideration of twelve men on their oaths, to the consideration of twelve men of credit, of reputation, and of property: It will be necessary therefore, by circumstances (and I will add too, in favour of the prisoners, strong circumstances) to lay a foundation for corroborating the testimony of such an accomplice as we shall produce, one who had himself so far lost the character and the duty of a subject of this country, as to be concerned in the transaction itself. The circumstances have, in the opinion of some of the learned Judges, always been thought most proper to precede the testimony of the accomplice, I know one in particular, I mean Mr. Justice Gould.

Mr. Justice Heath. That is my practice.

Sir Thomas Davenport . I have also, my Lord's authority to say it is his, though I have not the honour to know it in practice; but although Mr. Justice Gould, from his great experience and his great attention to every point of the law in that situation, which he has filled so ably, has also adopted that practice, yet, at the same time, it is not constant and invariable, you will see reasons why it cannot be invariable, the story is sometimes of such a nature that it must precede the circumstances that are to corroborate it, it will be my duty, therefore to submit to my Lord, for I shall be extremely willing to adopt any conduct he thinks right in this prosecution, having no wish, no desire on this subject, but to do my duty to the public. Gentlemen, there are a vast variety of circumstances that

will very often weigh more with sensible minds than the most positive testimony of witnesses; and of that we have had too many fatal instances to doubt, much less to deny; there have been cases where the three witnesses to a will, as required by the law of this country, which is to pass real property, as distinguished from personal; I say there have been cases where all those three witnesses have denied the execution of the real will, where the circumstances have still established that will, and all those witnesses have been punished for their testimony; I mean the case of Mr. Joliff, which I am sure his Lordship must have heard of, where all the three witnesses to his will one after another absolutely contradicted the circumstances that proved it to be a true one, and they were all punished for their false testimony; there have been cases likewise, once or twice in my experience, where all the three witnesses have supported the will, and swore to it with such strength that would hardly leave a doubt in one's mind, yet it has been proved to be totally false, as in the case of Sir James Chadwick ; then, gentlemen, you will do in this and every such case that which is natural and probable; you will attend to that, before any testimony of external circumstances, before any saying, or things that are supposed to have passed at different times inconsistent with that probability: I shall, therefore, begin by stating to you the conduct of Mr. Sawtell, the testator in the real will that I shall lay before you, the supposed testator in this supposed will that has already been laid before you in the indictment, and then you will judge from that man, from his way of thinking, and from his constant habitual way of practice, what was his intention and design; he was a very industrious man in the trade of a tallow chandler, he had invented the spermaceti candle, he had taken so much merit to himself on that occasion, that he had a seal with the impression, I think, of a candle in a candlestick, and the words Sperma Ceti wrote round it; he, for a considerable time being in business, had accumulated wealth, arising from his own industry, that had been added to, by accession from his brother, more particularly than any other relation, which was some time about the year 1777 or 1778: In the disposition of this acquired property he had made wills in an early period, and after the acquisition from his brother of the property that is mentioned to you, he had likewise been in the habit of making his disposition by will, and he had employed some attorney in whom he had confidence, and to that attorney he always imparted his wishes whenever he wanted to alter or re-execute his will, which, in point of law, in truth, is a new will; more additions or codicils to it may be executed as additions, but whenever it is executed over again, it is a new will to all intents and purposes, in law as well as in common sense. Some time about the year 1780, his attorney, of the name of Falkner, died, on his death he employed a gentleman of undoubted ability and credit in his profession, Mr. Mumford: in 1780, he employed Mr. Mumford to make his will, in which, as well as in the former ones, for in order to look back to former wills, and to collect the intention of the testator, it was necessary to turn back to such as had been made in Mr. Falkner's life, which was done by this Mr. Mumford, in the year 1780, therefore, a will was made, the same executor, the same residuary legatee, in that will of 1780, that had been in the former will in the life time of Mr. Falkner: in the beginning of the year 1782, in February, Mr. Sawtell again wished to alter his will, or, in other words, to make a new will, and to have his will new executed; in February, 1782, he made a will, the same residuary legatee, the same sole executor, that was Mr. Thomas Slack , who had been so in the former wills that I state to you, and continued so in the succession of all the real wills that will be stated to you: his situation, in the year 1782, was this; he had a sister who had lived in a course of life by no means agreeable to him, and indeed not fitting for her, she had incurred his displeasure, and had never entered into any of his wills as an object of his bounty, excepting an annuity of twenty pounds a year, that had at first arisen out of a sum of money producing nearly that interest, that had been left by the brother, that you will find in this will as well as this false will (as I now take the liberty to call it, because that is the charge) that annuity remained as a provision for her; there was another sister, what children she had, and where they were, was perfectly unknown; it turns out, therefore, that a daughter of this other sister had married one Spence, and gone to Jamaica, whether living or not he did not know, they are in none of the wills, neither in the real or the false will; Gentlemen, the testator had been in particular intimacy with Mr. Thomas Slack and a brother of his of the name of Robert, and so strong was his confidence and his trust in both of them, but particularly in Thomas, that in all the former wills he had made him his residuary legatee, and sole executor; he had likewise, in his life time intrusted him with all his property; he had an iron chest in his house, where all his property, his bank notes, his watch, seals, and every thing that was of the most consequence were usually and generally kept, there were two keys to it, of which he was the keeper of one, the other Mr. Thomas Slack had, he had constant access to and managed his affairs, his money transactions and every other business; he had, besides his friends and relatives, a niece of his wife's, his wife had been dead many years, and a niece of her's that married Nathaniel Goodridge : She married one Haines before, and the manner and conduct of life of Mr. Haines was not very pleasing to Mr. Sawtell, he became considerably indebted, and so did the widow after his death, to Mr. Sawtell, before she married Nathaniel Goodridge ; they married, I believe, five years before this false or true will was made; on the marriage he had paid the debts of Mrs. Haines, and had given Nathaniel one hundred pounds with her, who was then a carpenter and in business, for carrying on his trade as such; he had, after this will in February, 1782, made an assignment of some leasehold premises upon or near Saffron-hill, where he carried on his trade, and where Goodridge lived, he made an assignment to Goodridge, thinking it would help him in his trade, as the leasehold premises had three or four years to run, thinking it would enable him the better to renew the leases with the landlord, he being in possession of them: Mr. Goodridge, who had been a considerable time in getting this assignment, employs an attorney of the name of Gregory, a gentleman likewise, I believe, of very good character; he was the attorney who transacted that business of the assignment of the lease: Mr. Mumford being the attorney that he had always, from the death of Mr. Falkner, employed, Mr. Sawtell thought he had done enough for this niece of his wife's, and for her husband; they had no children, he had done quite enough for her in this act of his bounty, besides the portion he had given her; but whether he thought this act might create disputes or contradictions in law, or how far this would be a revocation of his will in February, 1782, and this transaction passed in August, 1782, to prevent disputes of that sort is the only reason that can be assigned, as many transactions passed many papers necessary for him to sign upon the occasion, he did not know what might pass at the time, and he made another will, which was his last real will and testament, as we mean to establish before you on the 4th of November, 1782, after which time I believe he never did or thought of any testamentary act whatever; I say after the 4th of November, 1782; that is a material date, I will only burthen your memory with those that are most material to your attention, and that is one of the most material: Mr. Mumford, who made that will, saw him duly execute it, and called in the witnesses that Sawtell thought proper to have to his will, he sealed it up in a cover, put two seals on that cover, the will itself was wrote on two sheets of paper, a seal to each, and, I believe the signature of the testator; it was wrote on the outside

"The last will and testament of Thomas Sawtell ." It was put into this iron chest, of which as I told you before, the two keys were kept in the manner I have stated; Mr. Slack was not present either at the instructions for making it, at the execution of it, or in any part of it, nor I believe in any of the former wills, that however may be more accurately stated to you by Mr. Mumford when he is examined: Gentlemen, the story may now be necessary for me to touch upon, after having directed your attention to that material date, the date of that will, which is contended in the Commons by Nathaniel Goodridge , who was one executor, and Mr. Hunter an acquaintance of his, and also Mr. Sawtell's, to be the real and true last will and testament of Mr. Sawtell, and if it was, you see most clearly it would revoke all other last wills and testaments except the one he was executing, I think there he did not add the word of revocation, but in legal operation it would be a revocation: the 14th of December, 1782, is the next material date for you to recollect, it is very difficult to remember without referring to notes, and without reading them, and I came to town yesterday, and have given this case all the attention I could, but if I am incorrect, I shall be very much obliged to any gentlemen of either side to inform me better, and to correct me: the 14th of December, 1782, is extremely material in this respect, from the 4th of November up to that 14th of December, or very near the time, some acts have been done, and I lay a great stress always upon what men do; I am not very old in the profession, but I have had a great deal of painful experience on that head; I have always thought, that men taking different turns of mind, perhaps in company, in liquor, or in a thousand different ways, somethings that they have said, and somethings that they have not said, are all very material to be noticed; yet these things are often misunderstood, and often much misrepresented, so that little attention merely to what people say, is to be paid: but it is very difficult indeed to forge men's hearts, you judge a man from his conduct, and not from his professions, it is the most unerring rule that we know: Gentlemen, from the 4th of November to the 5th of December, the testator Mr. Sawtell, had continued all that confidence and trust in Mr. Thomas Slack , that he had before possessed, uniformly and unterrupted he continued this until towards the beginning of December, he found nobody else capable to conduct any part of his affairs nor even his walks to the Bank; and on the 5th of December, within nine days of this pretended false will of his, two solemn acts, one a general power of attorney to Thomas Slack , to manage all his affairs, the second a particular power of attorney, such as is called at the Bank, to receive his dividends and interest of his money, were executed: no acts that a man could do could be stronger than these; if you want to look at the regards of a man, look at the treasure where the heart is generally supposed to be, those whom he intrusts with that, are supposed to be the objects of every esteem, of every affection, that he at that time seems to entertain: at the time of the execution of this power of attorney, on the 5th day of December, the testator was confined with a swelled knee to his bed, and had been for a considerable time. Gentlemen, the story that is told in support of this pretended, and this false will, is, that it was necessary that the execution of it should be a profound secret, it was to be transacted therefore with the most profound secrecy, at night, in the stillness and the dead of night, about twelve the witnesses were to attend, to be let in by Nathaniel Goodridge , who being as I have stated to you, a friend, and in that sort of connection with Mr. Sawtell, as I have before mentioned, had obtained permission to sit up with him in turns all night, he had two servants at the time, a man and a maid servant, the maid servant, Elizabeth Spraggs , is unfortunately dead; the man servant, Edward Price , lived with him to his last dying moments, and was

very much benefitted in the real will, as well as in the false one; I see a considerable legacy is left to him, as well as Elizabeth Spraggs , fifty pounds more in the false will than in the true will, that circumstance shews the gratitude of his master, for his faithful services: Gentlemen, this Edward Price will be produced to you; and he will tell you what is material, which is, that the very next day, (the 15th of December, the day after) that false will which is produced to you, with the testator's mark to it, dated on the 14th of December, on the supposition that he was so ill, and in so much pain, and so unable to write, that he was only able to make his mark, I shall prove to you that on the 15th of December he was out in a coach, and dined with Mr. Slack, though represented so infirm, and so impotent, that he could do nothing but make a mark, who never made a mark before or afterwards, instead of the name Thomas Sawtell , which he used to write: after the 15th of December, I believe he was never out, he was better and worse in the afternoon, going to bed early indeed, I believe his liquor was brandy and water, which was his common liquor when he grew more infirm, whether it was made of equal strength or greater as he found the want of it, but he was generally in the afternoon incapable of doing any solemn act, like that of making a will, and so conscious was he of that, that he used to appoint ten or not exceeding twelve, knowing his own infirmities, and his turn to liquor, and the natural consequences of it; at this hour Mr. Mumford will tell you all his appointments were made, and that he was particularly cautious in the due strict punctual attention to that time: Gentlemen, he died on the 9th of February, that will be a third material date for you, the time of his death, during his illness, and the last confinement from the beginning, or if you will please to count it from the 15th of December; I do not know that he ever went out afterwards, though he might be up some times; during that illness so little idea had he of Nathaniel Goodridge , as the person to be intrusted with the execu- of his will, that Price will prove to you, that his orders to him, were during his illness, that when at any particular time, he felt himself worse than ordinary, and apprehended himself in more than ordinary danger, that he should send for Mr. Slack; he once found himself in one of these situations, in which it would be comfortable for him to have Mr. Slack, it was between one and two o'clock in the morning, he ordered Mr. Price to go to Mr. Slack; Price who thought he had been dozing, and waking, did not go to Slack, and he went to sleep again; about three days before he died, I think on Thursday the 6th of February, the last time he spoke intelligibly, or scuseably; he returned his thanks to Price, took him by the hand, thanked him for his long and faithful services to him, wished him his health to enjoy what he had left him, and hoped that Mr. Slack would be punctual in paying him; you see that makes it impossible for this man to have left another executor: On the 14th of December, and on the 6th of February, he gives these directions about Slack, to him they were to look for payment, he was to be sent for, every thing was to be entrusted to him; every thing was to be done by him: these are the natural genuine effects of a man's real mind and will. Gentlemen, after this transaction, it will be proper to tell you the story of Underwood. This Underwood, one of the witnesses to the will, and the writer of the will, tells a story, I think from the 18th of December, 1784; in December twelvemonth at the Public Office, in Bow-street, before Sir Sampson Wright, upon an affidavit there made, his story is, that having been concerned for a Mrs. Reeve, sometime antecedent to the year, 1782; because the transactions I am going to speak of, happened in 1781; he had been concerned for her as a woman in poor circumstances, and having a Chancery suit, he was not a man of circumstances, and could not afford to advance, nor had he credit for the expences of that suit; the consequence was, that she was an acquaintance of Mrs. Nathaniel Goodridge , she applied to her, and the story was told to Mr. Sawtell, concerning this suit and the poor woman's right, and I think he was induced in 1782 to contribute five guineas towards it on the story that Underwood told, that, he says, is the only time that he ever saw Mr. Sawtell to know him; he will tell you that at the execution of the will there was somebody in the bed, whether it was Mr. Sawtell or not, he did not know; that having so far a knowledge of Nathaniel Goodridge , for he had none of him before, nor of Mr. Sawtell; but as I have told you, his story goes on to say, that about the latter end of November, and in this he will be confirmed by his wife, who was present at several of the transactions and her maid; that towards the end of November or beginning of December 1782, Nathaniel Goodridge had frequently been applying to him about getting a will from Mr. Sawtell (all that I say now, you will take to be his story) it was intended that Underwood should draw this will, sometime past, he found his total inability to draw a will for a man whose circumstances he knew nothing of, and whose fortune, where it lay, or what it consisted of he was a stranger to, he therefore said it was not possible for him to do it: then the scheme was formed of getting at his will; it was known perfectly that he had made a will, and it was supposed, and perhaps known, that that will was in favour of Mr. Thomas Slack , for they knew there was a will; the thing then was to get at this will, which would inform them of all the circumstances they wanted to know, if that could be so managed, and you will see evidently and clearly, that the first part of the false will is copied from the true will; there are several legacies charged in it, there are the two young Haynes's, who are sons of Mrs. N. Goodridge before her marriage with him; for one of them that the testator had provided so much money to put him out apprentice, he had provided for one of these boys, and meant to provide for the other, they do not appear to have legacies in the true will, but in the false they have legacies of three hundred pounds each, Mrs. Goodridge has a gold watch; there are a family of Evans's, (not the prisoner) George Evans and his son, (the same name as the prisoner) they have three hundred pounds given to them; but the great change to be effected, (the rest I suppose was to give a colour) but the real change was the bulk of the estate, the residue; therefore to change Nathaniel Goodridge for the residuary legatee and executor instead of Mr. Slack, who was the sole executor and residuary legatee, that was the main object of the will; it was determined to get at this will, how it was I cannot tell you, nor can Underwood, but by the relation of Nathaniel Goodridge , he got somebody to make him a key of this chest, out of which he might get the real will; a suspicion fell on a locksmith in the neighbourhood, and as it is impossible to ask him the question, as it must make him an accomplice in the business, I shall not call him to give evidence which must discredit him; it is plain from his relation to Underwood, that he had a pick-lock key that would open and shut this chest; and on the 14th of December, which was the first time he sat up with the testator, that night they went about eleven o'clock, and were let in by Nathaniel Goodridge , by a hem, which was a sign by Underwood; there were the attorney, James Evans , who was a publican at the Cooper's Arms on Saffron-hill, and the brother of Nathaniel Goodridge , they were let in, they made researches, Nathaniel got the bunch of keys, and tried an escrutore, and the bureau, and these keys opened it, but the key of the iron chest happened to be in Price's custody, and he being in his room, Nathaniel could not go into that room without waking Price; the truth therefore, as related by Underwood, is that they did not get at it at this time; this disconcerted the plan considerably, therefore nothing could be done till this will was got at, that was to be the guide, that was to be the sort of proceeding by which Underwood was to steer; accordingly they waited some time, and in the first week in January, Nathaniel said he had got the key, and they got the chest open, the will is found, it is read, there is a pen, ink, and paper for a will, and Underwood sat down and copied that will, and the copy of that will is still existing, the copy of the will of the 4th of November; he next proceeded to take instructions from Nathaniel, how he would wish to vary it; now this, you will observe, is said to be by the date of the 14th of December, and they did not get at it by this story till the first week in January; about the 20th of January, or somewhere thereabouts, the first opportunity they had to meet after, it was agreed that Underwood should go to Nathaniel's work-shop, where he had a little sort of compting-house; they went there, and this you will see, when I come to state the confirmation of the story, was upon the 21st, which is as near the time as can possibly be guessed: upon the 21st he copied about one sheet then, Nathaniel was with him afterwards; the next night he came again, Nathaniel was with him, and he copied the other sheet; the other part of this will was performed, if this story is true, on the 22d of January: on the 23d of January every thing was ripe for execution, and you will see on the 23d of January, (the will that they exhibit is not the will of the 23d of January, I will tell you the reason by and by) this will of the 23d of January they all of them attend, Goodridge sits up, they are let in upon a signal, they go up into the testator's room, pulling their shoes off that they might not disturb the servants, who did not know the faces of any of them except Nathaniel; Nathaniel being close to the testator, who was in bed, and the others of them at the foot of the bed; Nathaniel put a pen into the hand of this Sawtell, who was then in one of the states he usually was in, or in sleep, and made a mark to this will, they then went down into the parlour, and subscribed their names to it, and the business was thought to be done: however the next day, or the day after that, within one or two days after it, before the 26th of January, which I think was on a Sunday, they met and had a consultation at this Underwood's, and Nathaniel did not like this date of the 23d of January, for so that will attempted to be executed on this day was dated; why, says he, Slack may be able to prove him incapable on that day, it may be too late: the question then was, what date to give it, and they gave it the date of the 14th of December, that being a time before he was so confined, as to be incapable of executing wills, that being the first time that Nathaniel had sat up with him; the consequence of which was, the seal, and I believe the name, that is the mark, was taken off by way of cancelling this will of the 23d of January, and a pen drawn through the 23d of January, and the 14th of December put, and then it was fixed that Underwood should come on Sunday, the 26th of January, and dine at the house of Nathaniel, and then he should write the will, and that will should be then prepared; and that will of the 26th of January is the real one, exhibited here as the will of the 14th of December: when this was done, the three witnesses signed their names there; they did not meet after that 26th of January, they had not the impudence and folly, as well as the wickedness of going to the house; but Nathaniel said, as to the mark of the name, leave that to me; and the will now produced, with the supposed mark of the testator; when that mark was put there nobody but Nathaniel himself knows, nor how it came there; it will be for your observation, and it is pretty apparent on the face of this instrument, of the false will, that that mark was not put at the same time of the subscribing the names as witnesses, but at a different time, being written with a different ink, blacker; that is a very strong mark of the truth of this story. It had been in contemplation to apply to a Mr. Assiotti, who is supposed to be an ingenious man at that sort of imitation, and he was to be shewn pieces of paper where the name of Thomas Sawtell was written, to imitate it: Gentlemen, with respect to the true will, which had been so put in a cover, they took two blank sheets of paper, that it might appear in the same state as when the true will was inclosed in it; they sealed up this covering in which the true will had been inclosed with the same covering, and this deception so passed on Slack, that he took it to the real will, he therefore had no suspicion of the deception; there were some pencil marks, which were a sort of direction how and where the name was to be wrote; however that did not take effect, Mr. Assiotti not being at home, nothing was done on that occasion at all: Gentlemen, when this transaction, therefore, on the 26th of January, was performed, there wanted nothing but the death of this poor man to bring this false will to light; when he died, the parties being sent to, they came, Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge was there, Mr. Slack, Mr. Gregory the attorney, for Nathaniel had the art, and the ingenuity, at that time to send for the real attorney, a man of character; Mr. Gregory, he comes, and enquiry is made whether there is any will, Nathaniel Goodridge produces this out of his pocket, Mr. Slack never dreamt of such a thing; he went home, in the presence of his partner Mr. Atkinson opened this cover, and there he found the two sheets of blank paper: Mr. Mumford being a man of experience and ability, he was too inquisitive for this kind of business; he wanted the instructions of this will and the draught, this was a pinching part of the business, however they told him they were in Underwood's hands, and would be produced in proper time; without that, I take it for granted, Mr. Gregory would have had nothing to do with the business; upon this occasion, the day after Mr. Sawtell's death there was another consultation, then it was concerted that Underwood should draw up pretended instructions, and copies should be made and shewn to Mr. Gregory, and it was so, and they imposed, as naturally they would, upon Mr. Gregory; these instructions were written at his own house the 16th of February, the actual date when these instructions were written, that was the Sunday following the will; instructions for a will of a man who died on the 9th; in fact they were really, and in truth wrote the 16th, so this man tells the story; and you will see, when I come shortly to open the corroborating circumstances, that they appear to be true: when they came to shew the instructions, and the copies to Mr. Gregory, as he wrote the originals, as will be shewn to you in an incorrect way, and in a loose way, as supposed to be taken before the man himself, in order to imitate that which would be the natural effect of instructions so taken; he wrote them in that way, he likewise made a copy of the real will of the 14th of November, when he had got this, the draught of the true will of the 14th of November, he gave it to his wife to keep, she put them into her pocket; it happened very unfortunately that she being very big with child, was brought to bed suddenly, and the papers were all so extremely dirtied, that they were obliged to be put into a tub of water, and that draught of the 23d of January, seems to me to have been burnt, for this reason, that it was so defaced that it was of no possible use, the other two will be shewn to you; then they wanted a date to these instructions; then Mr. N. Goodridge set his wits to work, let me see, says he, Mr. Sawtell was at my house, the 4th of November, I went with him the 9th, being Lord Mayor's day, to tallow-chandler's hall, therefore the 6th of November will be a proper day, you can say you met him at my house, and he brought the will to you; that he suffered you to copy that will on the 6th of November, and on the 9th, he gave you more perfect instructions how he would have it altered, therefore these are the two supposed times; then on the 9th of November were these instructions to be dated: now gentlemen, with respect to the circumstances confirming this story of the man, I shall call to you one witness, who will prove to you, the consultations about the wife of this man getting Assiotti to write the name; I shall prove to you that when that failed by the journeyman of Mr. Goodridge himself, who was in the shop at the time that he came, on the 21st of January, with Underwood, and they were there four or five hours, Underwood writing, and the other looking over, I suppose dictating, the man taking no notice, but going about his work, making some rail work that wanted to be finished, and which obliged him to work later than usual; this man seeing a part of the writing hang out, after Underwood and Nathaniel were gone, he had the curiosity to see what this Underwood had been writing, and there he read the name of Sawtell, and saw two or three legacies; he likewise was at work on the 22d of January, when he was writing a further part of this will: I shall call to you a witness, that will prove to you, that Evans, one of the prisoners, applied to a gentleman of the name of Hudson, a pewterer, a gentleman of character, as I am informed, to be a witness, supposing that Mr. Goodridge could not be there, however he was there. Hudson did not chuse to have any thing to do with it, and had nothing to do with it; that is a decisive circumstance, to go no further, that there was no true will on the 14th of December, it is of itself decisive; therefore, if that witness is believed, there is an end to be sure, of this matter. Gentlemen, I will confirm it further, on that 26th of January, I will shew, Underwood was writing on the 26th of January, when he was making the will that is now produced, that he was a considerable time, on the 26th of January, a writing, at Nathaniel Goodridge 's, I will prove to you, that he staid and dined there, I will prove that to you, by Goodridge's maid servant, that Underwood was writing, though she cannot tell what, that all the witnesses were there at that time, that Underwood says the three put their names to it, and that Nathaniel Goodridge undertook to get the testator's mark to it; there again, on the 26th of January, if there had been a will on the 14th of December; if there had not been a reason for altering it, why this new work; but I go further, I call to you a man of reputation on Saffron-hill, Mr. Eames, who I believe was the successor to Mr. Sawtell in his business, when he left off, which was in 1781; I will prove to you, that on the 26th of January, Daniel Goodridge , with a good deal of concern, and in a very sorrowful tone, came to him, and told him at his shop, says he, Mr. Eames, Mr. Sawtell is very ill, he is confined, he has spoken very favourable of you, he has mentioned his intention to dispose of his estate, and to leave me the bulk of his fortune, and to alter his will; the expression is very remarkable, and to alter his will! alter his will! what on the 26th of January, alter his will, if it was complete on the 14th of December! it shewed it had not any existence antecedent; says Mr. Eames, I am afraid nothing can be done without Ned and Betty, so he called the two servants, the man and maid; says Nathaniel, you are intimate in the house, you know them, I wish you could apply to them, and get them in my favour, then something may be done; Mr. Eames saw Nathaniel Goodridge and Evans in the fore room, after what had passed at the shop, on the same day, and there repeating again this wish, that Mr. Eames would be his friend, and assist him about Ned and Betty; Evans says,

"Oh get it done, d - n it, get it done:" get what done? why it was all done if this was true: Gentlemen, this seems to me so impossible to resist, and so unanswerable, that I do not know what to add to it; if it did want further circumstances, you would have a great number of circumstances, that would be less material in a case like this, and particularly about money that had passed among them; for on the 9th of February, Nathaniel Goodridge came to the house of Underwood, Leonard Goodridge and Mr. Underwood were above stairs, in coming down, and going away, Leonard gave her five guineas, at the bottom of the stairs, he put five guineas in her hand and shook hands with her husband, and said, while the cart is going it's right to grease the wheels; he shook the husband by the hand, and said, he hoped they should all stand true to each other; this is on the 9th of February, immediately after the death; another five guineas was given afterwards, that will be proved to you by the daughter, Susannah Underwoood , who went there in

consequence of a letter, as it had been promised that Evans would come there in a day or two, and though the transaction she did not see, she heard money on the table; this account appears likewise from a writing of Nathaniel himself, five guineas was supposed to be left in March, 1783, it is put down March, 1783; however, there is another account follows it of goods that have been had upon credit, necessary things, such as tables, chairs, bedding, &c. to the amount of eighteen pounds, then another figure added by Underwood himself of five guineas more, making twenty-three pounds sixteen shillings, this was to go in part of the account; and I will state to you another circumstance that shews that the account was kept with this view, about the 7th of April, or somewhere thereabouts, this matter being depending in the Commons, a caveat, as it is called, was entered by Mr. Slack, to prevent the probate and the executorship passing there to Mr. Goodridge: Evans and Underwood did not choose to trust to the honour of Nathaniel Goodridge for their share of this booty, and it was then proposed that two bonds of eight hundred pounds each to pay four hundred pounds, one to Evans and the other to Underwood should be given; Underwood was for taking this bond, and they said, no, the matter has not been decided in the commons, though it appears to be an absolute bond on the face of it, it is really meant to be conditional, and not to be paid till the probate is obtained, upon which the bond for Underwood is deposited with Evans, and Evans gives an accountable receipt for that bond to Underwood, and I will prove to you the hand-writing of Evans; I do not read it to you now because it will be sufficient to be read in the course of the trial, it was that four hundred pounds should be paid and discharged as soon as it was determined in the Commons, that is the substance of it: towards the end of the year 1783, the sum of five guineas was paid: the bond of Nathaniel Goodridge to Evans, was frequently talked off by Underwood, and he was to deduct these sums out of that bond; there were applications made to Nathaniel Goodridge over and over again about money, by Mr. Underwood several times, and there is a letter from Mr. Goodridge to Underwood where he writes thus,

"I received a few lines

"from a friend of yours, and wish I had

"it in my power to help you in your distress,

"but you have called upon me so often

"that I have distressed myself, (till this transaction Mr. Underwood knew no more of Goodridge than I do, he goes on)

"I am astonished at your sending to

"me now, and because I have not trouble

"enough of my own, I must be teazed

"with Mr. Underwood's affairs, and I

"promised you, and I believe Mr. U.

"thinks little about it, when you have

"got your turns served; remember the

"last time when your turn was served

"it was all well, but as to promises they

"are all forgot." This he writes to her whom he had not written to on any other transaction than this business. Gentlemen, I shall also prove to you, that Mr. Underwood applied to Mr. Todd, a person who dealt in spiritous liquors, to advance him money, which Mr. Todd could not or did not chuse to do, when he would have pledged this receipt for the bond, as a sort of security for the money, and this long before any discovery had been made: now, you see all these transactions passed in the year 1783, and confirms his story, they being antecedent to the 18th of December 1784, when he went before Sir Sampson Wright, and made this voluntary confession, from some motive that I cannot state to you, no matter what; whatever therefore his character may be, he is certainly such an accomplice in this iniquity, that tho' he could prove it extremely strong, you would not attend much I am sure to his story, but coupled with these antecedent circumstances, you will learn what the real transaction was, and this circumstance as well as the others you will not forget, namely, the application for a witness on the 23d of January, and the application to Eames on the 26th;

all clearly shew that these things had not existed in the testator's mind; for Slack was the only person he had the least idea of as is represented: I conclude, therefore, gentlemen, with saying that long as this narration has been, I shall not mind my own trouble at all, if the case is made plain to you, you will therefore judge where the probability is, that this man so circumstanced, and in the situation I have stated him, should ever make that will on the 14th of December: that is for you to try; if he had made it the 23d of January, and dated it the 14th of December; it would be equally a forgery, though the testator himself might have executed it on the 23d of January, and for this plain reason, the antedating it, and executing it when a man might be incapable; that would therefore have been, without all controversy, as much a fabrication and forgery, as the present. Gentlemen, I will call these witnesses before you, beginning with Mr. Mumford, the former attorney; as it seems to be my Lord's wish and directions, that it should be so, to bring the circumstances before the story of Underwood; and it will be all so connected, and so supported, that there can be no doubt in any man's mind of the truth of Underwood's story, and it can hardly then be said, that a man in the situation of Underwood would come in this last stage and give this account, if it was not the force of truth that extorted it from him: the whole will be left to you, it will be made as short as can be; if I was to call the whole train of witnesses, it would lengthen this trial much more, for I know not how many score there are, but I told you before, I paid little or no regard to declarations, but to the acts of a man; we will, therefore, in as short a manner as possible, consistent with justice, lay this extraordinary case before you.


I am an attorney in Arundel-street, in the Strand, I knew Mr. Thomas Sawtell , on Saffron-hill, in the year 1780, I was recommended to him on the death of Mr. Falkner, his late attorney, he sent to me to alter his will, that was in November 1780, I did alter his will, which was executed in due form of law.

Did he ever employ you afterwards? - He did.

How often? - With respect to making his will twice; in February 1782, I prepared another will for him, and another on the 4th of November, 1782, that was the last will, the first was destroyed, that was the will of November, 1780, and the one in February, they were destroyed in my presence.

Have you the instructions for that will in the year 1782? - Certainly not, they were very immaterial.

Mr. Erskine. You are an attorney? - Yes.

Did not you take instructions from the testator for the alterations of his will? - I certainly did, but I do not know where they are.

Did you make any draught? - Yes, that will be produced.

With respect to November, 1780, did you make no draught of that? - No.

Did you take down no instructions in writing? - I cannot remember.

You must tell me one way or the other, whether in November, 1780, when you made this gentleman's will, you took any instructions in writing? - They were merely trifling.

Will you swear that you never had any instructions or any thing in writing of the will of November, 1780? - Certainly not.

You never had? - Not to the best of my remembrance, I had not.

Have you searched for if? - A considerable time ago.

Have you made a recent search to attend this trial? - I have not.

Then, Sir, it seems to me rather strange that you cannot swear you have none subsequent? - I do not recollect I had any instructions in writing, about the will of 1780.

I ask you, if you ever had any instructions in writing from the testator? - I verily believe I had not them in writing.

If you verily believe that, you must have believed it when it was still more recent; did you search for it, Sir? - I do not say I

searched for it; I searched for all papers generally.

Then you mean to say you have not any such paper that you can prove to the Court, concerning November, 1780? - No, Sir, none.

Mr. Silvester. Now tell us concerning that will of 1780. - Mr. Daniel Slack was the residuary legatee, and the sole executor in the will that I saw, which was made before that which was prepared by Mr. Falkner.

The second will was in January, 1782? - Yes.

Had you the instructions for that will? - No, I had not, I drew a draught of that will, I believe it is in the Commons.

Mr. Erskine. This you consider now as a draught of the will itself, for the instructions are lost you say; in February, 1782, there was a draught of the will, which was taken from some preceding instructions? - Yes, from his former will.

Then when you came to make another will, in November, 1782, that very draught was altered? - Yes.

Then that which is now in the Commons, and which is now called for, is, in fact now, the draught of the will in November, 1782? - Yes, but I believe there may be some little inaccuracy, which I can explain.

Let me understand you; the draught of the will of February, 1782, when you came to make another will in November, 1782; you made it by altering the will of February, 1782? - Yes.

Then that paper in February becomes the draught of November, 1782, though it was originally the draught of February, 1782? - Certainly it is.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I object to this being read, either as the draught of February or of November.

Sir Thomas Davenport . The draught of February, 1782, when you made the will in November, 1782, was, as I understand you, the draught upon which the alterations were made? - Yes.

Was that will read to the testator? - Yes.

Are the alterations for November, 1782, now visible on the face of that draught? - I do not know that they are.

Then look and point them out? - I do not think that I can do so, but I can very near describe them.

Was the draught, as it now stands, read over to the testator, prior to his making the will in 1782?

Mr. Erskine. Sir Thomas, I must beg your pardon, I must really interfere.

Sir T. Davenport. Was any draught read to the testator, prior to his making the will in November, 1782? - Yes, I believe there was.

Was that draught read to the testator, before he made the will of November, 1782? - I cannot answer that.

Mr. Erskine. That would not alter my objection in the least.

Court. The objection is this, that this being altered, and he not being able to distinguish the alterations that stood originally, he cannot now read it as the draught in February; now you may see how far you can read it as the draught of November.

Sir T. Davenport. Was any draught read to the testator before he executed the will of November, 1782? - If any draught was read, it was that; but no doubt he was made acquainted with the contents.

Do you believe any draught was read to him, in November, 1782? - I do not know whether the draught was, but the original will was, from which that is copied? -

Then is this a copy of the original will? - Most certainly it is.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I submit this cannot be given, as evidence of a draught either in February or November.

Court. Certainly not, you cannot produce the draught before you shew that the original is destroyed.

ROBERT SLACK sworn on the Voire Dire.

Court. As this is a long trial, if the prisoners wish to be accommodated with chairs, they may.

(Two chairs brought into the bar.)

In this supposed will that Mr. Sawtell is supposed to have executed, you was set down for a legacy of one thousand pounds? - I was.

You know there is a suit in the Commons, in which two wills are in contest; one the 14th of November, 1782, and another of a subsequent date; you are a legatee in both these wills? - Yes.

Mr. Pigott. I submit, my Lord, it is enough, that he has an interest.

Sir T. Davenport. Have you a release? - I have.

Mr. Pigott. You released? - I have

You have no expectations of receiving the money? - No, Sir.

No part of it? - No.

You have entered into no private agreement about it? - I never mentioned it to any body.

That will not do for me? - My expectations may be upon my brother, but never while he lives as I know of, my brother has no children, and there is no relation but me.

Have you no expectation of receiving from your brother, or from any other person on his behalf, any part of that legacy? - No, Sir; are you satisfied now.

Now Sir, observe, have you entered into no stipulation with any person about it? - I never mentioned it to any person, but what I said was, I had given one thousand pounds away; the proctor mentioned it to me, and I said, I would do it immediately.

You made no stipulation at all? - Not the least.

Mr. Fielding. This is a very uncommon examination after a release.

Mr. Pigott. In answering one of my questions, you used the word expectation from your brother? - My expectations are from him as next of kin and heir at law.

Court. Heir at law is no objection, that does not disqualify, an heir at law may be a witness, but a remainder man cannot.

(The release read by the Clerk of the Arraigns, signed Robert Slack .

"Know all men by these presents, that I Robert Slack , legatee in the will of Thomas Sawtell, dated the 14th of November, 1782, have remised, &c. to Daniel Slack , of Newgate-street, London, cotton merchant, his heirs," &c.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, that is no release of this legacy; my objection is, he states himself to be a legatee in the will of Mr. Sawtell, and then goes on to release in general terms, but he does not specially release this legacy; now I humbly contend this legacy is no action, nor cause of action, it is a claim to which the executors must consent, and it ought to be sufficiently released by name.

Mr. Pigott. My Lord, I say this release, which is a release of all debts and demands due from Daniel Slack to Robert Slack , upon the day of the execution thereof, would be no bar to a claim by a bill in equity, and there is not a doubt in law, but it is an equitable claim, upon which he may go into the Court of Chancery whenever he pleases, and to which this would be no bar; and I beg leave to put this question, whether any man in business ever heard of a release of a legacy, by filling up a common blank release.

Mr. Shepherd. At the time that release was executed, he certainly had no claim on his brother, for Daniel Slack does not appear at present to be the executor of that will, for there is no probate granted, the usual way of doing business will certainly have some weight, nobody yet ever saw such a release without the legacy being released specifically, he released something which did not exist, it depends on executors having effects, it depends on the executor's assent; the only thing in the release is simply, that he chooses to call himself a legatee, he does not call his brother Daniel executor.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord as counsel in this case, in the situation in which I stand, I certainly might spare myself the trouble of arguing this point, because it seems to me to be too clear to argue; but as there is such a great phalanx on the other side, I shall throw in my mite upon this question; and I beg leave to observe, how does this man release his brother? not even in the character of executor; but if he did,

it is a character that does not belong to him, he is not executor, there is a litigation in the Commons, in the result of which we say it will not prove that he is so: My Lord, suppose the executor may renounce, the execution will then be committed to the next of kin, he is not in a situation to accept of that release; and your Lordship knows there must be somebody in esse, capable of accepting and assenting to the release; now, my Lord, is Mr. Slack such a person? is he the executor of that will of Mr. Sawtell's? there is no such will known to any body, which the Commons have assented to as a true will, and there is no probate of any such will: suppose the next of kin should, upon the renunciation of this gentleman, Mr. Slack, have the probate, would this be a bar as against the next of kin, why he would say, though I will not bring an action against my brother, yet when it is committed to other persons, I will bring an action; would this be a bar to that action? now observe what does he release? he releases all debts and claims now actually due, all claims and rights of action now vested in him, he releases nothing which he at present possesses, and this cannot be a bar to any future interest he may acquire.

Court. There is nothing in this objection, it is said this would not be a good release in equity, the person states himself to be a legatee, the general words are sufficient, all suits in equity, quarrels, &c. My Lord Coke says quarrels are the same as querula, the most comprehensive word whatever.

SIMON ALLEN sworn on the Voire Dire.

This is my hand-writing, I saw it executed, it is a release in the Commons.

ROBERT SLACK sworn in Chief.

I knew the deceased Sawtell seven years, I have lived in intimacy with him the last three years, my brother was in a degree of intimacy, I do not think there was hardly a day passed but what they saw each other, particularly as Mr. Sawtell not having much to do, he came there almost every day, he was rather infirm and could not go out without somebody to attend him, he used to go to a particular friend to see the news-papers, which I used to read to him, I saw him for the last three years, almost every day.

There did subsist a great intimacy between the gentleman at the bar, Nathaniel Goodridge , and him; when he went up the hill he used to call and see Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge , I dare say Mr. Sawtell knew Leonard Goodridge , and was acquainted with Evans.

Where did Sawtell live at the time of his death? - In Brook-street, he removed there in January, about twelve months before his death.

Do you know any thing of the manner in which he used to keep his treasure or his papers? - That was in an iron chest in a closet, close to his papers, a very large chest, it had only one lock, I fancy it was near a yard over, it was better than three quarters, I do not know what became of that chest.

Your brother did not take it? - No, Sir, that I verily believe he did not.

How many servants had Mr. Sawtell? - He had a man and a maid servant.

What were their names? - Edward Price and Elizabeth Spraggs ; the maid is dead, they had lived with him all the time I knew him, which was seven years.

Do you know the confidence that Sawtell placed in Price? - Very great indeed, he lived with him to the day of his death; some time previous to his death he was infirm.

Was it a custom that his servant used to sit up with him on a night? - No, Sir, not till he was very ill; I sat up with him for about a month, till within three nights of his death.

When did he die? - He died the 9th of February, 1783.

You was saying something of three days preceding his death? - Yes.

Did you set up with him the night of his death? - No, Sir, Nathaniel Goodridge

did, three days before his death I might set up with him.

Now Mr. Slack having this iron chest, did you ever see him go to it? - Not himself, he could not open it.

Did it ever happen to you to perform this office for him? - Very often, two or three times a week, I looked into it the very day before his death.

Where did you get the key from then? - My brother opened it himself, he had the key by two powers of attorney to transact his business, I understood they were given the beginning of November.

When was it that you understood your brother was first in possession of the key of this iron chest? - My brother had one key.

Mr. Erskine. You are not to state what your brother said to you? - I am not saying what he said to me, I say that for three years before Mr. Sawtell's death, Mr. Sawtell placed that confidence in him, that he let him have a key of the iron chest.

BENJAMIN HUTTON sworn on the Voire Dire.

( Looks at two Powers of Attorney.)

Is that your hand? - Yes.

Did you see these two powers of attorney executed? - Yes.

(Read, being a Letter of Attorney to receive dividends, signed Thomas Sawtell to Daniel Slack , dated December 15, 1782. Witness, William Wilkinson , Benjamin Hutton .

Mr. Silvester. How long did you know Mr. Sawtell? - A little time before the year 1779, I cannot recollect the particular time.

Did you know Mr. Daniel Slack ? - Yes.

Was there any intimacy between Mr. Sawtell and Mr. Slack? - Yes, very great.

Mr. Fielding to Robert Slack . Did you know the wife of Nathaniel Goodridge ? - Yes, perfectly well.

What relation was she to Sawtell? - I believe she was his wife's niece.

Do you know of any money at any time, given to her by Mr. Sawtell? - At the time of the marriage he told me he gave her one hundred and fifty pounds, or something thereabouts, he said she owed him at the time sixteen years rent he was very glad she was going to be married, and forgave her the rent, for he was glad she was going to be married, as he said that he should get rid of a plague.

When was it she married? - I cannot recollect.

Do you know of any application made at any time after that, either by Nathaniel Goodridge or his wife to Mr. Sawtell for assistance, and what was Mr. Sawtell's behaviour on that occasion? - I remember they made application for five pounds to put out the child apprentice, which I gave to Mrs. Goodridge, I know of no application of Nathaniel's only by hearsay.

Do you know any thing of a Mr. Underwood? - I have seen him three or four times, I knew him in the Fleet prison, I did not know any thing of him prior to the death of Mr. Sawtell, I never heard Mr. Sawtell mention his name.

I believe you know something of the making that first will which is said to be lost? - I knew Mr. Sawtell to make five, and I think I was at the execution of the last.

You remember the will before the 4th of November, the first of the three? - Yes, that was made, I think, the latter end of the year, 1780, in November, I was present and put it into the chest by the desire of Mr. Sawtell.

Were you privy to the contents of that will? - I heard it read over.

Mr. Erskine. Did you read it yourself? - No, it was read to the testator and executed.

Does your memory serve you to speak of what Mr. Mumford read, purporting to be the will of Thomas Sawtell ? - Daniel Slack was executor and residuary legatee.

Mr. Fielding. Was Mr. Sawtell at that time so infirm as not to be able to open the iron chest himself? - He could not.

Do you remember any thing of the second will? - Yes, in the beginning of January, 1782, I think it was Mrs. Sawtell, that is his brother's widow, died, he had some money came to him, and he altered his will. That will was read over to Mr. Sawtell in my presence, Daniel Slack was executor and residuary legatee.

Was there any notice taken of the Goodridges in that will? - No.

Was there any notice taken of the Goodridges in the will preceding that? - No.

Do you remember any legacy being left to Edward Price the servant? - Yes, five hundred pounds, in November, 1780, I think he had not so much.

Was there any mention about a will after this? - Yes.

When was that? - Why, I fancy the 1st of November.

Into what length did this conversation go?

Mr. Erskine. I object to this conversation unless you can prove the execution of an intention.

Court. You may always shew the testator's kindness to particular persons. - A few months before the 4th of November, before the execution of that will, Mr. Sawtell assigned over some houses with a strange attorney.

Mr. Pigott. Was you present at this, Sir? - I will tell you presently.

No, you must tell me first? - I was present at the assignment of a policy at the Insurance office.

For what, and to whom? - It was an assignment in the Fire Office.

Court. Did the testator declare his reason? - He did.

You must not say what you imagine to be his reason however well-founded that may be, but what the testator declared to be his reason? - He assigned over these houses because one man never paid his rent and the other Nathaniel Goodridge lived in, the leases were almost expired, the testator declared the reason of his altering his will was, that he was affraid he had signed some paper that probably might be a will; says he, Nathaniel Goodridge might as well have taken my word, for I may have signed something that might have been a will; says he, what does he bring so many papers to me to sign for, probably I may have signed something I should not, I will alter my will, says he, if it be only to alter the date; I saw him sign the assignment of the policy.

Did he write his name to the instrument? - Yes, he did.

At what time was this? - That was about two months or six weeks before the 4th of November, I cannot speak to the time, it might be later or sooner, he made the declaration about the 1st of November, and he desired me to bring Mr. Mumford, and bring the will out of the iron chest, Mr. Mumford read the will over to him, and he said, it might be just as it was, and to bring it to him in a day or two.

Did you ever know that Mr. Sawtell made a mark instead of signing his name? - Never, Sir, he always said, Bob, where must I write it? and then he put his name directly, I never knew him a put mark.

The continuation of this Trial in the next Part which will be published in few Days.

THE TRIAL OF Nathaniel Goodridge , Leonard Goodridge , and James Evans ; FOR FORGING THE WILL OF Mr. THOMAS SAWTELL , deceased: WHO WERE TRIED AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On SATURDAY, the 14th of JANUARY, 1786.




Printed for E. HODGSON (the Proprietor) And Sold by J. WALMSLAY, No. 35, Chancery Lane, and S. BLADON, No. 13, Pater-noster Row.


Continuation of the Trial of Nathaniel Goodridge , Leonard Goodridge , and John Evans .

How soon was it that you had seen him write before his death? - I never saw him write after the 4th of November, I cannot be positive.

(The two powers of attorney banded to the Jury.)

When did Mr. Sawtell chuse to do his business? - He was very impatient to do his business, if it was very particular, by ten o'clock in the morning.

I believe either from infirmity or habit, he was incapable of doing business after dinner? - He never chose it, he was not incapable, but he liked to have his pint of porter after dinner.

The intimacy subsisted between your brother and him to his death? - I saw him on Saturday night preceding his death about eight, I had no conversation with him about that, the-last conversation I had with him, was very little for a week or so before his death, only shaking hands with him, and sitting with him a little.

Do you believe from the state of Mr. Sawtell's body, that he himself could have got into this iron chest, without the assistance of yourself or some other person? - For three months before his death, he was not able to lift the lid of the iron chest up, nor for twelve months before his death; on the 15th of December I went to his house, and enquired for him, he was not at home, I went there because I had no idea he was capable of going out, on the 15th of December I did not see him.

Do you know how the will on the 4th of November was inclosed? - It was wrapped up, and sealed with his seal, a candle in a candlestick, and a circle, in which spermaceti was wrote.

Describe the cover? - I think it was put up corner ways, I put it into the iron chest myself.

Mr. Pigott. Mr. Slack, did I understand you to say that the day before this poor man's death, your brother took the will out of his iron chest? - The day before the death of Mr. Sawtell, I saw it in the iron chest, at least I thought it was there, I saw the cover, and had it in my hand.

Did you go to the chest with your brother? - My brother was at the chest then, I went to it and took up the paper.

Did you take that paper? - I understood so.

The day before you was at the chest, and saw that paper? - Yes.

You understood afterwards your brother took it out? - I did.

Who did you understand it from? - I never saw my brother till the next morning, then my brother told me that he had taken out the covers, and there was only two blank sheets of paper.

Now, that cover which you supposed to contain the last will of the testator, your brother told you he had taken out of the chest, did not your brother tell you distinctly, that he took out that cover the day before the man died? - I think he did, I do not know whether he took it out the day before or that same morning.

Your brother went with you to the chest the day before his death? - Yes.

For what purpose did he go? - He had

a power of attorney to do business, I did not ask him.

You do not know what he went for? - I do not think he went for the purpose of taking out the will at that time, he did not tell me, I was with him, there is a little closet close by the parlour.

What were you both doing there? - I cannot recollect what he was doing.

What did you go to the chest for? - Accidentally, talking to him I went to the chest, and I saw it lay, and I took it up, and laid it down again.

Were not you present at Daniel Slack 's examination before the Magistrates? - No, I was not, I was at Manchester, I never saw his examination, I never was present at any examination of his concerning that paper.

You have told us that for two or three months before the death of Sawtell, he was not able to lift the lid of that chest up? - No, Sir.

It was very large? - Yes.

It required some strength to lift it, did not it? - Yes.

Had not Sawtell the key? - Yes.

Was there no method by which he could get at any thing in that chest? - I do not know, except it could come through the key-hole.

Why it is very easy for me to give the key to another person, then it does not jump through the key-hole you know; I may perhaps get at something that is in the chest, without its getting through the key-hole to me? - Certainly, Sir.

You have been examined in the Commons, and there you have given an account of the conversation that passed before Sawtell, relative to the supposed will of the 14th of November, you have stated that the testator declared to you, that he had signed papers, and that he might have signed a will, and that therefore he would make another will? - Yes.

Now, I have had the curiosity to turn to your examination, and I will read it to you that I may not misquote it, that the leonent (whom I take to be Robert Slack ) thereupon remarking, that perhaps among the rest, they might have brought Mr. Sawtell a will to sign? - Very well, Sir.

Do I read right or not? - I do not know what my deposition was entirely.

Do you fancy it is to be got rid of in that way; when I am stating this, that to day you have said here upon your oath, that the tastator in declaring his reasons for making a will, told you, that he might have signed a will brought him by Nathaniel Goodridge ? - We talked all about this paper, and we might both mention it, I cannot say whether I suggested it first, he was dubious and I was fearful.

All I want to fix is this, that so far from this man having declared that as a reason to you, you yourself was the first person that suggested it? - It certainly was the reason.

Now, then having sworn in these two different ways, whether the suggestion of his having made a will did not proceed from you, and not from the testator Sawtell? - I do not know, we were talking of it a long while at the King's Arms, in Holborn.

I say upon your oath, Sir, who began the conversation first? - He said probably he might have brought a will.

But I want to know who first suggested that circumstance? - Then I say, I posibly might; we had a conversation of an hour and half, and who suggested it at first, I cannot say, but I know that was the reason.

You see, Sir, it is thus, that the deponent ( Robert Slack ) thereupon remarking; now, I ask you as an honest man in the face of this audience, whether you did not first suggest to Mr. Sawtell, that they might have brought him a will; now, answer that as you please? - The conversation began about the Goodridges bringing so many papers, but whether it might or not, I cannot say.

Court. Do you believe that you did? - Probably I might.

Do you rather believe you did? - I might.

You said something about a strange attorney who was with Sawtell, when he executed those deeds you have mentioned; be so good as to tell me who that strange attorney was? - I do not know; the attorney at the execution of the assignment of the policy, I believe was Mr. Gregory.

You was a witness to it? - I think I was.

Look at that paper, you are a witness to it? - Yes.

Did you take that to be a will? - No, Sir.

You saw Mr. Sawtell execute this? - Yes.

Was it executed when it bore date? - I think it was.

Was it read over to him by Mr. Gregory? - I think it it was.

Did not you know perfectly well, that Mr. Gregory was the attorney for the Goodridge's? - I never knew Mr. Gregory, not never saw him till then, I never heard his name mentioned.

Who recommended Mr. Mumford? - I did, after Mr. Falkner's death.

You say Mrs. Goodridge was a niece to the wife of Mr. Sawtell? - She was.

You say Mr. Sawtell said he was very glad to get rid of a plague? - Yes.

That year, in August 1782, he was giving them houses? - I understood he was not giving them at all, he was to receive the rents before the leases were out, that is what he understood I am sure.

Did you ever happen to hear that Mrs. Goodridge was the natural daughter of Mr. Sawtell? - I never heard that.

Never by accident? - No.

Perhaps it is an invention of mine just now occurred? - I never heard it.

You and your brother kept a pretty constant watch on Sawtell? - We were pretty constantly with him, if I was not with him he was very angry with me, probably once a week I might spend an evening with him.

Because in your original examination, you said, you and your brother were constantly with him? - I generally called upon him every day.

Now, as far as you could make it consistent to your respective conveniences, you did look sharp after this man? - My brother was there generally every day.

May be your brother is a pretty near relation to Mr. Sawtell? - Not that I heard of.

May be you are a relation to him? - I never understood that either my brother or me were relations to him.

Mr. Fielding. The cover that you took out of the box with your brother the day before his death, was that the cover you put into the chest on the 4th of November? - It was.

Had it a sufficient mark about it, according to the best of your opinion, so as to enable you to say it was the same? - It certainly was.

Now, as to the conversation that took place between you and Mr. Sawtell, does your memory serve you sufficiently to say, whether you was the man that first suggested that a will might come among the papers, or he to you? - Upon my word, the conversation lasted so long, I cannot say.

Who was it that was there upon that occasion? - I do not know.

Was he the attorney employed by Sawtell? - No, Sir, I heard that he did Mr. Goodridge's business.

What did Sawtell say about the houses? - He said they were assigned over to Nathaniel Goodridge , for the purpose of his having them after Sawtell's lease was out, there was but a few years to come, the quarter day after Sawtell went on purpose to recommend Mr. Goodridge to have them,

What was the value of this assignment? - I do not know, I have heard it was upwards of forty pounds a year, it was not communicated to me till I saw Mr. Gregory that morning; Mr. Sawtell, said, he was vexed I had not been there the time before, when he signed the other.

JOHN SHAW sworn in Chief.

I belong to the Prerogative-office, in Doctors Commons, I produce the will which the prisoner brought, I do not know who produced it there, I bring it from the register.


I am an assistant to Mr. Jenner, who is the Proctor concerned for the persons named in this will.

Look at that? - This purports to be the will which was brought into Mr. Jenner's office, on the 10th of February, by Nathaniel Goodridge and William Hunter , the executors, who were attended by Mr. Gregory their attorney, they came into Mr. Jenner's office to prove this will.

Is that the same will? - Yes, I know it by the Jurata.

Were they all present? - Yes, Nathaniel Goodridge , one of the prisoners attended as executor, whether his hand delivered it, I cannot say.

Were they sworn, Sir? - I see I have wrote the Jurata, and it appears by the signature of the Surrogate, but I do not remember whether I attended them.

Did you read it to them? - No.

Did you see him sign it? - I do not recollect that.

You know the Surrogate's hand writing? - Yes.

Is that it? - Yes.

Mr. Silvester. Now, I produce that paper.

Mr. Erskine. What is it? - The will produced by Nathaniel Goodridge .

Mr. Erskine. I apprehend it is premature upon an indictment for forgery to read the very instrument, upon which the indictment proceeds, unless they can establish some fact or other, which fixes the prisoner with it.

Court. Last night we did it, we called a man who received a bill from the prisoner, then you may call a man to say it is not his hand writing.

Mr. Erskine. This is the very will that is charged as the forgery on this indictment I apprehend that before you can read this will, you must shew by some sort of evidence fit to go to the Jury, that they are the forgers of the will.

Court. No, their producing the will, lays the burthen upon them to shew it is not a forgery; suppose it does not bear the resemblance of the testator's hand writing, how can it be seen unless it is read.

Mr. Erskine. I submit, my Lord, that you are not to taint the minds of the Jury with hearing the instrument read, unless you shew that the thing is in fact forged, no matter by whom; my objection is, you should not read this till you have given proper cause to the Jury and the Court, to believe this is a forged instrument.

Court. How does the reading it convey a prejudice that it is forged, it conveys a contrary idea; they admit upon the face of it, it is a good will, then they avoid it by saying, though it does appear to you upon the face of it, yet we take take upon ourselves to prove it is a bad will.

Mr. Erskine. Suppose an action was brought on any instrument, the authority of it must be proved before it is read, the jit of this indictment is the point of authority.

Court. Here is an instrument coming from the hands of one of the prisoners, it is read to shew, not that it is not the will, but I shall take it as it appears to be, till it is shewn to the contrary.

Mr. Erskine. Then we have no objection.

(The will read as in the indictment, and examined by the record.)


Sir T. Davenport Was you servant to Mr. Sawtell? - Yes.

How long? - About thirteen or fourteen years.

Did you live with him at the time of his death? - Yes.

Do you remember when that happened, on what day? - The 9th of February, 1783.

Was you in the house with him to his death? - Yes.

What other servants had he? - A maid servant, Elizabeth Spraggs , she is dead; I know the prisoners James Evans and Nathaniel Goodridge .

Did you see them at any time at your master's house, both or either of them, in the December before he died? - Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge used to be there often.

Did he set up at nights with the prisoner after you and your fellow servant went to bed? - Yes, Sir, many nights.

Do you happen to remember the first? - the 14th of December, 1782.

Was your late master at home or did he go out on the 15th of December? - The next day he went to Newgate-street and dined there.

Did you go with him? - Yes.

At that time was he able to write? - That I cannot tell.

But by his state of health I mean? - I suppose he could, he could handle a knife and fork.

On this 14th of December, do you happen to remember what time he went to bed? - I put him to bed, but I cannot tell the time.

I do not ask you as to a quarter of an hour or half an hour? - He generally used to go to bed, at that time, about nine, sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

Did you that night see anybody or hear anybody in the house? - No, nobody but what I left, I left Mr. Goodridge to set up with him.

You remember an iron chest that your master had? - Yes.

Do you remember what keys there were to it? - The key of the iron chest wasby itself.

Was there more than one key do you know? - There were two, Mr. Slack of Newgate-street had the one, and the other was in my master's pocket.

Do you happen to remember where that key that was at home was on the 14th of December? - Yes.

Where was it then? - On the 14th of December, before anybody came into the house, I took care of all the keys out of my master's pocket, and put them in my own pockets, and I put my breeches under my head all that night; the next morning Mr. Slack came, and I desired him to take care that every thing was clear, for I had done with every thing, I told him Mr. Goodridge had set up the night before and then I had nothing to do but to take care of my master.

Then during his illness and at any time before his death, do you remember his saying any thing to you if he was taken ill, worse than ordinary, what you was to do? - Yes.

What was that? - When anything rendered him ill, or incapable of his own business, I was to go to Mr. Slack, of Newgate-street, for he was the man that took care of his property.

Now in what stage of his illness had you received these instructions from him? - I had these instructions for eight or nine years, ever since Mr. Slack was executor always, I do not recollect that he gave me any orders to fetch Mr. Slack in any part of his illness.

Do you remember any particular day or night that he so sent or ordered you? - I do not recollect.

Do you remember any thing that he said about Mr. Slack or about yourself? - He always told me Mr. Slack was to pay me my legacy.

Now, do you remember any time before his death that he said any thing particular to you? - Yes, I remember three days before he died, I went to him, and he opened his eyes and looked at me, and asked me how I did, and I made him answer very well, I hoped he was the same, or I wished he was better, or something of that kind, and he desired me to pray for him for he was not for this world, and he hoped Mr. Slack would pay me what he had left me; that was all he said, it was the last sensible word he spoke to me, that was on Thursday, the 6th of February, he died on the Sunday after that.

Now, during the time that you lived

there, do you remember who had access to his money and all the valuables that were in this iron chest besides himself? - Nobody besides himself, but Mr. Slack, or somebody by his directions.

Could he himself open that iron chest within a month or two of his death? - I do not think he could open it since the iron chest was in his possession.

How long had he had it? - The brother died in 1777, then directly after that the iron chest came into his house.

Now, when he did go to it he took people always to assist him? - When he went to the iron chest he always called one of the men to help him, I have helped him many times.

Has Robert Slack ever? - Robert Slack has many times, he had the management of his business the last year.

Do you remember whether Daniel Slack used to go to the iron chest? - Very frequently.

Do you remember Nathaniel Goodridge ever going with him to the iron chest, or having any thing to do with a key of it by his order or direction? - Yes.

When? - Once or twice.

Then he knew there was an iron chest? - Yes.

You have mentioned that he had told you within three days, of his death that Mr. Slack was to pay you your legacy; did he at any time during his illness, or at any other time, tell you that Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge was to pay you the legacy?

Mr. Erskine. That is a strange way of examining your own witness, you should ask him what he said, not put words in his mouth.

Did you ever see Underwood at your master's? - Never, the first time I saw him was at Bow-street, about a twelve month after his death, it was at the examination.

Do you know Leonard Goodridge ? - I have seen him since my master's death, he never was at my master's house that I know of.

Did you ever see Evans there? - Yes, many times.

Have you ever seen your master write? - Yes, many times.

Did you ever see him in his life make a mark instead of writing his name? - No, never in my life.


Examined by Mr. Silvester.

I am a carpenter, I know the prisoners, the two Goodridge's are undertakers.

What is Evans? - He was a publican.

Was you employed by either of the two undertakers, and when? - Yes, I was employed by Nathaniel Goodridge .

In what capacity? - As a carpenter.

When was you so employed? - In the year 1782.

Do you know a man of the name of Underwood? - Yes.

What is he? - I always took him to be a lawyer or something in that way.

Did you at any time see him together with either of the Goodridges? - Yes, Sir, I have.

When? - I saw Mr. Underwood with Nathaniel Goodridge about a fortnight before the death of Mr. Sawtell.

Where did you see him? - At Mr. Goodridge's shop in Fleet-street.

What did you see this man employed about in the presence of the Goodridge's? - He was employed in writing.

Who was there besides Nathaniel? - Only Nathaniel and Mr. Underwood, he was there, I think, about three hours.

Had you any opportunity of seeing what he was writing? - Not that evening.

When did you leave work that day? - about nine.

When did you return? - I did not return to the shop any more that night, I came the next morning to my work.

About what hour? - At the usual time, about six o'clock.

Did you go into the compting-house? - Yes.

What did you observe? - I observed a writing, which I thought Mr. Underwood had been writing the night before.

Where was that writing? - In the writing desk.

Had you the curiosity to read it? - Yes.

What was it? - Why it seemed to me to respect a will of Mr. Sawtell's.

What do you mean by seeming to respect a will of Mr. Sawtell's? - There was the name of Sawtell there.

Did you make any other observations? - Yes, Sir, I read some legacies that were in the will.

Can you recollect any of them? - Yes, there was to Mrs. Goodridge a gold watch, chain, and seals, and after her death to her son George Haynes .

Do you recollect any other? - Yes, there was three hundred pounds left to Henry Haynes , and three hundred pounds to George Haynes .

Was it complete? - There were some more legacies which I cannot remember.

What other observations did you make? - No more than that, I do not remember any more.

Was it a complete will, or only part of a will? - No, Sir, I think it was not a whole will, I think it was three parts of the will, down such a sheet as that.

Was it wrote on the other side? - No, Sir, I think there was none on the other side, but to the best of my remembrance, it was three parts of the way down, I think it was about a fortnight before Mr. Sawtell's death, I am not certain to a day or two.

Which way was it written? - Down ways of the paper.

Was there one or two sheets at that time? - I think, to the best of my knowledge, there was but one.

Now, how soon after you had seen this paper and made these observations upon it did you see Underwood again? - The next day in the evening.

Where did you see him? - In the same place, he was there when I left work, and he might have been there for an hour or two before I left work.

Was either of the Goodridges there at that time? - No, Sir, neither of them at that time when I left my work.

Did any thing particular happen before the death of Mr. Sawtell? - Nothing that I can remember.

When you heard of the death of Sawtell, what passed then? - On the morning that Mr. Sawtell died, I was in bed, and I was called up and sent to Mr. Gregory's, at Wax-Chandler's-Hall, with a parcel sealed up.

Who sent you? - Nathaniel Goodridge , after I came home I was sent over, by Mrs. Goodridge to Mr. Underwood's house with a note to acquaint Mr. Underwood of Mr. Sawtell's death, that was the same morning I had been to Mr. Gregory's.

Do you know Mr. Goodridge's handwriting? - I would not wish to swear to it.

Have you seen his hand-writing? - Yes.

Did you ever see him write? - Yes.

Look at this. - I think this to be the hand-writing of Nathaniel Goodridge .

What do you think of the first? - This here I think to be Mr. Goodridge's handwriting.

Do you believe it to be Mr. Goodridge's hand-writing or not? - Yes.

Have you seen him write often? - Yes.

Mr. Garrow. Mr. Dodson, you told my friend just now you would not wish to to swear his hand-writing? - I would not wish to do a wrong thing.

Then you take that to be a wrong thing to swear to his hand-writing? - No, Sir, I said I would not venture to swear to his hand-writing.

Having said you was so well acquainted with it that you would not wish to swear it? - I think I could.

Do you mean to swear you believe it to be his writing? - I believe it to be his handwriting.

How long is it since you left the service of Mr. Goodridge? - I believe it is upwards of a year and a half.

You have been examined in the Commons? - Yes.

Was you examined before Mr. Underwood was examined in Bow-street? - No, Sir.

No, I thought not; you was examined for the first time in August, 1785? - It is a twelve month ago since I was first fetched up.

Was this an open desk that was in the compting-house? - It was a desk with a single flap, there was a lock and key, it was not locked.

So this writing was left open in the desk for all the people to read? - There was nobody had any business in the compting-house except me and Mr. Goodridge.

What more business had you there than Mr. Hill? - He had no business to set down the things.

You was in the constant habit of going to this desk? - Yes.

And so Mr. Goodridge knew that this was your duty; so this paper you have been examined to was left quite open in this desk, where you went to set down things? - Yes.

Upon the death of Sawtell you heard there was a will in favour of the Goodridges? - No, Sir, I never heard any thing of the kind.

Why, do you mean to swear, my man, that you had not heard that? - I have heard as thus, that they took Mr. Sawtell to be a relation to Mrs. Goodridge, and Mrs. Goodridge always called him her uncle.

After Sawtell's death did you not hear there was a will made in their favour? - Yes.

You did not tell anybody that you had seen this will of Mr. Sawtell? - Not till after Elizabeth Nicklin went away from Mr. Goodridge's, when she went away Mrs. Goodridge had her box searched, and she told me of it, and I said to Nicklin if I had thought that Mr. Goodridge would have served you so ill, I would have divulged the secret, as I took it to be a secret.

Did not you add this little sentence to it, if ever I have an opportunity of doing for him I will not lose that opportunity? - That I never said to any body.

Do you know a man of the name of Haswell? - Very well.

Will you swear you never said that to him? - Yes, I will.

Hill was your brother journeyman? - We were about a job that night that was to go to James Evans 's, it was a partition to part off a watchmaker's shop, to make two places to work instead of one.

Do you recollect some business you was doing for Mrs. Close? - That was done afterwards.

Was it a week or a fortnight? - It might be more or less.

Was it within the compass of a month? - I think it was done within the compass of a month, I think it was before Mr. Sawtell's death.

About how long after Underwood came to Goodridge's shop? - I think it was just about that time.

It was putting up some stairs in Gutter-lane? - Yes.

Was Underwood writing all the time? - I do not know, I was not in the shop all the time; he was writing every time I went into the compting-house.

Who was Miss Nicklin? - A fellow servant of mine at Mr. Goodridge's.

She was discharged, and her box searched? - She was not discharged, she discharged herself.

I believe Mr. Goodridge was uncivil enough to search her box? - Yes, she came down to me and told me that, I was at Walton upon Thames, at my father's, I told her, that if so be I had known Mr. Goodridge would have used her so ill as he did, I would have divulged the secret.

Now, what secret was it? - When I saw this will of Mr. Sawtell's I thought it was an improper place to make a will in.

How long was this after the will had been made as you say that she came to you? - A week.

I take it for granted you turned yourself off Mr. Dodson, did not you? - I might have worked longer if I chose, for he offered to raise my wages.

Why, after you told Miss Nicklin this secret, you kept it still a secret? - Yes, I never opened my mouth to Hill about it.

To nobody but Nicklin, did Nicklin tell any body about it? - No, that she did not, I am very clear.

How did the gentlemen find out what you know, do you know that? - Why Mr. Underwood, Sir, sent for me, at least he got people to send for me, when he was taken.

Did you ever tell Underwood that you had looked in the desk? - No Sir, Underwood or somebody told Goodridge when he turned me away, that he had done the worst thing in the world.

How came Underwood to say that? - I do not know.

Did Hill and you drink together that evening? - Yes.

Mr. Silvester. You went into the room several times, while Underwood was busy a writing? - Yes.

(The two papers read.)

"Mr. Underwood debtor to Nathaniel Goodridge, 1782. s. d.

No particular date, lent him 5 5 0

1783. March 6th.

To a Bath stove - 1 18 0

To six beech died chairs 1 11 6

To a mahogany round table 1 4 0

To a steel bowed fender - 0 12 0

To a bedstead - 0 7 6

To a bed and bolster - 1 16 0

To a pair of holland sheets, &c.

The sum total is 23 16 0

Another paper read, signed Nathaniel Goodridge , addressed to Mrs. Underwood.

"I received some few lines from a friend of yours, and I wish I had it in my power to help you in your distress, but you have called on me so often, that I have distressed myself, and I am astonished at you to send to me now, and because I have not trouble enough of my own, I must be teazed with Mr. Underwood's affairs; and as to promises, you, I believe, and Mr. V. thinks but very little about, when you have got your turn served; for remember last time, that when your turn was served, it was all well, but as to the promises, was all forgot.

Nath. Goodridge."

Saffron-hill, Wednesday, 2 o'clock, 1784.


(Examined by Mr. Fielding.)

I knew the deceased Mr. Sawtell, ten or eleven years before his death and up to his death.

Did you know of any intimacies subsisting between him and Mr. Slack? - Yes.

Of what nature were they? - Every day Mr. Sawtell went to Mr. Slack's house, almost.

Do you know either of the prisoners? - Yes.

Which of them? - Two of them.

Did Evans ever make any application, and when, relative to the will of Mr. Sawtell? - Mr. Evans in January, 1783, came to my house in the afternoon, and asked me if I was engaged for the evening, I told him no, he then asked me if I would come to his house that night, about eleven, or between eleven and twelve; there would be an attorney at his house, with some few friends, that would go with me from thence to Mr. Sawtell's house in Brook-street, to be witness to his will.

This you say was in January? - In January.

Do you know what part of January? - About the 23d, I asked him in whose favor the will was made, he said in Mr. Goodridge's.

Which of the Goodridges? - He did not mention any christian name.

Did you know the Goodridges before? - I knew Nathaniel; then I asked him if it would come to the ears of Mr. Slack, in Newgate-street, if I was to be a witness to the will; and he said, he believed in course of time it would, and I was to have a suit of cloaths or a ring, if I would go, and be witness to the will; when I found it was not in favor of Mr. Slack, I told him I hoped he would excuse me, he left me in the afternoon, about three, four, or five, I

cannot particularly speak to the hour, but it was after dinner.

Did you see Evans at any time afterwards, and resume the conversation? - I met him a few days afterwards, and asked him if he had got a witness, and he said, yes, the business was done, nothing else passed.

Mr. Erskine. You are a friend of Mr. Slack's? - Yes.

I believe Mr. Evans knew perfectly well, you were a friend of Mr. Slack's? - No doubt of it.

Mr. Evans did not wish that Mr. Slack should know any thing about this will making, as he said it must come to his ears in time; did you gather from that, that this was to be secret business, and that Evans did not wish Mr. Slack should know it? - I took it to be so.

And therefore he came to you, who was a friend of Slack's, about a thing that Slack was not to know; is not that a very odd thing, that a man, out of five or six hundred thousand people, should six upon you, who he might be sure would go and tell him? - Evans desired me to keep it a secret; I was as much a friend to Evans as to Slack.

So your evidence appears to day; had Mr. Evans no friends, think you, that were not friends to Slack? - I do not know.

I ask you this plain question, if you wanted to do a thing you meant to keep a secret from me, would you go and pitch upon a particular friend of mine, above all others, to tell it to in preference to any strangers; would you now? - I do not know whether I should or not.

Look at the Jury, and tell me whether, as a man of sense, and a man who has not lost his reason, would you, if you wanted to injure me in any such a way, that I should not be able to correct it, would you pitch upon a particular friend of mine, upon one of these gentlemen here; would you be guilty of such an absurdity? - No, not at all, there is no absurdity in it.

Would you do so, would you conduct yourself in that way? - I cannot tell you any more.

But I will make you; would you do so, as a man that is not in bedlam; is Mr. Evans a fool; was Mr. Evans in his right senses; is he a prudent, discreet man? - I suppose so.

Why should you think he is a greater fool than you? - I do not know; I am very happy I acted in the manner I did in the business.

When might it first occur to you, that this was a material circumstance; did not you go to Mr. Slack directly, and say to him, I would have you be on your guard, things are not going on well here, I have refused a suit of cloaths and a ring; did you tell Slack that? - No, Sir.

Then you are not so good a friend to him as you described: when might it first occur to you, to tell any body that you was interested about it? - It was some months before Mr. Slack knew that I knew any thing about it.

When you was sworn in the commons, you said, you lived with him on the most friendly and intimate footing imaginable? - What kept this in my breast, was the intimacy with the prisoner; he is a relation of my wife's.

How long was it before you met him in the street afterwards? - I cannot speak to the time in this business.

Mr. Fielding. Had you any greater degree of friendship or intimacy with Mr. Slack than you had with Evans? - No.

The 23d of January was but a short time before Mr. Sawtell's death? - No.

Do you know in what condition Mr. Sawtell happened to be in at the time of this application? - I cannot say, I never was at the house, any more than what I have heard, Mr. Robert Slack came to me eight or ten months after.


Examined by Sir T. Davenport.

I live at Saffron-hill; I am a tallow-chandler, I succeeded Mr. Sawtell, I know Nathaniel Goodridge , I remember Nathaniel's applying to me about Sawtell's will:

on the 26th of January 1783, Nathaniel Goodridge came to my house, about ten in the morning, he had a shilling's worth of candles; I asked him how Mr. Sawtell did, and he said he had been sitting up that night with him, and he was much as usual; that he had been making all over to him that night by promises, that he was disposed to alter his will in his favour, and desired him to get his attorney for that purpose; but it must be done privately, as Mr. Slack and Atkinson were frequently backwards and forwards; he said he did not know any body that had a greater influence with Ned and Betty than I had, they were the servants of Mr. Sawtell, and begged I would go for that purpose, and speak to them, if they could be entrusted with it, there was opportunity enough, I informed him that I was going to Greenwich that day, and should not see them, he pressed me once or twice, I told him I should be sorry if I should be the instrument of depriving Ned and Betty of what I knew Mr. Sawtell had designed for them, as Mr. Sawtell had frequently informed me that he had left them something handsome, he said whatever their legacy was, it should be doubled, and I should have something handsome, I said d - n their money I will have nothing to do with it: whether I asked him to drink, or whether he asked me to drink, I cannot say, but upon that we went to the house of James Evans , and then had a pint of purl in the bar, and nearly the same conversation was repeated in the presence of me, Goodridge, and Evans, and on Goodridge saying, that Sawtell was disposed to to alter his will, Evans said, get it done, get it done.

Upon that occasion did any thing more pass, or did you part? - I made answer that if Mr. Sawtell was in his senses, and disposed to alter his will, he might do it without the assistance of Ned, Betty, or me; I left them and went to Greenwich; on the Tuesday following, Mrs. Goodridge, Nathaniel's wife, met about, fifty doors from my own house.

Court. That is no evidence, the prisoner was not there? - No.

Did you know Underwood at that time? - No, I never saw him till I saw him at Hicks's Hall, a year ago.

Did you ever know Mr. Sawtell in any part of his life time, make a mark instead of writing his name? - Never in my life.

Mr. Pigott. Mr. Eames, I take this to be the third time that you have given an account upon oath of these transactions? - It is.

You were first examined in the Commons on the 26th of April 1784? - I was.

You were examined on the behalf of the Slack's? - Certainly.

You were examined for the second time on the 9th of August 1785, sixteen months afterwards, is that true? - I believe it is, I cannot recollect the dates.

Do you happen to know that Mr. Underwood gave his information, and was committed upon it? - Yes.

Was Underwood in custody when you was first examined in April 1784? - No.

Was not you present at Underwood's examination? - No.

You heard when he was committed? - Yes.

Was it after you were first examined? - Yes.

Was you or was you not in Bow-street, when Underwood was examined? - No.

Now Mr. Eames, this conversation which you have proved to day, namely between Mr. Goodridge and you, did you on the first examination in the Commons, say one word about that conversation? - I did not.

Is there one word of what you have sworn to day in your first examination? - No.

Not one word? - No.

Were you sworn, Mr. Eames, to swear the whole truth? - Yes.

Court. Are not they examined to interrogatories there?

Sir Thomas. That is the whole.

Mr. Pigott. The second time you was examined was after Underwood was in custody? - I believe it was.

When did you for the first time disclose all this you have been telling to day? - I disclosed it at Doctors Commons, and to other people the day it was spoken.

Who subpoened you to come into the Commons? - Mr. Slack.

Did nobody ask you what you could prove? - I never was asked, to my knowledge, one word by the parties concerned.

Now, observe, you stand here in a public Court of Justice, before a great number of your fellow subjects; how do you reconcile to the character and conduct of an honest man, to have known that transaction, and not discovered it? - It was a matter that hung much upon my spirits, and as such I could not form a resolution to declare it; the examiner at Doctors Commons did not ask me a word about it, it was a matter that I thought would lead to a criminal business, and I was afraid to utter it at first, but when there was a criminal business about it, I knew it must come forward, and I discovered it to Mr. Boucher, of Spital-fields.

Why must it come forward if you did not disclose it? - I had disclosed it to Mr. Boucher; give me leave to inform you, that is with reluctance that I now stand here, and if I had not been subpoened, I should not have stood here.

Between the two examinations, did you tell any person, no matter whom, that you had disclosed all you knew, upon your oath? - No, I never did.

Pray, do you know any man of the name of Lawrence Green? - Yes, I do.

Now, you never happened to tell him what I say? - He must know that I told him all that I knew after the death of Mr. Sawtell, within a few days after the death of Mr. Sawtell, I did tell Mr. Green the very thing.

Did you never say to Mr. Green, I have been examined at the Commons, and there I disclosed all I knew of the matter? - No.

You never did? - I do not know to my knowledge that I did.

Will you swear that you did not, look at the Jury, and either affirm or deny as you chuse? - I never told Lawrence Green; I had said all I knew in Doctors Commons.

Do you know a man of the name of Pollard? - Yes.

Mr. Slack is a friend of yours? - No, he is a great enemy,

Did you ever say to Pollard, that you wished for Mr. Slack to get the day? - I never did.

You never said that if Mr. Slack got the day, you should get an hundred pounds? - I never did, Mr. Slack is no friend of mine, nor ever was.

You do not deal together? - Yes, I do.

What, considerably? - Not very considerably, I deal with him for cotton.

How does it happen, that in this great City of London, you chuse to deal with a man that is your enemy? - You may make as much of that as you please.

This is one of the new phenomena of this cause, I want to have it understood, you say, Daniel Slack is an enemy of yours? - I say, he is no friend of mine.

Yet you deal with him? - Yes.

Why do you chuse to deal with him? - I never left him, I dealt with him all along, it is my pleasure, I chuse to deal with him.

Did you owe Mr. Sawtell any money? - I owed him a hundred pounds, I am not ashamed to own it.

You have not paid that to any body? - No.

You never happened to have any conversation by accident (for if you converse with an enemy, you know it can only be by accident) about this hundred? - No, never, no never, spoke to him on the subject; nor to Pollard nor any one man in the world on that account.


I was servant to Nathaniel Goodridge , I went there in August, 1782, and remained there till July 1784.

How came you to quit the service? - Because I did not like to stay after my mistress died; I saw Underwood and the two Goodridges in the dining room, at Mr. Goodridge's house, writing, about a fortnight before Mr. Sawtell's death, I do not remember seeing them after his death, I cannot say how often before; there was Mr.

Evans came in the course of the day, and went into the room.

Was that the time when Evans and Goodridge were there, that this man Underwood was busy writing? - Yes.

After the death of Mr. Sawtell, do you recollect Underwood's coming to the house? - I do not.

Did you hear any conversation about the will, from either of the prisoners? - No.

Do you recollect what day of the week it was? - It was of a Sunday.

Mr. Sheppard. was you examined at the Commons? - Yes.

Did you say any thing about Leonard Goodridge being in the house, you swore that you could not answer any further to the articles than you did, and then you did not say that Leonard Goodridge was there, do you mean now to swear that Leonard Goodridge was there? - Yes.

You went away in consequence of your mistress's being dead? - Yes.

Your box was searched, I believe, you did not leave the family with any other reason, but because your mistress was dead? - No.

When did your mistress die? - In May.

How came you to go to Mr. Dodson? - I meant to live in that part, I had no place then; I left the family in July, about a fortnight after Dobson left the family, I had lived in that part of the country, and I went down to see an acquaintance.

Your box was searched? - Yes.

I believe you was a little angry about it? - Yes, I was.

Did you mention it to any body? - Yes.

Who to? - To my friends that were in town.

Did you mention it to any body else? - No, Sir, not before I went down.

Who did you mention it to afterwards? - I cannot recollect.

Do you remember mentioning it to Mr. Dobson? - Yes, after I went down.

Did you ever say to any body that you would certainly be revenged on your master for it? - No, Sir, never.

What did Dobson say when you told him of your box being searched? - He did not say any thing, only it was a very wrong thing.

Did not he say that he was very angry, that he would be up with Mr. Goodridge for it, that he would be revenged for it? - That was all he said, that I recollect, he never said any thing about being revenged.

Did he say what he would have done, if he had known it before? - No, Sir, not that I recollect.

Did he say to you that he would have divulged their secret, if he had known they would have used you so ill? - He did not say any thing to me then of it.

How long do you think it was before you went into service? - I cannot say.

How long do you think? - I had no place to go to, or else I should have gone sooner, I w ent to Walton to see an acquaintance, I lived at Weybridge, I went to see an acquaintance of mine in Surry.

How came you to go to Wilton at all? - On purpose to see them, I went to see a fellow servant.

Upon your oath was there any body at Walton besides Dodson that you went to see? - No, Sir.

Now, did not you live under his protection when you was at Walton? - No, Sir.

Did not you lodge at the same house with him? - No, not where he lodged, I lodged at a public house there six weeks as near as I can guess.

Where were your friends? - My acquaintance I had was a fellow servant of mine, that I lived with at Chertsey.

Where was you between the time that you quitted Mr. Goodridge, and went into service again? - I was at Chertsey.

What was the name of the house that you lodged at, at Walton? - At one Mr. Clarke's I lodged when I first went down at Chertsey, Dodson came to me at Chertsey, I sent nobody to him to tell him I was there.

How came he to guess? - He knew I was coming to that part to see my fellow servant I told him I should go down in that part.

How was it you did not go into place, are you married? - Yes.

Who is your husband? - Fisher Dodson.

How long have you been married? - I cannot say to the day.

About what time was it, and where? - I have no right to answer you to that.

Court. There is no harm in your answering to that.

Now, upon your oath, where were you married to Dodson, in what church? - I have no right to tell you that.

Mr. Sheppard. His Lordship has just told you must? - No, Sir, I shall not.

Now after you have been telling that story, do you refuse answering that question before the Jury, and do you expect credit if you do.

Court. You must answer that, where was you married? - I did not come upon that subject.

That does not signify, you must answer that question?

Mr. Garrow. Let Dodson go out of Court till she has answered that question? -

Court. You must answer? - No, Sir, I have no right to answer.

Yes, you must, you are under the obligation to answer? - Not to that subject.

Yes, you are.

Court. Do you mean to stand to it that you are married? - Yes.

Then you must answer it, there can be no harm in answering, if you do not answer, the consequence is, I must commit you to prison? - That is not what I came upon.

Mr. Fielding. My Lord tells you that you must answer, if you are not married confess it.

Court. You must say when you was married and where.

Mr. Recorder. If it is not true that you are married, the sooner you retract it the better.

Court. Were you married in a church? - I shall not answer to that, for I did not come upon that subject.

Are you apprehensive of bringing upon yourself any penalty or punishment by answering? - Not that I know of.

Then there can be no reason for your not answering, if you do not answer I shall commit you presently, if you are not married and you have hastily said that which is not true, you are at liberty to retract it again; are you married? - No, Sir.

Mr. Sheppard. Then I am sure I will not ask you another question.


Do you know Evans? - Yes.

Did you ever see him write, look at that paper and tell us whether you believed that to be his hand-writing? - I cannot pretend to say, it is a good deal like it.

Do you believe it to be his? - I do, but I cannot be sure, I should suppose it to be his, I would not make oath of it.

Mr. Garrow. You say you would not swear to it? - No, I would not.

Who are you? - My name is Benjamin Johnson , I am a carpenter in Talbot-court.

Are not you a tenant of Mr. Evans's? - No, I was.

Had you never any words with Mr. Evans? - None but what I was brought to.

Did not he charge you with defrauding him of a quarter's rent? - He did.

And I believe he summoned you to the Court of Conscience? - He did, I was examined in the Commons.

You said there that you was very much irritated at the treatment of Evans, and that you did not doubt but you expressed great resentment, is that true? - No.

I will read it to you,

"a difference of words happened between him and the said James Evans , and by such his treatment the respondent was irritated, and doubts not but he expressed great resentment of his treatment to him." - I did swear that, it is true that we had words, he certainly used me very ill, I know it now, he recovered the taxes.

You still know that he used you very ill? - Certainly.

You was examined after Mr. Underwood was in custody? - I know nothing of Mr.

Underwood, I cannot say any thing about his affairs.

You was not examined till the 3d of September? - I believe not.

That was after Mr. Underwood was in custody? - It was.

Who applied to you to be examined in the Commons? - Mr. Slack sent some young man with his compliments and would be very glad I would attend there.

Who applied to you to know if you could prove Evans's hand-writing? - The very same person.

Did you see him sign this receipt for rent that you have been talking about? - Yes, I never saw this will till I was examined in the Commons.

You knew at that time that Evans was in custody as having been concerned in forgery? - Yes.

You knew that this piece of paper was to be produced in evidence against him? - Yes, when it came there, not before.

You thought it was material to go there? - Yes.

Then how comes it you swore this in the Commons that you did not know or was not aware that the paper you then proved would materially affect him? - I did not know till then, I swore to the best of my knowledge, I should suppose it was his handwriting, I should suppose within myself, by the manner of the writing, it was his.

When you knew it was to be used against him in a criminal prosecution, how came you to dare to swear that you was not aware it would materially injure him; did you read the receipt that was given to you? - I only looked at the name.


I know Evans.

Is that his hand-writing? - So far as the letter I, and the E, and the scrawl at the bottom, I know no further, he has signed bills for me for fires, when fires happened about the neighbourhood, I am engine keeper of St. Andrews.

Court. Do you believe the whole or do you disbelieve it? - I will not take upon myself to say the whole of it; I believe it is as far as the I and the E, and the scrawl.

What do you mean to say that one half of it is his writing and the other half not? - If I had his hand-writing in my possession I would not swear to it.

What is your belief? - My belief, if I was to go so far as to speak the truth is, that it is his.

Mr. Erskine. Mr. Scott, if I understand you right, you say this, that you have not acquaintance enough with this person's hand-writing to take upon you to swear in such a case as this, that that is his handwriting, and though it may look like it, you have not a firm belief in his hand-writing? - God forbid.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, in the most trumpery civil action in the Court of King's Bench, this would not do.

Court. How often have you seen him write? - I have seen him write very often.

Are you acquainted with his hand-writing? - No further than what I see here, I verily believe that to be his hand-writing, but I will not swear it.

You have seen him write? - Yes.

Are you, by seeing him write, acquainted with his hand-writing? - Yes, I perfectly believe it.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I never yet in my life, in a capital case, heard a man permitted to say that he has a firm belief of his hand-writing.

Do you think this a capital case, and do you know you are examining upon your oath, and will you take upon yourself, in the presence of God and your country, to say you believe that is his hand-writing? - I really believe it is.

Then how came you to distinguish between the letters I and E and all the rest of the letters? - I see they are all joined together.

You said that as far as the letters I and E you thought they looked like it? - In regard to the letter E, he always made the head of the E larger than the bottom.

How long is it since you saw him write? - Eight years ago.

You have not seen this writing which I hold in my hand now since you said you

could not take upon you to say it was the hand-writing, but that the I and the E were, and that you partly believed it; now since you made use of that expression you never have seen the paper, for I have had it in my hand ever since, how came you to swear to the contrary now? - There is the top of the letter I, he always used to make it smaller, I do partly believe it, and I do believe it from my soul; if my child was gone to sea for twenty-eight years I should know him again.

What are you, Sir; I believe you are the man that declared war with the King of France? - That is not the question.

Are you the man? - I am.

How long did you stay in Newgate on that business? - Not at all.

What gaol was it then? - I was two days in the Compter but very well maintained.

You are a thief-taker, are not you, Sir? - Aye, if I saw any man pick your pocket I would take him.

You are so much a thief-taker, that you seem to have caught yourself to day? - No, I think not.

Read, signed James Evans , the 7th of April, 1783.

"Received of Mr. John Underwood a bond, bearing date the same day, of Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge to John Underwood for four hundred pounds, and which bond I hereby promise to deliver to the said John Underwood as soon as the said Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge shall have administration granted to him from the will of Mr. Thomas Sawtell , deceased.

JOHN TODD sworn.

Do you know John Underwood ? - I do.

Look at the receipt and tell us whether you ever saw it in the hands of Underwood.

Mr. Pigott. I object to this, because it is a transaction between the witness and Underwood, neither of the prisoners being present or a party.

Court. The objection to this evidence is merely to lay a foundation to introduce Underwood, first of all it has been proved to you that Underwood wrote this.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord, this evidence cannot at all be received, I say the Court will not do that which is palpably, grossly wrong on the face of it, if they cannot examine into what he has said, can they examine into what he does? he is so bad a witness, he is so little to be credited, that no act of his, no conversation of his, no testimony of his, even on his oath, can be so received as to go to the Jury, they bring this man to shew that this paper was at one time in the hands of Underwood; it would be good evidence if he was to be tried, suppose in a burglary, if any of the prisoners pledge any thing, it is evidence against them: Though there is no doubt about his guilt, the only question is, whether he singly is guilty, or whether he with other persons is guilty, and not the prisoners: he is a man who cannot be received unless most strongly confirmed; if such a witness were permitted to lay his head together with any other person with whom he might advise, to have these things and shew them all about the town, so as to get rid of his own examination, there would be an end of the boasted liberties of the country; I never recollect any such evidence has been received yet.

Court. It has been proved by other witnesses that this is the hand-writing of Evans, the only question is whether this may be received, now I think it is admissible evidence.

Mr. Recorder. I am most clearly of opinion with the learned Judge that this evidence is admissible, the objection is not pointed to the witness, the evidence is this, a paper has been produced in Court, which, by some evidence admissible, no doubt but upon the credit of which the Jury are hereafter to decide; is proved to be in the handwriting of one of the prisoners, then the other evidence is to shew that the paper was at such a time in such a place, and that is to be shewn by the evidence of a witness standing unimpeached.

Did you at any time, and when, see that paper in the hands of Underwood? - I saw the paper in Underwood's hands at the time he was committed to the Fleet, I saw this in

the possession of Mrs. Underwood and him together, in September, 1784.

Mr. Pigott. How happened it that Underwood was in the Fleet Prison? - I do not know what for, but he was committed by my Lord Chancellor.

Did you never hear Underwood say what it was for? - I cannot say, I dare say he would not open his mind to me on the occasion.

Was not it about perjury? - I never meddle with any thing that does not immediately concern me, I do not know.

You recollect you have seen a paper in the hands of Mr. Underwood, the paper subscribed by the name of Evans? - I do.

Did you read it? - I did, and to the best of my knowledge it is the same paper, I do not speak positively.

In your examination in the Commons you said thus,

"This deponent did not then peruse the whole of the said writing, but to the best of his present recollection did observe the name of Evans thereto subscribed." I have asked whether you read the whole of that paper purporting to be a receipt from Evans to Underwood, and you say you did; now I say that previous to this, you were examined in the Commons, and you said, that the deponent did not then peruse the whole of the said writing, but to the best of his present recollection did observe the name of Evans thereto subscribed, but did not observe what his christian name was to it; now observe, you first deny positively that you perused the whole, then you add that to the best of your recollection you saw the name of Evans thereto subscribed, but did not observe what his christian name was; is it true what I have been reading, is your evidence in the Commons? - It is.

Sir T. Davenport. Did you or did you not read enough of it, so as to be sure it is the same? - Yes.

Mr. Pigott. What do you happen to know of this Mr. Underwood? - Some years ago a person of the name of Evans turned swindler in India, and gave my brother a draught drawn on one John Underwood , Esq. at last I found this same John Underwood , I found him to be the son of Dr. Underwood of the Borough, a man of the most unblemished character; I saw the young man at that time in very low circumstances, when I urged him to use his industry to get my money, which he did on the swindler's coming to London, this led me to a little kind of respect for him.

But what I want to know is the general character of this Mr Underwood? - I think it very indifferent, very indifferent indeed.

You do not happen to know how he got into the Fleet? - Not absolutely, but I heard it was by the commitment of the Lord Chancellor.

Now, from Underwood's general character, would you believe him upon his oath in a Court of Justice? - Why, I do not know, after what has happened I should hesitate very much.

After what has happened you say you should hesitate very much? - Yes, I should.

JOHN UNDERWOOD sworn on the Voire Dire.

Examined by Mr. Erskine.

Mr. Underwood, I shall trouble you with a very few questions before your examination; first, I shall be obliged to you if you will tell me whether that is your handwriting or no? (shews him the instructions he produced to Mr. Gregory.) - This is my hand-writing.

You are a subscribing witness to this will which you now come to invalidate.

Sir T. Davenport. That is no question on the Voire Dire, on the Voire Dire the only question is, whether he has such an interest as totally rejects his evidence.

Court. You may attack a witness two different ways.

Mr. Erskine. I conceive the rule of Voire Dire is this, that before a witness is examined in chief, he shall be asked such questions as the Court shall think proper, I

am bound to take every thing that he says to be true under the Voire Dire, I am entitled to ask that man any one question which I think fit, to which he shall think fit to answer, and when I have got all these answers, I say, that upon these facts disclosed by the witness himself, and taking them to be true, he is not by the law of England a competent witness.

Court. Go on.

Mr. Erskine. I ask you whether you are not a subscribing witness to the authenticity and truth of that will? - I am subscribing witness to the authenticity, but not to the truth.

Jury. Then you come to tell us a lye?

Mr. Erskine. It is vastly beyond my conception to understand you, whether or no you did not mean to attest that that was such a will? - I cannot say that I did as an attorney.

Did you sign this will,

"Signed, sealed, published, and declared by the within-named testator, as and for his last will and testament, in the presence of us who in his presence, and in the presence of each other, and at his request, have signed our names as witnesses hereto? - Before it was signed or sealed I subscribed my name.

Then, Sir, you thought proper to subscribe your name as a witness before the will was sealed and before it was executed? - When the truth of the business comes out, you will know the whole of it.

When shall we know that truth comes from you? - When the whole of the business is related.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Gregory? - I am.

As there are so many persons present, I may venture to trust you with a bit of paper, though I shall want it back again; perhaps that is your hand-writing? - It is.

Then I think you delivered this paper which I am now about to read to you, to Mr. Gregory. (Reads.)

"On or about August, 1781, I first saw Mr. Sawtell, I was sent for to Mr. Sawtell's several times, to the house of Mr. Goodridge, about Mrs. Reeves, and on my informing him of the hardship of the case, Mr. Sawtell advanced five guineas. On the 6th of November, 1782, I accidentally called at Mr. Goodridge's, and there I saw Mr. Sawtell, and, after some time, he asked if I was not the attorney who had Mrs. Reeve's cause, which being answered in the affirmative, he, after some time, said he had made his will, but was very unhappy or dissatisfied, or words to that effect, and then applied to me for that purpose, but said it must be done with secresy, and seemed determined, and desired they would leave the room, they accordingly did, he then produced a will he had made two days before, and desired I would immediately copy it, which I did, I returned the same to him again, and then took his instructions, when I had done, he desired I would meet him again on the Lord Mayor's day, and after making some immaterial alterations, Mr. Goodridge and he went, I think to Tallow-Chandler's Hall, but first desiring I would not bring the will to his house till he sent to me, but on the 14th of December Mr. Goodridge came to me, and desired me to attend him at Mr. Sawtell's house, at a quarter after ten at night, we all went up stairs into Mr. Sawtell's bed-room, who was awake, and said I am glad you are come; I accordingly proceeded to read the will, with which he seemed perfectly satisfied, and said it would be very troublesome in the situation he was to write his name, I told him his mark would do as well; then he executed the will, and, applying himself to Mr. Goodridge, said, God bless you, take care of what I have done for you, or words to that purpose; we all went away." This which I have been reading to the Court and Jury, you have acknowledged to be your hand-writing and delivered as such solemnly to Mr. Gregory? - I did.

The will was contested in the Commons? - Yes.

You gave him this account under your own hand? - I did, I believe, before the will was proved.

Did not you at a subsequent time give that paper to Mr. Gregory? - I did.

Now, look Sir further at this paper, and tell me upon your oath (if that makes any difference) whether you did not give that as a copy of the instructions which you took down from Mr. Sawtell's mouth to make his will? - I did.


"As far as concerning the rest of my estate and effects of what nature or kind soever, I leave to the said Nathaniel Goodridge , &c. for ever."

You told Mr. Gregory, I believe, that there was some alterations which the deceased Mr. Sawtell had suggested to you at the time of taking the instructions; this is a whimsical situation I am in, to be obliged to take what you say for truth; this you gave as a copy of the instructions which you took down from old Sawtell for his will? - I did.

You was afterwards examined in Doctors Commons, and you gave a very long and circumstantial account of that business, upon your oath; you positively swore, you was then solemnly sworn upon the gospel to speak the truth? - Not a doubt of it.


"And is so assured in his conscience, and firmly believes that there was not the least force, fraud, imposition, persuasion, artifice, device or contrivance, used or practised by any person whatever, to prevail upon or induce the deceased to make that will, but the deceased appeared to the deponent to be in his perfect senses, and capable of knowing what he did, the witness never saw him after the execution of the will, and knows nothing of his manner of living." Here then you did declare that this was a true valid will made by yourself, and that you saw it executed, did you swear that or did you not? - I did swear it.

I believe you was cross examined on forty five cross-interrogatories in that Court? - I was.

Persisted to give this full account of it? - I did.

And Mr. Underwood, are you come here in the character of a witness, to tell my Lord and the Jury that every thing you deposed to before, was absolutely false, and without any foundation? - I came here as a criminal.

That is no answer to my question, you do not come so, I wish you was at the other end of the Court? - I certainly have entered into a base combination with the prisoners, I can only say this, I have done a wrong thing, and that I am sorry for it.

How are we to know that you are not doing a wrong thing to day, then you come here to falsity your attention to Mr. Gregory? - I am a criminal in the business, and I come here to make all the reparation I can.

Are you come here to falsify, upon your oath, that which you swore in the Commons, and that which you delivered to Mr. Gregory? - A man that does wrong, has a right to do right.

Do you, aye or no? - I am come to do right.

Do you come to falsify every thing you have heretofore sworn? - Not a doubt of it but I am.

All of it! - Yes, all that I have done on account of this will.

The conclusion of this Trial in the next Part which will be published in few Days.

THE TRIAL OF Nathaniel Goodridge , Leonard Goodridge , and James Evans ; FOR FORGING THE WILL OF Mr. THOMAS SAWTELL , deceased: WHO WERE TRIED AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On SATURDAY, the 14th of JANUARY, 1786.




Printed for E. HODGSON (the Proprietor) And Sold by J. WALMSLAY, No. 35, Chancery Lane, and S. BLADON, No. 13, Pater-noster Row.


Continuation of the Trial of Nathaniel Goodridge , Leonard Goodridge , and John Evans .

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I feel myself in a situation so perfectly new, not because I am inexperienced in the history of judicatures, not because I am inexperienced in the history of civilized society; but because I am unacquainted with any case like this, and therefore, if I should not be able to give all the assistance to my clients, which in humanity and justice I owe them, I hope I shall stand excused; I am so astonished at what I hear and see, as not to be able to recollect the language in which I address your Lordship; I must make three objections to the competency of this witness, and I make them after cross-examination, on the Voire Dire, that I may have an opportunity of taking them collectively, and not separately: the three objections I make to his evidence, are these: first, that he appears on his own confession, and upon the statement of the counsel for the prosecution with respect to him, to be an accomplice in this crime, with which the prisoners are charged; and I mean to contend before your Lordship, that there is not a sufficient foundation laid in evidence, such as would induce your Lordship to leave the guilt or innocence of the persons to be decided by the evidence of such a witness; and that your Lordship cannot consistent with your conduct, receive this witness after the foundation you have laid down: I think that if even Mr. Underwood stood under none of the circumstances which are stated, that simply he is an accomplice: my second objection, which I beg to be added to the other, is, that he is a subscribing witness, which is one of the most solemn and deliberate acts, that any man can do to society; he is, upon his own confession, a subscribing witness to that will; that he says under that attestation, he saw the testator execute, and he has confirmed the truth of that attestation to Mr. Gregory in the most solemn manner, that no fraud, imposition, or device whatever was used in obtaining that will, and now in order that the prisoners may be taken away from the face of the earth, this man is to contradict the whole of his former evidence; there is a third character in which he stands, he has attested upon his oath in the Commons, as to his subscribing of this will, he stands as an informer, he stands convicted of perjury, on his own confession, and there is no judgment of record required against him; you have previously said, as a guide to the rules that we are to govern ourselves by at the bar, that you expect an antecedent foundation to be laid before an accomplice is admitted; the meaning of that is evidently this, an accomplice shall not be called before the foundation is laid for his evidence, for first, it operates as a snare to the Jury; secondly, it wastes the time of a Court of Justice, and no Judge would say to a Jury, you are to pay no respect to this man, unless he is corroborated by other circumstances: the crimes with which the prisoners at the bar are charged, are simply these; that they have forged or caused to be forged, the will in question; it is not for the uttering and publishing, but for the act of forging; and I beg leave to say no evidence has been yet given to impute that crime to the prisoners: it appears that Mr. Slack was not connected with the testator, Mr. Sawtell, in blood; and by every witness it appears that Mrs. Goodridge was his wife's niece, and it appears that he was extremely intimate with him, and he assigned him lease-hold premises

and dined with him: my Lord, presumptions do not weigh in criminal cases, those which are of great avail in civil cases, are of no avail in criminal; but, says a very experienced lawyer, there is such a superior presumption in christian charity, that the presumption is much stronger in the innocence of prisoners than any presumption that can arise of their guilt, until the contrary is proved; if I am to examine the evidence, what does it amount to, that Mr. Slack is a stranger, and that Mrs. Goodridge is a relation, that Mr. Slack is a friend, and Goodridge another; now, suppose they had got at the residuum, and that the legacies did not swallow up the whole, God forbid probabilities are to put men on their defence, charged with the perpetration of a criminal offence, but that is not the case: as to Mr. Price in his evidence he has laid no antecedent foundation for the evidence of an accomplice; Mr. Price has proved nothing, and Price says this, that for some time before his death, this Nathaniel Goodridge had set up with the testator, and attended him in his sickness; it seems to me the strongest reason in the world, why a man is not to be neglected by the sick man in his will, for there is no object that can operate on the heart of a good and benevolent man, like the man who chuses to sit in a dark loathsome chamber with a sick man, rather than go out into the open air, and a man must have a great friendship for another, when he chuses to trust him in an office like that of sitting up all night with him, so that Price states things that may lead your Lordship to believe that he was the person who by his own choice he took to; and Price also says, that he remembers his going once or twice to the iron chest.

Mr. Recorder. I know some of the first criminal lawyers receive the evidence of the accomplice first, that is no ways contrary to law, it is a matter of discretion; but I conceive the principle of law is, that accomplices in all cases are admissible witnesses, but witnesses so discredited that unless there are some circumstances proved by witnesses deserving of credit, to confirm their testimony, it shall not even be left to the Jury, whether they will or will not believe them: with respect to this man, I must say, that from what has come out from the Voire Dire, he stands by no means in the light of a common accomplice, the objection to him is an objection to credit, a man's coming to unswear what he has sworn before, if he were not an accomplice it would be a much greater objection to his credit, and no Court or Jury can rely at all on his testimony, beyond what is proved by other witnesses.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, this man stands in a situation so very different from a common accomplice, so contaminated with guilt, that I venture to say he cannot be believed; why is he to be believed? The only reason why a witness can be competent, and is to be received, is, that the Jury are to suppose, that the man comes under the sanctions and solemnities of religion, that he is influenced, not only by the fear of that punishment which the law can inflict upon him here, but stands much more in awe of that greater punishment, which it is in the power of the Supreme Being to inflict upon him in a future state: Why cannot a man convicted of perjury be examined as a witness? Because he has shewn that he pays no regard to the solemnities of religion, and though liars may often speak the truth, the life, the same, and the property of any individual must not depend on the testimony of any man that is not fit to be believed; and though to be sure it would not be once in a hundred times, that you could get a gentleman of so steady a countenance, as Mr. Underwood, to tell you all this is false, because he is the first man alive that ever did so; I cannot bring such another instance, there were many instances on the restoration of King Charles the Second, of persons who had been found guilty of perjury, and the evidence came viva voce to prove their perjury, the Judges said, if they could get the best evidence they would.

Court. What cases were those.

Mr. Erskine. I did not bring down my books with me, but in our day a witness never can be permitted to say one thing upon

his oath, and then be permitted to tell a Court and Jury that the whole of that was perjury, because there is no degree of competency due to him; does your Lordship wish to have such a witness examined? can you tell the Jury that such a man is to be believed? Why he might be indicted upon his own examination; for if a man swears to two contrary propositions which are not true, you may indict him upon that; and would it not be a hard thing, that those three men at the bar should suffer death on the evidence of such a witness as Mr. Underwood: I cannot conceive any thing more distressing to your Lordship sitting as a Judge, than that such a man as this should be examined, that the time should be consumed, and that a snare should be laid for the consciences of the Jury, only that you should let them loose on that snare; but I am sure that the Jury have too much good sense, too much humanity, and too much christian charity to condemn any man upon such evidence: If I have offered any thing that does not meet with the opinion of the Court, I am sorry, I am sure I stand in a case perfectly new, it is no wonder I do not know better in such a case.

Mr. Pigott. My Lord, if the situation in which your Lordship now stands, was a situation in which a Judge ever before found himself, I think I should have discretion enough not to repeat any thing that Mr. Erskine has said; but I think that from the first moment that jurisprudence has been known, and from the first crime in the world down to this time, there never was such a cause as this in a Court of Justice; there never was a witness offered to a Court under such circumstances, and therefore, I do assure your Lordship, that with the utmost respect to the decision of your Lordship, I speak of the accomplice Underwood. It is of great importance to every citizen in the world, I do not say of this free country only, but I say on the face of the earth, that, that witness should be rejected as incompetent; for if he was to be received, unless God Almighty was to make a new revelation of his will, I protest I do not see how any man's property can be safe, if a witness comes into a Court of Justice, uttering the first word, he says, I did, (not in some other time, not in some other case, not in some other period, I did) commit perjury, but upon this very subject, upon this subject whether this was a valid will or not, I delivered the copy of the draught to the attorney, and after all I deposed deliberately making my solemn appeal to God for what I said, and I stood a cross examination of forty-five interrogatories, which were calculated to draw forth what I now call the truth of the case; but all I deposed was false. My Lord, there is no crime so great as high treason, yet if there existed persons base and wicked enough to conspire against that life, precious as it is in the eye of the law, and a witness had been called who could prove that crime of high treason, if that witness at any other time had been convicted of perjury, though he should have committed it in the earliest period of his life, though he should have lived half the life of man in the course of amendment and repentance, though he should be received in all societies with respect, yet he cannot be received as a witness; why? because he has once shewn, that in one instance, he has disregarded the sanction of a solemn appeal to God! if that man, John Underwood , whom it is this moment my misfortune to see, had perjured himself a hundred thousand times over upon all the subjects on which he had ever deposed in a Court of Justice, would he stand (I ask any man in conscience, and in reason, and in common sense) would he then stand in such a predicament as he does in this very case; he says, in that way I did depose, now the very first word he utters is, it is all false! Now, my Lord, upon what principle is it that a perjured man is unworthy of credit? why, because he has sworn falsely, not upon the subject that relates to this question, but upon any subject whatever; he has once sworn falsely, and what has once happened may happen again: consider, my Lord, the predicament in which this man stands, he is one of the three witnesses to this will, and

has also been called upon by process, therefore I am sure it is a case totally new, for if any of your Lordships are of opinion that any thing like this has been decided upon any principle that reaches it, then I am perfectly content to say that my time has been mispent; this case is perfectly new, and I humbly submit it would be, of all situations, the most singular for the Jury, and singular for your Lordship to tell the Jury, to receive that man's testimony; but God forbid that such testimony should be received, if it should, I am sure that any twelve men picked out of the cells of Newgate would not sentence three of their fellow creatures to death upon the evidence of such a man.

Mr. Sheppard. My Lord, I shall confine myself entirely to this question, whether Mr. Underwood can be a competent witness, and, my Lord, the evidence by which competent or not competent is to be tried, is this, whether it is possible that any man, on any occasion, can give any credit to the witness that is to be sworn; that I take to be the distinction between competence and credit: if there is any thing which can lead the Jury to hesitate whether they shall believe him or no, then it becomes a question of credit; but if every body would cry out it is impossible to believe his evidence, it then strikes me it is as impossible to take his evidence, as if there was a record of perjury: When a man is convicted of perjury, no man can give credit to him however probable the story he tells may be, however, confirmed otherwise, still the man himself, in that situation, deserves not the smallest degree of credit; now can any man who has heard Underwood confessing that he first attested to this will, and afterwards upon mature deliberation he deposed in the most solemn way that the whole was true; and now he comes here into Court and admits he has perjured himself; can any man who has heard all this doubt whether he can be convicted of this perjury or no? he stands to all the world a perjured man; does not he stand as infamous as if he was upon record? If there was the smallest circumstance in his situation which could induce a Jury to doubt whether he was perjured or not, it might go to the Jury; but he is not competent, as, upon his credit, not the smallest discretion can be exercised.

Mr. Garrow. I take the liberty of troubling your Lordship with one word on this question, and I say, that such a monster of profligacy, so unlike any thing God ever made, as Mr. John Underwood , who stands now before your Lordship, never appeared in a Court of Justice before; and ought to go forth to the world with a title made for Mr. John Underwood alone: You have it proved by witnesses called on the part of the prosecution, that Mr. John Underwood is not to be believed upon his oath; the Jury have heard from Mr. John Underwood that he has not only given under his own hand, sitting in his closet, a full account of this will of Mr. Sawtell, and instructed the proctor to form interrogatories to support it, but he goes through every minute circumstance, and is confirmed by other witnesses, yet he does not stop there; for Mr. Underwood in the possession of this secret, goes about it, knowing it t o be a secret, he is employed as a solicitor, the suit is going on to judgment, the probate is about to be granted, and then Mr. John Underwood , urged by necessities which his own profligacy have brought upon him, Mr. Underwood in the Fleet, to which the Lord Chancellor had committed him; this Mr. Underwood applies to these parties to administer to the necessities he has involved himself in; they refuse it, and then for the first time Mr. Underwood says, now I will negative every syllable of that proof I have given under the sanction of an oath; now I will go before a magistrate and negative all I have sworn! now he says, I have done very wrong, and I come to day to make all the restoration I can, now for the first time in my life I come to do an honest act; suppose it possible (but to suppose it is to insult your Lordship and the Jury) suppose the evidence that should be given should induce the Jury to find the prisoners guilty, where is the assurance that to-morrow he will not say, now for the first time I feel some compunction,

now I am going to make restitution the first deposition I made was the true one, do something to save me from damnation if you can? how can the Jury depend on the testimony he has to give them? how are they to believe the truth of that which he told in the Commons or his present story, which is confirmed by no witnesses but those infamous witnesses which have been set up since Mr. Underwood went before the Justice? My Lord, do, for God's sake, consider to what extent a determination to receive such evidence may go: It was my misfortune once or twice to be a subscribing witness to a will, but if I had the misfortune to attest another will, how do I know that that man who, if he was also a witness to the same will, might not go and say, this is a fabrication from the beginning to the end, I will call witnesses, I will produce some opinions too of Mr. Garrow, and I will go and indict that man at the Old Bailey, I will convict him for not having assisted me in my necessities: My Lord, I am supposing a man who had only lent his signature, who should in the first instance come and say he was not a witness to the true will, is there any body whose property is derived under testaments would be secure, if a subscribing witness to the same will can be permitted to falsify his own signature, to say I know that is my own hand-writing, and I know the thing is a fabrication from the beginning to the end: My Lord, persons convicted of felony are incompetent witnesses, but they are meritorious men compared to this witness, yet you cannot receive these men, however sincere their repentance may be, however conformable their lives may have been since to the strictest ruin of propriety and virtue: My Lord, is that the case of Mr. John Underwood , who comes here to swear that he has been perjured though whole volumes of depositions? My Lord, permit me to say, where there is a verdict only for the crime of perjury there may be a doubt; a late case, which made a considerable noise and was attended with very powerful arguments, seemed to falsify some persons that those who had penned certain affidavits, had not employed all the correctness they might, and it is still in some men's minds a doubt whether that man was fairly and strictly convicted: Is it so here? Have you any doubt whether he was guilty? have you any doubt whether he was corrupt, have you any doubt whether he was wilfully perjured? when he states now that he did that on the most mature deliberation, and added new forgery to forgery, and on the most mature deliberation sat down to make new minutes of instructions, as if they were old ones, and thus adding guilt upon guilt; Mr. Underwood, it is said, cannot be convicted of perjury by confronting his two depositions, I am very sorry to hear it, I am bound to believe it, the danger to society becomes infinitely stronger, because Mr. Underwood having heard that, and knowing the tendency of his deposition to day, is to go all the length of it; he is not like a witness coming into Court swearing as the woman did this day, first that she was married and then that she was not; I say he comes here tonight to perjure himself, I can demonstrate that; I assume that this will, which is now the subject matter of this indictment is a true will, that it was executed under the circumstances described in the Commons, I am supposing (and I beg pardon again for the supposition, which is an insult to your Lordship) how can there be any evidence offered to the Jury to confirm that testimony which was given in the Commons, to contradict that which he should give to night? there may be cases of persons being bought off by wicked persons: the argument was pressed by my friends that preceded me with all the ability that can be, and I contest that, in this case, Mr. Underwood cannot be received as a witness: I wish I could ask the Jury if they have nothing before them, it is a sheer question of competency, and it no longer can be pretended to be a question of credit; the question of credit can no be supported against a man who stands here, I repeat, it as a monster of human deformity.

Court. I think there is sufficient ground to admit the accomplice generally, when the attesting witnesses are called, they are constantly

cross-examined; it is admitted that in cases of wills attesting witnesses may speak to the sanity of the testator: put the case of duress, suppose a man makes a bond, a subscribing witness is called, suppose a man puts a pistol to his breast and to the witness's breast, should it be said that that matter should not be unravelled? as to the other case, whether the witness is competent to be received, or whether his swearing differently in the Commons to what he has done, is an objection to his credit, I have always understood that the incompetency of a witness is founded on a disability of law which can only go to the record, the other only goes to his credit.

Mr. Recorder. However painful it may be to be obliged to hear the evidence of a man standing in the situation of Underwood, I cannot help entirely concurring in the opinion of the learned Judge as to his competency; this matter has been ably and ingeniously argued, and it would tend very much to confound the distinctions between credit and competency, if those distinctions were not maintained: can any man say that a man confessing himself guilty of every enormity that can disgrace human nature, is intitled to any degree of credit? and yet I am clearly of opinion that such a man would be competent; the question of credit is a question that always rests with the Jury, that of competency always rests with the Court; the objections to credit are infinite, as infinite as reason, philosophy and the workings of human nature can suggest; the objections to competency are few, and clearly defined by law, they are absolute disability of the person to give evidence, that he is a person convicted of perjury; I conceive it has been mistaken that the testimony of that witness is rejected, because when he is examined the Jury ought not to believe him, that is not the reason; the reason is, that he has been convicted of a crime to which the law affixes a disability to give evidence, therefore the man who is convicted of perjury, or any other crime to which disabilities are anexed, though many of them if examined would deserve the protection, and the credit of the Jury, for instance, a man convicted of a rape under particular circumstances, might be entitled to belief upon his oath, if it were not for such conviction; the perjured man is not rejected because he cannot be believed, but from his situation: now, no relationship however near and dear, disqualifies a person from giving evidence, except that of husband and wife alone, and that arises from their being in consideration of law one and the same person, they are not either of them permitted to give evidence for or against the other, but father for a child, or child for a parent, may give evidence; you cannot weigh the degree of interest, but any interest however small, disqualifies the party from being examined as a witness at all; because men should not be exposed to the temptation of giving evidence: the objections to credit and competence are perfectly distinct in their nature, the objection in this case is an objection to credit merely, and the Court may be bound by the rule of law to hear such a witness, though they may not believe him, for he may be under circumstances in which no man alive ought to give the smallest belief to his oath, that is for the Jury to consider; but I am of opinion he is a competent witness if offered to the Court.


Was you ever in your life on any occasion employed by Mr. Sawtell? - Never.

By whom was you employed in the present transaction? - A Mrs. Reeve came to my house, a person whom I had formerly a Chancery suit for, and who was a very distressed person, the suit was commenced in 1776, I had had her in my house a year or a year and a half, I asked her for some cash, she said, she had a friend, a Mr. Sawtell, who lived on Saffron-hill, a tallow-chandler, and that she would apply to Mrs. Goodridge, who was his niece; this was in May 1781, I was desired to attend at Mr. Goodridge's house on Saffron-hill, to inform Mr. Sawtell of the case of this old woman, Mr. Sawtell some how or other answered me very short, and I went away

affronted, and never saw him afterwards, but a few days after Nathaniel Goodridge brought five guineas to a Mr. Wolf, in whose house I lodged, that was the first time I ever saw Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge ; at length he became rather interested in the old woman's business, and attended me from time to time, and I think to the best of my recollection. I carried on the prosecution in Chancery for a twelve month, at length Mr. Goodridge was dissatisfied with my proceeding in Chancery, and he employed a Mr. Lucas, an attorney of New Inn, to superintend the business, and I gave him up all the papers; I never heard any further of Mr. Goodridge, till sometime in the latter end of October 1782, when Mrs. Reeve came over to my house, informing Mrs. Underwood that Mrs. Goodridge had some gowns to dispose of, Mrs. Underwood attended, and purchased these silk gowns for five guineas; about the latter end of November of the beginning of December, Mrs. Reeve came to my house, and desired me to attend Mr. Goodridge, on Saffron-hill, and I attended in consequence thereof; and I met him at Mr. Evans's house, and Mr. Evans and Mr. Goodridge took me into a parlour in that house, and after some conversation of the business of Mrs. Reeves, Mr. Evans opened his mind in the following manner.

"You know old Mr. Sawtell, who advanced you the money on that business, he is ill, he has made his will, but has not mentioned either Goodridge or his family in it, and he has made a will, and has left it all to those d - d rascals he Slacks, who are no relations to him, and it is a pity so much money should be lost:" Evans said,

"Old Mr. Sawtell often comes to my house to spend an evening, and if you will draw a will, I can get him to sign it, as if he was a witness of mine, as he has done before, and if you will call in occasionally when he is here, and will draw up such a will, we will give you a hundred pounds;" and he immediately went up stairs, and brought down his will which Mr. Sawtell witnessed, to shew me Mr. Sawtell had done it; he then desired me to call occasionally, and leave my address in case he should come, they did not know then where I lived, I did call several times, but Mr. Sawtell had not been out from home; at length Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge came to my chambers in Lions Inn, and informed me that the old man grew worse, and that some other expedient should be thought of, and he desired me again to call at the house of Mr. Evans; I did call, and upon a conversation between Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge and Mr. James Evans , they said, it would be no harm to forge a will, if it could be done, as it would be giving the property where it ought to go; after a deal of conversation, I accidentally mentioned the name of a Mr. Assiotti, who was very clever in drawing of names or any thing of that kind, he was very clever in drawing models, and they told me if I could prevail on Mr. Assiotti to draw the hand of Sawtell, they would give him twenty pounds, I told them it would be to no use to draw a will, without I could ascertain the property of the deceased, and after a long consultation thereon, it was agreed that Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge should get to sit up with Mr. Sawtell, to get a sight of his will; on the 15th day of December, he came to me and told me he should sit up with Mr. Sawtell the proceeding night, and that if I would attend the 16th, he would let me in with Mr. Evans, and I was to attend on Mr. Evans for that purpose; I accordingly attended at the house of Mr. Evans about eight at night, he told me Mr. Goodridge sat up, and I was to wait there till twelve o'clock; at twelve I and Evans went to the house of the deceased in Brook-street, Evans gave a hem, which was the signal agreed on between Mr. Goodridge and him, and the door was softly opened by Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge , he introduced us into a parlour, and afterwards went up stairs to the deceased; in a little time he came down again, and said, Mr. Sawtell was awake, and he could not possess himself of the keys, Evans went away, and left me there; about two in the morning Nathaniel

Goodridge brought down the keys of a bureau which stood in the parlour, he opened the desk and looked for a key of the iron chest, wherein he thought the will must be deposited, but he could not find the will there, nor in all the drawers of the bureau; accordingly he gave over the search, and informed me he would seek it some other time, as he thought Mr. Slack must have the key; about a week or ten days after, I called at the house of Mr. Evans, who informed me that they had got a man to make a key to the iron chest, as they could not find it, and that he expected it would be completed in two or three days, or a few days: in the first week in January 1783, Mr. Goodridge came to my chambers again, and informed me the key was complete, and desired I would attend at the house of Mr. Evans again, which I did, and there I saw Mr. Goodridge, who said, he was to sit up with Mr. Sawtell that night, and Mr. Evans desired me to call again a little before twelve, I went home after that, and called at the house of Mr. Evans, Evans and me went together, and were let into the house of Mr. Sawtell as before, we went into the side parlour, Nathaniel Goodridge there produced the key of an iron chest, which was rough and newly made, and in a closet in the parlour there was an iron chest, which was opened by this key, and he took thereout a paper sealed up and wrote upon

"Mr. Sawtell's will," which was opened, I believe we had all a hand in it, wherefrom I took a copy, at that time, which copy was examined by Evans and myself.

Mr. Erskine, (holding up Underwood's affidavit.) Did you take it at Sawtell's house? - I am aware of that affidavit, Mr. Erskine; I then went to the house of Mr. Evans, and from thence home.

Where is that copy which you then took? - I believe it is in the hands of the Proctor, it is in being.

Was a copy of that copy delivered in? - Yes.

Look at that? - This is a copy I took in the house of Mr. Sawtell, I was then to draw a whole draught, and to attend on Mr. Assiotti, whom I have before mentioned, to see if I could not get him to write the hand writing of Mr. Sawtell, and in pursuance thereof, Nathaniel Goodridge brought me two bits of paper, with the name Thomas Sawtell wrote thereon, and also brought over to my house an impression of a seal, a candle and candlestick, with the words, Sperma Ceti, wrote round, which were the same, as was the seal to the will; I went to the house of Mr. Assiotti, in Long-acre, I saw his wife, we had some words about family affairs, and I went away; and was then determined to have nothing more to do with the business: Mr. Goodridge attended me from time to time, and when I told him I would have nothing more to do with the business, he was quite at a stand; he told me, if I would go through it, he would give me a thousand pounds, I then sent Mrs. Underwood to Mr. Assiotti, and she did not see him, she came home, and I was fully determined not to meddle further in the business at all; Goodridge came to me again, and when I informed him of my intention of having nothing to do with it, he was speechless for near half a minute, he then said, will the old man's mark do? and I said yes, and he asked me to stay in the chambers 'till the afternoon, and then he brought Mr. Evans to me, and it was agreed, that he should get the old man to make his mark to the will; I went home with him to Mr. Evans's house, and there took instructions for all the legacies that were to be in the will.

Who gave instructions? - Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge and Mr. Evans, sometimes together, and sometimes separate.

What time did they give you the instructions? - In the afternoon, Mr. Goodridge then desired I would attend at his workshop, to engross that will, for he had a compting-house in the workship, and he desired me to do it, for the old man was very ill, I attended accordingly, and engrossed one sheet of that will, and left the copy and one sheet engrossed in a desk in the compting-house, and on the ensuing night I completed

it, and I think, as near as I can, a night or two afterwards I was to have attended the execution of the will, and to call at his house; I did so, and then for the first time I saw Leonard Goodridge .

What time was this? - It was on the 23d of January as near as I can recollect, I went with Mr. Leonard Goodridge and Mr. Evans to Mr. Sawtell's house, in Brook-street, where we were again let in by Nathaniel Goodridge as before, he went first of all to the iron chest and took thereout a gold watch, to which was appending a seal with which the will was sealed, he then went up stairs himself, and he came down stairs again, and desired us to pull off our shoes and follow him, but only to stand just at the feet of the bed and make no noise; old Mr. Sawtell lay in bed in a state of insensibility to all appearance, and Nathaniel Goodridge took him by the hand and put a pen into his hand and made him make two marks, one opposite the seal and the other at the bottom of the first sheet of paper; we then went down stairs and witnessed the will, and it was agreed the other will should be taken out and burnt and destroyed; the other will was then taken out and destroyed, and two sheets of paper were instituted in the room thereof; I then went away, and as near as I can remember, it was the ensuing morning that Nathaniel Goodridge came over to me, and said, says he, the will that we have executed will not do, I asked him the reason, why, he said, it is of too early a date, it was dated the 23d of January, the day of the supposed execution; and, says he, you must come over to my house on Sunday and engross another will, dated the 14th of December, this was the 26th of January, exactly a fortnight before the old man died; I accordingly attended at Mr. Goodridge's house, and engrossed such fresh will, and Leonard Goodridge and myself and Evans witnessed the same, he undertaking to get the old man to put his mark and put the seal; this was in Nathaniel Goodridge 's dining-room, then I left them: This is the will I wrote on the 26th of January, and witnessed as I have told you; in a fortnight afterwards I received a note from Mrs. Goodridge signifying that Mr. Sawtell was dead, and desiring I would stay at home and somebody would call upon me, I went out to have my hair dressed in the afternoon, and I was sent for home, and I saw Leonard Goodridge , and he asked me to go out with him, I went out with him to the public-house, and he said, now the old man is dead I hope we shall stick true to one another.

What day was that? - The 9th of February.

What time of the day? - About four in the afternoon.

And where? - At my own house; we went out of my house to the public-house, I came home with Leonard Goodridge and he, and I, and Mrs. Underwood went up stairs, he gave Mrs. Underwood five guineas, and said to her, it is good to grease the wheels while the cart is going; I just spoke two or three words to him and went away, he came over again in a little while, and desired I would go over with him to Evans's, I went and saw all the parties, M r. Leonard Goodridge , Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge , and Mr. James Evans ; Mr. Goodridge told me I must go to Mr. Gregory, for he was the party concerned, and we agreed among ourselves how we should make up a case to speak to Mr. Gregory thereon: and I went to Mr. Gregory's house, and told him the whole of the case as agreed between us: Mr. Gregory desired I would bring over the papers, and make a memorandum of all I had told him in writing; and, agreeable to several meetings we had had, I drew pretended instructions for the will of Mr. Sawtell, at my own house, and we examined the instructions with the draught to see that it was all fairly transcribed, I then left these supposed instructions and the draught of the will with Mr. Gregory, these are they: Mr. Gregory also desired him to bring him a copy of the real will, of the 4th of November, of Mr. Sawtell's, and afterwards I went to Doctors Commons, where I gave this unfortunate

testimony; about the 2d or 3d of April, Mr. Evans came to the public-house in Queen-street, in my neighbourhood, and sent for me, I lived then in America-street, he said to me, I think, Underwood, it is very proper we should be secured for this business; says I, what do you think of it Mr. Evans, says he, I think we cannot have less than one thousand pounds, and we ought to have security; I said we must have a bond if we have any security at all, we can have no other; he told me to come over to Mr. Goodridge's, and he would back it; I came to Mr. Evans's, and Mr. Goodridge was sent for, I opened the business, at length Mr. Goodridge agreed we should have each a bond for four hundred pounds; accordingly on the 7th of April, I went over with two blank bonds to Mr. Evans's house, which I filled up for four hundred pounds each, and they were executed, I witnessed Evans's, and Evans mine; after they were so executed, Goodridge said he should not like to have his bonds exposed, and proposed for Evans to keep both, and proposed that they should be sealed up till the probate of the will was obtained; and as a security to myself I wrote a memorandum or undertaking, whereby Mr. Evans undertook to deliver me up a bond as soon as the probate was signed; this is the receipt Mr. Evans gave me for my bond, after which we had several meetings, I had at least, and Mr. Gregory once or twice, at the house of Mr. Jenner, and I gave the evidence that has been stated in the Commons in support of that will.

What became of all these papers afterwards? - Those papers that were executed on the 7th of April, the receipt for the bond and the undertaking I gave to Mrs. Underwood as soon as I brought them home, to put by, and she unfortunately put them in her pocket, and she kept them in her pocket till she was brought to bed, and they were spoiled as they appear now; the receipt I gave to her on the 7th of April, the moment I came home, and I never had it in my custody till November was twelvemonth, then I gave it up.

Are these the two sheets that were in the cover? - They are, there are two pencil marks, under the seals, this is the cover that contained the true will.

Mr. Erskine. After what I have said of you, Sir, and more especially of what you have said of yourself, you may be very sure that I shall not waste many words upon you, and I hope it will be the last time I shall ever speak to you; you know very well these unfortunate gentlemen at the bar have no opportunity of contradicting this business; how comes it you swore to the truth of this will before? - It is an unfortunate circumstance that ever I became acquainted with the prisoners at the bar.

How do you think, as you did not swear the truth then, that the Jury can tell whether you swear the truth now? - That is to be left to the opinion of the Jury.

I believe you was in very great distress about the time this new light began to shine upon your mind? - I was in distress; I have a large family.

That is an excuse that some other people have made in this country you know, you applied to Mr. Goodridge? - I did.

You wanted money? - I did.

But as for Mr. Slack, you never had any promises of money from him? - No, never.

Nor any expectation? - I cannot say that.

Then you have some expectation? - I had no expectation at all at the time I laid the information, the expectations which I had from Mr. Slack, were, they promised me they would go to my father and see what they could do for me.

Why you had an expectation of an advantage? - They told me if I would come along and tell the truth, they would do all they could with my father to serve me.

Nothing at all said about money? - No, nor I never said so to any body.

Do you happen to know a person by the name of Jacques? - I never heard of such a man.

Perhaps there is no such man living, you shall know presently? - With all my heart.

You never said that Slack offered you a thousand pounds? - Never in my life.

And that God knew that you had not a shilling, and you hoped he would direct you for the best? - I never said so, as to God directing me for the best, I wrote a letter to Mr. Leonard Goodridge , which may be produced.

Then you never did say to a person of the name of Jacques that Mr. Slack had offered you a thousand pounds, in order that you may swear for him, and that you hoped God would direct you for the best, you never said so to Mr. Jacques? - No, nor any thing to that effect.

Might you be at Mr. Goodridge's house about the 24th of November? - I was.

Do not you know that Mr. Jacques lived in that house of Leonard Goodridge 's at that time? - I do not know that, I never did say that, nor any thing like it, I never said I was exposed to temptations by Mr. Slack.

Was there not a promise from Mr. Slack and several other gentlemen that they would go to your father and get things set right if you would come in and swear this? - No, if I would do the thing that was right.

What was that? - To let the right owner have the property.

What conversation had you with Mr. Slack and other gentlemen? - No promises of pecuniary assistance whatever, they promised if I would come forward and do what was right, they would speak to my father.

I think you say that this receipt for the bond you first wrote over on the 6th of April, when Mr. Goodridge was sent for and came, what time of the day was it? - I believe it was in the afternoon, it was the day before the bonds were executed, and the bonds were executed on the 7th of April.

Goodridge came over to Evans's house on the 6th of April, and you saw Evans and Goodridge at Evans's house, was it in the afternoon or forenoon? - I cannot say which.

What time was the bond executed? - It was as soon as the candles were lighted.

Now suppose it should turn out that it should be utterly impossible that a syllable of this should be true? - I cannot think that.

You shall see in a minute, you was examined before Dr. Ducarell? - I was.

Now here is a third deposition that contradicts both these, here is your affidavit before Dr. Ducarell has no reference to either, you have been pleased to say to night that the old will was copied at Sawtell's? - Yes, that I positively swear.

Did you always swear that now, even when you got into the right path, and was to do what was right under those promises? - I am perfectly aware of what you have got in your hand.

But I am not perfectly aware of what you have got in your head; you have said just now to the Jury, you positively swore that you are positively sure that the old will was copied at Sawtell's, now this was when you began to be a good boy; mind, your affidavit runs thus,

"and that he this deponent afterwards, by the express desire of Evans and Goodridge, went to the said Evans's, on or about the 22d of January, 1783, when the said will of Thomas Sawtell was produced in favour of Slack and Atkinson?" - I did not take it at Evans's house.

How came you to swear it then; mind, before you took that deposition in the Commons, you made affidavit before Dr. Ducarell? - I did.

In this affidavit, which was the first you swore after these promises of Mr. Slack, you say that the old will was copied at the house of Evans, when you came into the Commons you swore the contrary, and now to night you confirm the contradiction of this? - I will give the Court an account of the reason why this affidavit was made, there was then no notice taken of this being a forgery, and so this was made because

I did not think they would be so fool-hardy to have appeared here on such an affair as this, I did not criminate so much as I should.

I know that you are in a truly ridiculous light? - It positively was copied at Sawtell's house.

And you swore the contrary twice over on both sides of the question? - Mr. Slack nor none of the parties knew the criminality of the business till I surrendered at Bow-street.

You appeared personally, (Reads)

" John Underwood of New George-street, in the parish of Christ-Church, in the county of Surry (he calls himself a gentleman!) maketh oath that he is the writer of the two sheets of paper, and was first consulted upon, in the house of the said Evans on Saffron-hill, and asked if he this deponent would draw a will, &c. that afterwards, by the express desire of Evans and Goodridge, he went to the said Evans's house in and about the 22d of January, 1783, when the said will in favour of Slack and Atkinson was produced by this deponent;" now, observe Mr. Underwood, you, who did not want to criminate these men, charge them with a direct and palpable forgery;

"and this deponent, upon his oath, faith that he never received any instructions from the deceased:" Why do you mean to say there is no crimination here against these men? - I mean to say that when I drew that affidavit I was in hopes they would have given up the matter, I certainly had given up the matter.

Then was that your reason, because you thought they would give it up upon your affidavit, did you, therefore, wilfully give it up upon your own affidavit, and did you draw it falsely instead of truly? - There was nobody knew it was a forgery till I went to Bow-street; I did not want to prove the destroying the will to criminate so much as that: On the 7th of April, as soon as I went home I gave the receipt for the bond to my wife, I am positive sure of that.

Now, as this is not true, is all the rest a lye? - I cannot think that; and she kept it till some time in November.


"That accordingly the said bonds were respectively sealed up and given to the said James Evans , who gave a receipt, and deponent says the said undertaking remained in his custody till about the latter end of November last, when he delivered up the same. - The examiner misunderstood me.

Was it read to you? - Yes.

Did you sign it? - I did.

Mr. Silvester. Did you shew Mr. Gregory the draught with the seals torn off? - I had it in my hands.

Court. Do you mean the will dated the 23d of January? - Yes.

Did Mr. Gregory examine those papers? - I read them over, and he had the instructions.

Then Mr. Gregory must have seen this cancelled will? - He must see it.

Mr. Silvester. What were the promises that were made? - That if I would come forward and do the thing that was right they would take care I should not be hurt, and they would take care to do every thing that they could with my father to restore me to his favour.

This affidavit that has been talked of by Mr. Erskine, was that made prior to your going to Bow-street? - Three weeks or or a month before.

Had the prisoners then been charged with the forgery? - No.

Did any body know of it? - No.

Where were these receipts and papers kept? - They were kept in a drawer in my house.

The receipt and the instructions read to the Jury.

The instructions for the will read.

"No. 1. Instructions for Mr. Thomas Sawtell's will, 1782; Mary Allen , my sister, the sum of twenty pounds yearly and quarterly payments; Gilbert Sawtell , by his last will and testament."

Mr. Mumford. This was the cover in which was inclosed the real will, it was in the iron chest, there is no substantial difference in the legacies, here is a recital of

twenty pounds a year, I am in doubt whether it was not twenty-two pounds a year, the residue is the same, only given to Goodridge instead of Slack.

Were the former wills correspondent? - The same legatees and the same executor, this draught has a legacy to Mr. Falkner, I never altered it, I only made it a new will by re-executing it.

The will read as set forth in the indictment.

Is there any mention of any legacies to the Goodridges in any of the former wills? Certainly not.

Was Daniel Slack present at either of these consultations? - No, I should not know him if I was to see him.

At the times, had you any particular way of doing business, or any particular hour of doing business? - He desired me to be there by ten in the morning.

Mr. Pigott. Robert Slack is the brother of Daniel Slack , he has no children, perhaps it might so happen by accident or otherwise, that Robert Slack was present, though Daniel was not? - He was present certainly.

Was he a witness to any of them? - No, Sir.

Sir T. Davenport. Did this man take any part at all? - Certainly not, he was at his house, and at his business.

Did he live at Sawtell's? - He was principally there, he was very frequently there, he had the conduct and management of the old gentleman's concerns in some measure, he used to attend him backwards and forwards to different places.


Mr. Robert Slack fetched me as a witness to a will of Mr. Thomas Sawtell 's, he sent for me, and said he must trouble me once more, I had witnessed a will of his.

Was he in perfect possession of his mind at that time? - Yes, as much as I have known him for twenty years.

Mr. Sheppard. Do you serve Mr. Robert Slack with meat? - No, Sir.

Mr. Robert Slack fetched you, I think you say? - Yes.


Do you remember at any time witnessing a will of Mr. Sawtell? - Yes.

What did he say? - When I came he desired me to set down, he wanted me to witness his will, I was not there five minutes before the execution was over.

Mr. Garrow. Who applied to you? - Young Mr . Slack, he came for me by order of Mr. Sawtell.


When was you first acquainted with any of the prisoners at the bar? - My first acquaintance with Nathaniel Goodridge was the beginning of November, 1782.

What occasioned your knowing them? - The occasion of my knowing them was, a person recommended me to buy some things of Mrs. Goodridge, the wife of Nathaniel Goodridge , she had some things to sell for Mr. Evans.

What were the things? - Gowns and petticoats, my husband was out twice, once till two in the morning.

Did you buy any? - Yes, Sir.

Do you recollect to what amount? - Yes, Sir, five pounds.

Do you remember Mr. Goodridge's, either one or the other, coming to your husband? - I think, as near as I can recollect, it was about the first week in January, 1783.

Do you recollect whether at any time your husband being out till late? - Yes, Sir, he was out till four in the morning; Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge came to our house, I think, the first week in January, and the conversation with him I overheard; I was not immediately let into the light of it, but they wanted me to go to Mr. Assiotti to get him to write the name of Thomas Sawtell on two sheets of paper.

Are these the papers or not (shewing them to her) have you any reason independent of what Mr. Underwood told you for knowing these sheets? - Yes, here is a pencil mark under one of these sheets.

Are these the same papers that you observed when Nathaniel was there? - Yes.

After he was gone you observed a pencil mark? - Yes.

Did you hear at any time while Nathaniel was there, what purpose these papers were for, or what mark? - Yes, Assiotti was to write the name, and Mr. Underwood, or somebody was to fill up the will.

Did that pass while Nathaniel was there? - Yes, about a day or two after Nathaniel came.

What did pass, or did any thing pass concerning the purpose of that visit, while Nathaniel was there? - The second time Nathaniel brought two seals, and we were to get a seal engraved from that impression, which was in red wax, I was to have got them done; and the third time in January, I recollect my husband was invited by Nathaniel to dinner, he came about Friday and asked for Mr. Underwood to dine with him on the Sunday, I think that was the 26th.

Did he mention the purpose for which he was to dine with him, or any thing that was to be done? - The purpose of his dining there was in order to take a copy of the will, because they thought it was of too late a date, in order to antedate it.

Who said that? - Nathaniel Goodridge .

What was the date of that will? - I think the 23d of January.

Did he give any reason why it must be an earlier date? - No, my husband dined out on that Sunday, but I do not know where he was; a journeyman; of Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge 's brought the intelligence that Mr. Sawtell was dead; Leonard Goodridge was at our house that day; the first time Nathaniel came, and young Goodridge, Leonard Goodridge , came after, whom I did not know, and they went out together for a little while, when they came back he gave me five guineas, and said, while the cart was going it was fit to grease the wheels, going down stairs he shook Underwood by the hand, and hoped they would all stand true to each other; on the Monday following Mr. Goodridge came over to our house again, and I heard him say that Mr. Underwood was to go to Mr. Gregory, his attorney, and take all the papers, and that it was proper there should be some instructions, and Mr. Underwood drew some papers on the table, I set by him while he wrote the instructions which he was to carry to Mr. Gregory; Mr. Underwood wrote some instructions on a sheet of paper, I should know them.

Are these they? - (looks at them.) These are the instructions, a copy of these were taken soon after the latter end of February.

Was that paper the paper that was carried to Mr. Gregory? - That remained with me, there was left in my custody, by Mr. Underwood, a receipt for the bond, and the copies of two wills.

This is one, what became of the other? - The other was burnt because it was so much spoiled, I had these papers the 7th of April, at night, 1783, the first time I had it.

Did you happen to see Evans whilst you had that paper or that receipt, did any thing pass? - Yes.

Relate what that was? - In the month of June, 1783, I was obliged to go to the Fleet; I went to Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge 's house, and there was Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge and Mr. Evans at supper, I asked them if they would let Mr. Underwood have any money, I said I had the receipt for the bond in my pocket, and it was very odd they would not let me have some money or give me the bond, they said it did not matter, it was only a conditional one.

Which of them said that? - I think it was Evans.

Did you make any answe r, or did any thing more pass? - I said, that Mr. Underwood said he would arrest Mr. Evans for the bond, then I went away; Mr. Evans advanced five guineas more in October following.

Did he accompany that advance of the money with any thing said? - He said it was not in his power to advance any more.

Did you keep that receipt and those other papers? - Yes, I kept them till

November, till they went into the Commons.

Mr. Erskine. You live with your husband? - Yes.

And have done constantly, I take it for granted? - At all times, when I could, when he was in confinement, I was as much with him as could be.

How much was you in this scene of wickedness? - I knew he was doing a wrong thing.

You did, you knew from the beginning to the end, that there was a wicked contrivance to defraud Mr. Slack, and you was quite happy and contented at all this? - Not very contented, I was affraid to divulge it; on Sunday the 16th, Mr. Underwood wrote the instructions on a sheet of paper.

You think yourself bound to obey your husband more than you are to obey God or any other man? - Yes.

Then perhaps that operates a little upon your mind to day? - Yes.

It would not have been very pleasing to your husband if you was to give the lie to every thing he said, you would have a battle at night? - No, I do not think that, I wish always to go with my husband, and would not tell an untruth.

How came you not to tell about this forged will? - I was not asked.

What was the greasing of your cart wheels, did not your husband at the time he gave information about this will, say, whether he was not reduced to the very lowest distress in the world? - He wanted money to carry on his business.

Was not he reduced to extreme poverty, almost in great distress, it surprises me that you should be so glib about the dates of these wills, the 23d of December, and the 14th of November, had not you these circumstances from your husband? - No, Sir, they are circumstances that I was intimate with, I knew the 23d of January from other circumstances.

How came you to be so certain about the day that the will was dated? - Leonard Goodridge I saw on the 9th of February at our house, I am positive sure of it, it was in the afternoon about four o'clock, or between four and five.

Am I to rely upon you for the truth of these circumstances? - Yes.

Have you any doubt about it? - No, Sir, I saw Leonard Goodridge between four and five, on the 9th of February, the day that Sawtell died, at Underwood's, between four and five in the afternoon.

I think it was at supper you saw these people, and that you said that it was very hard that you could not get either money or bond? - Yes.

You said your husband would arrest them? - Yes.

Are you sure you said nothing more than that? - I do not know that I did.

You did not threaten them with any thing further? - Not that I know of.

You did not make use of any threatening expressions to them, as if you thought they were connected with some villainous business? - That was all that passed.

You have been examined before? - In the Commons.

Now let us see ( reads)

"and that she had the receipt in her pocket, upon which she threatened them, that if they would not relieve her husband, they must abide by the consequences? - I swore that at the Commons, I have said so to Nathaniel a many times, I heard my husband say there was likely to be an opposition.

You have had many conversations with your husband about all this business? - No, I have not, I do not like to mention it.

You have taken him you know, for better for worse, and change as he changes.

Sir Thomas. By the consequence you meant an arrest? - Yes.

Mr. Erskine. If I understand you right, you said, a pencil mark was put by your husband at the place where Assiotti was to write the name of Sawtell? - Yes.

Now look for the place? - This is the place.

(Points out the outer marginal part of the outer margin.)

Your husband is grown very fat, who maintains him? - I believe Mr. Slack's attorney has paid for the bills.

You are very well fed and very well taken care of? - We are not in want of any thing.

That pencil mark is made in the place where Assiotti was to write Mr. Sawtell's name? - Yes.

Was it made before the seal was put on? - Yes.


Mr. Fielding. How old are you? - Seventeen, I know Nathaniel Goodridge .

Was you ever sent with a letter by your father to him? - Yes, I think it was about the month of September, I cannot say whether it was September or October, it was in the year 1783:

Mr. Pigott. Did you ever read the contents of that letter? - No.

Mr. Fielding. What passed between Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge and you? - His wife was in company with him at breakfast, she said, money was exceedingly scarce, and they did not know how they should get it; Mrs. Goodridge said, she supposed I knew the contents of the letter, I said, I knew the greatest part of it.

Did they give you any money? - They gave my father money, I was in an adjoining room, I heard the money.

Did you see them deliver the money to you father? - No, Sir, I did not listen to the conversation, but I heard the chinking of money, I saw my father give some to my mother.

Did any thing more pass between you and Nathaniel Goodridge than what you have related.

Mr. Pigott. Your father had a law suit for Mrs. Reeves? - No, Sir, that affair was over.

Was not that application for money that Mrs. Reeves owed your father for that law suit? - Not to my knowledge, my father in that letter threatened to arrest Mrs. Reeve, if Nathaniel Goodridge did not send the money.

Mr Fielding. Did you know the contents of the letter? - Yes.

How far? - That he was in want of money, and that he desired them to send some, and if they did not, he would arrest Mrs. Reeves.


I live with Mr. Bogg the proctor, I know there is a suit in which he is concerned for Mrs. Edith Spence , his next of kin, I know very little of the matter.

Court to Nathaniel Goodridge . Have you any thing to say in your defence? - I leave it to my counsel, my Lord.

Court to Leonard Goodridge . Have you any thing to say? - I leave it to my counsel, my Lord.

Court to James Evans . Have you any thing to say? - No, my Lord.

Mr. Erskine. On the part of the prisoners, your Lordship and the Jury very very well know, that it is out of our power to make any observations on the evidence, therefore I am persuaded you will give me leave to state to your Lordship, what I call my witnesses to.

Court. No.

Mr. Erskine. I never yet heard the objection made in my life.

Sir T. Davenport. I am very much affraid of a speech.

Mr. Erskine. I wished that the Court and Jury might have understood what I call my witnesses to, but as I must not explain it, you Gentlemen of the Jury must pick out the defence as you can, you must hear it, and pick it out as you can; but, however, I may ask you whether you have the dates of the 6th and 7th of April, and the 9th of February, when this bond was said to be executed, upon the 6th of April it was settled that it should be done on the 7th of April, and after the candles were lighted, on the 7th, the bonds were executed, and the receipt was given; on the 9th of February, Leonard Goodridge is stated by Underwood and his wife to have said that the wheels should be greased.


Are you acquainted with the prisoner Leonard Goodridge ? - Yes.

What are you? - A stone-mason.

Where do you live? - In Clerkenwell-close; I have heard a good deal about Leonard Goodridge , on the 9th of February 1783 in the afternoon, which was the day that Sawtell died.

Now, do you happen to know where Leonard Goodridge was on that day, from what time to what time? - I was invited to dine with Leonard Goodridge on Sunday the 9th day of February, and I went to his house a little before two, and we dined at half after two, and I drank tea, and staid there till past ten o'clock; I do not know that he ever was out of my company.

Can you take upon you to say, that he remained at his own house during the time that you was there? - He never was out of the house, I dare say, I can take upon myself to say he never was in his yard, I cannot say, but he never was in the street.

Who dined there besides? - There was one Mr. Collier, Mrs. Collier, and Mr. Collier's wife sister.

Then you are sure of the day? - Yes, I am sure, I have a book in my pocket that will give you a good satisfaction about it.

When was the entry made? - The next morning, I have made entries for twenty years.

Let us see what you have got in it (Reads) dined at Goodridges? - I positively do say it, that on Sunday the 9th of February, I dined at Mr. Goodridge's, with Mr. and Mrs. Collier, and I do not think he was out once.

Do you recollect going on the 6th of April any where? - Yes, I do, very well.

Where did you go on the 6th of April? - I went to Barnet, beyond the twelve mile stone, Mr. Evans the prisoner went with me, I breakfasted at Mr. Evans's house, about eight on Sunday morning the 6th of April, as I went with him to Barnet, we went to Hendon, and dined by Finchley church, and slept at the Mitre, at Barnet; I was employed to measure a piece of ground, and tell the value of it, for him to make a purchase off.

At what time did you set out to return to London? - We dined on Finchley-common, and we came to London between ten and eleven at night.

You are sure you did not get to town till that time? - Yes, we went to his house, we walked all the way, and I staid till near twelve at night on the 7th.

Now, I will tell you a thing that will surprise you a little; it has been said here to day that Mr. Evans executed a bond on that day at his own house? - I can say nothing to that, I know he was along with me from Sunday morning eight o'clock, till Monday night twelve o'clock.

Have you any more doubt about what you have been telling the Jury, than you have of your own existence? - No, Sir, it is as true as I stand here.

Jury. Have you that in your diary? - Yes.

Now, Mr. Pollard, where was this ground you was measuring? - The ground belongs to Mr. Emmery, I am positive sure I was in company with Mr. Evans from eight o'clock on Sunday morning, till near twelve on Monday night.

Did you meet any body coming to town or see any body? - No, not that I knew, but there was a man overtook us somewhere on this side Finchley-common, he was a stranger to me, but the man spoke to Mr. Evans, and he came along with us.

Sir T. Davenport. As you are so very regular, can you tell the day you committed the first act of bankruptcy? - I cannot tell you, I never was a bankrupt in my days.

No commission? - No, Sir.

Never any taken out? - No, Sir.

Do you remember the day your creditors met in order to make a composition? - I suppose I may.

When was the day you made a composition with your creditors? - I never made a composition with my creditors in my life.

Did you ever meet them? - Yes, it was in the year 1781, I suppose.

In what month in 1781? - It might be somewhere in November or December; I was arrested several times, and I called my creditors together, and great part of them are paid, and all the money I owe in England, is not above eighty or ninety pounds.

Will you be correct to the month you met your creditors to compound with them? - I cannot.

Have you no memorandum of that? - I suppose I may at home.

Have you or have you not, have you your books for 1781? - Yes, I will shew you something about it; on the 13th day of December 1781, I was arrested by a Dr. Bull, for eighteen pounds seven shillings, and this Doctor I gave him some money, I paid him the remainder since, I I have no entry of the compounding, for the lawyers run away with all the cash.

Will you shew me in this book any entry of your dining at any other place besides this time? - I do not know that I can, but you may see by the complection of my countenance that I am not to be brow beat; I am a man that do not dine very often at a private house.

Now I will give you the whole year of 1781 to find me another entry except that.

Mr. Erskine. You made that entry about the 6th or 7th of April, on the spot? - I made it in the field on the spot.

Sir T. Davenport. It was very material to enter this dinner, you can tell exactly what you had for dinner at Goodridge's? - We had a haunch of mutton, and boiled beef, and there was a pye, I believe it was a damson pye, I am not sure.

How many minutes walk is it from that place to Underwood's house? - I do not know where Underwood lived, it is in the Borough, it would take an hour and a half to walk there and back.

When was you first called upon, and did first disclose this matter? - I suppose it may be four or five months ago.

Who applied to you? - Leonard Goodridge asked if I could tell the time that I dined at his house, he did not tell me the time, I told him by eight or nine o'clock I was merry.

Have you been frequently in the prison to see them? - I suppose I have been there forty times, I am intimate with them all, and if you was there I would go to see you.

Why did you enter that dinner? - My reason is this, I had some business to do with Goodridge, I have no entry about any other dinner, there is another entry in that book of dining with him on Tuesday the 7th of January.

Had not something passed on the 7th of January about a will? - I never heard any conversation about any thing being done about a will.

Mr. Erskine. I observe, on the 7th of January you lost a shilling at cards, and on the 9th of February, you gave a shilling to the servant.


I dined at Mr. Leonard Goodridge 's on Sunday, while Mr. Sawtell lay dead.

Was any body expected to come there to dinner? - Yes.

Who was expected? - Nathaniel Goodridge did not dine there.

Did Pollard dine there? - I do not recollect that circumstance.

What time did you dine? - About half past one, I staid there till seven.

During that time was Leonard Goodridge absent from his own house for any time? - I do not recollect.

Mr. Silvester. When was it? - It was on Sunday, I was told that Mr. Sawtell died that morning; I made no memorandum, I do not recollect Pollard there, my wife was there, she is not here.


I lived servant with Nathaniel Goodridge , in 1784; I am a carpenter, I worked with him.

Do you remember in 1784, Underwood's coming to him? - Yes, it was the 24th of November.

Did you hear any conversation between

Underwood and Leonard Goodridge , when he came? - Yes.

What was it? - Mr. Underwood came to Mr. Goodridges's house about eight in the morning, he asked if Goodridge was at home, I said, yes, Underwood was in the kitchen, Goodridge came down and asked Underwood how he did, Underwood said, he did not know how he did, for it was a sad thing to be tempted; he had been with Mr. Slack the night before, and he had offered him a thousand pounds to do what he could on his side, and on his behalf; he hoped God would direct him for the best, for he would not starve, nor his family, even at the hazard of his life; Mr. Goodridge made answer, and said, he would have nothing to do with him or Mr. Slack either.

Mr. Fielding. You have known Leonard Goodridge sometime, I take it for granted? - Yes.

Where may you live now? - No. 219, St. John's-street; the last person I worked with was Mr. Cox; I never made any depositions in the Commons.

You never have been sent for? - No.

When was it you was desired to come here? - The first session after they were indicted.

Where was Leonard Goodridge at this time? - He was in the work-shop, I was going out, and Underwood was at the door, I opened the door for him; I was in the kitchen when he came, where there was some spikes and nails, they were in the kitchen then.

Underwood made use of this declaration in your presence and hearing? - Yes.


I am acquainted with Evans, I formerly kept a public house in St. John's-street; I remember seeing Evans on the 7th of April 1783, about seven in the evening, I was on this side the dirt-house, between that and Highgate, there was a gentleman with him, but I do not know who he was, we walked together.

What time did you come to town? - It might be very high nine, we came home a little before eleven: I know the day, because I went to see a person, I never parted from them till I came to town.


I was a fellow servant at Goodridge's with Dodson.

Do you recollect when you came to London? - I was not in London till November 1783, I was at work at Mrs. Closes's, in Gutter-lane, I was making some stairs; I quitted Mr. Cox of Islington, to go to Mr. Goodridge's.

Did you go immediately there? - I did this job for Mrs. Close, in Gutter-lane, in the month of November, 1783.

Mr. Silvester. When did you begin to make memorandums? - I set that down.

Do you mean to swear that Dodson worked there in 1783? - Yes, Fisher Dodson and me both worked together at Mrs. Close's.

Have you any memorandum of the time? - Here is a memorandum I made as far as this, I had been at work at Mr. Jaques, and drew up a memorandum.

How will that prove that you was at work at Mrs. Closes's? - It was within the six or eight weeks that I worked for him.

Do you recollect a maid servant by the name of Nicklin? - I heard of her, and may have seen her, I never spoke to her that I know of.

Do not you remember an attorney in the back shop? - There was, I remember now, we came out of the shop together, and went and drank together, that was about November 1783.

I suppose you told Mr. Goodridge what you knew, when you heard of this? - No.

Did not you declare that you kept out of the way for fear of being met by the prosecutor? - No, Sir, I never was affraid of meeting any person.

Did you ever say you kept out of the way? - No,

Was not you applied to by the prosecutor to come here? - I had a subpoenea to come here.

Was not you applied to by the prosecutor to come here? - I was no further applied to than being supoened, I never declared to anybody that I kept out of the way for fear of being brought here on the part of the prosecution.

How came you to come here to prove this was on November, and not in January? - I cannot prove it any otherwise than in November, because it was in November.

Mr. Erskine. Had you ever been in Goodridge's service before you went to Coxe's? - No; I never was in his shop, the beginning of 1783, I did not know my way to the shop.

When you saw this man writing in the shop, it was in November 1783, and Sawtell had been dead nine months then? - Yes.

- COX sworn.

I am a carpenter, I employ men, I keep an account of the men I employ; I know Hill the last witness, I employed him, he came to work for me on the 21st of October 1783, he came on the Tuesday and left me on the Saturday night.

Mr. Silvester. Do you know where he came from? - He was at work for Jaques.

Who was Jaques servant to? - Jaques was servant formerly to Goodridge.

Which of the Goodridges? - To Leonard Goodridge .


Do you recollect employing Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge to do any business for you as a carpenter? - Yes.

What was it? - To make a pair of cellar stairs.

Do you recollect at what time that was? - In November 1783.

You are perfectly sure it was in November 1783? - Quite sure.

Are you sure it was not in January 1783? - No, Sir, it was in November, I recollect the time, I expected a gentleman out of the country, that was going to America, and he was to be with me a month; about the 18th of November, on a Saturday evening, they were finished; Mr. Goodridge and both his men worked till twelve at night.

Who were both these men? - Hill and Fisher.

Mr. Fielding. Are you sure it was in November? - Yes.

Now, was it not in the year 1782? - No, 1783, I will shew the bill.

How came you here to day? - I was subpoened three days ago.

Mr. Sheppard. Was that the first time you was ever spoke to about it? - I was told some time ago, I might be called on, it may be six months, it may be seven months.


I am daughter to the last witness, I recollect Mr. Goodridge being employed to do some business for my mother perfectly well, making a set of cellar stairs, altering a bedstead, and some other work, as near as I can recollect, it was about the middle of November 1783.

Can you possibly have made such a mistake as that it might have been in January 1783? - No, Sir, I am very sure of that, I recollect that the work was finished on the Saturday night, the lottery beginning to be drawn on the Monday, I know the stairs were made, because we expected a gentleman out of the country about that time, who was going to America, he did not come, he altered his plan; I have no doubt at all about the time.

Who did the work? - Hill was one and Dodson the other, Mr. Goodridge and his two men all attended together to finish the work.

Sir T. Davenport. How long had Hill been with Goodridge? - I cannot tell.

Had these men worked for you any time? - Yes, that was in the December before, both Dodson and Hill, particularly Dodson, I remember him, and I remember Hill too.

Mr. Garrow. You are sure that the business of the stairs was done in November 1783? - I am perfectly sure of that.

- GREGORY sworn.

Have you been in Court to day while Mr. Underwood was examined? - I have.

Have you attended his examination? - I did.

You attended particularly to his evidence, where he says, he held in his hand a draught with the seal torn off? - If it had been as he represented it, I must most certainly have seen it, any clerk to an attorney that had not been six months with him, must have made the observation; I want to see if that which Mr. Underwood brought into the Commons is the draught, (looks at it) I verily believe this is the draught he shewed me, and not the draught he spoke off, the draught he spoke off, he told me he had torn off the seal and the name, is it possible that that could have escaped my observation.

You think it could not? - It could not upon my oath, I verily believe he did not shew me such a paper as he mentions, on the contrary, I believe this to be the draught that he shewed me, for this reason, he pointed out to me that when he attended Mr. Sawtell with this draught, Sawtell made mention to him that he had made a mistake in two or three of the legacies, particularly that he had altered them with pencils, and that he had inserted maintenance and clothing, and struck out education, in my office he pointed out that to me; says he, here Sir, I have done it with a pencil.

Then Mr. Gregory, how can it be true that he shewed you a cancelled will, with the name and seals torn off? - I do not believe it.

At the time that Underwood came to you, to give you an account of what he had done, did he give you a clear account? One of the clearest accounts that ever was given by man.

Could you have had the least idea from his declaration, that it was not a fair and just will? - No man could have had a shadow of doubt.

And he gave you this paper which he acknowledged to? - He gave me a copy of instructions, which he told me he took himself from the testator's own mouth at Nathaniel Goodridge 's house, the 6th of November, I asked him then, whether he drew any draught; he told me he did, I asked him whether he read over the draught, he told me he did on the 9th of November, being Lord Mayor's day, that then the testator himself made the alterations which are in pencil and appear here; his account of the forged will, with the two seals torn off, I believe to be totally false on my oath.

Mr. Silvester. You was, I believe, originally the attorney to the Goodridge's? - I was for Nathaniel.

In short you did all his business as an attorney? - For the two brothers, for some years.

When was the last time you did any business for them before this will was made? - I cannot say that.

Did not it strike you as very odd that they should employ Underwood to make a will? - The very reverse, Sir, I understood it was Mr. Sawtell himself that employed Underwood, and not Goodridge, for the very moment Sawtell was dead, Nathaniel sent to me, to come to his house on the morning he died, which was the morning of the 9th of February as represented to me, and sent a parcel by Fisher Dodson, it was this will of the 14th of December 1782, I cast my eye over it, and he desired me to come to Mr. Sawtell's I stepped there directly, Nathaniel Goodridge opened the door and asked me into the parlour, I gave it him, and he put it into his side pocket, and went into the parlour, that was the first time I had seen the will upon my oath; Daniel Slack was in the parlour then; a caveat being put in, I thought it very necessary to see the attorney who made

the will, in order to ask him proper questions concerning it; the next day after his death, I went with Nathaniel and Mr. Hunter his co-executor, to the Commons, in order to prove it, I did not want to see Underwood, till I found that a caveat was entered, when I did see Underwood, I asked him first of all, whether he had been acquainted with the testator, he said, he had, he said, through a Chancery suit he had been concerned in for a Mrs. Reeve; I then asked him whether he ever had taken any instructions, and from whom, about Mr. Sawtell's will; when he produced these instructions to me, I took them into my hand, I have a copy of them which he gave me.

On having the copy of them in your hand, it was examined by the original will he had in his hand? - No, Sir, the copy against the genuine instructions, not the instructions against the will, if he had held that in his hand I must have seen it, I had no suspicion at the time, I believed it to be as fair a transaction as any in the world, I supposed Mr. Sawtell was in possession of it; another circumstance, I saw Mr. Underwood many times upon this business, and when it was given out that Daniel Slack , the present prosecutor, found out the cover of a former will, and two blank sheets of paper, I asked Underwood if he knew any thing of them, he said no, he did not he declared.

Mr. Erskine. How long have you known the Goodridges? - I suppose I have known Leonard Goodridge for twenty years or more, I have known Nathaniel Goodridge about fifteen years.

Have you known much of him? - Certainly, a great deal of him, I have employed them both in their respective capacities of carpenters and undertakers; if I was now called upon, on my oath, to name an honest man, or one man more honest than another, I do not know any two men that would sooner have entered my mind, than Nathaniel Goodridge and Leonard Goodridge .

These persons were apprised of these prosecutions, and if they had a mind to have escaped they might? - I was furnished by Mr. Sheppard, with a copy of the affidavit of Underwood against the will, I was greatly astonished, I immediately went to Mr. Jenner the Proctor, and saw Mr. Jenner, Mr. Jenner himself immediately made application to the two Goodridges, in order to talk to them about the matter, Mr. Sheppard gave me a copy of the receipt of Evans, and I wrote a letter to him, and Evans received the letter and came up to town, I know he had the letter, and he came from Wales to meet the charge, and for fear he should not on my letter, Nathaniel Goodridge went to fetch him; Nathaniel Goodridge came first to meet the charge, then Evans.

Had not they a full opportunity of escaping? - Certainly.

I need not ask you after the very honourable character you have given of the two Goodridges, whether you believe it possible, that they could be capable of committing such a crime? - I do not believe it, I have no reason.

Sir T. Davenport. Before you had an answer from Evans, did not Nathaniel Goodridge go down to Wales? - He did.

Had he any occasion to go there but to see Evans? - That I cannot say.

But to your knowledge? - No, I believe he went to fetch him up.


I lived with Nathaniel Goodridge , I know Fisher Dodson, he lived there at the time I did, and I knew Elizabeth Nicklin , she went away, and used to confiscate and take some things belonging to Mr. Goodridge, I acquainted him of it, and he gave her a months wages and sent her off in a fortnight; Dodson and she were very well acquainted, Dodson had left Goodridge's service some time before Nicklin.

Have you met Fisher Dodson at any time since Nicklin was turned away? - I have.

Had you any conversation with him about that circumstance? - I had, he told me Goodridge had kicked up a fine row about parting with Betty, he said he had no right to stop Betty's box, I said he had, I said if she had nothing in her box but her own, she need not have been afraid of his opening it, so he was very angry, very angry indeed, and made use of such expressions, and d - nd Goodridge, and said if ever he had it in his power he would do him a mischief for stopping Betty's box.

Mr. Silvester. When did Betty go away? - The latter end of June or the beginning of July, 1784.

Now he had gone away a week before that? - I do not recollect the particular time.

Was not it in 1783? - No, it was in 1784, I recollect it very well, it was soon after Mrs. Goodridge died, and I recollect her going away then, there was such a piece of work about it; Mrs. Goodridge died, it might be in February, 1784, I cannot properly say the time.

What reason have you to recollect that this happened in 1783, and not in 1784? - I have no particular reasons, but I recollect it perfectly well, I recollect I was there at the time, and that it was 1784.

Have you put it down at all? - No, I cannot particularly recollect the time Mr. Sawtell died, I lodged at the house when Sawtell died, I cannot recollect properly when it was.

How soon after she died did these persons leave Goodridge's service? - They left it after she died, but I cannot recollect how many months.

Was it a few months? - I cannot recollect any particular time.

Was Hill there? - Yes, he worked with Dodson, I did not work with him.

Do you recollect the time you went to lodge at Goodridge's? - It must be about the beginning of the year 1782, I remember they did work together, but not at the the time of Sawtell's death.


I live in Clerkenwell, I know Mr. Eames.

Have you ever had any conversation with Eames about his examination in the Commons? - Yes, I had once, I have spoke with him several times, I think the defendants had been in custody three weeks, it was reported that Mr. Eames had had an offer of five hundred pounds to be concerned in this forgery, I went to him, he declared to me that it was not true, and that what he said, and that what he had sworn in the Commons, which was on his first examination, was all that he knew; I was acquainted with Sawtell, I had dealings with him, the last money I paid him was the 2d of April, 1782, I paid him between one and two, I went to his house in Brook-street.

Who was there with him? - Mr. Slack's brother was there, he counted the money and wrote the receipt by the desire of Mr. Sawtell, Mr. Sawtell said I cannot see to write, Robert, write for me, and he wrote the receipt which I have here, and Robert Slack , after he had wrote it, said, Sir, will you sign it, he said yes, I will, but I can hardly see, and he assisted him to put his hand upon the paper, and he wrote his name, I know all the three prisoners, I have known Nathaniel about six or seven years, I have known Leonard about ten or eleven, and Mr. Evans ten or eleven.

What is the general reputation of the Goodridges as to honesty? - I never heard the least imputation upon them.

Is their character a good one? - Yes, I have always found it so.

You never heard a whisper to the contrary? - Never.

Mr. Fielding. Sawtell signed his name? - Yes, with the assistance of Mr. Robert Slack .

- PARDON, Esq. Under Sheriff, sworn.

Mr. Erskine. You receive the rents and ground-rents of a certain audit upon

Saffron-hill? - I did the 28th of October.

For what purpose? - To receive a part of the ground-rents for some ladies at Gloucester, Mr. Sawtell was lessee of some houses; in October, 1782, I think the 28th of October, Sawtell came there to receive his rents, and brought Nathaniel Goodridge , and he said he should give him the rents, he staid to dine, he said he married a relation of his wife's.

- CLARE sworn.

I knew Mr. Sawtell, I am an attorney, but my principal business is receiving the rents for particular estates, to the amount of seven or eight thousand pounds a year, I have met Mr. Sawtell several times, I have met him two or three times a week coming up Hatton-Garden, but in particular one morning, some time in the latter end of 1781, it was a Sabbath morning, when I got down my steps I saw Mr. Sawtell then nearly on the pavement, and I over took him, and I asked him how he did, and he said to me, as near as I can recollect, how do you do, he then took me by the arm and said I should go with him to Sagoe's coffee-house and have a dish of coffee, I told him I was particularly engaged, I said to him he was late, he said he was vexed, he said he wished I would go with him to the coffee-house, for he wanted to consult with me about his will or a will, I told him I hoped he had not lived to that age without making a will, he said no, but he could not get one to his mind, he said he wanted to do something or to provide for a daughter or child, I then said I did not know he had any children, he said he had one that he respected or considered as a child, he said she was married to one Goodridge or Goodwich, and he was a carpenter and undertaker, and as hard-working a dog as any in England, there was some other little conversation, but by this time we had just got to Sagoe's coffee-house, I wished him a good morning, but he took me by the hand and asked me into the coffee-house, I told him I could not, but would call upon him another time, he said if I would not go with him then I might be d - nd, he also said, talking about his will, that they would not let him make a will to his mind, I do not know who he meant by they.

Mr. Silvester. Where do you live? - In Hatton-street.

A housekeeper? - Yes, Sir.

What are you? - I am an attorney; but my principal business is, I am employed by a gentleman at the bar to receive rents; it struck me, as we were not vastly intimate, I had no kind of respect or regard for Mr. Sawtell, I had no wish to have done it if he had chosen it.

When was this? - I rather think it was about the month of September, 1781.


I live at Islington.

Do you remember any time in November, and if you can tell us the day so much the better, that you saw Mr. Sawtell? - On Lord Mayor's day, 1782, I saw him in the parlour at Tallow Chandler's Hall, Nathaniel Goodridge was with him.

Did you sit by Mr. Sawtell? - I sat next to Mr. Goodridge.

Did Sawtell say any thing about Goodridge? - Yes, Mr. Goodridge stood behind Sawtell, and Sawtell turned about and said, Goodridge, come and sit down by me, you come to help me, you shall be my heir.

You are sure you heard him say so? - Yes.

I believe they dined together there? - Yes, I was there, they behaved very sociable and friendly to one another.

Mr. Silvester. You dined there? - Yes.

And you and the old gentleman got pretty merry? - We were chearful.

He was not what you call a sot? - He liked to help his neighbour.

Are you positive to the words that he made use of? - Yes.

Was you always sure of the expressions

that he made use of? - Yes, Sir, I think I was positive to the same I have said.

In the Commons you said

"This deponent thinks he added the words, you know you are my heir, or to that effect, but cannot swear particularly to that particular.

Was this before or after dinner? - Before dinner.

Who did you sit next to? - Mr. Goodridge, and he sat next to Sawtell.

How long have you been deaf? - I am not very deaf.


Did you know Mr. Sawtell in his life time? - Yes, I was at Mr. Goodridge's on Lord Mayor's day, 1782.

Did you see Mr. Goodridge there? - Yes.

Who did he come in company with? - With Mr. Sawtell, he staid there about an hour and a half, they seemed on very good terms, exceedingly so, they had been to Tallow Chandler's Hall to dinner, they went away together.

- OLIVE sworn.

You are a surgeon and an apothecary, I believe you attended Mr. Sawtell in his last illness? - I did.

Upon that occasion had you any opportunity of seeing Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge , one of the prisoners at the bar? - Yes, Sir, I saw him, every time I went he always was attentive to him and seemed fond of having him about him to move him and to do the necessary business, he was generally there and seemed to be the acting person about him, and there was a man there about him pretty much, I began to attend him the beginning of December, 1782, I attended him about the first or second week in February, till he died.

Mr. Silvester. Did you ever see him there before December, 1782? - I do not recollect, I think I have seen him there, but I did not attend him before, I had attended in the family before, and I think once I attended him, it was about the 7th or 8th of December, I attended him a week, he had a variety of matters, there was the burning of his legs by sitting by the fire.

How often did you attend him in a week? - Most likely I missed very few days in the whole time, my partner might go some days, I might one or two days be missing, I am very sure it was but very few days in the latter part of the time, he was not capable, I do not think he was capable of going out after I saw him.

Mrs. WALLIS sworn.

I knew Mr. Sawtell in his life time, I have conversed with him about Mrs. Goodridge.

What was the nature of that conversation? - I had been acquainted with Mr. Sawtell above twenty years, and in the course of that time I have always heard him speak of Mrs. Goodridge, it was his whole discourse to me, he never was easy but when she did any thing for him that he wanted to be done.

Did you ever hear him say any thing of the nature of the relation between them? - Aye, a thousand times, when her first husband was dying, him and me went to the bed side, and he shook hands with Mr. Haines, says he, John, do not be uneasy about your family, for I will do for them; and she used to come to him every Sunday to dinner before she married Nathaniel Goodridge ; Mr. Sawtell told me Mr. Slack was no relation at all, and every thing was given to Mr. Goodridge.

Mr. Silvester. What are you? - A woman I suppose.

What profession are you? - A pawnbroker, I was acquainted with him a matter of twenty years, I was not acquainted with him after he left off business, I have seen him since.

How many years before he died had he left off business? - I cannot tell you.

How often did you see him after he left off business? - I cannot tell you that neither, I did not see him for twelve

months, he gave her all his wife's clothes and one hundred pounds.

Did you ever hear him say any thing about his will? - Yes, Mrs. Goodridge came to me and was crying, I asked her what was the matter, says she my uncle has made his will to a cotton merchant, and his name is Slack, and she desired the favour of me to speak to her uncle, and accordingly the next day he called upon me, and sat down by me, I said to him after all your promises to provide for Haines, you have made a will in favour of Slack, so says he, poh poh, she is a good girl and I will do for her and her family, she shall never want, which might be a year and a half before his death.

Was that before he retired from business, - I cannot tell you.


I have known the late Mr. Sawtell about sixteen years and upwards, I have kept a shop in his neighbourhood very near fifteen years.

During all those years have you known him? - Yes, except one time I was at sea a little while, I knew Mrs. Goodridge, her name was Haines, I know she always came to our house on every merry-making day, such as his birth-day or a wedding-day, nothing went right without she was present in his family, and among all his friends.

State to the Jury who was his principal favourite? - Mrs. Haines, afterwards Mrs. Goodridge.

Did there happen to be any remarkable likeness between them? - Yes, she certainly was very much like him, he was more partial to her than any person I know.

Mr. Silvester. When was this? - About sixteen years ago.

That was during the life time of his wife? - Yes.


Was you acquainted with the late Mr. Sawtell? - No doubt of it.

Are you acquainted with Mrs. Goodridge? - I knew her when she was Mrs. Haines, I knew her seven years.

Had you opportunities of observing whether Sawtell had affection and regard for her? - He generally had her there most days to dinner, he seemed to shew affection and regard, I never heard whether he intended to make any provision for her and her family.

- FENTON sworn.

The witnesses on the allegation were examined in August, 1785? - Yes.

Was there any opportunity to answer these allegations but by an exceptive allegation? - Certainly not.

It is in contemplation to put in that exceptive allegation? - Yes.

Mr. Silvester. You might have put it in if you chose? - The allegation might have been in about this time.

Mr. Erskine. I have a great many witnesses to call to the character of the prisoners, but I wish to call witnesses to shew who this Mr. Underwood is, we have four-score witnesses to character.

Jury. We shall be satisfied with a fifth part.

Call the Rev. Mr. Sellon.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord, please to let Mr. Sellon be examined first, for if he stays till the last, he will not be dismissed time enough for his Sunday's lecture.

The Rev. Mr. SELLON sworn.

I know Mr. Leonard Goodridge , of St. John-street, Clerkenwell, I have known him above twenty years, he lives in the parish of which I am minister, I have had some little dealings with him at times, and have been a witness of his proceedings and conduct as carpenter under the commissioners of the paving act, his behaviour has been that of a civil, sober, industrious man, a man of probity, honesty, and integrity; I never knew any harm of him, and indeed I never heard any harm, and as far as I can judge,

from my own personal knowledge of his general character, I never could believe him to be guilty of the crime laid to his charge.

JOHN ARIS sworn.

I know Leonard Goodridge , I am a very near neighbour, I always found him an honest man, that is his general character, he has taken several hundred pounds of my money, I know him to be a tender husband and a good master.

Do you believe him a man capable of committing such a wicked act as is laid to his charge? - I do not indeed upon my oath; I know Nathaniel Goodridge but not intimately.


I know all the prisoners, I have known Nathaniel Goodridge for seven or eight years, his brother about four years, and Mr. Evans the same; with respect to Leonard Goodridge I have had transactions with him in business, I am in the undertaking and appraising line, I have done business with Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge , and I have found him in all respects as honest and impartial a man as ever I met with in the whole course of my life, and do declare that I do believe him to be an honest man in all his transactions before this, of which I know nothing; I have had some dealing with Evans, with respect to collecting the rents, his general character as far as I know of him is that of a very honest man, he was always fair and square in all his transactions with me.

- SEARCH, Esq. sworn.

I am foreman of the Middlesex Grand Jury, I have known Leonard Goodridge for twelve or fourteen years, a distinguished character for justice and honesty.

Mr. Pigott. You have found him so and all the world who talked to you about him told you so? - Yes.

Mr. HALL sworn.

I am a Common Council man, I am a builder, the prisoner Leonard Goodridge worked for me twenty years ago, I have known him particularly well ever since, I recommended him to my timber merchant, and he thanked me for recommending him so good a character, a very honest industrious man, I have recommended him to several hundred pounds worth of work that I might have done myself, because he lived in the neighbourhood.

- COLLIER sworn.

I have known Leonard Goodridge several years, a very honest just man.

Did you ever hear a whisper to his disadvantage? - Never in the least.

Never an insinuation to his prejudice? - No.

Mr. Erskine. All these lists we hold in our hands are filled with names to character equally respectable.

Jury. We are satisfied as to the character.



11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-3
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

124. The said LEONARD GOODRIDGE was again indicted for that he, on the 10th day of February last, at the parish of St. Bennet, Paul's wharf , in the city of London, falsely did utter and publish as true a certain false and forged paper writing, with a seal thereto affixed, purporting to be the will of one Thomas Sawtell , deceased, and to be executed in his

life time as and for his last will and testament, and to be signed with his mark, with intention to defraud one Daniel Slack , well knowing the said false, forged, and counterfeited will, to be false, forged, and counterfeited .

A second count, with intention to defraud one Edith Spence , wife of George Spence , Esq. and Mary Allen .

There being no evidence given on this indictment, he was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-4
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

125. The said JAMES EVANS was again indicted for that he, on the 10th day of February last, at the parish of St. Bennet, Paul's wharf , in the city of London, falsly did utter and publish as true a will of Thomas Sawtell , deceased, described as in the former indictment, with intent to defraud the said Daniel Slack .

A second count, for uttering the same with intent to defraud the said Mary Allen and Edith Spence .

There being no evidence given on this indictment, he was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-5
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

126. The said NATHANIEL GOODRIDGE was again indicted for that he, on the 10th day of February last, at the parish of St. Bennet, Paul's wharf , in the city of London, falsly did utter and publish as true a will of Thomas Sawtell , deceased, described as in the former indictment, with intent to defraud the said Daniel Slack .

A second count, for uttering the same with intent to defraud the said Mary Allen and Edith Spence .

There being no evidence given on this indictment, he was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-6
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

127. WILLIAM HOLLOWAY was indicted for feloniously assaulting Peter Robert Luard , on the King's highway, on the 14th day of December last, and putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and feloniously taking from his person and against his will, one silk purse, value 2 d. one pair of base metal sleeve buttons, value 2 d. two guineas, value 2 l. 2 s. and twelve shillings in monies numbered, his property .


I know the prisoner by seeing him at Bow-street, I was robbed the 14th of December, on Wednesday, a little on the other side of Hounslow , at a little after three in the afternoon; I now recollect him again to be the man I saw at Bow-street.

Was you robbed by a single person? - By a single person; I was sitting with my face to the horses, and I saw a man riding up in front of the coach, with a pistol in his hand, I was in the Reading post-coach, the man that robbed me was on horse back.

Was he any ways disguised? - Not at all, but having a flapped hat on, and a large great coat; some conversation passed between him and the coachman, which I did not hear, and the coach drove by him, he turned his horses heads about, and the prisoner then came up to the coach, and the coachman stopped, and the prisoner said, speaking to the coachman, if you do not stop, I will fire into the coach; there is always a degree of confusion in those cases, and I cannot say exactly what he said, I think he said, your purses and your watches, or I will fire into the coach.

Are you sure he said your purses? - No, I will not be sure of it.

You do not know then that he asked for any thing? - I think he said your purses or I will fire into the coach; upon that I gave him my purse, but I will not swear to any words; I saw his pistol, there were two guineas in my purse and some shillings, more than twelve, I did not give him my watch.

How long was it before you saw the prisoner afterwards at Bow-street? - I went on to Basseldon that evening, and the coachman came over to me on the Friday, I think it was, and I returned to town with him on the Monday following, and went directly to Bow-street with him.

From your recollection of the man, are you positive that is the man that robbed you? - No, my Lord, I am not.

Mr. Garrow, Prisoner's Councel. You have no recollection at all of the person that robbed you? - I do not swear to the person.


On the 14th of December I was going home from London with the coach, I am the coachman, I am the proprietor belonging to the Reading coach.

What happened on that occasion? - Just the other side of the ten mile stone from London, on Hounslow-heath, a man came up and stopped us with a pistol in his hand, which is the prisoner at the bar; upon which he said, coachman stop; I told him to get about his business for I would not be robbed, I told him the gentleman in the coach had a blunderbuss, and would blow his brains out if he did not keep off; he said, he did not care for the blunderbuss, watches and money he would have, or else he would shoot into the coach; I told him I would not be robbed, I kept on and did not stop the coach at all, but a lady in the coach was frightened, and held her purse out to him, and one Mr. John Eyre a clergyman, who lives at Chelsea, was in the coach, and jumped out, and ran back to Hounslow; when the highwayman saw him, he rode after him, Mr. Luard was in the coach at the same time, and Mr. Eyre jumped over a bank, and said, you villain I will not give you a halfpenny; then he said, Williams, take off your horses, and let us pursue the rascal, that frightened him, and he rode off; I run my coach after him three hundred yards, I thought of running the poll into him, I was within a few yards of him, I saw the lady give the purse out of the coach.

What did he do to Mr. Luard? - I did not see him give him his purse.

Do you know who that highwayman was that committed this robbery? - This is the gentleman.

Are you sure he is the man? - I am very sure, because I took one of my horses from the coach and caught him, and brought him back again in less than half an hour, I took his pistol out of his right hand, and hit him over the head first, and took his pistol from him, then I gave him two more knocks of his head, and hit him off his horse, then I searched him and found another pistol in his pocket, I am sure he is the man.

How far off did you take him? - I dare say it was four miles and a half, I do not know the place, I did not keep him in sight, I suppose I rode two miles and a half before I saw him, after I took the horse off, I could ride a mile in three minutes at furthest on that little horse, there was one Jones, he said, he hit him.

Court to Mr. Luard. Was you robbed at the same time with that lady? - I was my Lord.


I had been out a riding with my young master, and I was coming home again, I passed this man near Hesston church, I rode about half a mile, and I saw farmer John Williams , and he asked me if I saw a man on horse back, I told him I did, he was dressed in a large great coat, he was riding fastish, I cannot say whether it was a gallop or trott, but he was going a pretty good pace; John Williams said, he had just robbed his coach, then I turned round and said, I will soon take him; we directly rode after him about a mile and half, and I met Wilkinson that lives at the King's-arms, at Hounslow, and we all rode after him, I was foremost, and I saw the man, and in about a hundred yards I saw Mr. Jones of Brentford coming past him, and I hallooed out to him, a highwayman! and Mr. Jones asked me how I knew him, I told him he had just robbed the Reading coach; then he said, come along with me, and give me your stick, which was the stick I have in my hand now; I did so, and we followed the man till we took him; just before we came up to him, he rode along, and he said something, and he held a pistol out in his hand, but I do not know what he said, when we came near he stopped his horse, and pulled his horse round, and told us to keep off, or else he would shoot us, or something of that kind; then Williams came up directly, says Jones d - n your pistol, I do not mind your pistol, and he caught hold of him, and I caught hold

of his bridle; when I saw him they had taken the pistols from him, I did not see him examined then; coming towards Hounslow, the coachman went up to him, and asked him to give him the green purse he took from the lady, he immediately put his hand into his pocket, and gave the coachman the purse, then I immediately left him.


I had been at my fields, and coming along the road to dinner, I saw a man come full gallop past me, I turned round to look at him, he said nothing to me nor I to him, about five or six hundred yards further off, the corner of Mr. Child's park, I saw a young servant and his master, and he called out a highwayman! I turned after him, and when I came to the cross roads, I could just perceive the top of his head, which way he went, I pursued him as hard as I could, and when I came within five or six yards, he pulled out a pistol, I had only this switch in my hand, and I did not like it, I stopped my horse and turned back, I suppose twenty yards, and I met the gentleman's servant there again, and I said, give me your stick, so he did and I pursued him again; I had some men at work in t he fields, I called to them, and they did not come; then I rode after him, he had a pistol in his hand, he said something, I bid him shoot, I told him if he did not shoot me, I would knock him off his horse, with that he turned round, and I hit him on the side of the temple, which I look upon it stunned him, I hit him then, and he dropped his hands though he did not drop the pistol, and instantly came up the young man, and the coachman and several more, six or seven after he had turned round and come back a little way, the coachman says to him, give that purse you robbed the lady of, says he, it is a red purse, with half a guinea in it; this is the purse, this is a green purse, the coachman gave it to me, and it has been in my possession ever since, there was half a guinea, and five shillings in silver, and three halfpence; the coachman said, to the best of my remembrance, give me the red purse.

Court to Williams. What did you say to the prisoner about the purse? - I told Wilkinson, first; says I, stop your horse, I saw the highwayman take a green purse from the lady, I said nothing to Jones at all, I said to the prisoner, give me the green purse which you took from the lady.

Prisoner. I have nothing to say, I leave it to my council.

Court to Jones. Did the man appear drunk or sober at the time you took him? - Very sober.

Court to Hiscock. Did the prisoner appear drunk or sober? - He seemed very sober.

The prisoner called six witnesses, who all gave him a good character.

Mr. Luard. My Lord, the man did not appear to me to be perfectly sober, he had a violent redness in his face, which looked more like liquor than any thing else, and he appeared as much alarmed as we were; and the pistols were certainly not loaded with ball.

GUILTY , Death .

He was humbly recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor.

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURST.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-7

Related Material

128. WILLIAM SHOWELL and WILLIAM COLLIN were indicted for burglariously and feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Smith , about the hour of eight in the night, on the 27th day of December last, and burglariously stealing therein, two cotton bed gowns, value 4 s. two aprons, value 3 s. two handkerchiefs, value 3 s. three linen handkerchiefs, value 2 s. three towels, value 6 s. two table spoons, value 20 s. one

guinea, value 21 s. one half-guinea, value 10 s. 6 d. two crown pieces, value 10 s. and two pieces of foreign silver coin called dollars, value 9 s. the property of the said William Smith , and six yards of printed cotton, value 18 s. the property of Martha Huntley , in the same dwelling-house .


Nobody was at home when the house was broke open but an old woman of seventy-five in the garret, and she could hear nothing, my wife and me went out together and my niece, a little after six, it was dark, it was Tuesday the 27th of December; my wife is not here; I received information of my door being broke open, and I returned before eight, the bell was ringing eight, we all returned together, I found both doors wide open, we left them locked and fastened, the door had a staple which was screwed out by a hammer or a crow, or something of that sort, I missed the things mentioned in the indictment, the two dollars, two crown pieces, and a shilling, were in the bag, I saw the spoons on Christmas day, and the dollars I felt in the bag but I did not open it, I only found one shirt, that was dropped at the door; I knew both the prisoners many years, they have been at my house, and one often, that is Showell, they have had nothing to do some time, they are labouring men when they can get a job, I believe they are no trade, I suspected them by their keeping bad company, I had no other particular reason.


I lost the things mentioned in the indictment out of the prosecutor's house, I am a niece to the prosecutor's wife, I never saw the things afterwards, the prisoners were about the door, and set on the threshold, when we went out at six o'clock I saw them, I went out with the prosecutor.


Do you know the nature of an oath? - If I take a false oath I shall go to the Devil.


What is your father? - A lighterman, I was playing at hoop with two or three more boys and with the witness Murless, and the prisoner Showell said it was time for them to play, and told us to go home, we went home; I saw them do nothing before I went, I saw the prisoner Showell looking through the key-hole of the prosecutor's door, and Collin was sitting on the bench by the door.


I was at play with Jenkins, and Showell told me to go away, for it was time for him to have a game at play, so I went home, and my mother sent me for a bag of grains, I went for one, and went home and returned for another, and I saw the prisoners about two or three doors off, and I saw one of the prisoners drop a shirt, each of the prisoners had a bundle.

Which of them dropped the shirt? - I do not know, I saw the shirt drop from them and I picked it up, and spit upon it and put it in my bosom, and said I had found a prize, and Showell said, we will be d - ned if we have not got a good booty, but young Murless has picked up a nice shirt.

Was there any more said? - No.

Did you mention this to any body? - No, the man said it was an old smock or shirt, and my mother said it was a shirt, and she returned it to Mrs. Smith, and she gave me sixpence for finding it; Mr. Smith was not by when I gave it to Mrs. Smith.

Mrs. Smith. I know the shirt again, it is marked R. O. No. 12, I lost two sheets that were marked for Robert Ongley , I swear the shirt to be my property.


I am not guilty, I was at a house at the same time, and my mother came and fetched me lest he should think it was me.


I have nothing more to say than he has said.

The prisoner Collin called three witnesses who gave him a good character.


GUILTY Death .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-8
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

129. GEORGE SHEPHERD was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 18th day of December last, one pair of woman's stays, value 2 s. one man's cloth coat, value 5 s. one silk gown value 10 s. three marseilles petticoats, value 15 s. one sattin waistcoat, value 5 s. one silk ditto, value 3 s. one petticoat, value 20 s. one cotton gown, value 10 s. two handkerchiefs, value 1 s. one crape hat-band, value 6 d. one apron, value 1 s. five shirts, value 10 s. one gown, value 5 s. one cloak, value 20 s. one coat, value 8 s. a dimity waistcoat, value 2 s. a cloth waistcoat, value 2 s. two pair of stockings, value 2 s. one pair of worsted stockings, value 1 s. a silver watch, value 40 s. three muslin neck-cloths, value 6 s. a silver stock buckle, value 2 s. the property of Richard Gurney , in his dwelling-house .


I live at Stanmore , I am a day-labourer , I have known the prisoner three years, he was a servant to a gentleman, he lodged in my house at the time I lost these things, he came to lodge in my house six days before the robbery.

When did you lose these things? - The 18th of December, the prisoner left my house about five in the evening, he did not say he was going, I did not see him go, I was absent two hours, I left nobody but the prisoner with a little child about two years old, I returned about five, the house was left in darkness and my little child was crying, then I got a light and I missed the wearing apparel and the other things mentioned in the indictment, they are here, I saw the prisoner on Monday evening, the robbery was committed on Sunday.

Was he in custody then? - Yes, I heard him say nothing.


I am wife of the last witness, I was not at home this Sunday evening, I was gone out for the day, I know the things are my property.


I live at Kilburn Wells, I was coming to town on the 19th of December, about twenty minutes after seven in the morning, I overtook the prisoner with a bag on his shoulder, which is here now, I asked him what he was loaded with, he said his own wearing apparel, I asked him where he was come from, and he said from Watford, this was on the Edgware road, he said he had lived at Watford and left his place, I told him I insisted on seeing what he had in his bag, he readily laid it down without hesitation, I opened the bag and took out various articles of wearing apparel, and among the rest some women's, I asked him who that belonged to, he said to his wife, he afterwards said he came from Stanmore, that he had carried them down to Stanmore and was then taking them to her to London, I took him and the property to Bow-street; the things have been in my possession ever since.

(The things deposed to by Mr. and Mrs. Gurney.)

This watch I took out of the prisoner's pocket, I lost such a stock-buckle but I cannot swear to it.

Mary Gurney deposed to the stays, value 2 s. an apron, value 1 s. a child's waistcoat, value 2 s. a coat that cost a guinea, an unfinished sattin waistcoat, a muslin handkerchief, value 6 d. a gown, value 10 s. three cotton gowns, value two guineas, a black hat-band, value 6 d.

Mr. Errington. Here are now a quantity of cloaths that the prosecutor took out of

pawn for the prisoner and carried them to his own house.

Mr. Gurney. Here are various apparel that the prisoner had pawned, they were his property, and I took them out of pawn for him, and took them to my house under my care, I did not mean he should have them till satisfaction was made for the money; there was a black cloak, value 6 d. two linen womens gowns, a white waistcoat, two pair of black plush breeches, two shirts, a white linen waistcoat, three muslin handkerchiefs, an old coat, and a waistcoat.


I lived with my brother, Mrs. Gurney is my own sister, and my brother-in-law took these things out of pawn, but he did not tell me that I should not have the things; my witnesses did not know that I was to be tried to day; the prosecutor wanted me to leave my wife.

Jury to Mrs. Gurney. Did you ever say any thing to the prisoner at the bar about his wife, or about leaving his wife? - He complained of her as a person that had brought him to poverty.

Court. Did you promise to give him any of these things in case he should leave his wife? - No, I took them out of pawn for fear she should sell them out and out.

GUILTY , Death .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

He was humbly recommended to mercy by the Jury.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-9

Related Material

130 JOHN CALLAGHAN was indicted for feloniously assaulting James Hale on the King's highway, on the 15th day of December last, and putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and feloniously taking from his person and against his will, a man's hat, value 18 d. and a linen handkerchief, value 12 d. his property.


On Thursday the 15th of December, about twelve at night, I was going to my lodgings at Saltpetre-bank , as I stood at my door I was knocked down, I did not see the man before I was down; to the best of my remembrance he had a pair of petticoat trowsers on, he took my hat and handkerchief, which was about my neck, I went afterwards into my lodgings, as I was going home without my hat I met the watchman, and he asked me where my hat was, I told him I was robbed of it on the bank, I heard no more of it till the next night.

JOHN EDGE sworn.

We heard of this robbery, I had taken up a man and a woman, I had a disorderly woman, and another man was brought in, and in less than half an hour after the prisoner came in to ask for this woman, he had something stuck out, he said it was tobacco, and the beadle searched him in my presence, and took out this hat and handkerchief, that was the night this robbery was committed, within an hour after, he said he picked up the hat in a mob, on Friday, and the handkerchief he said he changed with a woman two or three days before; the prosecutor described the marks of the handkerchief before he saw it, before Justice Staples, I think he called it a sort of a cross like the mark of a ten, and he described the hat to have a red strap.

Did he tell the colour of the lining? - I do not remember whether that was asked or not, I did not see the prosecutor that night, I have had it in my possession ever since.

Prosecutor. They are mine.


I took the things out of the prisoner's pockets in the watch-house, when he came into the watch-house, I asked what he had in his pocket, by the bulk, he said it was some hands of tobacco, I asked him to shew it me, he would not, I put my hand in and took it out, I asked him where he had it, he said he got it at Billinsgate in a fight.


I did not think it any harm to buy the hat and handkerchief, I gave half a gallon of purl for the hat on Saltpetre Bank, there was a man and a boy in the house at the same time, and I sent for them, and they did not come, I expect them soon, there is nobody here now.

GUILTY , Death .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-10
VerdictGuilty; Not Guilty

Related Material

131. EDWARD FOX otherwise JAGGERS and WILLIAM OLIVER were indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 15th day of December last, two silver table spoons, value 1 l. six silver tea spoons, value 14 s. a pair of sugar tongs, value 6 s. a punch ladle, value 8 s two salts, value 12 s. a pair of salt ladles, value 2 s. one silver chafed milk pot, value 12 s. one silver chafed punch ladle, value 6 s. two salt spoons, value 4 s. a pair of silver shoe-buckles, value 1 l. a pair of silver knee-buckles, value 3 s. one stud, value 6 d. twelve shirts, value 3 l. 4 s. seven muslin neck-cloths, value 6 s. five stocks, value 8 s. six lawn stocks, value 4 s. one pair of stockings, value 6 s. one pair of silk-stockings, value 1 s. three pair of silk and worsted stockings, value 9 s. four pair of thread stockings, value 8 s. three pair of worsted stockings, value 5 s. one pair of lambs-wool stockings, value 1 s. nine linen draper night-caps, value 7 s. one man's cap made of silk and linen, value 1 s. one worsted cap, value 6 d. one yard of flannel, value 1 s. one pair of spurs, value 10 s. one gown, value 16 s. a china spoon-tray, value 9 d. one mourning-ring, value 9 s. one gold-ring with garnets, value 9 s. one pincushion, value 1 s. one steel pin, value 1 s. one printed book, entitled the Monthly Preparation for the Communion, value 3 d. the property of Samuel Lessey , in his dwelling-house .


I lost the things mentioned in the indictment, none have been found but one book, my house was robbed, the one pair of stairs forwards, I was in the back parlour at tea, it was between five and six.

Mrs. LESSEY sworn.

I am wife of the last witness, I was drinking tea the 15th of December; in my parlour, and while I was at tea I was robbed, I lost the things mentioned in the indictment to the amount in the whole of eight or ten pounds, I lost twelve shirts both ruffled and plain, they were worth a good deal of money, they were worth a great deal above forty shillings, I lost waistcoats, and stockings, and silk stockings, I lost a book, entitled Monthly Preparations for receiving the Holy Sacrament, with Meditations and Prayers before and after the same.


I live in Carolina-court. I sell fish and any thing. I have a sick husband; on the afternoon of the night on which the robbery happened, I was at home, I was a coming out and there was a ladder lay in our yard, at No. 9, I saw the prisoner Fox bring a ladder out of our yard between three and four, he took it out himself, nobody else was there, what he did with it I do not know.


I live in French-alley, Goswell-street, I was drinking at Mr. Whitby's house opposite Mr. Lessey's, the 15th of December, the very day of this robbery I was sitting there from two o'clock till past seven, and the prisoner Oliver came to me and tapped me over the shoulder, says he, Pat, will you do a job, says I what is that? says he carry a ladder into Black-boy-alley and I will give you a shilling, with that says I, where is Black-boy-alley? says he, do you know Chick-lane? no, says I, says he do you know the turning going up into Smithfield? yes, says I, I do; says he, I will overtake you, he followed me and took the

ladder out of my hand and gave me a shilling, I took the ladder from under the gallery opposite Mr. Lessey's house, it lay down there, this was very nigh six o'clock; when I returned to the public-house, I met Jaggers or Fox in the passage, says he, Pat, not a word, no, says I, if I do I will cut my throat; I saw no more of him that night; the next morning they called me out of Mr. Whitby's tap-room into the yard, three of them, one of them is not taken, and that man and these two gentlemen asked me if I had heard what Mr. Lessey had lost, says I, Will Whitby says they have lost upwards of two hundred pounds, with that they fell out directly between the three, and swore d - n their eyes he sacked part of the booty, meaning the man that escaped.

What do you mean by sacking? - Did not throw it out again.

The prisoner desired the witnesses to be examined apart.

Patrick Duffy . Then this man that is not taken came in very flashy, well dressed, and this man said to him how can you dress yourself out of seventeen shillings, we only divided seventeen shillings out of Mr. Lessey's affair, and both the prisoners said they saw two rings in a woman's hands going to make sale of them, and that the other man did not give them their share.


How old are you? - Seventeen, my father is a bricklayer by trade, he does not work at it now, he cuts up wood for chandlers shops; as I was going down Caroline-court the 15th of December, between five and six o'clock, there was a man stood at the corner and saw me coming, and he made a walk up the court, I do not know who he was, when he passed me a little way he turned back again and stopped, I was going up the gallery and I saw two men stand under the corner of the gallery, that was the prisoner Jaggers and anothers man, I am very sure that it was him, I have seen him at Mr. Whitby's, the public-house before, I do not know who the other man was, I went up stairs and went out at the corner of the gallery, and Jaggers went to Mr. Whitby's door and whistled, and a bundle was thrown out of the prosecutor's dining-room window, and a man took it up and went up Caroline-court, and Jaggers helped the man out of Mr. Lessey's dining-room window.

Who was that man that came out of the window? - I do not know, he went down Blue-court, the court adjoining Carolina-court.

Prisoner Fox. When the Justice asked him who it was that came out of the window, he said it was Jaggers? - I did not.

Prisoner. And he asked him who caught up the bundles, and he said Jaggers did? - No, I did not.


I am headborough of St. Andrew's, Holborn, I searched Jagger's lodgings, I think it was the 22d of December in the evening about nine o'clock, I found a book on the floor, and there was some foul linen, and some old clothes laid at the foot of the bed, and a book which I have in my pocket; I likewise searched him, and found some keys and things upon him, this is the book.

Mrs. Lessey. I went to Jagger's apartment, and saw this book, I know it by these marks, and by this No. St. Saviour's Dock upon it; I can swear to the scrawl that is in it, and the writing that is in it.

Was your fore door locked, do you know? - Yes, on the single lock.

Could they get up any way but by a ladder? - No.

Prisoner Fox. After the robbery the prosecutor's wife came up to our house, and took a liking to this book and borrowed it, she promised to return it at night, she said she believed she could swear to it.

Mrs. Lessey. I never expressed any doubt.

Prisoner Fox. I have a witness to prove that book does not belong to her nor me neither.


I am quite innocent, I was speaking to this other prisoner.


I know so far as this, that the book is my property, I am a servant out of place at present, I lived last at Mr. Slater's, the King's Head, in Threadneedle-street, I worked at the time I got the book, at the Bull and Mouth Inn, I am sure it is my property, I know it by several marks; I saw it last, at the time I gave it into Mrs. Lessey's hands, I had it among some waste paper in a lumber room that I was cleaning out.

Can you write or read? - I can write my name.

Can you read? - Yes.

Is your name there in the book? - No, Sir.

Is there any writing in the book? - Yes, there is a man's name that is squashed.

What do you mean, blotted out? - I did not take such particular notice.

How long had you lived with Fox before this? - I never lived with one named Fox.

Then how came the book to be there? - I was there for the value of a day.

And you carried this book being a preparation for the sacrament with you? - It is the Whole Duty of Man, that is the title of the book.

And you have read it often? - No, Sir, I have not read it often, I have not had that opportunity to read it.

Court. Let her see that book? - (Looks at it.) No, Sir, it is not the book.

EDW. FOX otherwise JAGGERS,

GUILTY , Death .


Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-11

Related Material

132. WILLIAM COWELL DAVIS was indicted for that he, on the 9th day of January , feloniously did falsly make, forge and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsly made, forged, and counterfeited, and did willingly act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting, a certain order for payment of money, with the name of Branscomb thereto subscribed, purporting to have been drawn by one James Branscomb , directed to Edward Forster , John Lubbock , William Bosanquet , and John Holden Clerke , by the name and description of Sir William Lemon and Co. for the payment of 46 l. 7 s. 6 d. to Mr. Yarn or bearer , which said draught is as follows:

"Sir William Lemon and Co. January 7th 1786, please to pay to Mr. Yarn or bearer 64 l. 7 s. 6 d. for value received, yours J. Branscomb, with intention to defraud the said Edward Forster and others.

A second count, For uttering the same with the like intention, knowing it to be forged.

A third and fourth counts, for forging and uttering the same with intention to defraud James Branscomb .

A fifth count, For uttering the same generally directed to Sir William Lemon and Co. for payment of the said sum to Mr. Yarn or bearer, for value received, with intention to defraud Edward Foster and others.

- ROGERS sworn.

I am clerk to Edward Foster , John Lubbock , William Bosanquet and John Holden Clerke , our house is in Mansion-house-street, on Monday last between ten and eleven the prisoner presented a draught to me, for payment of sixty-four pounds seven shillings and sixpence; it struck me, as not being the hand writing of Mr. Branscomb, and I communicated my suspicions to the partners, Mr. Branscomb keeps money at our house, the partners were of my opinion, they immediately came forward and desired

the prisoner to walk into a back compting-house, that was the two partners Lubbock and Clarke, I then sent to Mr. Branscomb, to know if he had drawn that draught, he came, and the constable was sent for, and the prisoner given in charge.

Court. When the prisoner was given in charge, was it intimated to him what was the crime? - I do not know, I was not present when any intimation was given to him of his offence.

Mr. Garrow, Prisoner's Councel. There is no such person in the firm of your house, as Sir William Lemon ? - Not now.

Nor has not been for sometime past? - The 25th of March last that firm expired.

So that on the day on which this note was presented, and on which it bore date, there was no existing firm of Sir William Lemon and Co.? - No, there was not.

The prisoner did not represent to you, who the drawer was? - No, he did not.

Court. Was the firm changed on Sir William Lemon ceasing to be partner? - Yes.

Would any draught addressed to Sir William Lemon , have been paid by the present house? - If we had had effects, and been sure of the writing.

He made no representation who Mr. Branscomb was? - None at all.

Whether he was a German Count or any thing else? - Not at all.

JOHN RICE sworn.

I have a bill in my hand, I had it from Mr. Branscomb at the Banking-house, where I had charge of the prisoner, the prisoner was present; Mr. Branscomb told me the prisoner had offered it there for payment, and it was stopped, the prisoner made no answer at all.

Was this said so that the prisoner could hear it? - Yes, it was quite a small room.

Has it been ever since in your possession? - Ever since.

Court to Rogers. What became of this bill? - It was given to Mr. Lubbock, I did not see it afterwards till the constable took it before the sitting Alderman.


I am clerk to Mr. Branscomb, I am perfectly acquainted with his hand writing, I see him write his name many times in the course of a day.

Is that his hand writing? - No, Sir, it is not.

Does it bear much similitude to his hand writing? - I do not think it does.

Mr. Garrow. Does he make B. like that at all? - I do not think it does.

Court to Rogers. Look at that bill? - I recollect this perfectly well, this is the draught the prisoner presented to me.

Mr. Garrow. You did not make any mark upon it? - No, I did not.

But you passed it over to Mr. Lubbock? - Yes.

What is there remarkable in it? - Mr. Branscomb's name upon it, I think I should know it.

Can you venture to say that this is not the same signature to another note? - I do not think it is.

But I apprehend you do not mean to say as a conscientious man, that it is not the same signature; some person might have imposed upon you? - No, I do not think it would, unless the paper had corresponded also.

Mr. Garrow objected to the note being read, as it was signed J. Branscomb, and he said it was equivocal whether John or James; and he also objected that the Banking-house was not properly described, there being no such firm as Sir William Lemon and Co. but this matter the Court left to the Jury.

(The draught read and examined by the Court.)

"January the 7th 1786, Sir William Lemon and Co. please to pay Mr. Yarn or bearer the sum of sixty-four pounds seven and sixpence for value received, yours J. Branscomb. 64 7 s. 6 d."


My Lord, I received the note from a person at the London tavern, on the steps.

GUILTY , Death .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-12
SentenceCorporal > whipping; Imprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

133. ROWLAND HUGHES was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 19th day of December last, one man's saddle, value 20 s. the property of George Rodnam , Esquire .


I am servant to Mr. Emmerton, he keeps livery stables, I saw the prisoner with the saddle, I did not know him before, I saw him on Monday the 9th of December last, he was coming along a passage that led from the stable, and as soon as he saw me he threw down the saddle, I took the saddle up and followed him, and he was taken in five minutes after; I lost sight of him going through a public house, about two minutes.

Are you sure it is the same man that you saw drop the saddle in the passage? I am quite clear of it, as soon as ever he got by me he ran; the saddle belongs to Mr. Rodham, there is no mark upon it, it was left there in the master's name along with his horses, I had the care of it.

(The saddle produced and deposed to.)


I saw the prisoner run, and they cried stop thief! I did not see the saddle in the passage, I pursued and took him in the passage, not a hundred yards off; he run through the public house, he made a resistance and said I had no business to stop him, the man carried the saddle back again, he has had the care of it ever since it was stolen, I can swear it is the same.


I went to see one Thomas Biggs that lives there, he was not at home, coming away I met a labouring man, and when I was got the length of the street, I heard the cry of stop thief! and they stopped me, I never saw the saddle.


To be whipped and imprisoned six months in the House of Correction .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. ROSE.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-13
SentenceCorporal > public whipping

Related Material

134. JAMES DAWES was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 17th day of December last, one bacon ham weight twenty-one pounds, value 10 s. the property of William Garrett .


I keep a shop the corner of Bear lane, Tower-street , on Saturday the 17th of December, about half after three, the prisoner took a ham from my door, he was followed, and brought back with it immediately within five minutes after it was taken, I knew the ham again, I had weighed it before it was stolen, not a quarter of an hour before; and I weighed it when it came back, and it was the same weight; I missed a ham, I counted them just before; the prisoner said he was not the person that took it.


I saw the prisoner take the ham off the hook of the prosecutor's shop, he ran down Bear-lane, and I lost sight of him, but I saw him brought back, I live facing the prosecutor's door, it was about half after three in the afternoon; I cannot swear to the man, because I only saw his back, I can swear to the colour of his coat, that is the man I saw brought back.


I am an apprentice opposite the prosecutor's, on the 17th of December, at half past three, my fellow servant told me a man

had taken a ham, and run down Bear-lane; I ran after him, there were many narrow passages; I cried out stop thief! a young child picked up the ham.

Prosecutor. I was there when the ham was taken off the ground.


As I was going down the lane, several people passed me, I heard a man cry stop thief! I never saw any thing of the ham, till the man collared me.


To be publicly whipped on Tower-hill .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-14
SentenceCorporal > whipping

Related Material

135. NEWMAN HOOKER was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 11th day of January , one pile of troy brass weights, containing eight weights together of the weight of sixteen ounces, value 3 s. the property of Charles Aldridge and Henry Green .


Whipped .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-15
SentenceCorporal > whipping

Related Material

136. ANDREW PETERS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 3d day of January , one pair of leather shoes, value 10 d. the property of William Gosling .


Whipped .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-16

Related Material

137. JOHN MONTAGUE was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 18th of December last, one cloath coat, value 12 s. a dimity waistcoat, value 3 s. the property of James Riley .


I am a day labouring man , I lost a coat n waistcoat, on the 18th of last month, a a t ents at Mr. John Usherwood 's, in Tookes-court St. Martin's-street ; between three and five, when I returned I saw a light in my room. I went up stairs, and the door was fast against me, and the padlock on; I tried to unlock the other lock and could not, I knocked at the door five or six times, there was no answer directly, I put my ear to the key hole of the door, and I heard people talking, I cried out watch! the woman up stairs came down, and said, do you want a watch, I said, yes; then they opened the door, and three men came out, and the middle man hit me just over the breast with one of his hands, and I knocked down one of them who is not here, and then I laid hold of the prisoner, I found none of my property on this man, I wish I did, I lost a coat and waistcoat, I saw them at two o'clock.

Mr. Garrow, Prisoner's Counsel. What light had you to observe these people by after you got into the room? - They put out the candle before I went into the room.

You did not know this young man? - I never saw him before.

Did not you know his wife? - No.

Will you swear that? - How should I know another man's wife.

Do not you know a woman of the name of Gibbs? - Not as I know of.

Do you mean to swear that this man's wife has not been frequently in your company at your own apartments, and in common bawdy-houses? - I never knew a woman by the name of Montague in my life; indeed, Sir, I did not know what name in the world.

Do not you know that the man's wife has been at your apartments? - Never in my life.

And you never applied to her to go to Iceland? - No.

Did not the man come to your apartments to look for his wife? - I never saw him in my days.

At the time you found him in your lodging, did not he tell you, that he came there to look for his wife? - He never said so.

You swear that positively? - I will, indeed, when he came to the Rotation-office, he said he came to see me, and he found these two men, and they went and got a light.

You swear that you do not know any woman of the name of Elizabeth Gibbs ? - No, Sir

Was there any woman in the room with you at the time? - No, Sir.


I lodge in the same house, between five and six I was drinking tea, I heard some rumbling below stairs, I asked if they wanted a light, and the prosecutor called watch! I took the candle off the table, and went down stairs; the prisoner was outside the door, and the prosecutor had hold of him, and the prisoner said Riley, do not you know me, and Riley said no, I do not know you; says he you know me and my wife, Riley cried, I neither know you nor your wife; the prisoner said, let us go into the room, and there they went and sat down, and presently Riley said, what have you got pistols here, and I was so frightened; and presently after, I saw this iron crow in the hand of Riley, then the constable was sent for, and Riley said he lost a coat and waistcoat; I had been out, and after I came home, I had a dish of tea.

How long had you been at your tea, before you heard this bustle between Riley and the prisoner? - Not ten minutes, when I went past, I saw no light in his room, nor I heard nothing on the stairs, till I heard Riley calling.

If any body had been wrenching the door or pulling off the padlock, do not you think you should have heard it? - There was another poor woman with me, there were five more families in the house.


I am a constable, I was sent for, I observed the lock of the door was broke open, and the wood burst in, when I came there, there was only the prisoner, prosecutor and this woman, the prisoner raved, he talked about his wife, that his wife sent him there to speak to Mr. Riley.


I am innocent, I went after my wife, this man had been in company with her several times, and had give n her money, she told me he lived in Duke's-court, St. Martin's-lane, I went to the place and rapped at the door, and asked if Mr. Riley was at home; he came up and asked me my business, I asked if my wife was there, he said he did not know her, then he sent for a constable, there were two men went out of the room, and went down stairs, he never offered to stop them; in the watch-house he wanted to make it up, and the constable said no, swear hard to him, and I will back you, and we shall get forty pounds: I have three children.

Court to Constable. Is that true? - It is as false as God is true, I never mentioned such a word, nor was such a word mentioned.

Flinn. He said, you know me and my wife.


I live at No. 2, Denzel-street, Clare-market, I am a hair-dresser, I have known the prisoner about nine months, his general character is that of an honest man.

Court. Is he a married man? - He has two children, he has buried one.

Did you ever see Riley at your house? - Not to my knowledge.


I live in Great George-street, I am a hair-dresser, he bore a very good character, he worked for me.


I am acquainted with Montague and his wife, I know Riley, I have seen him in company with Montague's wife at different places.

I know it is disagreeable to you, but you must name some of them? - I have

seen Mrs. Montague go into Mr. Riley's dwelling-house, she has hallooed out, James Riley ; I was with them once at a little private house in Russel-street, it was a private house where we went in to have some spirits; I do not know what purpose she was there for, he gave her a crown piece; and I was in company with her early last Sunday, in a public house opposite St. Martin's church, since this poor fellow has been in custody, it was last Sunday; more than that, I was to go back and sleep with him if Mrs. Montague would not.

Did you ever mention to the prisoner this sort of practice? - Yes, the Sunday night, I cannot say the particular day; Mrs. Montague and Riley both said, that she should have some money from a gentleman whom she had had a child by, in a short time, and Mr. Riley and Mrs. Montague were upon the receipt of that to go over to Ireland; I told the husband of that on the Saturday before, the Sunday he came home and burst his wife's door open, he struck the door several times; I met him in the street once, and he told me the child was crying, and asked where he might find his wife; I said probably at Riley's, that was the Sunday night, three or four weeks ago.

Court. You was very intimate with Mrs. Montague? - Yes.

Whereabouts did she live? - At a hairdresser's, I forget the street.

What house was this? - It was in a court that turns up by the pastry-cook's, opposite St. Martin's church, I frequently saw her go to the house and call him.

Court to Flinn. Do you remember any woman's coming to Riley's? - Not to my knowledge, I have seen Mrs. Montague several times since her husband has been in confinement.

Riley. This woman and the other man's wife, came and called me out of the court, and I went to the public-house, and saw her that night, I never was in company with her before last Sunday night.


Court to Prisoner. The defence you have set up, has been discredited by the Jury, and will be an encrease to your punishment.

Transported for seven years .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-17

Related Material

138. JOHN DUNLAVEY was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 5th day of October last, one copper pottage pot, value 12 s. one iron ditto, value 10 s. and one iron cover, value 2 s. the property of John Roberts .


I am a Grocer; on Thursday afternoon about four, I was returning home, I saw the prisoner take a large pot from Mr. Robert's door, it was a copper pot, there were two, one within another, and immediately I went into the shop, and asked the man if he had sold a pot, he said he had not, I told him a person had taken a pot and run up Well-street with it; and he turned into Castle-street, and Mr. Robert's man run quicker than I did, when I came into Berner-street, he had seized him, I know the prisoner, he is the same man, it was not five.

Prisoner. I was in liquor, and then I am out of my mind, I know not what I do.


I pursued the prisoner, and took him in Berner-street, with the pots on the left arm, they are my own marking, when they first came into the shop.

Prisoner. Every change of the moon, and when I get a little drink, I am out of my mind, my witnesses are gone home.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-18
SentenceImprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

139. SARAH BURMAN was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 5th day of January , a silk purse, value 2 d. a pair of base metal shoe buckles, value 3 s. a shirt-pin, value 3 d. and nineteen shillings in monies numbered , the monies of Thomas Coffee .


I live in Oxford; last Thursday night I came from Oxford very much tried and wet with travelling, I came to Hounslow , and went into the house of Mrs. Green, where I always lodged, and I treated her with half a pint of gin, after that I sat down a little while and asked the landlady to get me a mouthfull of supper, and said I should be glad to go to bed, I gave her a shilling, this girl came to warm the bed and then she came up with the supper and waked me, I raised myself up and she sat and held the candle, I eat some supper, at that time my breeches were under the pillow, I laid my breeches under my head, there were nineteen shillings in the corner of my purse; I said you have robbed me, no says she I have not, I went for a light, and the girl put up the window and jumped out at the window, and away she went.

How high is the window? - Only one floor, I believe nine steps high, I followed the prisoner and found her at the ship, I took her at Staines with the buckles in her shoes and the pin in her bosom, then she said I would not give you a d - n for your money, and as for your purse I burnt that, and whatever you can do to me I will stand that, I would not give you that for your money, snapping her fingers.

Court. Are you a gentleman's servant? - Yes, Sir, I live with a gentleman for the present till I can find an opportunity of going home to the West-Indies, I am not in a proper service.

Did you frequently pass through Hounslow to town? - Yes, Sir, generally, I have often been in this house which is a place I always lodged at ever since I was first paid off from the ship.


I apprehended the girl, and took the buckles out of her shoes and the pin out of her bosom, she said he gave her the buckles to lay by for him, and bid her put the pin in a drawer, she owned she took the money, that he gave her five shillings and she took nineteen.


My landlady went to the publick-house for a pot of beer, this black man was there, she came home, there are two girls of us lodged in the house, and he said this shall be my wife, she said very well then Sally shall lay along with me, says he I will give you five shillings, and I will treat you very handsomely, you are welcome to any thing that is in my purse, he gave me the buckles to clean, I said they will do for my shoes, I had never a pair, I lighted him to bed, I go him two pound of beef stakes, and I cooked them and took them up with a pot of beer, he missed his money, and he drew out a knife, and said if I would not give him his money he would kill me, I knocked down the knife and went out of the window, the next morning I was taken.


To be imprisoned six months in the House of Correction .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-19

Related Material

140. JOHN SCOTT was indicted for that he, on the 22d of December last, feloniously did take away, with intent to steal, embezzle, and purloin, four woollen blankets, value 6 s. and three sheets, value 6 s. the property of John Cane , being in a lodging room in the dwelling-house of the said John Cane , and let by contract to him as a lodging room, against the statute .

JOHN CANE sworn.

The prisoner lodged with me one night, the Wednesday before Christmas day he took half a bed to have it weekly, and while he sent me to enquire after a person I could not find, he robbed the lodgings of these things.

How long was you gone? - I suppose better than an hour, the goods were taken upon him.

MARY CANE sworn.

I am the prosecutor's wife, I heard a foot on the stairs, I pursued and took the prisoner and found the property upon him, four blankets, three sheets, two blankets, and two sheets had been upon the bed, he said they were his own things, then he said somebody had put them in his bag and taken his things out.

Prisoner. Did I ever go up the stairs or come down without acquainting her of it? - He asked leave to go up and leave this bag, he went up and locked the door and left the key in the place.


I saw him come out with the bag.

Prisoner. My Lord, I had savoys in the bag, and wood and other little things, I tied the bag, and left it up stairs, and I had my dinner in the house, and I went down stairs and left it, and she asked me what I had there, and I said nothing but my own property, I said look at it, so she caught hold of me, I had a word or two with a man that lay there, so the man said he would be even with me, I know nothing of putting them into the bag if I was to die.

How came you to send your landlord of that errand? - The man is a dyer.

The prisoner called one witness to his character.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-20
SentenceCorporal > whipping

Related Material

141. GEORGE GREGG was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 6th of January , four quartern loaves of household bread, value 2 s. the property of John Pottis and Thomas Pottis .


To be whipped .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-21
SentenceCorporal > private whipping

Related Material

142. MARY MATTHEWS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 31st day of December , two linen shirts, value 5 s. the property of Richard Wallis .

The prosecutor's wife took the prisoner with the shirts upon her.


Privately whipped and discharged.

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURST.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-22
SentenceCorporal > private whipping; Imprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

143. ANN GREEN was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 20th day of December last, one silk gown, value 10 s. two white dimity petticoats, value 10 s. two black silk cloaks, value 4 s. and a hat, value 3 s. the property of William Bennett .

- BENNETT sworn.

My husband's name is William Bennett , I lost the things mentioned in the indictment, I found the prisoner in the garret, I never saw her before the things were picked up; they were in a box when I left them, she said the room belonged to her brother-in-law.

Prisoner. I do not know the nature of the offence.

The Prisoner called two witnesses who gave her a very good character.


To be privately whipped and imprisoned six months in the House of Correction

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-23
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

144. JOSEPH WILSON was indicted for burglariously and feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Sutton , about the hour of six in the evening, on the 26th day of December last, and burglariously stealing therein, one silver watch, value 20 s. his property.


I am servant to Mr. Sutton, I was at work in the shop, and a pane of glass was broke in, I immediately cried out stop thief, I did not see any thing taken away, I saw a man, who is the prisoner, about two doors off run away, I run after him down a place called the Dark-entry, which leads into Dukes-place, I then lost him, I went back and found there were four watches gone; I was directly opposite, the glass flew in my face which caused me to fall backwards; I am certain he is the man I pursued, there were two lamps in the passage: The watch was brought the next day to my master to repair, it was left with me, there was the foot-hold out; the man that brought it said he lived in Cable-street.

Was the prisoner taken up? - Yes, the next day.

Where was the prisoner taken? - At the Black-boy in Catherine-alley.

What did he say? - He said he found it, and sold it to Moses Israel .

Who has got the watch? - I gave it to David Levy .

Is that the same watch? - Yes.


Have you got the watch? - Yes.

Who gave it you? - The plaintiff's servant.

(The watch produced and deposed to.)

William Sutton . The watch was upon a hook near the glass that was broke.

What sort of window was it to your shop? - It was a long flat window.

Did it project out from the house? - No, it was quite even with the front.


I keep an old-iron shop and old clothes shop, last Monday fortnight about seven in the evening, I bought this watch for eighteen shillings; I put it in my pocket, going to market I came to a watch-maker's and carried it to have it mended, I did not know any thing of the shop, I was quite innocent of the affair.

Do you know any thing of the man you bought it of? - Yes, I never saw him before in my life, I think I should know him.

Look and see if you can see him now? - To the best of my knowledge that is the man.

Can you be sure of it? - I am pretty sure this is the man, I cannot rightly say.


A young man came and sold a watch to us, I believe this was the person, I cannot say for certainty, I never saw him but once.

Court to Franklin. Who was present when the prisoner acknowledged selling the watch to Israel? - My master, and the constable, and I.

Levy. The prisoner said he sold it for twelve shillings before the Justice, Israel said he gave eighteen for it, says the boy, you gave no more than twelve.


I was called upon, I think it was the day after the robbery, by the prosecutor, to go and search for the man that sold the watch, I went with Mrs. Israel and she picked him out; I do not recollect he said any thing before the Justice, he acknowledged selling it to Israel for twelve shillings.


I came up to receive my prize-money, coming over London bridge, I kicked this watch before me, I immediately run on and said I had found a watch, and the

young man went and sold it for eighteen shillings, and gave me the money.

The prisoner called five witnesses who gave him a good character.

GUILTY Of stealing, but not of the burglary .

To be transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-24

Related Material

145. CALEB ONLY and CHARLES HEMMINGS were indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 9th day of January , one thousand pounds weight of lead, value 4 l. belonging to Thomas Croker and Francis Jeffery , then and there fixed to a certain building of the said Thomas and Francis, against the statute .

(The witnesses examined apart.)


I know the prosecutors, they are brewers and partners, there was some lead missing from the premises, I am their plumber.


I saw Charles Hemmings with two rolls of lead upon his shoulders, in the space of a quarter of an hour he went close by my door with it, my house is about five or six yards from the place where the lead was stolen from, it was between ten and eleven on Monday se'nnight, I asked a neighbour to go to Sir John Falstaff 's to my husband, I heard the other prisoner Only say, to the man that I sent, Dick, where are you going in such a hurry? and the man said he was not going a long way, I opened the door and the prisoner Hemmings brushed by me and returned in a minute, and went and fetched a second load, the piece that is here I saw torn off from Mr. Croker's premises, the man that threw it off is not here, the two prisoners were both below, and as soon as ever it was thrown down they were gone with the lead, I told my husband to take in the pieces I saw thrown down, and to go and tell Mr. Croker of it, which he did, and my husband and the man came down, and when the prisoner Hemmings returned they seized him.


My wife sent for me on Monday last after eleven, and when I came home I was rather angry being rather beetified, but I was sensible enough to know what I was about, and I rushed out and said if there were twenty thieves I would have two of them, the two men forced themselves by me, upon my griping them both I missed them both, they were the two prisoners, they were going from Mr. Croker's apartments; the prisoner Only d - ned my eyes, and asked me what it was to me; they got from me, so I went and packed up the piece of lead.

Had they any thing in their custody when you catched at them? - No, it was dropped before in my hearing, but not in my reach, I was near twenty yards from them, I saw the tall prisoner drop from the caves of Mr. Croker's building.

Prisoner Only. My Lord, there are no caves to that building, I was within sight of Mr. Croker's premises at the time that lead dropped.

Where did that lead drop from? - From the top of Mr. Croker's storehouse, it was Only that dropped from the lead, I knew his person when I came to see him again, I knew him by sight before, but I did not know his name.

Was you near enough to see Only drop? - Yes.

Where wa s Hemmings when Only dropped? - He was taken in my sight to the watch-house in Golden-lane, by one of Mr. Croker's servants, one Henry Hinwood , and left there.


I am servant to Mr. Croker, I came to Mr. Harrison's house after the lead was taken in there, I run and I saw somebody before me in dark clothes, and just at the corner of the stair-case Charles Hemmings

turned and I caught hold of him, this is after Harrison had got the lead, I dragged him into Mrs. Harrison's house and she directly said that was the man that she saw go by twice with the lead, I delivered the lead to the officer.


I am the officer, I received the lead from the last witness.

Banner. I have examined the lead and marked it, and fitted it to the premises.

Can you, from the observations you made, take upon you with certainty to say, that that lead was a part of the lead that was taken off Mr. Croker's premises? - I can, the lead weighed sixty-five pounds, there is a great deal more taken, it is worth about seven or eight shillings.

Prisoner Only. I have no witnesses here, I have witnesses to prove I was at another place at the time.

Prisoner Hemmings. I can say that I am innocent.


Each transported for seven years .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURT.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-25
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

146. MORDECAI MARKS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 6th day of January , one feather bed, value 50 s. two pair of linen sheets, value 10 s. one woollen blanket, value 6 s. a linen gown, value 8 s. a silk and worsted gown, value 18 s. a black crape gown, value 20 s. a black stuff petticoat, value 15 s. two shirts, value 8 s. two leather straps with buckles, value 2 d. the property of James Robins .

The prisoner was seen taking the bundles out of the cart, he was pursued and taken, he said he would tell where the bundle was, but the bundle was never found.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-26

Related Material

147. SAMUEL BAKER was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 17th day of December last, one iron grate, value 3 s. the property of Samuel Smith .

The prisoner was taken with the grate upon him.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-27
SentenceCorporal > whipping

Related Material

148. JOHN HAWKINS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 19th day of December last, seven live pigeons, value 7 s. the property of John Darvel .


To be Whipped .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURST.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-28

Related Material

149. JOHN INGRAM was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 23d day of December last, two sheets, value 10 s. the property of Thomas Laidley .

The prisoner was taken with the sheets upon him.


To be transported for seven years .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-29
VerdictGuilty > theft under 40s

Related Material

150. GEORGE DYNE otherwise FARMER otherwise PALMER was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 5th day of December last, seven linen shirts, value 30 s. five cambric handkerchiefs, value 10 s. a cotton handkerchief, value 2 s. a cloth coat, value 20 s. a pair of cotton stockings, value 2 s. two pair of casimere breeches, value 3 s. the property of Aaron Goldhorne , in the dwelling-house of Catherine Davidson .


I found the prisoner in the street with my shirt upon his back, I missed the things on the 5th of December, I lodge at the house of Catherine Davidson , the things were in a bottom drawer, I cannot say whether the room door was locked or open, the drawers were open, I met the prisoner the 9th of December following in Russel-street, at a quarter past ten coming from the play, I suspected the prisoner by not returning again after the things were lost, he lodged in the same house, one of the Bow-street officers was with me, and he was stopped, and one of my shirts with A. G. upon it, was found upon his back.


I am a pawnbroker, I had these things of the prisoner either the 14th or 15th of December.

Do not you enter regularly in your books when things are pledged? - Yes, but I think it is either the 14th or 15th, he was taken up the same evening or the next day, he pawned them in the name of Palmer, I knew him, he had pawned several things with me before.

(The things produced and deposed to.)


I know the prisoner, he lodged with me at Catherine Davidson 's, and that night that the property was lost he absconded from his lodgings, and did not return any more, I did not come home that evening, but the

next morning the prosecutor informed me he was robbed, I was with the prosecutor when he was taken up.

Court. What is the prisoner? - He is a doctor and apothecary.

What is the value of these things? - Twelve shillings.

What is the value of the shirt that was found upon him? - Three shillings.


I was in the greatest distress, I have been out of place a great while, and could get no situation for four months, I meant to return every article back.

GUILTY Of stealing to the value of 15 s.

Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-30

Related Material

151. WILLIAM BARTLETT was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 6th day of January , one silver watch, value 20 s. a steel chain, value 6 d. and a steel seal, value 4 d. the property of John Williamson .


I lost a silver watch last Friday night in the evening out of my pocket, I was going up Cornhill , and turning round the corner by the pastry-cook's, I was jostled about, and the prisoner took my watch, I felt it going, and I saw it in his hand.

By whom were you jostled? - By that prisoner.

Did you see any other? - I saw him give the watch to another man, and I collared him directly, and took him into a shop and charged a constable with him, he denied it, but I saw it.

Mr. Scott one of Prisoner's Counsel. What time of the evening was it? - Between four and five.

Was not it dusk? - There were lights in the pastry-cook's shop, but it was light enough to see the watch in the man's hand.

This was near a pastry-cook's shop? - Yes.

Did not you stop to look into the pastry-cook's shop? - I did not stop there.

Then you was passing through a crowd that had stopped? - Yes.

What was the first impediment that you found? - Two or three jostled me, and I put my hand to my pocket to save my watch but I could not, nothing was found on the prisoner.

You saw somebody part with it? - I saw him part with it, I never lost him.


Mr. Garrow. My Lord, this is a witness that can neither speak nor hear.


Mr. Garrow. This woman is to be an interpreter to a dumb man, to which I object.

Are you sworn? - Yes.

To interpret? - Yes, as far as my knowledge.

Swear her to all such questions as shall be asked of him.

Mr. Garrow. You are acquainted with this dumb man? - Yes.

What sign have you to put these questions to him, what is the nature of an oath, by what sign would you ask him that question? - We look up to heaven and shew him that he is to answer seriously.

Mr. Garrow objected to this witness being examined, but his objection was overruled by the Court.

Court. Can you interpret the oath to him, you have sworn well and truly to interpret to John Rasten , a witness here produced on behalf of the King against William Bartlett , now a prisoner at the bar, the questions and demands made by the Court, and also well and truly interpret the answers made to them? - There may be some things I do not understand.

You cannot interpret farther than you know.

Court. I remember a deaf and dumb man being sworn in the Common Pleas to suffer a fine? - I have interpreted the oath to him and he understands it.

Court. Ask him if he has seen the prisoner before? - He shews me that he is positive to the prisoner.

Ask him if he knows any thing of the offence which is charged against him; what he saw the prisoner do? - He shews me that he saw the prisoner get the watch behind him.

Ask him if he knows how the prisoner came by the watch? - He shewed me he did not see it taken out of the pocket, only given behind.

Ask him if he knows the person that lost the watch? - He shewed me he never saw him before.

But did he know him now? - Yes, he points to him.

Ask him how near he stood to Williamson when he saw the watch in the prisoner's hand? - I understand him he was near, but I cannot answer how near, he shews me by the length of a yard but I cannot pretend to say to the space.

Ask him if he knows any more of the matter? - No more than the taking him to the constable.


I had hold of my brother's arm looking past the pastry-cook's shop, the corner of Cornhill, and this gentleman came up, there were fifty or sixty people round me, up came this gentleman and told me I had his watch, I said it was false, I never saw him before he took me into the pastry-cook's, he charged a constable, he searched me and my brother, and found nothing upon us.

Court to Mrs. Rasten. Ask your brother how far off he was when he saw him give the watch to another? - He shews me a very little way, but I cannot take upon me to say how near.

The Prisoner called three witnesses to his character.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-31

Related Material

152. JOHN DRURY was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 10th day of January , one linen shirt, value 3 s. the property of David Bullpeth .


I lost my shirt at the bottom of Holborn-hill , out of my pocket, I found the prisoner's hand in my pocket, and I run after him and caught him, and I saw him put the shirt in another man's hand.


I was coming down Holborn-hill a gentleman took me, I had no shirt about me.


To be transported for seven years .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-32

Related Material

153. MICHAEL SOLOMONS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 11th day of January , three hundred and sixty yards of gauze, value 15 l. the property of Joseph Savage , William Savage , and Samuel Savage .

- STEVENSON sworn.

I am shopman to the prosecutors, I was delivering some parcels out of a cart, and I saw the prisoner with two of the parcels under his arm, I run after him, he flung down the parcels and run away, he was pursued and taken, he was never out of my sight.

(The gauze deposed to.)

Prisoner. I was going to Fleet-market.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-33
VerdictGuilty > theft under 1s

Related Material

154. JOHN DARBY (a negro ) was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Gosling about the hour often in the night, on the 28th day of December last, and burglariously stealing therein, one wooden stock with twelve iron bits, value 20 s. an iron screw driver, value 6 d. twelve brass handles for hand organs, value 15 s. one large ditto, value 1 l. 11 s. 6 d. and divers other articles of brass work, belonging to organs and other things, the property of John Pistor and Edward Pistor , and three iron saws, value 14 s. one screw driver and sundry other tools the property of Valentine Fryer , in the said dwelling-house .


I work in the house of William Gosling , he is a carpenter , I work for Messrs. Pistors, organ builders , who rent part of his house for a work shop, I remember his house being broke open the 28th of December, at night, I left my tools there at eight, I lost the things mentioned in the indictment, and one particular screw-driver which I have in my hand now, which was made out of a sword, and other things; the next day when I came in the morning, I missed them, and found this screw-driver that was made out of the sword in the ceiling belonging to the man where the prisoner carried the things to; when I came out at eight I secured the door, and at seven in the morning when I came it was open.


I am an organ-builder, I have apartments at this house, none of my family sleep in the premises, not in that part of it, but Mr. Gosling's family, none of whom are here; I was not there an hour the whole day; the things I lost are produced by Mr. Edgar, I know nothing of the prisoner's taking these things but by his own confession before Mr. Staples.

Is the confession here? - There is none returned; William Wallis that is admitted an evidence is here.

Court. But I must first have some evidence that this man has done something.


I am servant to Mr. Walker, at the Sugar-loaf public-house, in Great St. Helens, between ten and eleven I was standing at our door talking to our watchman and the prisoner came along, now watchman, says the black, are you fastened up here, and he said let me through the wicket of the great gates; I saw the prisoner was a black man, I saw he had something upon his shoulder, that was his way from the shop, and the next morning I heard the shop was robbed.

- THOMPSON sworn.

I am a watchman, I saw the prisoner go through the gate this night with two bags thrown upon his shoulders.

Court. Do not you think this was a great neglect of duty? - I think it was one of the carpenter's men.

Prisoner. Are you sure it was me that came through at that time of night? - Yes, I will take my oath of it.

Court. Did you know him before? - I took notice of the colour of his dress, his hat, and trowsers, and every thing.

Not from the features of his face, did you see any body in company with him? - Nobody at all.

Court to Giles. Did you know the prisoner before? - Yes, I know it is the same man, I gave a description of him immediately.


I know the prisoner, he laid by my fire side that very night that he robbed the shop, he brought the tools to my lodgings.

Prisoner. Who gave me the bags that held these things? - I gave them to him, he asked me to lend them to him.

Prisoner. He was the man that advised me to it, he was in the shop with me before he met me, and asked me where I was going.

Court. That will not make your case better, to say he was a bad man and tempted you.


I am a constable, I produce these things which I had from an old iron shop in Vincent-street, Piccadilly, the man's name is Heath, he is not here.

Court to Wallis. Do you know any thing about these things? - Yes, they were such things as we have, but I cannot say they are the same.

Court. It is impossible to prove that these are the things that were stolen, having put no mark upon them.

Fryer. My Lord, his confession was taken in writing.

Court. But it is not here, you cannot give evidence of that.

Fryer. I can swear to this screw-driver which was made out of a hanger, which I took out of Wallis's lodging by the confession of the prisoner.

Wallis. I know this screw-driver, I saw the prisoner put it in the ceiling, the next morning he said he would get it sharpened and go on the highway.

Prisoner. How could I get out of the gate when the watchman was there, I have not a friend in the world.

GUILTY Of stealing to the value of 6 d. but not of the burglary .

Transported for seven years to Africa .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-34
VerdictGuilty > theft under 5s

Related Material

155. THOMAS ABBOTT , WILLIAM CHADWICK , and BARNEY CLARK were indicted for feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Walter Fitzgerald , between the hours of one and two in the afternoon, on the 2d day of January instant, he being therein, and others of his family, and feloniously stealing three pair of silk stockings, value 13 s. his property .


I live in Piccadilly , I had a gentleman in company with me in the parlour, which is about four or five yards off, I saw the prisoner Chadwick standing at the window, it was about half past one, on the 2d day of January; I suspected the boy, and I run out as hard as ever I could; I found the window broke, it had been broke before and mended; I run into the street, and about twenty yards from my door, I catched the three prisoners walking together, quite unconcerned, I hit Chadwick on the side of the head, and brought him into my shop, then I was not long in the shop, when these men here brought in the other boys; the stockings lay in the window that were stolen, and many more besides these three pair; I can swear to Abbott and Chadwick, but I cannot swear to Clark.


I was passing that way on the 2d of January, and I saw the prosecutor struggling with one of the boys, I took him into the shop, and found this pair of stockings on the prisoner Abbott, these stockings I have had in my possession ever since; the prisoner Clark was in company with the others.

(The stockings deposed to.)

What are they worth? - This pair cost me four shillings.

Adlam. I went out at this time, and I kicked two pair of silk stockings before me, I gave them to the prosecutor, who owned them, I did not see who dropped them, the three prisoners were standing in the door way, they turned round and said what is that, stockings, that you have picked up.


The 3d of this month I was going up Piccadilly, I saw the three boys walking down, and I saw the prosecutor run after them; I saw the lad in the red jacket take two small parcels, and throw them

into a passage, I did not know what they were, it was Chadwick I saw throw down the two parcels, the others were there; I did not examine the parcels, I do not know what they contained, I saw them picked up.


Coming along the prosecutor laid hold of this boy and I did not know it.

Cou rt to Abbott. What are you? - A grinder, my father lives in Oxford-road, he is a grinder about the streets.

Court to Chadwick. What are you? - A chimney sweeper.

Court to Clark. Do you give any account of yourself? - No, Sir.


GUILTY, 4 s. 6 d.

Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-35

Related Material

156. JOHN POWELL was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 24th day of December last, one quadrant made of wood and brass, value 20 s. six paper books, value 5 s. a gimblet, value 1 d. and a canvas bag, value 3 d. the property of Hugh Montgomery .


I hired a man to take me in his boat, I desired the man to go round to the vessel to take me, he went off with the boat and the things, taking neither the boy nor me in, I do not know the prisoner.


The prisoner came to the Dun-horse, in the Borough, on the Saturday before Christmas-day, at half past ten, he drank some beer, and said he was distressed for a shilling, and he shewed the quadrant, which was the only thing I saw in his hand; I lent him a shilling upon it, he said, it was his own property; he did not come to redeem it, and I knowing Mr. Guest to be an officer, I delived it to him on the Monday; I never saw the prisoner before, but I am sure he is the man I lent the shilling to, I am clear in it, I was two hours in his company.


I produce the quadrant; it has been in my possession ever since, I had it from the last witness; I took the prisoner on the 26th, at the George, in George-yard, Blackman-street, he laid there; I went up into his room, and found these books.

(The things produced and deposed to.)


What age are you? - Twelve.

Do you know the nature of an oath? - Yes.

Do you know the consequence if you speak falsly? - Yes.

What will happen to you? - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

That is a very good answer, then you know it is a fin, and will be punished by man also? - Yes.

This witness confirmed his father's testimony.


I was rowing up to shore, and I took these things on board, I was going round to the ship, and there came a raft of timber and took the boat away, and I could not find the ship again being dark, and I carried the things home.

Court to Montgomery. Did you call after this boat? - Yes, it was a still night, and there was no raft; he made complaint before the Justice, that it was cloudy.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-36
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceCorporal > private whipping; Imprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

157. HANNAH CARR was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 22d day of December last, ten yards and a half of printed cotton, value 21 s. the property of Ellis Williams , privily in his shop .


I am servant to Ellis Williams , in Lombard-court, Seven Dials ; on the 22d of December last, my master lost the things mentioned in the indictment, between one and two, I believe, in the day time the prisoner came into the shop, I have seen her before in the shop, I know her, I do not know her business, nor where she lives; she asked to see some cottons for a bed gown, I shewed her several pieces, she stood near the counter; there was a boy in the shop, his name is Evans, he is not here; she did not like the cottons, and asked to see something handsomer; in the mean time another woman came in, and asked the price of some table cloths, they had no conversation together, the other woman was a stranger; I went to the outside of the window to tell her the price of the table cloths, and the prisoner followed me out immediately, I came in again, and she went another way.

Did she walk or run? - She only walked, I saw her go into a public house, I came in immediately, and missed one of the cottons; the other woman went off without the table cloths, she did not like the price of them; when I went into the shop, she was standing at the door, I was not above a yard from her, when I missed the piece of cotton; it contained ten yards and a half, it was the property of my master, Ellis Williams .

How many pieces might you shew her altogether? - About seven or eight, I left them on the counter all the time.

When you shewed her the things, was you on one side, and the woman on the other? - Yes.

Did she touch any of the things, when she examined them? - Yes, the piece I missed was loose when I left it, she doubled it up, and laid it on one side, and said she did not like it.

Was there any opportunity at this time, for the woman to have taken this? - Not, at that time, I conceive she took it while I was shewing her the cottons, while I turned my back to take the other cottons down; I saw her go into a public house over the way, and I pursued her; it is a thoroughfare, and as I went in at one door, she went out at the other; I lost sight of her, I saw her on the other side of the way.

(The cotton produced and deposed to.)

Prisoner. I bought it.

GUILTY. Of stealing, but not privately .

To be privately whipped and confined two years in the House of Correction .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. ROSE.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-37
SentenceCorporal > public whipping; Imprisonment > newgate

Related Material

158. DANIEL DOLAN was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 15th of December last, one iron bar, value 12 d. belonging to our Lord the King , affixed to a certain building of our Lord the King, called the General Post-office, against the statute .

A second count, Charging him with stealing one other iron bar, affixed to the Post-office.


I am a patrol for Langborn ward; on the 15th of December, I was walking round the ward between seven and eight; I saw the prisoner under St. Mary Woolnorth's church, Lombard-street; he had something under his arm, I followed him, and said, halloo! my friend, what have you there? this was in the evening; it was an iron bar that came from the back of the General Post-office , I had it in my hand not ten minutes before (The bar produced) it was fastened then; I took the bar and the prisoner into custody, I took the nails

out of his waistcoat pocket, and a knife; one had been lost the same evening before, I counted the bars, there was one missing; after I carried him to the Compter, I came there again, and they were both missing; the next morning I tried the bar, and it answered in every respect: the prisoner said he found it.


I belong to the Post-office, I compared this bar with the window of the Post-office and it corresponded.

Whose property is that? - It belongs to the Post-office.

Who does the Post-office belong to? - It is taken by a lease, the rent is piad for by Government, it is the General Post-office.

Court. It is occupied by the servants of Government? - Yes.


I found the bar, it was standing up against the wall.


To be publicly whipped and imprisoned one month in Newgate .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. ROSE.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-38

Related Material

159. GEORGE JONES was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 23d day of December last, two quart pewter pots, value 3 s. the property of Anthony Aylward .


I keep the Cock in Bow-lane , about half after ten a young man informed me, a man had got some stolen pots; I went after him, but missed him; afterwards I found him in Watling-street, and in a court in Bread-street, I saw him drop the pots, when I came up to him, he stopped and said d - n your bl - dy eyes? I will knock you down, and he struck me two blows, with that I collared him, then he fell a crying, and begged for mercy, he said it was his first offence; he shewed me the house where he took the pots from, it was in St. Thomas the Apostle's, and they stood at the door.


A man asked me to carry them, he picked them up, and desired me to carry them.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. ROSE.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-39
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

160. CHARLES WALTON , JOSEPH ORCHARD and THOMAS KNIGHT were indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 30th of December last, three penny weights of gold, value 10 s. 6 d. the property of John Nicholls and others.

A second count, For stealing the same the property of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England .

The indictment opened by Mr. Reeve, and the Case by Mr. Silvester.


I am one of the moniers of the Mint, there are ten more; the bullion comes to the office from the Bank, we are the moniers employed by Government, to convert bullion into specie; we have missed a quantity of gold for a considerable time, and in consequence of an information these men were apprehended.

In whose custody is this gold? - In the custody of the moniers.

Who is answerable for it? - We are.

What are these prisoners? - Labourers, employed by us.

Mr. Garrow, Prisoner's Counsel. In what way are the moniers appointed? - By serving an apprenticeship.

Are they appointed by any written appointment?

- I cannot speak as to that, we are registered in the office as moniers, having served seven years.

Does that instantly constitute you a monier, or have you an appointment? - That instantly constitutes us; I have been a monier four years.

Are you answerable for the bullion that is brought into your individual hands, or in partnership? - In partnership.

From whence does this money of which you suppose you have lost some, come to you? - It comes to us in bars from the Mint-office, before it comes to us, it is in the custody of the principal officers, they are not moniers, nor are they the Bank of England; it is delivered to us by weight.

Mr. Silvester. What is delivered to you in bars, and the siftings, you are answerable for? - Yes.


I am also one of the moniers of the Mint; the moniers are answerable for the gold that is delivered for coining, the sifting may be considered as part of that property, and as what is collected out of the crucibles.


I live in the Minories, I am a gold and silver smith.

Do you remember buying any gold dust in December last? - Some grains I did, not dust.

Who off? - I bought it of the prisoner Knight; there was another man came into the shop with him, and another stood at the door, whom they called in, but I cannot speak to their persons, Knight was the acting man, and received the money; here is part of it, and part the assay master had.

Mr. Garrow. Have you much occa- to melt much gold yourself? - No, Sir.

Have you at all been employed in that trade? - Never.

Do the siftings of a common jeweller's shop, and the breaking of their crucibles have the appearance of these? - They would have quite the appearance, if the gold was the same quality.

The present external appearance does not describe the quality of gold? - No.

Judging only from the external appearance, other gold would appear the same? - Yes, I delivered the rest of the gold to Mr. Alcock.

- ALCOCK sworn.

I am assay-master in the Mint, I received this gold from Mr. Prior; I found it to be about three per cent worse than the standard of guineas.

Mr. Garrow. Do they make use of gold in the process described? - Never so fine, I believe, as what we make use of at the Bank; but I must own at the same time, I think it is possible that such grains might be collected, if they should melt gold of that standard.

Which is not absolutely impossible? - No.


Mr. Garrow. Which of these persons was first apprehended? - Walton.

Was it conveyed to him in any way that it would be better for him, that he would receive mercy if he would make a confession, and discover the persons concerned? - I never heard of any such thing.

Court to Prior. (The same question?) - No, Sir, they did not.

Was this written confession read over to him? - Yes, it was.

Mr. Silvester. Did you see them at the Magistrates sign it? - I did.

Mr. Garrow. I observe this is a joint confession? - Yes.

There was a separate confession first? - Yes.

Do you know whether before that separate confession, there had not been some promises made? - Not the least in the world you may be sure.


"Middlesex. Examination of Charles Walton , Joseph Orehard and Thomas

Knight : who deposed, they were employed as labourers in the Mint, that yesterday they found some grains of gold, which they feloniously took away and sold to Mr. Prior, for ten shillings and sixpence.


When I signed, I did not know what I signed, nor do I remember the confession was read, I was so intimidated in mind and spirits, I did not know what to say.

Prisoner Walton. I leave it to my counsel.


I did not mean to rob any body.

The prisoner Walton called five witnesses who gave him a very good character.

The Prisoner Orchard called seven witnesses who gave him a very good character.

The prisoner Knight called five witnesses, who gave him a very good character.


The prisoners were humbly recommended to mercy.

Each to be imprisoned twelve months in the House of Correction .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-40
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

161. ELIZABETH BROWN was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 24th day of December last, one dead goose, value 4 s. and one dead fowl, value 1 s. the property of John Mills .


I sell fish, fowls, and greens ; the prisoner on the 24th of December, came into my shop for a nice goose and fowl, for her mistress to look at, to go to Mrs. Robinson's in Well-street, to see which she would have, and send the boy with change for a guinea.


What age are you? - Eleven.

Do you know the nature of an oath, what what will become of you hereafter, if you take a false oath? - I do not know.

Where do wicked people go after they are dead? - I do not know.

Has nobody ever taught you? - No, Sir.

Did you never learn your catechism? - No.

Nor say your prayers? - No.

You never was taught any thing about religion or God Almighty? - No.

You do not know what will become of you? - No.

What will become of you after death? - I do not know.

There being no other evidence the prisoner was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-41
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

162. WILLIAM AKENHEAD was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 10th day of January , two pounds weight of Hyson tea, value 10 s. and one China bason, value 6 d. the property of Ann Smith , spinster , privily in her shop .

ANN SMITH sworn.

I am a single woman, I keep a tea shop , in Marybone-lane ; I saw the prisoner come into my shop, I saw him stuff a pound of tea under his coat, and I found one pound of tea in his pocket, my property, and a China bason in his pocket, he submitted to be searched, I had no assistance; I asked him what he was doing, and he said, nothing; he pretended to be foolish, he said, he wanted a halfpenny worth of Spanish-liquorish; I asked him what he had in his pocket, he said, nothing, I put my hand in his pocket, and I told him he had my property; I know the bason very well, I have had it four year, it is cracked in many places, I took hold of his pocket he tried to push me down twice, he went to try to

open the door to let himself out, and locked himself in; I went out and locked him in, and cried thief! when I came in, and the people came in, he was attempting to get over the wall, and he was taken.

Prisoner. I did not pretend to act foolish, I was going past the shop, and went in, and nobody came, and there was two pounds of tea, and I took hold of one, and I had no money I did not touch the bason.

Court to Prisoner. Have you any parents? - Only a mother, and she is married again, I live in the milk business.

GUILTY Of stealing, but not privately .

Transported for seven years .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-42
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

163. HENRY alias JOHN EARLE was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 5th day of January , one flock bed, value 5 s. the property of Henry Nathan .


I keep a slop shop in East Smithfield ; last Thursday night, I saw the prisoner and two more sculking about the door, my mother missed a bed, I run out and saw the prisoner and two others running up Butler's-buildings, and I stopped the prisoner with the bed, and I saw the prisoner about a quarter of an hour before it was lost; I am sure of it.

How much did this bed weigh? - About six or seven pounds, it was a sea bed, value five shillings.

Prisoner. I can have a good character.

The prisoner called one witness to his character.


Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-43
VerdictNot Guilty > no prosecutor

Related Material

164. JANE WEBSTER was indicted for that she, in a certain public street, on the 1st day of January , in and upon one Mary Thompson , spinster , did make an assault, with intent to burn, spoil, cut and deface the garments and clothes of the said Mary Thompson , which were then on her person, and in wear, and did then wilfully burn, spoil, cut, and deface a silk cloak, value 30 s. the goods of the said Mary Thompson , being part of the garments and clothes she then had on her person, against the statute .

Mary Thompson and James Smith called on their recognizances, and not appearing, the prisoner was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-44
VerdictNot Guilty > no prosecutor

Related Material

165. JOHN CROWDER was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 12th day of January , thirty pounds weight of flocks, value 11 s. the property of Thomas Todd .

The parties not appearing, the prisoner was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-45
VerdictNot Guilty > no prosecutor

Related Material

166. JOHN SALMON was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 24th day of December last, one turkey, value 2 s. the property of Edward Collinson .

The Prosecutor Edward Collinson and others not appearing the prisoner was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-46
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

167. ROBERT DUKE was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 12th day of January , a mahogany table, value 10 s. the property of Benjamin Gittos .


My husband's name is Benjamin, I live in Red-lion-street, Holborn , we lost a pillar and claw table yesterday afternoon about four o'clock, it was lost from under the shop window on the outside.


Being in company with the prisoner before the robbery was committed, I had a suspicion of him, I afterwards saw him go past the house, though he could not get out of the house without being helped out, I saw him go past apparently well as I am this moment, I saw him take a mahogany table and put it on his head and take it away with him, I followed him and afterwards met Mrs. Gittos with the table in her hand, and I informed her of the person that had stolen the table, I did not see him stopped because the people were assembled.

Court. Where have you been this afternoon? - I have been attending the Court at the New Sessions House at the Old Bailey.

What at the public-house? - No, Sir.

Court to Mrs. Gittos. Have you known this man any time? - Yes, he is a neighbour of ours, he is a tallow-chandler.

Court. He seems to me to be in liquor, I cannot examine a witness who is in liquor against a man for felony.


How old are you? - Ten.

Do you know the nature of an oath? - No, Sir.

Do you know what the consequence would be if you was to speak falsely against this man, if you were to be sworn? - No.

Do you know what it is to be sworn? - No.

Have you never heard the nature of an oath explained to you, were you sworn be- the Justice and the Grand Jury? - I believe so.

What was done to you there? - I kissed the book.

Did you know what the meaning of that was? - No.

Court. I cannot examine her.


Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-47

Related Material

168. JOHN ARNOLD was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 12th day of January , twenty-three pair of cotton stockings, value 23 s. the property of Alexander Niving .


My husband's name is Alexander, I live at Hampstead , we lost twenty-three pair of stockings yesterday about eleven o'clock, I missed the stockings out of the garden, they were hanging to dry, I did not see any body but the prisoner, and I pursued him myself, I did not think he had them, I saw them not; about three minutes before I saw the prisoner first, about ten yards from my premises, he was walking as if from my garden very quick, I followed him and called stop thief, he was stopped and brought back by John Edwards , without the stockings.


A man stopped the prisoner with a shovel before me, but I saw him throw the bundle down and drop it, and they were in this cloth, he was a few yards off, I run immediately, I did not pick up the bundle, one Mr. Metcalf picked them up, I took them, I have had them in my possession ever since, he never was out of my sight after he dropped the stockings, I had him by the collar all the while, the prisoner made no answer.

(The stockings deposed to by the prosecutor, Mary Smith and another, servants to the owners.)


I was coming through the town of

Hampstead, and I picked up a bundle in a brown cloth, I carried it the course of twenty yards, the woman run out after me and cried stop thief, I stood staring! I never heard the cry of stop thief before, and they took me; I have many friends in the country, I have been out of the country about three weeks.

Court to Prosecutrix. Where is your garden? - Near my house on Hampstead Heath, it opens into the high road, and goes strait down into the town, there is a road between the house and garden.

How is your garden fenced off from the bye road? - It is a wooden pale.

How far was he from the pale when you first saw him? - Not above ten yards.

Court to Prisoner. Where did you come from? - From Winchester, I lived with one Mr. Dalton, at the White Hart.


I am this instant come into Court, I live at Winchester, I am deputy keeper of Winchester gaol; I know the prisoner perfectly well; when I first knew him he was a hostler at an inn, and since that he has lived at the White Hart in Winchester, I am astonished to see the man, I saw him there two or three weeks ago; the man always bore a very honest character, I never heard the least against him.


Transported for seven years :

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-48
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

169. ELISHA DAVIS was indicted for burglariously and feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Samuel Graves about the hour of nine in the night on the 5th of January , at the parish of St. Dunstan in the West, with intention his goods and chattles then and there being, feloniously and burglariously to steal .


I know nothing of the prisoner, I was alarmed by the patrols that somebody was in the house, that was about nine, it was in the parlour, the patrols found the door open and came into the house, the door was shut about half an hour before, I fastened it with the lock myself, my parlour was about twelve yards from the door, there is another door into Fetter-lane, I do not know whether that was shut or no; when the patrols alarmed me I went out, and they were standing with the prisoner, they asked me if I knew the young man, and I said no.

R. WOOLLET sworn.

I am a patrol, on the 5th of January my partner and me were going our rounds, we saw the prosecutors door was not shut, and the prisoner was coming out, we asked him if he belonged to the house, he said he did not, he went in to buy a book, and it not being a booksellers shop we alarmed the people.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-49
VerdictNot Guilty
SentenceImprisonment > newgate

Related Material

170. ELIZABETH BROWN was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 31st day of December last, two small bundles of wood, value 2 d. and nineteen shillings and ninepence in monies numbered , the property of Thomas Ledger .


I am a cabinet-maker , No. 44, Jewin-street , on Saturday the 31st of December, between twelve and one, the prisoner at the bar came to my house, I never saw her before that time, she wanted a bushel of coals and change for a guinea to send by my boy, she stopped till the coals were measured, and my wife told her down the change for a guinea, she took the change and paid for the coals and two bundles of

wood, and she promised to send a guinea back by the boy, and she took up nineteen shillings and sixpence, I helped the boy with the coals upon his back, and he went away from my house with her, the wood she took herself.


I was fourteen last Lammas Day.

Do you know the nature of an oath? - No.

What will become of you if you should swear false? - I shall go to hell: I saw the prisoner, when she came for the coals, I was in the shop, she came for a bushel of coals and two bundles of wood; Mr. Ledger put them on my back, and I carried them to the bottom of Well-street, she took the bundles of wood, she asked for change for a guinea, I did not see the change given to her, when I got to the bottom of Well-street she told me she had forgot two more bundles of wood, and I must go back and get them, I set down the coals, and she said you stay and rest yourself, I will go for two bundles more of wood.

Did she take the coals from you? - No, she left me with the coals.


Confirmed the evidence of her husband.


I have nothing to say, if he knew me to be the person why did not they take me, as I have lived eight years upon the spot, they wanted me to give them money, and I said I knew nothing about it.

The Prisoner called one witness to her character.


To be imprisoned six months in Newgate .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. ROSE.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-50
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

171. THOMAS EDWARDS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 24th day of December last, nineteen pieces of printed callico for womens gowns, containing ninety-nine yards and a quarter, value 23 l. one muslin apron, value 5 s. and one piece of printed callico, value 30 s. the property of William Stock .


I was present at the time of the robbery, I am apprentice to Mr. Stock, on Sunday the 24th of December, between five and six in the evening, a customer came into the shop and I waited upon her, and another came in after this, immediately after this man came in, the other two was in the shop; the prisoner enquired if Mr. James lived there, I replied no, and immediately turned round to ring the bell to give my master notice there was another customer in the shop, in the mean time the goods were missing, I turned round as soon as I had rung and he was gone out of the shop, and missing things off the compter I immediately called after him, I missed nineteen callico gown pieces, five yards and a quarter in each, they had been laying in one bundle, they had been taken out of the window, I cannot say I saw him have the things, because he was in such a position I could not see him have them, I went to the door and a number of people came round the door, and some said he went one way and some another, he got off, and he was taken on the Monday morning, I have never seen him before to my knowledge, he was not five minutes in the shop.

Did he do any more than ask if Mr. James lived there? - I did not see him do any thing, he just came into the shop and touched his hat, and asked if Mr. James lived there, then I turned round to ring the bell, and I turned round again and he was going out of the shop.

Can you undertake from the glimpse you had of this man to swear he was the same person? - No, I cannot.

Were the things ever found again? - No.


I went to the prosecutor's shop, and was

there when this man came into the shop; another gentlewoman came in after me, and asked for a bit of cloth, and the prisoner came in and asked if Mr. James lived there, and the boy said no, I turned my head and saw him, he was carrying off the piece, he had the piece in his hand before, I think the prisoner is the very same.

Can you undertake to swear positively? - I have no doubt at all, I am very apt to look at a person, it is very foolish of me to do so, I did not see him take the piece, but I saw him removing something away, and going out, I have no doubt but he is the same person.

Prosecutor. The prisoner was taken up on Monday, nothing was found upon him, I lost the goods mentioned in the indictment, I saw them three minutes before.

Prisoner. I know no more of it than a child unborn, I was at a public-house in the same street.

The prisoner called two witnesses to his character.

GUILTY. Of stealing, but not privately .

Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-51

Related Material

172. CHARLES ASLETT was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 6th day of January , twelve pieces of copper money, called halfpence, value 6 d. the property of Joseph Bennett .

James Rudaway saw the prisoner unlock the prosecutor's till, and put in his hand twice, and take out some halfpence.


To be transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-52
SentenceCorporal > private whipping; Imprisonment > newgate

Related Material

173. MICHAEL WILLIAMS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 20th day of December last, one half-gallon pewter pot, value 2 s. the property of Thomas Brand .


To be privately whipped , and imprisoned twelve months in Newgate .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-53

Related Material

174. JOHN NOAH was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 5th day of January , eight pair of plated shoe buckles, value 2 s. sixteen pair of metal ditto, value 3 s. three pair of plated knee buckles, value 1 s. three pair of plated stock buckles, value 2 s. three pair of studs, value 2 s. five pair of spectacles, value 3 s. five watch chains, value 2 s. and one shew glass, value 2 s. the property of Henry Joseph .


I keep a stall by the Two Brewers, Shoreditch , I went in to warm my hands a little, and I heard the people call out, the poor Jew 's shew glass and goods are run away with, I run out immediately and pursued the prisoner, and he dropped the things.

- RAYNER sworn.

There was a great out-cry of thief, and I saw the prisoner with a shew glass on his head, I saw him taken.

(The things deposed to.)

Prisoner. I was running along and the people were crying stop thief, and the people took me.


Transported for seven years .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-54
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

175. MORRIS MERRICK was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 28th

day of December last, one cotton gown, value 10 s. a muslin cap laced, value 10 s. a muslin apron laced, value 10 s. and sundry other articles of wearing apparel , the property of Mary Parker , spinster .

There being no evidence to affect the prisoner, he was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-55
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

176. FRANCIS ABBOTT and WILLIAM HILL were indicted for that they, on the 8th day of October last, at the parish of Chiswick, two large silver flaggons, gilt with gold, value 16 l. two silver plates, value 5 l. one silver dish, value 5 l. two silver cups, value 6 l. one silver chalice, value 10 l. 15 s. two silk and gold tassels, value 5 s. two surplices, value 5 l. two table cloths, value 10 s. the property of the parishioners of the said parish, in the custody of James Wood and William Whapshot , church-wardens of the said parish, feloniously and sacriligiously did steal .

The indictment opened by Mr. Knowles.

(The witnesses examined apart.)


I have the care of Chiswick church , on the 8th of October it was all safe.

When did you see the church again? - On the 8th day of October, between twelve and one; between five and six in the afternoon, when I came from my business in the church, I fastened the place where the plate was kept, I locked it and bolted it, and put the key in the place where I keep my books, and I double locked the church door and left it safe.

When did you see the church again? - On the next day, being Sunday morning, I went between seven and eight in order to light the fire ready for the minister, and when I came, I had the key in my hand to unlock the door, and the door was already open, and this box of the lock was forced off, then I went into the room where the minister is dressed, and found the chest where the place was kept was open.

Was that chest kept locked? - Yes.

Had it been locked on the Saturday? - It was.

Who kept the key? - The clerk.

How do you know it was locked on Saturday then? - To all appearance it was.

Did you find it open on the Sunday morning? - I did, the lock appeared to have been forced, and this is one of the padlocks that was forced off, all the plate entirely was gone, and the surplices were gone two or three, and all the trimmings belonging to the pulpit, and the table cloth, they were velvet with gold fringe and gold tassels, the cushion was laid at the closet door where the plate was kept, and the two tassels off, but the fringe was not off the cushion, there was a large table cloth and two napkins.


I know the prisoner Francis Abbott .

How long have you known him? - In July, 1776, I first became acquainted with him.

Had the prisoner Abbott ever been at the church? - Yes, frequently.

Has he seen you put up the velvet? - Yes, I was there on the Friday, the day but one before the church was robbed.

Have you the care of that chest? - Yes.

Do you know whether the last time you was there you locked it or not? - I know that the last time the things were used I locked the chest myself, I have asked him to go with me, he came to school to my father, I am servant to the parish clerk, I am not parish clerk myself, the velvet was not kept in the same chest with the plate, but it was on a shelf in the same closet with the place.

When did you put up the velvet last? - I put it away the Sunday evening preceding the robbery, I put it in the usual place.


I am coachman to Mr. Sandiford, I drive the casual coach to Kew Bridge, or Turnham Green, or Hammersmith, or any where, where I can get passengers, I know the prisoner Hill, I know nothing of the other.

Do you remember at any time taking Hill in your coach? - No, he never was in my coach, but he rode on the box with me.

When was that? - The 8th of October, between eight and nine on Saturday, he came to me in the road, I drove him to the corner of Half-moon street, I take my passengers to the farther Pack Horse at Turnham Green, and coming back the prisoner asked me if I was going to town, I said I was not, the prisoner said we will give you five shillings, he said he would give seven shillings, I said I will not, but I will drive you down to my master, and if he and you can agree for a fresh pair of horses, I have no objection, with that I staid a little and let another person in, I cannot tell who that person was, it was a very dark night, this was at Turnham Green, after that he got on the box with me, he had rather ride outside, he said he had two men to pick up and they were rather tired, and would wish to ride, with that I drove up, and three got in instead of two, and brought a bag and threw into the coach, I then drove down to Chiswick, the three that got into the coach came from the corner of a field that comes from Chiswick, that comes to Turnham Green, there is a path-way from Chiswick to Turnham Green, and it is all railed along, this was Saturday night, the 8th of October, between eight and nine, as nigh as I can think the time may be, with that the man that rode on the box with me said, how far is it, I said not a great way off, says he, I never was at Chiswick before, with that I got off the box, and my master was in the bar, and the prisoner said he would give seven shillings, says my master, it ought to be nine shillings, then my master came out, and Hill was close to me, and my master said it should be half-a-guinea, and he would not let the coach go under nine shillings, so Hill made answer and said, how much will that be a piece, and somebody that was on the inside said, how much will that be a piece, it will be my whack; then my master said, Caesar, drive into the yard, Hill went into the stable and helped me to harness the horses, because he said he was in a hurry, then I drove to Kensington and gave my horses a littl e water, then I drove to the corner of Half-moon-street, and I drove up the off-side, and they got into a hackney coach, I did not see them take the bag out of my coach and put it in the hackney coach; Hill that was on the box with me got on the box of the hackney coach, for he said, riding withinside made him sick.

What became of the bag? - I do not know, I saw them open the coach door and get in, but what bag they had I did not know, I am sure I saw them put the bag into my coach.

Who paid the money? - My master received the money, I cannot say who paid it.

Did you drive back the same evening from Piccadilly? - Yes.

Did you take up any body in the course of your return? - Not a soul within side, only a poor man outside that gave me a pint of beer.

When you came back to Chiswick did you find anything in the coach? - No, Sir, I did not, but the next morning hearing the church was broke open, I went and looked into the coach, and found this instrument, a large chissel, at the back of the seat, quite under the seat.

Prisoner. Are you sure that is the same you found? - Yes.


I am the master of this coach, on the 8th of October, I remember the prisoner Hill hiring a coach of me in the evening.

Court. Who had your coach gone out with before? - With different people before that; I saw Hill, but I cannot say to

any other person's face, there were four in the carriage when it stood at the door, and when it drove into the yard; Hill paid me the money for the coach, nine shillings.

Mr. Garrow, Prisoner's Counsel. Is it one that is used as an occasional stage coach? - Yes, Sir, it had been out taking its chance all day.


Do you remember the time when Chiswick church was broke open? - Not the particular time, I went on the Sunday morning.

What was done when you was there? - I put on a new staple to the lock, that was all I did.

Was the door examined? - I examined it, not that day, and I applied a crow.

When? - It was two or three days after, I cannot be positive, the crow was given to me by my master, Mr. Hall, a carpenter.

Did that instrument which you applied appear to fit the door? - It answered to every impression that was made in the door, and likewise in the door case.

Were there many marks of violence? - Yes.

Could you compare it exactly with the impressions? - Exactly.

Which end of the crow? - Both ends, they fitted both ends in different places, it was impossible any thing could fit it more exactly.

Could you distinguish the mark of another crow that was nearly the same size as this? - It fitted so nearly, I think it was impossible for the hands of man to make another to sit so near.

Mr. Garrow. Could you have distinguished it from the mark that was made by a plaisterer's hammer? - No, I could not.


I remember sending my man to Chiswick church, I went with him, I took a crow with me which I brought from the coachman, he had brought it back from Sir Sampson's office after the examination.

Court to Turner. Was the crow you gave to Mr. Hall, the same that you found in your coach? - Yes.

You are clear in that? - Quite perfect in it.

Was this that was delivered to you by Turner, the same that was tried at the church there? - Yes, I saw it tried, I observed that the smaller end had been put in at the top of the door first, in order to make room for something, what that was I do not know, the marks appear perfectly of the crow.


I am a coachman, I drive the Chiswick coach, I found a letter which discovers Mr. Abbott being in the coach, I found it the next morning, I found it in the same coach that Turner drove the evening before, I found it on the 9th of October, I believe.

What day of the week? - On Sunday morning.

Who was that letter directed to? - Francis Abbott .


I am one of the church-wardens of Chiswick, James Wood is the other.

In whose custody is the Communion plate of Chiswick? - In the church-war- wardens; when the new ones come in, the old ones give them up to them, I did not keep the keys, we give them to the clerk.

Was you the church-warden when the church was robbed? - Yes.


I was church-warden at the same time.

Mr. Garrow. As soon as you are appointed the old church-wardens give you the keys? - It is my first year, Wapshot had the keys, I never had them at all.

Was the plate delivered to you? - Never.

It continued in the old custody? - Yes, it continued in the custody of the parish clerk, by order of Mr. Wapshot, I never gave any order about it, I only saw the plate every fourth Sunday when I received the Sacrament, never at any other time.

Mr. Garrow to Butler. Did you make any mark on the letter, my man? - No, Sir, I gave the letter to my master directly.

Mr. Garrow to Sandiford. What did you do with the letter that Butler gave you? - I remember my servant giving me a letter, which he said, he found in the coach, and gave it me on the Sunday morning, the 9th of October; I kept it in my custody till I gave it to Sir Sampson Wright, I marked it in the presence of Sir Sampson Wright, this is the same letter, here is my own name, and my own hand-writing upon it, I am clear in that.


Do you know either of the prisoners? - I know Abbott.

Did you ever deliver a letter to him? - I cannot tell the day of the month, I believe it was in September.

Should you know that letter if you was to see it? - I cannot say I should, I took very little notice of it; my husband was very ill, and I was in great distress, I know nothing about it.

Did you ever see the inside of that letter? - No, my daughter read it to me, and put a wafer into it, and I gave it to Abbott the next morning.

Should you know it if you was to see it? - No, I make no doubt but it may be the same letter.

How was it directed? - Only for F. Abbott.

Mr. Garrow. Then that is not this letter, for this is Mr. F. Abbott.

Court. Can you undertake from your sight of it, to say that is the same letter? - To the best of my knowledge it is.

Mr. Garrow. Why, good woman, may not the prisoner have had others from the same correspondent? - I make no doubt of that, it may be the same letter.

Court. From your view of the letter, and your remembrance of it, do you know whether it is the same or not? - From my eye sight it is the very same letter.

(The letter read signed L. Bywater, addressed F. Abbot, dated 28th September, 1785; relating to the business of Mr. Bywater.)

Do you know Mr. Bywater? - Very well, he has my first floor for an office.

What was Abbott to Bywater? - He was his clerk.

Court. That seems to be as far as you can carry that question.

Court to Smeeton. Where do you live? - At No. 4, Titchfield-street, St. Ann's.

Court to Wood. Who is the parish clerk of Chiswick? - Mr. Cotton.

Court to Young Cotton . Have you got the key of the plate chest? - Yes, I keep the key, there were two flaggons and a chalice, two cups, two plates, one dish, they were used the last Sunday in September.

When did you see them? - I cannot recollect the day of the month, the last Sunday in September; but I saw them that day, and locked the chest, and took the key, there are three keys, I had all the keys, they were all tied together.

Had you opened it from that Sunday, till the church was robbed? - No.

Mr. Garrow. Who delivered the keys to you? - My father, they are kept at our house.

Who gave you the keys to take care of the plate? - They have been at our house for a certainty these seven years.

Prisoner Hill. I have not been well, I leave it to the Counsel, and the worthy Gentlemen of the Jury.

Jury. We wish to see the crow.

The prisoner Abbott called one witness who gave him a good character.

The prisoner Hill called three witnesses who gave him a good character.


Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-56
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

177. PATRICK M'KERNON was indicted for that he, on the 13th of December last, with a certain pistol loaded with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously did shoot at one Richard Hudd , he being in the King's highway, against the statute .

A second count, only charging the pistol to be loaded with gunpowder and leaden shot.


I know the prisoner, I had been to the public-house, on the 13th of December, about twelve at night, to a benefit club, I was coming down Old-street road by Mr. Calvert's, I saw the prisoner and another man, John Riley , whom the Justice dismissed, I never saw them before, and they met me and passed by me, and I turned my head round to look at them, and I saw Patrick M'Kernon with a pistol in his hand, and I turned my head round to look at him, and as I walked a few steps, they both run back to me, and the prisoner said, d - n your eyes who do you look at? I said I had a right to look at who I pleased, and so might he if he would; then the other man told me to go along about my business, I told him I would, and one side of the road is gravelled and the other is not, I had not got off this gravel not above ten yards from him before the prisoner fired a pistol at me, I saw him point the pistol at me, and heard the flash, I kept my eye upon him, with that I cried out stop thief, and this man run and the other stopped; I had a stick in my hand, I took the other with the assistance of a gentleman, and took him to the watch-house, and somebody brought in the prisoner; then the prisoner at the bar ran up to me and gave me several blows, and he gave me a blow on the jaw that I could not open it for fourteen days, it was a moon-light night, I am quite sure of the prisoner's person, I had an opportunity of seeing him as he was not many minutes out of my sight, this was when they were both hand-cuffed together carrying to prison; I did not know either of them before that night, they did not demand my money.

How came this man to fire at you? - I do not know, it was his wicked inclination.

Did you observe whether he pointed the pistol at you or not? - Yes, he did.

Was the pistol loaded? - I cannot tell, it made a very loud report, as if loaded with something heavy, it alarmed the neighbours; he had only that one pistol when he was searched, I was sure he was the same man

when I saw him at the watch-house; it had been raining just before, it cleared up and was quire light.


I heard the cry of stop them, I took the prisoner with the pistol, the pistol appeared to have been just fired by the smell, the prisoner never got out of my sight till he was secured.


I heard the report, the prisoner came running by me, I knocked him down and secured him.


If I was guilty of doing any fact, I should not do it where I was known to every body, I fell down, and in consequence of the pistol being cocked it went off, but I made no attempt to fire at him.

Court to the other witnesses. Was he in liquor? - He did not appear to be so.

Court to Jury. Gentlemen, the only question for your consideration seems to be whether you are satisfied under the circumstances that he fired the pistol, which was loaded, at the prosecutor, with a felonious intention of killing or wounding him.

Jury to Watts. Was the prosecutor sober when he came to the watch-house? - Yes.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-57
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

178. ANN WOODBRIDGE was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 23d day of December last, one gold watch, value twelve guineas, the property of Charles Benham , in his dwelling-house .

There being no evidence against the Prisoner, she was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-58
VerdictNot Guilty > no prosecutor

Related Material

888. JOSEPH ROBINSON was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 26th day of December last, one cheese, value 7 s. the property of William Bindle .

William Bindle called on his recognizance, and not appearing, the prisoner was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-59
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

179. JAMES BEGNOW , JOHN FRAZIER , and WILLIAM BROWN were indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 9th day of December last, one hundred and thirty pounds weight of lead, value 18 s. belonging to William Slade , and affixed to a certain building of his, against the statute .

The witnesses called on their recognizance, and not appearing, the prisoners were ACQUITTED .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-60
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

180. JAMES HOUSE was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 27th day of December last, one live cock, value 12 d. and one live hen, value 12 d. the property of Harriot Gell and - Gell .

There being no evidence to affect the prisoner, he was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-61
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

181. RICHARD KELLY was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 17th day of December last, one cloth great coat, value

50 s. and two woollen waistcoats, value 30 s. the property of Richard Palethorp .

There being no evidence to affect the prisoner, he was ACQUITTED .

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURT.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-62
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

182. ROBERT JAQUES was indicted for that he, on the 15th day of September last, at the parish of St. Mary Woolnorth , in the city of London, falsly and feloniously did make, forge, and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsly made, forged and counterfeited, and willingly act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting, a certain order for the payment of money, with the name John Griffin thereto subscribed, bearing date at Carey-street, the 15th day of September, 1785, purporting to be the order of one John Griffin , and to be directed to Sir James Esdaile , Peter Esdaile , Benjamin Hammett , and William Esdaile , by the name and description of Sir James Esdaile and Company, for payment of 30 l. sterling to Thomas Maddocks or bearer , and which said false, forged, and counterfeited order for the payment of money is in the words and figures following, that is to say,

"Carey-street, September 15th, 1785, Sir James Esdaile and Co. pay Thomas Maddocks , Esq. or bearer, the sum of thirty pounds sterling. 30. John Griffin ," with intention to defraud John Griffin .

A second count, for uttering as true a like forged order for the payment of money, with the like intention.

A third count, charging him in like manner as in the first, for feloniously forging a like order for payment of money, with the like intention.

A fourth count, for uttering as true a like order, with the like intention.

A fifth count, for that he, on the 15th day of September last, having in his custody another order for the payment of money, signed and subscribed with the name of John Griffin , directed to Mess. Esdaile and Co. dated November 25th, did alter and cause to be altered, and a certain word and a certain figure, to wit, the word November and the figure two, feloniously did alter and cause to be altered, and that he on the same day, in the said last mentioned order for the payment of money, falsly and feloniously did forge, counterfeit, and insert in the place and stead of the said word November the word September, and the figure one in the place and stead of the figure two, by means whereof it did import to be an order for payment of money bearing date September 15th, 1785, with intention to defraud John Griffin .

A sixth count, for uttering the said false and altered order with the like intention.

A seventh count, for altering the said order with intention to defraud Sir James Esdaile and Co.

An eighth count, for uttering the said altered order with intention to defraud Sir James Esdaile and Co.

(The case opened by Mr. Silvester.)

Gentlemen of the Jury, this charge against the prisoner Mr. Robert Jaques consists in altering the date of a draught from the 25th of November, 1785, to the 15th of September, 1785, and so making the date earlier than it was intended to be: Gentlemen, by an act of parliament made in the 7th year of his late Majesty's reign, it is enacted, that if any person shall utter or publish as true any forged or altered order for payment of money, knowing the same to be so, he shall be guilty of a capital felony: Gentlemen, the prisoner Jaques is a money-lender, the prosecutor is a surgeon who served on board his Majesty's navy; some time ago he applied to the prisoner Jaques for the purpose of lending money, Jaques, in that character and situation, insinuated himself into the confidence of the prosecutor, Mr. Griffin; Mr. Griffin having left the sea and become a

surgeon of eminence, in Carey-street; they became acquainted; some time after this Mr. Jaques applied to him to accommodate him with some notes, and said, before they can be payable you may depend upon it I will let you have the money; Mr. Griffin immediately gave him this draught to Sir James Esdaile and Co. pay to Thomas Maddock , Esq. or bearer 30 l. sterling, and dated it the 25th of November, 1785; he explained likewise at the time that he expected Mr. Jaques would pay the money, and another reason was because he thought he should not be in cash before that time; when Mr. Jaques got possession of the note he did not chuse to wait, but he endeavoured to raise money upon it, but he could not, and therefore he altered the date to September the 15th; the draught was taken to the banker's, Sir James Esdaile , and there it was payed, Sir James or his clerks having no idea but that this was a just and fair draught; a few days afterwards Mr. Griffin going by and calling at his bankers, they told him it was not usual for gentlemen to send their draughts as he had done, and they desired him to send some cash in, and they further told him, Sir, we have honoured your draughts so far that you have over drawn seventy pounds, Mr. Griffin was astonished, not being conscious that he had over drawn his banker. those draughts that he had given to Jaques, were dated in November, therefore, it did not occur to mind that a draught dated in November should be offered for payment in September, when they shewed it him, he said, it is very true, as you have paid this draught; he then went to Mr. Jaques with the draught, and said, how comes this, you have altred the date? Why says he, it is my brother do it, not me; do not make any piece of work about it, says he, here is seventy ponds, take it and pay the banker: but, Gentlemen, you know the payment of the money will not alter the crime: upon enquiry, the bankers were not sure that Jaques w the actual man that had offered this drat, they could not therefore for something follow up the prison; but upon applying to Sir James Esdaile , it appeared he had paid the person that brought the draught by a bank note, but what it was they did not know, however, upon enquiry at the Bank, it appeared that identical bank-note had been indorsed at the Bank as is usual

"Mr. Jaques, Ea. st. Rd. Ly . sre." meaning East-street, Red Lyon-square, and not spelt as Mr. Jaques spells his name, and what is more, that hand writing will be proved to be the hand-writing of the prisoner at the bar, the name was spelt with a K. instead of a Q. and that same bank-note will be proved to have been found in the hands and possession of the prisoner: Gentleman, it is law in the indictment, to be with intention to defraud in the first place Mr. Griffin, certainly it was for that purpose, because conscious of that he paid him the money: Gentlemen, when the facts are proved of the note being altered, and the confession of that man, that it was done by his brother, and when it is proved to be the hand-writing of the prisoner, there cannot be a doubt in any man's mind (though it is very artfully done) but that this man is guilty, and it will then become your duty, though a painful one to pronounce him so by your verdict; on the other hand, if you see any reason to doubt, I am sure you will chearfully acquit him.

Mr. Sheppard, Prisoner's Counsel. The alteration was not a forgery, for the only offence which appears to be described in this act, is the altering the number, any principal sum, in the several instruments, there is no alteration either in number or principal sum.

Mr. Silvester. I read it thus, shall falsely make, alter &c. any acceptance of any bill; the second offence is altering the number, or principal sum of any accountable receipt; the third offence is, if he shall falsely a forge or counterfeit any order or warrant or payment of money.

Mr. Sheppard I take it that the principal in ate to all the species of offence.

Mr. Garrow, one of the Counsel for the Prosecution. That is the question between us, about which I shall not trouble your Lordship with a word; because it depends on the reading of the act itself, and it describes things which necessarily may not have a principal sum in them. I beg now my Lord to observe that one of the witnesses who has been subpoened on the part of the prosecution, has just sent this letter,


"as I am in danger of being rendered by a

"man that is bail for me, I beg the protection

"of the Court if I come to give

"my evidence." I beg, therefore, your Lordship will say from the bench, that he is protected in going and coming back.

Court. Let an officer of the Court be send to bring him.

Mr. Garrow. Will your Lordship please to send this message with it; Mr. Jaques's trial will be postponed till he comes.

Court. An officer must bring him with him, what is his name? - Carlos Caesar.

JOHN GRIFFIN sworn on the Voire Dire.

Mr. Griffin, you gave this draught to Mr. Jaques, dated the 25th of November, as you say? - Yes.

It was paid by your banker? - It was.

Mr. Jaques afterwards gave you the money, which was so paid by your banker, did not he? - Yes, Sir, he did, he advanced me money, but it was upon condition that I would bring, from my bankers, bills that were there, that were not yet due, one of which I can remember.

Did he or did he not give you money to repay your banker for this draught? - He did not give me money, he lent me money.

Have you ever repaid him that sum of money? - Yes, Sir, I have.

Do you mean to swear that? - Yes, Sir, I paid him by the notes he brought back.

Then if I understand you right, the money which was so given on that day, was not given for this draught? - I do not understand you.

I want to know this, whether you mean to say, that Mr. Jaques did give you money to reimburse your banker for the money that was drawn out of your bankers n, or on any other account? - He gave it me conditionally, that I would bring back all the notes and bills that were then laying at my bankers, that were not yet due, which I have evidence in Court to prove.

Then he did not give it you in consideration of this draught? - No.

Has not an action of trespass been brought against you by a Mr. Williams? - Not that I know off.

Has not a notice been sent you that it will? - No.

Are not you promised that in case you succeed in this trial, no action should be brought.

Mr. Garrow. Does that go to his competency.

Court. Certainly it does.

Mr. Garrow. If that is to be objected to witnesses, every third person may deprive the King of his witnesses.

Mr. Silvester. A man who is brought here as an accomplice, comes with a firm hope and expectation, that he will have the greatest benefit that a man can have, the King's mercy, here some third person a friend to Mr. Griffin, says, why, if you do not hang Mr. Jaques, we will bring an action against you; how is that to affect the prisoner at the bar.

Court. It must arise from the transaction itself.

Mr. Garrow. It seems to me it is impossible that this question or any answer to it, can go to the competency of Mr. Griffin, it is not for any dread of the answer, because I know what it will be, but for the sake of justice, I take it now in the strongest way against myself; suppose he says a person of the name of Williams has threatened to bring an action against him and has promised him that if Jaques I convicted, that action shall be put an ed to, let us see a little how that goes to the competency of Mr. Griffin; that it go to his credit, I am perfectly free to anit; but surely we have not forgot what passed here yesterday

morning, when we were talking of Underwood, he stood under circumstances of the most gross discredit, and yet the King had a right to call him; would not it go to the cutting up of the public administration of the justice of the country, if my learned friend's objection should prevail; I am intitled to assume this is a fair prosecution, and in any other fair prosecution, a friend of the defendant shall go to the prosecutor, and shall superadd an inducement, he shall tell him if you will do it, I will give you ten guineas, I will give you five guineas, I will give you five halfpence, it is an interest, it would go to his competency; would it be suffered; that such a sort of negociation should go to the competency of a witness, and so destroy the full effect of the prosecution?

Mr. Sheppard. I really think it is my duty to take every objection which I can when I stand as counsel for any man that is upon trial for his life, therefore I answer thus, Mr. Garrow has stated a case which must be in all our memories; but I do not put this case as a similar one to Underwood's by any means, but what dropped from your Lordship appears to me to be an authority to found my objection upon; you there determined that the question as to competency, is not whether a man may be believed after he has told a story, but whether there is any legal bar to his being heard: Mr. Garrow has said where any man goes to a witness, and deprives the King of his witness; not in every case, but I do think, I should have got from Mr. Griffin's mouth, if the materiality of his answer had not been suggested to him by the objection, that he has an expectation, and if the witness states on his oath that he expects something will be done, it is an interest: in the case of Mrs. Rudd, I have heard that when Mrs. Perreau came to the bar, to be examined as a witness, she was asked on the Voire Dire, whether she did not expect that if Mrs. Rudd was convicted, her husband would be pardoned; I will put another case, which appears to me to be in point on this occasion, soon after the act of parliament was passed, which gave reward to thieftakers, objections were taken to those men so intitled to rewards being witnesses, the only answer of the Court was that that act of parliament did not mean to exclude their testimony; I am sure I recollect that the Court said, that was meant to further the conviction of offenders, and it was the case in which persons interested were the only persons who could convict the offenders: Mr. Griffin if he had answered my question, and told your Lordship that Mr. Williams or anybody else had told him if he convicted Mr. Jaques, they would forbear to bring an action against him, which he had in contemplation, I do submit that would have given him a direct interest, arising in consequence of this case, which would have destroyed his competency: I think it is laid down in Serjeant Hawkins, that an interest whether mediate or immediate, if to arise in consequence of the event of a trial, in such as to disqualify a witness, and the only exception that I believe has been held to that rule, is the case of men intitled under an act of parliament to rewards; and then the Court gave a further reason for it, that these rewards were intended for the conviction of offenders; I submit if he answers in that way, that would be an objection to his evidence.

Mr. Silvester. Mrs. Perreau was withdrawn.

Mr. M'Nally. I recollect it perfectly; the Court did give an opinion that the objection went to her competency.

Court. I shall permit you to put the question to Mr. Griffin, and decide on his competence when I know the circumstances under which he stands.

Mr. Sheppard. An execution went into Mr. William's house, have you never been told, and has not Williams or his attorney told you that an action of trespass would be brought against you, for bringing that

execution into his house? - I hope your Lordship will allow me to make an answer, and he will not stop me.

Your answer must go to the question? - No, Sir, to the contrary.

Did they never tell you so? - It was not told me by the Jansons, but it was suggested to me.

You have been told you say to the contrary? - Yes.

Now, I ask you upon your oath, whether when you was told to the contrary, you was not told that the action should not be brought if you convicted Mr. Jaques? - No, Sir, they did not, nor any thing to that effect.

JOHN GRIFFIN sworn in Chief.

(The witnesses ordered to withdraw.)

Mr. Garrow. How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Jaques? - About ten months.

You have had money transactions with him? - I never had any other money transactions with him than giving him my draught.

Did you in the month of September give him any draught on your banker? - Yes.

What day? - On the 10th of September, I think it was on a Saturday, for thirty pounds, payable to - Maddocks, Esq; or bearer.

Look at it and shew it us? - This is the draught.

What date did this draught bear at the time you gave it to Mr. Jaques? - The 25th of November 1785.

How soon after did you see that draught again? - I did not see it till the 20th of September, at my banker's, Sir James Esdaile and Co. I found it there, as a draught that had been paid.

What date did it hear then? - It bore then, September the 15th.

Was it in the state in which you now pe? - It was exactly.

Has it been in your custody ever since? - It has.

How soon after this did you communicate to Mr. Jaques, that you had seen it? - As soon as a coach could carry me, when I found out that the draught had been paid and altered, I repaired to Mr. Jaques's house in East-street, Red-Lion-square; he was not at home; at a quarter or half an hour after three, I found him at home.

Now tell us the conversation that passed as nearly as you can? - I mentioned the circumstance with a great deal of uneasiness; I told him by giving him a draught dated forwards the 25th of November, that that very draught had been paid into my bankers, with the date and month altered to the 15th of September, I told him also that I thought it was a very cruel thing, I had been taking every step to serve him, and he was going to ruin me; that my banker was then over drawn, looked black, and expected his money should be paid by sunset; I told him I felt myself exceedingly hurt, and that I was very uneasy, for that my bankers, unless the money was paid in by sun-set, seemed as if they would fix me with it; Mr. Jaques said, it was impossible, good God! this is a forgery, I thought this had been at Bury, in Suffolk, for I tell you in confidence, I paid this draught to my brother.

Court to Caesar, who was now brought in by an officer. You are protected by the Court, nobody can presume to molest you, and if you depart the Court without leave, you will be liable not only to be called upon your subpoena, but also so such other punishment as the Court may think proper to inflict.

J. Griffin. He then asked me if he could assist me respecting the money at my bankers, and I said, I was so much distressed, I had a great deal of business that day, and I could not apply to any other friend to reimburse it on that day, he then told me he would give me the money to reimburse my banker, provided I would bring him the notes and bills that were then laying at my bankers, and not due.

Did you do so? - I did.

To what amount were these securities? - The bills that I brought back, Sir,

was one of fifty pounds, and there was another for sixty-four pounds, the bills that I gave him amounted to one hundred and fourteen pounds fourteen shillings and sixpence.

What money did he advance to you? - Seventy pounds.

Had you any further conversation with him at this time? - I do not remember any thing particular, only he desired me to keep in confidence, for that it would ruin his brother.

Had you any subsequent conversation with him upon the subject? - Yes.

Upon what occasion was it that afterwards you had this conversation with him, where was it, and who was present, and what passed? - I had some conversation with the prisoner in the presence of Caesar, I think so.

Whet her at any time after this 20th of September, you had any conversation with Mr. Jaques relative to this alteration of the draught? - Yes.

Was Mr. Caesar present? - Yes, he was,

What passed? - Nothing particular passed, only I mentioned the circumstance.

What circumstance was that? - I mentioned to him how very extraordinary it was, that the draught should be altered, he made no answer, but waved the conversation; I afterwards had some conversation with him in the presence of Mr. John Andre my partner.

How long was that after? - I cannot tell exactly, I believe it might be three weeks after the 20th of September.

Mr. Jaques. I have unfortunately not subpoened Messrs. Hankey's the bankers, and they will be very material witnesses, will your Lordship permit me to send for them, they sent me word they could not come.

Court. Then send a subpoenea.

Mr. Sheppard. We are situated here without a solicitor.

Mr. Garrow. I am afraid we must object to Mr. Hescot being in Court, but he has a partner.

Mr. Griffin. Jaques had some words with me and my partner, in my partner's house, and Mr. Andre came in, and I told Mr. Andre in his presence, that Mr. Jaques was angry because I had mentioned this forgery to some person.

In point of fact, had he been angry and expressed some anger? - He was so loud that it was the occasion of Mr. Andre's coming in.

What had passed? - He said that he would go to Sir Sampson Wright's with me; and made a very great noise indeed.

State what he said to you? - He had a large stick which he lifted up, and said, you take me up for a forgery, says he, I will go with you directly, says he, I defy you.

Court. Had you at that time threatened to take him up for a forgery? - No, Sir, I had not.

Then what was this in reply to? - It was in reply to our quarrel, what I had communicated to some friends had come to Mr. Jaques's knowledge.

Had you threatened to take him up for forgery? - No, Sir, I had not at that time.

Mr. Garrow. You having communicated the secret, it had come round to him? - Certainly.

Court. But had you threatened to any body that your would take him up? - No, Sir, I had not.

Mr. Garrow. Then the purpose of his coming to you was your having communicated it to some person? - Yes, then Mr. Andre came in, and I told him that the reason of Mr. Jaques's hectoring and bellowing at me, was because I had mentioned the alteration of that draught that I had communicated to him, Mr. Andre said, he might soften his tone, for if he was taken before a Magistrate, he would not be in his situation for ten thousand guineas; Mr. Jaques in reply to that, said, he was very sorry that I had been hurt at my bankers, and that he hoped as he had paid me the money directly, no ill consequences would happen there, and that Mr. Andre would not think much of the draught.

Did he at that time deny that such an alteration had been made? - No, he did

not, he said, that admitting the draught had been altered, as I had had the money to pay into my bankers, he hoped my credit would not be hurt there; Mr. Andre my partner seemed satisfied with this, and the conversation dropped, but on his going out, he desired Mr. Andre would not say any thing about the business.

Have you had any other conversation with Mr. Jaques about this at any other time? - Not that I know of.

Court. I wish you to be a little more particular, he said admitting the draught had been altered, do you mean by that, to say that he admitted the draught had been altered? - I only mention what he said, and I wish to put the best constructions upon it.

Mr. Garrow. You have told us on the 20th of September, you found you had over drawn your banker? - Yes.

Had other draughts been prematurely presented? - They had.

Look at them.

Court. That may make an impression, and cause a suspicion.

Court to Jury. The inspection of the draught itself when you come hereafter to consider the evidence, will be very material for you.

Mr. Garrow to Mr. Griffin. When you parted with that draught, out of your hands, had you at all erased the date or written the draught on any erasure? - No, I had not.

Were any other persons in company when you wrote that draught? - Yes, Mr. Caesar was in company.

Jury. When did you write that draught? - On the 10th of September.

Mr. Garrow. What was the reason of your giving the draught in that manner? - I could not be certain I could have money at my bankers earlier than that time.

If you had been desired to give it, dated the 15th of September, would you have given it dated that day, so as it might have been carried in then? - No, Sir, I could not, because I could not be sure of money at my bankers.

Did you explain that reason to the prisoner at the time you gave it? - Yes, I did so the prisoner knows very well.


"Carey-street, September 15th 1785. Sir James Esdaile and Co. pay to Thomas Maddocks , Esq; or bearer, the sum of thirty pounds sterling, for John Griffin . (In the margin in figures) 30.

Prisoner. My Lord, may I be permitted to look at the draught? - Certainly; officer hold the draught in your hand, and shew it to Mr. Jaques.

(Looks at it.)

Court to Griffin. Was that your only reason for dating the draught so far forward, and did you communicate it to Mr. Jaques? - That was my only reason, I assure you.

Was it your intention it should have been paid at the time it bore date? - Yes.

Mr. Sheppard. Do you recollect, or do you know from your own recollection, what date this draught originally bore, or from the relation of some other person? - I know it from myself.

Then you mean now to swear, that you recollect this draught to have been dated on the 25th day of November, from you own recollection? - From my own recollection, that is the only reason I have to recollect it.

Did you make any memorandum at the time you gave it? - No, Sir, I did not.

Have you never said that the only reason you had to think it was dated on the 25th of November, was because somebody told you so? - No, Sir.

Have you never said so? - I do not remember saying so.

Will you swear that you did not swear that was the reason when you was before the Magistrate? - I do not remember swearing so.

Did you never swear before the Magistrate, or say that the reason why you recollected it to be the 25th of November,

was because Mr. Reeves told you so? - I do not remember saying so.

When you gave this note, was not the consideration of it for a bill Mr. Jaques lent you? - No, Sir.

Did not he lend you a bill drawn on Mr. Planner, for which you gave him as a counter security this draught? - I do not remember he did.

Why if your memory can recollect the date of this note, you can recollect the transaction at the time? - I do not remember I did.

You mean to swear that he did not? - I mean to swear that I do not remember, I swear to the best of my memory, I will not swear that he gave me a bill on Mr. Planner.

Upon your oath was it not the same time that draught was given to you? - No, Sir, it was not.

Did you give him no other draught at that time, nor a bill on Mr. Addis? - No, Sir, I did not.

Did you never give him a bill on Mr. Addis? - Yes, Sir, I did, but that bill of Mr. Addis's I drew out of my own bankers, at the same time I found out this erasement to the best of my remembrance, this thirty pound draught was not for payment or a security for that bill.

When you come to Mr. Jaques's, you say you told him, you had no other friend you could apply to, in respect to money at that time? - Yes.

Mr. Jaques. When did he receive that bill on Mr. Planner? - Upon my word, I cannot tell exactly, I believe it was ten days, or some days before, I cannot swear positively.

How came you then to recollect so accurately the date of this draught? - I not only remember that I gave it for the 25th of November, but when I came to look at the draught, my eyes told me so by seeing the erasure, and another thing that refreshed my memory likewise, a day or two, or three, or four, I cannot say exactly, I went to Mr. Reeves.

Mr. Reeves told you what day it had been dated? - He told me a draught had been offered to him.

Your memory was refreshed as to the date, by something which somebody told you? - Yes.

Court. You must not ask what that something was.

Mr. Sheppard. Then I do not put the question.

You say that when you came to see the draught, that something made you recollect what date it originally was? - It did.

Look at that draught, and tell me how any thing appearing upon that draught makes you recollect what was originally on that draught? - I remember giving this draught.

Court. You have been asked why you could swear so exactly to the very day of the date of this draught, your answer was this, I not only remember it as I gave it for the 25th of November, but when I came to look at the draught my eyes told me so by seeing the erasure? - Remembering myself by this, that I had given a draught for the 25th of November, and this being altered I can remember this was the draught.

Court. What is there then in your eye sight that leads you to ascertain the day, the day on which it was originally dated? - The first stroke of my N in November is in this manner, the next stroke of the N the top is scratched off, the bottom of that is left to make the E for September, the R is made out of O.

Do you mean to say, that that appears upon the inspection of that draught? - It does.

(The draught handed to the Jury.)

Mr. Sheppard. Upon this discovery of your being over drawn, you went to Mr. Jaques's? - Yes.

I believe previous to that you had a bill of Mr. Jaques's for sixty-four pounds, drawn by him or upon him? - I had a bill at my bankers that was not due, for which I gave him the money.

That bill you had carried to your bankers? - I did.

Your banker entered it short? - He did.

Upon your oath, was not it because your banker entered it short, was not that the reason you was over drawn at that time? - No, it was not.

When you carried that to your bankers, did not you desire them to discount it? - No, I did not.

Did not you carry it there to be entered as cash in your book? - No, I did not, I carried it as security, to be carried to the place where it was due, and then it would be entered as cash when paid.

You mean to swear that? - I do.

Do you swear that was not one of the reasons why you was over drawn? - I do.

Prisoner. Did he not declare to Mr. Esdaile, at the time he went there, that the reason of his being over drawn was because that bill was entered short? - No, Sir.

Did you never say that to any body? - I never said it to any body in my life.

Will you venture to swear you never said so? - Yes, I will.

When you came to Mr. Jaques's and told him of this alteration, you say he lent you some money to reimburse you? - He did.

He lent you money to take up these bills that were at the bankers? - No, upon condition that I would bring them back in order that the prisoner might get them discounted.

It was not then on account of this bill that he gave you the seventy pounds? - That was one reason why it was given to help to pay that bill at my bankers.

Why you positively swore on the Voire Dire that money was given that you might bring back this bill, and that this was not any part of the condition of his giving you any part of this money? - No, more it was.

You said that he lent you this money on condition that you would bring back these bills that were lodged at the bankers? - That was the reason, and to make up the deficiency at the bankers.

Now, what do you mean by saying that Mr. Jaques said, as you had been paid that money, it would be of no consequence? - He said, as the money had been paid in at my bankers I should suffer no discredit; what I have to pay now will amount to three or four hundred pounds.

To what amount have you had money transactions with Mr. Jaques, exchanging bills since the discovery of what you are pleased now to call a forgery? - I cannot tell exactly.

How much do you think since that transaction? - I believe that our money transactions have been to the amount of three hundred pounds.

Since the discovery of this forgery? - Not since the full discovery, but since I shewed it to Mr. Jaques, I have had transactions with him since that time for several hundred pounds.

A little time before Mr. Jaques was first charged with this, did not you apply to him for money to take up some bills? - No.

Did not you apply to him for money on any account? - No.

Then you never applied to Mr. Jaques either to lend you money or to take up any bill before he was taken up himself for this forgery? - I do not remember I did.

Will you swear you did not after the trial of the action in the Common Pleas, did you not after that time, and before he was taken up, apply to him? - I applied to Mr. Jaques for thirty pounds.

Now that was refused? It was.

Upon your oath, did not you say, if he did not give you that you would charge him with the forgery? - No, I did not that I know off.

(The question repeated.) - Never, to my knowledge.

Do you recollect an indictment being drawn against Mr. Williams for perjury? - I do not.

Do you recollect applying to Mr. Jaques to desire he would not go on with the prosecution

against Mr. Williams for perjury? - No.

You do not recollect that indictment being drawn? - I cannot recollect a thing I never saw; the prisoner met me, and told me there was a prosecution.

You do remember that prosecution being on foot? - I remember having heard say so.

Now, then did you not say if that prosecution was carried on, you yourself should be indicted for perjury, and therefore desired Mr. Jaques to drop it? - I do not remember any such thing, it does not occur to me, and I cannot positively say that I did not.

Was you never threatened by Williams or his attorneys, or by some persons for him, was you never threatened with an indictment for perjury? - I never was.

Do you remember that trial in the Common Pleas? - I do.

Do you remember being examined as to the existence of any note? - I do.

Do you remember positively swearing that you had not a note existing between you and Mr. Jaques? - Where did I swear it?

Did you say it? - I said to my Lord Loughborough, he sent for me up and asked me if I had these notes for the warrant of attorney, I told him I had not, and he thought it was very strange that I should not have preserved these notes.

Do you remember being sent home by Lord Loughborough to find the notes? - I do.

Did not you say when you came back again in the hearing of Lord Loughborough and the Jury that you had destroyed the notes? - I do not remember saying any such thing, because it is impossible I should.

Did not you say that you had destroyed the checques as well as the notes? - I did not, my Lord Loughborough asked me if I had any notes or checques, alluding to the warrant of attorney, and I told him I had destroyed them.

Did he make use of any expression as alluding to the warrant of attorney, or did he ask it generally? - I understood it so.

Do you remember producing some scraps of paper? - I do.

Did not you say these were all the papers relative to the transaction between you and Mr. Jaques? - No, I did not, I said they were all I could find.

Did not you say it was customary with you to burn every one of your checques? - I never said so concerning my checques, I only said so with respect to my notes.

Were not you called upon for checques as well as notes? - I only looked upon it that I was called upon for notes.

Have you never since seen, or had in your possession, any of the checques that were given as consideration for that warrant of attorney? - I have, I have seen one of them, I produced papers after I came back, but not to my Lord Loughborough, I produced all I could find.

Do you mean to swear that you never had any notice of an action of trespass being brought against you? - Never.

Did Mr. I'anson never give you any notice? - Never to my knowledge.

Did he or his clerk never give you notice of an action of trespass being brought against you for that execution? - Never; that I mean to swear.

I think you say you know Mr. Reeves? - I do.

Did you never declare to that same Mr. Reeves, that if Mr. Jaques did not pay a draught of fifteen pounds that Reeves had, you would take Jaques up for forgery? - I do not remember saying any such thing.

Do you remember an action that was brought, I think the name of it was Caesar against Spencer? - I do.

Do you recollect you went down to Maidstone as a witness? - I do, I was subpoened.

Do you recollect having any conversation with Reeves on that action? - I never did it, I do not know that I ever mentioned a syllable.

Did not you say that you went down to Maidstone to prove a man's writing whom

you knew nothing off? - No, as God is in heaven, I never said so, nor as I am upon my oath I never said so; to my remembrance I never said, that if Jaques did not take up a draught for fifteen pounds, that he would be indicted for forgery.

Was not your reason for making this charge because Jaques would not accommodate you with money? - No, it was not. I might not approve of the prisoner's conduct, but I do not remember ever saying so.

Was not you threatened with a prosecution for perjury by Williams or I'anson? - I do not remember that I said so.

Is not one of the inducements for making this charge, that you should not be prosecuted for perjury by them? - No, it is not, I never said so, I never was told so to my knowledge.

Was you ever told that you should be prosecuted if you did not make the charge? - No.

Did not I'anson tell you that that action of trespass should not be brought if you would go on with this charge? - He never told me so, nor any body for him that I know off, I never conversed with Williams since that action.

Was not you at the London Coffee-house with Mr. Williams within these three days? - I have never met them at the London Coffee-house or any other place that I know of, not to my knowledge ever since, and I can swear it.

You mean still to have the Jury understand you, that it is from perceiving that same altered note that you recollected it to be the same that was dated on the 25th of November? - From recollecting giving the note, and seeing this, I verily believe that to be the note.

Is it upon the face of that note that you collect what the thing originally was? - Most certainly the memory and the eyesight help one another, it does so in this instance.

Mr. Garrow. Did I understand you right, that from recol lecting the manner in which you wrote the date on the 25th of November, 1785, and observing the strokes of the date you knew it was altered? - Yes.

That is not obvious to other people? - No.

Prisoner. Did you ever make an affidavit in a cause against Caesar, to set aside an execution? - I did.

Do you recollect the purpose of it? - Not exactly.

Court. You cannot impeach the witness's character by specific facts, unconnected with this business.

Mr. Garrow. You was subpoened to go down to Maidstone to prove a hand-writing? - Mr. Jaques and Mr. Caesar both took me up to the Blue Boar inn, Holborn, and a man was there whom they told me was Richard Groves , I went there in consequence of what I heard, and there was no such person; Mr. Jaques seemed much hurt, and told me in a day or two I should be brought into company with him who would shew me his hand-writing, and tell me it was his hand-writing; I saw a man there who was introduced by Jaques.

Prisoner. I wish to ask Mr. Griffin if he has received these draughts from me since the 20th of September, and for what; they are draughts from my bankers, and all since that transaction, he will see his name upon the backs of some of them.

Court. Is your name on the back?

Prisoner. You need not hesitate about them, Mr. Griffin.

Here are only three that my name appears on, two have not.

Prisoner. The draught of sixty pounds that has not your name, did you receive that from me, and for what? - I remember receiving a draught for sixty pounds, but whether this is the draught or not I cannot say, I think I can tell by looking at my bankers book.

Court. Look at it? - I remember very well going to the prisoner's bankers, and receiving this sixty pounds myself.

Prisoner. And that fifty pounds made payable to yourself, I believe it is? - Yes, that likewise.

What did you receive that for? - Here is one I do not remember any thing about, I do not remember any thing of that, I do not remember this, there are four that I do remember that have been through my hands, and two that have not.

Court. Now with respect to these two, do you mean to say that they were not positively given to you by Mr. Jaques? - By not going through my bankers hands, I cannot say positively one way or the other.

Prisoner. Those two which he says he did not receive, are both marked by his banker.

Court to Griffin. Look at the draughts again? - I cannot tell my bankers mark, it is impossible for me to tell by the draught itself, (looks at them again) I do not remember these two draughts upon my word.

Court. Look in your bankers book at the first of December? - I do not see any.

Court. Now these four draughts that you admit you have received, for what purpose did you receive them? - Upon my word I cannot tell.

One of them is the draught you received on the 20th of September? - Yes.

Then the three others were all dated in the month of November? - I believe I can recollect the sixty pounds draught, I received it myself in Bond-street in lieu of a note of my own acceptance.

When was that? - I cannot say, the note became due about ten days ago, that is the note I was arrested upon on the Saturday morning, and for which that draught was given.

At whose suit was you arrested? - I cannot recollect, I never was arrested before, and when the officer came I took his word, I made no doubt but I was arrested, he shewed me a piece of paper; I had my brother-in-law with me, who was bail for me, and he let me go directly.

The sixty pounds, I think you say, which bears date on the 4th of November, was given you in exchange for a note of equal value of your own? - Yes.

Which note was due a few days ago, and on which you was arrested? - Yes.

Do you remember for what the draught of the 18th of November, for eighteen guineas, was given? - Upon my word I do not recollect.

Do you recollect for what purpose that on the 22d of November, for twenty guineas was given? - No.

The two other draughts you say you do not know any thing about?

Court. September the 26th, thirty pounds payable to Mr. Griffin, and December the 1st, twenty pounds, are the dates of the two notes that the witness does not remember.

Mr. Sheppard. I beg to ask the witness how this draught in question came to be made payable to Maddocks? - Upon my word I cannot recollect justly how it could be; I should rather suppose that it was at my own desire, and for that reason because I did not like to put in Mr. Jaques's name.

Prisoner. Did not you declare before the magistrate that the reason was, that the forgery was found out at your bankers, and you did not like to make it payable to me? - It might be so.

Mr. Sheppard. You say your reason was because you did not like Mr. Jaques's name should be put in? - Yes.

But the other draughts are in Mr. Jaques's name? - Yes, he drew them himself.

Prisoner. I wish to know of him whether he did not disclose before the magistrate that the reason the draughts were made payable to another person was, because that forgery was found out at his bankers; I wish to ask whether I am debtor to Mr. Griffin or he to me? - I look upon Mr. Jaques to be the debtor.

In what way, and to what amount? - I cannot positively say to the whole amount altogether, but I should suppose Mr. Jaques is considerably indebted to me.

Can you say all near what amount? - Above a hundred pounds, that I can swear to.

Since this transaction I believe you have

sworn to a debt of a hundred pounds, have you not? - Yes.

You have attempted likewise to make me a bankrupt I believe? - I have.

Since I have been in prison? - Yes.

Prisoner. He has sealed a commission, but they did not think proper to proceed upon it.

Court. Have you a positive recollection with respect to the date of the draught on which the forgery is assigned, as connected with the name of Maddocks? - Yes, Sir.

What then you have a distinct recollection, at this time, that the draught which you gave, payable to Maddocks or bearer, was dated originally on the 15th of September? - Yes.

Did you ever give Mr. Jaques any draught whatever, bearing date the 25th of November? - I believe I did.

For what sum? - For the sum of thirty pounds.

Do you remember who that was payable to? - That was payable, I think, in the name of Clement.

How can you be positive in two draughts for thirty pounds, one in the name of Maddocks and one in the name of Clement, which of them was dated the 15th of September, and which the 25th of November, what serves to guide your remembrance? - That the draught dated forward to the 25th of November was carried to Mr. Reeves, of Holborn-bridge, to get cash for.

Your recollection leads you to believe that the other draught dated the 15th of September, was in the name of Clement? - Yes.

Is your recollection equally clear with respect to one draught as the other? - It is.

Do you think you are as liable to be mistaken in one as in the other? - No, I do not think so.

Why not? - Because I remember the name of Clement being down in my bankers book.

Then your recollection is more certain as to that than the other, suppose you are mistaken as to that draught to Clement? - I do not think I am.

If you are not now you were before, for you swore before the magistrate that the draught dated the 15th of September was payable to Charles Shepherd , Esq.? - That was another draught.

How comes that, when I asked you whether there was any draught dated on the 15th of September, you told me there was one, and that one was payable in the name of Clement; now you tell me it was another draught, why did not you tell me at first there were two; I ask you the general question, whether there was any draught given on the 15th of September, to which that paper in November answers, it now appears to be that there were two? - I cannot say that there were two, because one of them which I gave for the 15th has since been altered to the 13th.

But were there two originally given, bearing date the 15th? - It is more than I can trust my memory to; as to the dates, I remember giving a draught to Charles Shepherd for the 15th, but it is altered back from the 15th to the 13th; I think I gave it dated the 15th.

You are sure you gave another draught dated the 15th? - Yes.

Then you only think now that that was dated originally the 15th? - I think so.

Can you swear positively that it was so? - No, I will not venture to swear it was.

Have you ever been more venturesome, and swore that it was originally dated on the 15th? - Not I believe positively.

Court. Read that part of his examination before the magistrate,

"and says that another of the said draughts was produced and shewn to this informant, which appears to be dated September the 13th, payable to Charles Shepherd or bearer, for thirty pounds, which was, when delivered by this deponent to the said Robert Jaques , dated the 15th of September, 1785."

The remainder of this Trial in the next Part, which will be published in a few Days.

Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-62

Related Material

THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ON THE KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY of LONDON; AND ALSO The Gaol Delivery for the County of Middlesex, HELD AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On Wednesday the 11th of JANUARY, 1786, and the following Days;





Printed for E. HODGSON (the Proprietor) And Sold by J. WALMSLAY, No. 35, Chancery Lane, and S. BLADON, No. 13, Pater-noster Row.



KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY of LONDON, &c.

Continuation of the Trial of Robert Jaques .

Court. There is no think - or believe there: When was Mr. Jaques first taken up on this charge? - I do not recollect the time.

Was it about the 22d of December? - I believe that was the day of the first examination.

Down to what time, how near to that time was Jaques and you upon a footing of confidence and intimacy? - I think till the trial of the cause in the Common Pleas.

When was that cause tried? - I do not exactly remember the day of the month.

Prisoner. It was the 6th of December.

You and Mr. Jaques at the time of that cause were in the same interest, endeavouring to charge Mr. Williams with payment of two hundred pounds? - Yes.

How soon after the unsuccessful event of that cause did you take up Mr. Jaques? - The day after.

Then between the trial of that cause and the day after, or upon the trial of that cause, did any thing happen to you to induce you to change your opinion of Mr. Jaques? - My opinion of Mr. Jaques was changed long before that.

Have you made any new discovery since the trial of that cause? - My bankers have informed me that the bank note which they delivered for that draught which was paid on the 15th of September, that that note had come into the bank.

When did you hear that from your bankers? - I have heard it from my banker within these three days.

Did you hear it before the 22d of December? - No, but they informed me of the number, and that it might take place, and by and by that they should see the bank note come into the bank.

Now I will ask you this question, between the 6th of December, the day of the trial in which Mr. Jaques and you were joint plaintiffs, and the 26th of December, when he was taken up, was any new discovery

very made by you whatever respecting this fact? - The discovery of the number of the bank note was made to me.

But how did that apply to Mr. Jaques? - I thought some time or other it would come out.

Upon what did you take him up, because something would come out in future? - I thought my suspicions were very strong at the time I took him up.

Were they not equally strong on the 6th of December? - I think they were.

Then, Sir, upon your oath, should you ever have commenced this prosecution against Mr. Jaques, if that action had been successful? - Upon my oath I should.

Prisoner. My Lord, it was his motion, and he called upon me to join with him in an affidavit, which was the 10th or 12th of November, he called upon me to make an affidavit in support of his cause.

Whether the witness was not intimate with me till within a day of his apprehending me? whether he has not declared, during the dependance of that motion in the presence of Mr. Reeves, that he would swear to any thing to convict Mr. I'anson of perjury? - No, I did not.

Whether he has not often declared that he looked upon an oath as a matter of form, and would swear to any thing to answer his purpose, I have witnesses, my Lord, to prove it? - Never, my Lord, never.


Court. Have you any evidence in addition to that of Mr. Griffin's with respect to the original dates of this note, you see it is upon that that the whole evidence of this turns.

CARLOS CAESAR sworn in Chief.

Mr. Garrow. You have been long acquainted with Mr. Jaques, and are acquainted with Mr. Griffin? - I am.

Do you know of any transaction of notes given to Mr. Griffin by Mr. Jaques on the 10th of September? - I cannot speak to the day, but I had a draught of thirty pounds, I cannot tell who it was particularly to, I received a from Mr. Jaques, I took it to Mr. Thomas Reeves to get it cashed on the same evening.


I know Carlos Caesar .

Do you recollect his bringing you any note to cash? - No, it was Mr. Griffin's note for thirty pounds.

To whom was it payable? - Upon my word I did not examine, I do not know.

Should you know the note if you was to see it? - I should not.

(Shews him the draught.) - Upon my word, till this time I neither knew whether it was a checque or note.

Court. Gentlemen of the Jury, the gentlemen on the part of the prosecution very fairly say, they can carry this no further: if you have any doubt we must proceed to further investigation; if not, we cannot carry it any further.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-63
SentenceCorporal > private whipping

Related Material

183. LAZARUS JONAS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 28th day of December last, a piece of gold coin, value 8 s. 9 d. the property of Edward Harris .


I am a grocer and tea-dealer , I live in St. George's parish, in Wapping High-street ; the prisoner came into my shop, the 28th of December last, about seven, he bought one ounce of tea, and half a pound of sugar, which came to ten-pence,

he put down a shilling, I gave him twopence; I was giving change to another person; I had a Venetian piece of gold in my hand, I put it down, he took it up, and I said, what is this worth? he said, will you give me anything to drink this Christmas? yes, says I; I went to fetch a little rum out of the next room, and Lazarus decamped with the piece of gold; whether he went up or down the street, I do not know; I saw him take it off the counter, and turn it on his finger, I knew him before for six or seven years.

What is he? - He has sometimes commissions for Dutch goods, which is a good reputable way of life, in a middling way.

What made you think he meant to steal this? - Because he did not stay to drink.

When did you see him afterwards? - On the Friday, this was on the Wednesday.

Why he did not go away from his house or from his business, do you think he meant to steal it? - It did not look well in him to do it.

Mr. Knowles, Prisoner's Counsel. Now, Mr. Harris, did not you give the man this piece of gold, and ask him whether he would not buy it of you? - I laid it on the counter before him, and asked him the value of it.

Do not you know he could have disposed of it for you? - No doubt of it.

How long have you known him? - Seven years.

Have not you known him fourteen years? - No, Sir.

Recollect yourself, did not you meet him the next day and ask him for this? - No, it was done on the Wednesday, and I took him on the Friday.

Will you swear it was not full six days before you took him up? - I took him on the Friday after.

Will you swear it was not six days after? Good God! Sir, I have sworn it was but two days.

Have not you said, before more people than one, that if he would give you the value of this piece of gold coin, you would not find the bill against him? - No, Sir, I did not.

In the presence of your own wife? - No, Sir.

Had not you an information against you two or three years ago, for smuggling? - Yes, I was not in trade, I was then sick in bed.

Have not you said to Mrs. Harris, that you believed Jonas was the man that gave the information, and you would punish him for it? - I have not.

Do you know the prisoner's sister, Mrs. Barlin, did you never say before her, that if the prisoner would pay you the money, you would not find the bill against him? - I never said so, to her, but I wished I had had nothing to do with the prosecution.

Did you never tell her that if he had not given that information, you would not have set on foot this prosecution? - No.

Did you never tell this gentleman here, or any other person, that if he would execute a mutual release, that there should be no prosecution against you for smuggling, you would not carry on this prosecution? - O dear, Sir, there was a proposal made, but I said I would go to the Court.

Answer my question directly? - I never said such a thing in my life.


I am servant to the prosecutor, I served the prisoner with an ounce of tea, and half a pound of sugar.

Did you see him take this piece of gold? - I saw my master take silver out of his pocket, and this piece of gold in his hand; and the prisoner took it up in my master's presence, and he looked upon it in his hand, and then he asked my master to give him something to drink, and while my master went to get some rum, he went out.

Mr. Knowles. Do you know of the prisoner's frequenting your shop for a long time? - No, I never saw the man in my life.

How long have you been with your master? - Four months.

Prisoner. I leave it all to my counsel.

- BARLIN sworn.

My husband is a tobacconist, I called on the prosecutor about this business two or three days after Lazarus Jonas was taken up, to know the reason; he then told me that he came into his shop for some tea and sugar, and he shewed him a piece of gold, and he asked him what it was, and he asked him to drink something, and he went backwards, and Lazarus went out; and that he met him on Friday morning, and said, Jonas, why do not you bring me the gold, or the value of it; and Jonas then called him a smuggler, and an infamous fellow, and told him he left the gold on the counter; he then said, he advised with his wife, who said, he had better take out a warrant, for he had very ill used him, and now he would be even with him for something; Lazarus Jonas had ill used him, and now it would be a recompence to him; he then said, now I will be even with him; I begged of him to consider that the prisoner had a wife and children, and I did not hear that he had been guilty of any thing before, and that he should take the value, and not find the bill; he said, he would not, and he told me, some years ago he had five hundred weight of coffee in the house, and Jonas gave information against him, he said, he was pretty sure it was him, for nobody else knew of it; Mrs. Harris says she was obliged to swear herself a whore to Harris, though his lawful wife; and Harris then said, hush my dear; I then intreated him again not to consider all this, for very likely it was not Jonas, he then said, if I chose to pay the expences, and the piece of gold, and give him an indemnification, that Jonas never would inform against him, he would not find a bill against him.

Did he say how long it was after, before he took out the warrant? - He said three days after.

Court to Harris. You have heard what the witness has said? - I have.

Is that true? - Not a word of it, I have a certificate of my marriage.

Had you any such conversation? - I never heard of it.

Had you any conversation? - She came in once or twice, to beg for Lazarus, I never saw her before.

But had you such conversation? - Not me, I know nothing of it.


I am an officer belonging to the New York Volunteers, in the regiment that is now reduced to half pay.

Did you call on Mr. Harris, and what passed? - Jonas formerly used to brush my clothes and go of errands, he staid away five or six days, and did not come as usual; last Friday I wanted him, and was informed he was in Newgate; as I had frequently entrusted him with forty or fifty pounds, I was rather surprised, I called on Harris at his shop, there was a woman present which I afterwards understood to be the wife of Harris; I asked Harris to inform me, what was the reason for taking up Jonas, he told me the same story as Mr. Barlin has related, namely, that he had given him a foreign piece of gold to look at, and ascertain the value of, and to know if he would purchase it or not, the prisoner asked him for a glass of gin, he went to fetch the bottle, and desired the shopman to get the glass, and while they went they found the prisoner Jonas gone out of the shop; he met him the Friday morning, this I understand was three or four days previous to his missing him. or two days, I cannot be positive to the day, he asked him what he meant by taking money from him, without returning it to him, or giving him the value for it, and that the prisoner had told him that he had not taken a piece of gold out of his shop, that he had left it with him in his shop, and gave him abusive language, which was the means of

inducing him to take out a warrant for him, he said he should not have taken him for this trifling cause, having known him for a number of years, had not it been for his ill treatment some years since; I asked him what ill treatment it was, he told me about three or four years past, he had laid an information against him, as he had a quantity of raw coffee, in his house; I asked him which way he knew the prisoner had done it, and the reason he gave for it was, that he, a day or two before the officers entered his house, offered to sell this Jonas four hundred pounds weight of raw coffee, but they could not agree for price; the wife who is present in Court, and by my advice has been subpoened, for I am disinterested in the affair, she said, that she was obliged to swear herself a common whore in the Court, to prevent Harris being ruined.

What character has the prisoner borne so far as you know? - I have known him several years, he behaved to me very honest, never heard any thing else of him, or else I should not have trusted him.

Court to Harris. You have heard what this witness has said, is it true? - Not a word about the coffee is true, I never spoke a word about it not a word passed or ever thought about it.

Ivory. I saw him with it in his hand, when he went out of the door.


To be privately whipped and discharged.

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-64
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

184. CHARLES LEE was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 16th day of December last, three iron bolts, value 4 s. one axe, value 1 s. 6 d. the property of Thomas Taylor .


Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURST.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-65
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

185. CHARLES LEE was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 16th day of December last, one boat called a wherry, value 3 l. the property of Edward Cooper .


Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURST.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-66
VerdictNot Guilty > no prosecutor

Related Material

186. MARY SHANKS was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 31st day of December last, one gold ring, value 10 s. and one glove, value 2 d. the property of Thomas Southall .

The prosecutor called on his recognizance, and not appearing the prisoner was ACQUITTED .

Court. Let the recognizance be estreated.

Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-67
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

187. WILLIAM WILLIAMS and RICHARD BREWER were indicted for feloniously assaulting Edward Jones , on the King's highway, on the 30th day of December last, and putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and feloniously

taking from his person and against his will, three shillings in monies numbered, his property .


I was stopped on Tower-hill , the 30th of last month, between six and seven, I was going into the Borough from Whitechapel, nobody was in company with me, I was coming across the hill, the two prisoners met me, and knocked me down, I cannot say which it was; and took three shillings out of my pocket, I had four guineas in my inside pocket, which they did not find.

Was not it dark? - Yes.

How long did you remain on the ground? - They left me on the ground, and as soon as they left me, I arose from the ground, and by the light of the lamps I saw them pass, and I followed them, I never lost sight of them, till they went into a house, it was a private house, in Virginia-street; they went into a door which was marked with chalk, I went and told a gentleman at the next door the case, and he got a constable immediately, and he went up stairs and took them; I was with him, they were sitting in a chair doing nothing; I gave charge of them, they said; they were not the men, the man that keeps the house, was in the house, but no other man that I saw; the officer searched their pockets, they owned they came across the hill.

How long was it before you got a constable? - As far as I can tell about ten minutes.

Do you know their persons? - Yes, I am sure of the men by the light of the lamps, and the candles of the pastry-cook's shop, I took observation upon them.

Now, remember the lives of these two men depend upon what you say, can you take upon yourself to swear to these two men by that light? - Yes.

Mr. Knowles, Prisoner's Counsel to Jones. Were you quite sober at that time? - Yes, as sober as I am now.

The night very dark? - Yes, it was dark.

You went to the Justice's the same evening? - Yes.

How happened you to mistake one of the Justice's men for the constable you took with you? - O! Sir, no such thing, I knew the constable.

You was knocked down? - Yes.

Stunned by the blow? - Yes, for a small space of time.

No light near you when you were knocked down? - No more than the lamps.

Do not you know when these men were searched, there was nothing found upon them? - Yes.

Did not they say, they were ready to go with you any where, that they were not the men? - Yes.


I am a constable living very nigh, I was sent for, I went with the prosecutor to this house, the man that keeps this house, his name is Hinde, a very sober labouring man, at the victualling-office, Tower-hill.

Who admitted you into the house? - The door was chained, and when I knocked, the door was opened by Mr. Hinde, and the prosecutor said, these are the two men that robbed me; the men were sitting in a chair in the room next the fire place, in the second floor.

Were they drinking? - No, nothing at all, they came from on board a ship, they said, for some linen to be washed, I searched their pockets, and found no property upon them, I took them to the Justice, and the prosecutor swore to the men.

Was the prosecutor drunk or sober? - Upon my word, I am not able to say, he might be in liquor, or he might not; he said he never lost sight of them, the men behaved very civil, and were willing to go

to the Justice's, they said they were not the men.

Mr. Knowles. When you went to the Justice's did Jones know you? - Yes, Sir, he knew me, but however some people say he was in liquor, and that he did not know me from one of the runners; I had a coat on, and a handkerchief about my neck, like one of the runners; that was the opinion of the people that stood about, I did not observe myself.


I know nothing about it.


I am innocent of the fact, we had been hard at work all day, we came from on board a ship, we were going for a clean shirt for Sunday.


Do you remember the prisoners being taken from your house by a constable? - Yes.

What did they come to your house for? - For some linen my wife had washed for them.

From what place did they come? - From a brig that was at Horsely-down-stairs, the other side of the water, I have known both the prisoners since they have been now in the river, one of them is my brother in law, I have known him for years, he bears as good a character as any man in the world; I did not expect them that night, Brewer often comes to our house, my wife washes for him and his sister, and the other man came along with him.

Court. Is the direct way from Horsely-down-stairs, to Virginia-street, over Tower-hill? - Yes, they came over the bridge, they had not money to bring them over the water, so they came to save expences across the bridge.


Tried by the second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice HEATH.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-68
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

188. THOMAS GRASSHOP was indicted for feloniously assaulting George Freeman , on the King's highway, on the 5th day of January , and putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and feloniously taking from his person and against his will, four muslin caps, value 20 s. four muslin frocks, value 30 s. three pair of sheets, value 3 l. two pair of pillow cases, value 5 s. wo shifts, value 10 s. the property of John Abrahams .


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-69
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

189. ZACHARIAH BEVAN was indicted for that he, on the 13th day of April last, at the parish of St. Bennet, otherwise St. Benedict, Paul's-wharf , did feloniously and falsly make, forge, and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsly made, forged, and counterfeited, and feloniously act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting, a certain will and testament, partly printed, and partly written, with the name of William Howell thereto subscribed, purporting to be the last will and testament of William Howell , and to be signed, sealed and published by him, whereby he left his effects to his brother John Howell , and appointed him the said Zachariah Bevan , the executor of his will, which will was dated the 6th of March, 1779, and signed William Howell , in the presence of Stephen Sandys , first Lieutenant, and William Cowley , Master's Mate, with intention to defraud Isabella Stuport against the statute .

A second count, For publishing the same with the like intention.


Mr. Fielding,

Mr. Garrow.


Mr. Silvester,

Mr. Reeve.

Mr. Bevan desired to be accommodated with a chair, which was ordered by the Court.


I am clerk in the Prerogative-office.

Mr. Silvester. Do you know of a will coming into the office, said to be signed William Howell ? - I do not know till I look, I have not looked at the papers; I produce two wills from the Prerogative-office, I received them from the records of the office.

Mr. Fielding. So all that you know, is that these are two papers that you have produced from the Prerogative-office? - Yes.

- JONES sworn.

I am a Proctor in the Commons, I know Mr. Bevan, he does business in the office I am in.

Look at that will? - I have.

What do you know of it? - I see nothing upon the face of it, to induce me to know it to be the will, I believe it to be so, and I have no doubt about it; in general wills have a jurata, this has not, it has been out of my custody several months, and therefore it is impossible I can speak of it with certainty, I have seen the will in the registry, but I do not know that is the very will that was put originally there, in the course of the prosecution in Doctor's Commons, the will was put into the registry; but whether that is the will, is impossible for me to say.

When was it carried in, and by whom? - I judge by the indorsement, by one Peter Shaw , clerk in the office, and I have no doubt, but that at the time it appears to be brought in, it was; but there is not any thing on the face of the will, that can induce me to say that this is the will that was tendered to the office by Mr. Bevan.

Mr. Silvester to Mr. Hawkins. Are there any other wills of that name? - Not that I know of.

Mr. Garrow to Mr. Jones. What time was the will that was delivered to you by Mr. Bevan so delivered? - I will swear that the will left by Mr. Bevan was in my custody previous to the 7th of May, 1784, which constituted the prosecution, for it appears to me that the citation citing Mrs. Stuport to bring in her probate, is dated the 14th of May 1784.

Mr. Garrow. I need not go on with some more enquiries that I have, till it can be proved.

Court. How comes it there is no jurata? - It was known there had been a probate granted to Mrs. Stupert, as the executor of her will, therefore the application was for a citation to bring in the probate.


Look at the will? - I have.

What do you know of it? - I know that on or about the 7th of May 1784, this will, or I believe a will, was left at my office, and upon searching the registry, probate had been granted for a former will, in consequence of that, I see by my memorandum, because I took general instructions for a citation, to shew cause why it should not be declared null and void, and the probate revoked.

Was this the identical will that was produced? - It is impossible for me to say, there is another gentleman in Court of the same profession, and he cannot say; I believe it to be the same will, I propounded in the cause on the part of Mr. Bevan.

Who produced it to you? - To the best of my recollection, Mr. Jones brought it from hackney where he has a house, and Mr. Bevan is I believe his neighbour, Mr. Jones left it with me as I best recollect.

Did you receive any will from the prisoner? - Upon my word I cannot say, Mr. Bevan came several times to me on this business, and consulted me, I told him what was necessary, and I know his application was in May 1784, whether he delievered it to me, and I delivered it to Mr. Jones, or whether he delivered it to Mr.

Jones, and he took it to the office for instructions for the citation, I cannot positively say how I came by the will, I see I have as a matter of course taken instructions.

From whose mouth? - That I cannot say.

Mr. Silvester. Who did you receive the instructions from? - I cannot positively say, I do not recollect, but very possibly from Mr. Bevan himself, I could not take the instructions from Mr. Jones, though the will might be left to me for that purpose, I see I have taken these instructions with my own hand writing, which are generally taken by a clerk.

Did you at any time see Mr. Bevan upon this subject? - I have seen him frequently upon the business.

Mr. Silvester. What past upon that occasion?

Mr. Fielding. No, no, he does not know that that is the paper upon which the conversation passed?

Court. You may ask whether he had any conversation about a will, but then the question supposes it to be that paper, which you are not entitled to do.

Mr. Silvester. Did you ever shew that paper to Mr. Bevan? - I do not recollect that I ever did shew it to Mr. Bevan, while it was in my office, it was brought into the public office for the inspection of Mr. Bevan or any other gentleman, but I do not recollect that I went with Mr. Bevan to shew it him; looking further into the memorandum, I see I have taken the date of the will, which I took the 6th of March, 1779, which is the date of this paper.

Mr. Jones. The will that I took the instruction for the citation from was dated the 6th of March, 1779.

Does it appear by your minute from whom you took the instructions? - No, it does not.

Court. Is there any means by which you can indentify that particular paper now produced?

Mr. Silvester. No, my Lord, I do not know that there are any particular means.

Court to Jones. What means do you take in the Prorogative-office to authenticate papers, to prevent a substitution of one paper for another; for instance, now suppose one person should substitute another paper for the original will? - When wills are brought to the proctor's for the purpose of being proved, they lay there to be taken into the registry, the registry is searched to see that no former grant has passed, if it has, it is usual to take the original will back, then you take out a citation against the party who is in possession of that probate to bring it in, and some months after it is before you to bring it in, which is generally by affidavit of scripts, and the will is annexed; this will I find was brought into the registry, and there it remained in the custody of the register, the usual practice has been pursued in this cause.

Court. No, it has not. - This is a seaman's business, and every expence is saved; the procto r also takes in the affidavit of scripts with the original will, it is of very little consequence whether he takes it in annexed to the affidavit or not.

In this case it has not that? - The paper is identified to the register, he marks them in what they call an assignation book, takes down the date only.

Court. The will you state does not identify that piece of paper, the date is no mark of the piece of paper? - The minute would be Bevan against Stupart, on such a day, Stupart brought into the registry the will, that is not marked at all.

Court. The evidence is, that this is not the hand-writing of the party, now for ought it appears this may be a copy of that which Mr. Bevan brought, if there were circumstances which shewed this will produced could not be a genuine one, I certainly should not let the trial proceed.

Mr. Fielding. I am sure if your Lordship was to hear Mr. Bevan's witnesses, neither you nor any other person would have a moment's doubt of the innocence of the gentleman at the bar; and the parties on the side of the prosecution have been

putting him to all this pain and trouble without the least shadow of foundation.

Court. All that we can say at present is, that there is no evidence laid before us to doubt of this gentleman's innocence.

Mr. Fielding. My Lord, I have such a volume of witnesses in my brief, that if they were gone through would raise the astonishment and indignation of every person that heard of this prosecution.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord, Mr. Woollstoncroft attends here to tell your Lordship that Mr. Bevan first applied to him, who was attorney to Mrs. Stupart, to desire his directions, that he was told Mrs. Stupart claimed a debt of ninety or a hundred pounds, and he asked Mr. Bevan what was willed, and Mr. Bevan telling him a few hundreds, he advised Mr. Bevan to pay her; said he, you had better make her an offer to pay her her debt, and get a discharge, rather than call in the will made to her, as the expences in law would be as much or more; this is what the prosecutrix now calls a compromise.

Mr. Jones. It is becoming every man in this Court to say what he can; I mentioned two circumstances, the one is that the citation is dated the 14th of May, 1784, publication passed the 28th of July, and this indictment was not set on foot till the 14th of September last, after publication passed.

Court. Then you cannot carry this any further.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Mr. Bevan. My Lord, may I crave the favour of this Court to grant me a copy of the indictment, I have been exceedingly injured, my life as well as my property has been injured, and we can sufficiently prove that there has been a combination to extort money from me; a warrant was obtained, I suppose, more for that purpose than bringing me to this bar, but happily I escaped the villains that came to take me, and I came and voluntarily surrendered myself; my Lord, every thing that malice, that devilish malice could have done, has been done; therefore I hope I shall have a copy of my indictment, that I may be able to bring the prosecutors to justice, and I hope your Lordship will do it for the sake of public justice.

Court. Mr. Bevan, the matter has certainly not proceeded in this case far enough to entitle me to comply with your request, for this reason, though it appears to the Court there is no ground for the charge, yet it does not appear to the Court, nor can it, whether the will produced in the Commons was a genuine will or not; the supposition of it's not being a genuine will may be perfectly consistent with your compleat innocence, for if this will was delivered to you by the brother, who claims the interest, it by no means follows, if it was not genuine, that you had any knowledge of it; but I cannot call this a malicious prosecution, until I have proof before me that it is a malicious prosecution.

Mr. Bevan. My Lord, the not going into the evidence hinders this proof.

Mr. Fielding. It is my duty to stop a prosecution in its first stage, where a defect is found, but it does not seem to me to be of any importance to have a copy of the indictment; if you can trace out the offenders you may obtain satisfaction.

Mr. Bevan. But when the sentence is passed in the Commons may not that be obtained.

Court. The power of the Court will pass away with the Sessions, but I conceive it to be a mistaken idea that there must be a copy of the indictment, for, an action of conspiracy or for a malicious prosecution may be maintained without a copy of the indictment, granted by order of the Court.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-70
VerdictNot Guilty

Related Material

190. JOHN MOLLOY was indicted for that he, on the 27th day of July, in the 14th year of his present Majesty's

reign, at the parish of Kilcock, in the county of Kildare, in the kingdom of Ireland, did marry one Catherine Courtney , spinster , and had her for a wife; and on the 11th of May last, at the parish of St. Mary-le-bon , did marry one Mary Parker , widow , the said Catherine, his former wife being then alive .

Court to Jury. There is no evidence, Gentlemen, but the evidence of the first wife, who is by law incompetent to give any evidence, either for or against her husband, and also to make an affidavit to put off the trial, in order that she may obtain evidence against her husband.

Justice Heath. She ought not to be the prosecutrix.


Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice ASHURST.

11th January 1786
Reference Numbert17860111-71
SentenceMiscellaneous > fine; Imprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

191. GEORGE BAILEY was indicted for that he, on the 13th day of December last, one glass lamp with a burner and brass furniture, value 10 s. the property of Paul Le Mesurier , Esq. by a certain person then before stolen, unlawfully and feloniously did receive, knowing the same to be stolen .


I am clerk to Mr. Le Mesurier; on the 13th of December, about four in the afternoon I was going to my business after dinner, and I saw a man in the passage taking the lamp, I had no thought of his having bad designs, I thought the lamp wanted some repairing, and the man wanted to take it down, I saw no more of him, the lamp was taken down, the lamp was gone, and I went to my business.

From the sight you had of that man, was it the prisoner? - It was rather dark, it was about four, the man was dressed in a light-coloured coat, I believe that man was not the prisoner.


I keep the New London Tavern, the prisoner brought me a lamp on the 13th of December, and said he came from Mrs. Phillips, who kept the house some time before I took it, he asked three half crowns for the lamp or else he was not to leave it, I then sent to Mrs. Phillips to enquire whether she had sent him or not, he followed the person that went, I sent one of

my waiters; when the prisoner came back he acknowledged to me that he had-told an untruth in saying that Mrs. Phillips sent him, he came back for the lamp or the money, I told him he must give a better account of it, and I then gave charge of him to a constable, he said he brought the lamp from Chelsea, the constable took the lamp with him.


I left the lamp in Mr. Lewis's charge that night, the next day I had it and the prisoner before the Alderman, the Alderman ordered me to advertise it, which I did on the 16th, and Alderman Le Mesurier's servant applied to me on the 16th, in the morning, and informed me that the Alderman had lost a lamp, he afterwards saw the lamp and swore to it as the property of Alderman Le Mesurier, I kept it in my custody till last session, and last session, by leave of your Lordship, Mr. Lewis put a mark on it.


I know the lamp, I am sure of it.

Lewis. Here is my mark on it, I am sure it is the same.


On the 13th of December I was coming home about a quarter past four, and I saw a person dressed in a light-coloured coat running through Fryers Passage, I was running and he put the lamp down, I did not know whose the lamp was; I behaved, I acknowledge, imprudently in offering it for sale, I have no witnesses, my friends are such as I would not chuse to bring to such a place as this.


Fined 1 s. and imprisoned six months in the House of Correction .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. William Bartlett.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-1

Related Material

No 151 Page 247, Trial of William Bartle [ William Bartlett ]

Where it saith Mr Garrow objected to a Witness being examined but his Objection was over ruled by the Court this is the whole of the Altercation Verbatim between Mr Justice Heath and Mr Garrow the Prisoner's Councel which was omitted in the Sessions Paper.

Mr Garrow I confess my Lord I begin to fancy my self almost an Ideot if not a dumb man my Objection is that there is no way in which you can possibly communicate with a deaf and dumb man.

Court, You assume that.

Mr. Garrow I assume it on the authority of my Lord Hale who lays it down that a man who is Sudus et Mutus &c. is in presumption & Ideot.Court upon what Authority

Mr. Garrow Upon the Authority of my Ld. Hale

Court Every body knows that there are certain signs.

Mr Garrow the Argument is this that you have

no way of communicating with a deaf & dumb man but by signs which convey total Ideas.

Court You must not interrupt your objection is premature.

Mr Garrow. My Lord I was not objecting I was going on with my Examination & your Lordship did me the honor to Interrupt me.

Court You will examine your Witness with some degree of decency your Conduct & behaviour are very improper what you do here is by permission of the Court in a Criminal Case.

Mr Garrow My Lord I Object to the Witness being examined & I take the liberty to state my objection to the Court.

Court You must examine you Witness.

Mr. Garrow I have a right to my Objection.

Court If you do not examine your Witness you shall sit down

Mr. Garrow My Lord I shall not sit down.

Court Then I shall Commit you

Mr. Garrow So your Lordship may

Court Then I certainly will commit you

Mr Garrow There is a point of Law to be argued.

Court there is no point of Law and if there was you are to be assigned to the Court but you are to behave with Decency

Mr Garrow So I do my Lord I have not been used to be interrupted I am here to argue points of Law for the prisoner.

Court You have no right till you are Assigned

Mr. Garrow If you tell me so my Lord I sit down

Court I tell you so.

Mr Garrow I sit down

Mr Scott I am Councel for the Prisoner on the same side with Mr Garrow

Court to Witness (Q) Now how is it that you wod. communicate the question you wod. ask to your brother are they signs that you make or are they expressive of any particular words or are they expressive of letters or Syllables?

(A) Not letters or Syllables but by motion of words.

Court can you express this Idea to your brother?

whether or no he knows the nature of an Oath?

(A) So far as a short motion he has been taught that by others not by me.

Court can you make him sensible of the meaning of this question?

(A) Yes he has a very great sence of Scripture, tho' he cannot express it.

(Q) Is he acquainted with the principles of the Christian Religion?

(A) He is very well Acquainted with them.

(Q) Has proper pains been taken to Instruct him in it? (A) they have.

(Q)Have you any doubt at all whether you can convey the meaning of this question whether he has any Idea of the Nature of an Oath?

(A) I have no doubt but he understands it.

Court to Mr. Garrow (Q) Do you examine your Witness?

Mr Garrow (Q) Does your Lordship Assign me Councel for the Prisoner?

Court So long as you behave with decency

Mr. Garrow I must repeat I have not been disposed to behave indecently I never was disposed & I never intend such behaviour.

Mr. Garrow to Witness (Q) you have no doubt but you can Communicate to him the nature of an Oath?

(A) I have not.

(Q) Could you venture to say you are sure that he understands you?

(A) I cannot pretend to swear to his thoughts but as far as motion.

(Q) How shall you be able to communicate to him that if he was to tell a falsity upon his Oath he will be put in the Pillory for Perjury?

(A) Oh Sir he is very well convinced of that.

(Q) Does he read?

(A) He does not understand reading but he will look over & we explain to him.

(Q) can he write?

(A) Not to correspond.

(Q) Then you guess that he understands you &

you guess at the responses he gives you?

(A) Yes.

(Q) Suppose you was to tell him that Mr Lunardi had arisen into the Air in a Balloon, how sho'd you communicate that Idea?

(A) Oh very well.

(Q) Do you think he would understand that without seeing it?

(A) I am sure by his motion in return.

Mr. Garrow Now my Lord I take the liberty of troubling your Lordship with my objection - I do admit this young woman having conversed with him if we may so call it from the time of his Nativity does believe that there is a certain degree of rationality about him, therefore he does understand some simple Ideas; but the evidence does not prove that he has any Idea of Complex Ideas; this young Woman tells you that he has an Idea of the Christian System now it is impossible my Lord that he has more Ideas of that Complex System than that which a Common Savage has who has a

notion of a God, he is taught that there is a religion to which he ought to be obedient & that there is a state of rewards & punishments so far they may communicate to him on the score of natural religion but that they can communicate to this man who can receive no Ideas but thro' the Organs of vision, or that this man who can receive no Ideas but thro' these mere Organs should have taken in the vast complicated system of religion that he should have imbibed the notion of all the happiness & all the Punishments that belongs to its votaries is not to be credited: that this young woman believes what she says I have no doubt: but let us see whether this Witness can possibly be examined on that score Take an Infidel & bring him here, take somebody who does not believe in a God, wod. your Lordship examine him? By what sanction temporal or eternal could you bind him? Now suppose this poor creature to be aware of all the eternal sanctions that awaite on falsehood or, [final line cut off] can be conveyed to his understanding? How can they be represented? Why this a complex Idea? the Idea of mans stealing my Watch out of my pocket and conveying away to somebody else is a Complex Idea which requires rationality about it first to perceive and afterwards to describe; I said my Lord what idea of temporal punishment can be conveyed to his understandings & now let me address myself to your Lordship as a great Lawyer which you certainly are & I presume to ask of your Lordship in what possible way this Man is to be punished if he is guilty of Perjury to right I presume my Lord to ask how he could possibly be punished? Could he be Indicted in a Capital Case, he is first to be presented to the grand Jury he is then to be called to that bar he he is asked whether he is guilty or not guilty of the perjury imputed to him by the Indictment he he make no answer he cannot answer Why your Lordship know that in this day According to the [final line cut off] and not pleading to the Indictment an Inquest must be sworn to enquire if he is Dumby by the visitation of God, that Inquest must in his case return that he was Dumb the Visitation of God - Would the Law of England punish the Man to conviction Would the Law of England say that because the Man would not plead when he could not plead that he should be adjudged guilty of the Crime of Perjury: he is brought to that bar he is Indicted for perjury, the Indictment is read over to him, it is to be explained to him, this Woman is to explain it to him, how is she to explain it to him? Is she to tell him that your Lordship and Sir Wm. Henry Ashurst & the Recorder of London & the Aldermen & Gentlemen named in the Commission met here to deliver the Goal of Newgate on this day that this Prisr. Wm. Bartlett was Indicted for a Grand Larceny, that the question came on to be tried & that on that trial he did not commit wilfull & corrupt Perjury How is all that to be Interpreted to him on his Arraignment? But that is not all, when this Indictment is read to him by the Assistance of the Interpretress thro' the medium of the Clerk of the Arraigns, And the Clerk asks him thro' the same Assistance are you Guilty or not Guilty. - Why my Lord the Man stands like the block behind him! Can your Lordship or any of the other Judges try him? Can you try him till he has pleaded? You cannot: he his Dumb & cannot Answer to the Indictment. How then upon the Idea of this man committing the Crime of Perjury can my Client the Prisoner now at the Bar receive any retribution. Another thing my Lord permit me to observe that there are motions and signs which are to convey to this Man Complex Ideas: If it had been as your Lordship certainly supposed when you took up this Subject that it might be verbally or by communication of [partially lost line]syllables if that had been so my argument would have been weaker that it is, but your Lordship sees if it is by looking up to heaven. Now how will these questions so complex to be communicated to him, upon you Oath will you venture to swear that than Man at the Bar did so and so? Did you know him before? Is there any thing remarkable in is features? How are these Ideas to be seperated in their communication to Him? I ask again in the Name of Common sense how that poor woman can Communicate to him that complex question? My Lord I wish I could also address that Jury on this trial I should be glad to ask them whether they would chuse to convict a man of felony upon the testimony of a man with whom they could not hold a conversation who has not more rationality than an Automaton, who does not appear more competent (if I may be allowed to make such a Simily) than that learned Pig which is now exhibited to the publick. My Lord if I conceived I had in the Course of this trial behaved myself with intemperance or with indecency [text lost at the bottom of the page] term it I do assure your Lordship I should not feel that I was hurt in making an Apology: I never do mean to behave to the Court with any thing like indecency: I thought it my Duty to Examine this Interpretress upon the Voire dire perhaps it was improper Zeal on the part of my Client but God forbid that I should ever set an example or that the meanest spectator in this Court should think I wanted or wished to set an example of treating great & brave & Venerable and learned Judges of the Law of England with anything like disrespect

Court I am of Opinion that under all the circumstances of his case the Witness is a Competent Witness ought to be sworn after he is sworn it will remain with the Jury to consider what degree of respect he ought to have I am sure every body knows on what slight Notions Witnesses are permitted to give evidence we admit Children of ten eleven & twelve years of age to give evidence can they be initiated in the misteries of the Christian religion? can they be Acquainted with [line lost at the bottom of page?]

the Scheme of Redemption? It is utterly impossible, we reckon it Sufficient if they have some Idea of a future state of rewards & punishments & if they think that the Oath they take is Obligatory on them & they shall be punished hereafter, it has been said this is as if the Man spoke on unknown language I do not know that there is any objection to that if the language can be Interpreted to the Satisfaction of the Jury; It has been said too that he is not Ameniable in the Case of Perjury, that is a very Monstrous doctrine to say & it is laid down by the Councel with great Confidence as if it could be supported, Now I am unacquainted with any Authority that says that a man that is born dead & dumb shall not be punished, that if he commits Treason & Assasinates his Sovereign he is dispunishable, or if he Murders any of his fellow subjects I should think if ever an Interpreter could be found to a person guilty of such a Crime that would be Sufficient put him on his defence the Result wod. be the task and I cannot say the event if a Prisoner should appear to be deaf & dumb there were no means to convey the signes to him what was going forwards for in that Case it would be trying an absent Man but in the present Case suppose the Witness was to Commit Perjury then here is a person who could communicate to him and report the question of the Prisoner to the Court & Jury so that a fair & full trial may be had therefore that monstrous doctrine will not ensue.I shall therefore certainly Admit this Witness considering him as Competent & I shall leave his Credit to you Gentlemen & you will consider it under all the Circumstances of the Case.

This altercation was not printed. The price of fo 42 -- 1.1.0

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. William Cowell Davis, William Shovell, William Collier, Edward Fox.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-2
SentenceDeath > executed; Death > executed; Death > executed; Death > executed

Related Material

* William Cowell Davis , William Holloway , * William Shovell , * William Collier , George Sheppard , * Edward Fox otherwise Jaggers , John Callaghan .

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Thomas Ives, Henry Jackson, George Patridge, Mary Greenwood, Samuel Chapness.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-3
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Transportation

Related Material

Thomas Ives , Henry Jackson , George Patridge , Mary Greenwood , and Samuel Chapness , to be transported for seven years to Africa.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Daniel Gunter, Charles Creswell, Isaac Simms, Joseph Stoddart, William Smith, William Smith, Edward Robinson, William Gibbs, Thomas Watton, George Robbinson, Richard Smith, Joseph Fitzpatrick, Joseph Jeffs, Henry Murphy, John Oliver, Thomas Brown, Patrick Egan, George Pidgeon, James Jones, Richard Clark, Stephen Langdon, Samuel Yeldham, Joseph Sturmey, Berwick Mayton, Thomas Groves, Benjamin Moor, John Williams, Patrick Burk, Francis Primrose, James M'Intosh, William Cruse, John Cox, William Staples, George Nugent, William Burk, William Hayward, John Clayton, William Shergold, Edward Preston.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-4
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Transportation

Related Material

Daniel Gunter , Charles Creswell , Isaac Simms , Joseph Stoddart , William Smith , William Smith , Edward Robinson , William Gibbs , Thomas Watton , George Robbinson , Richard Smith , Joseph Fitzpatrick , Joseph Jeffs , Henry Murphy , John Oliver , Thomas Brown , Patrick Egan alias M'Grab , George Pidgeon , James Jones , Richard Clark , Stephen Langdon , Samuel Yeldham , Joseph Sturmey , Berwick Mayton , Thomas Groves , Benjamin Moor , John Williams , Patrick Burk , Francis Primrose , James M'Intosh , William Cruse , John Cox , William Staples , George Nugent , William Burk , William Hayward , John Clayton alias Paddy Ovster , William Shergold and Edward Preston , to be transported for the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty, by the advice of his Privy Council, shall think fit to direct and appoint.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. John Hunter, John White, Thomas King, John Henry Palmer, George Morris, James Duncan.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-5
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Transportation

Related Material

And, John Hunter , John White , Thomas King , John Henry Palmer , George Morris alias Roberts , and James Duncan , to be transported to such place, &c. during the term of their natural lives.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Sarah Whitehead, Margaret Gardener, Rose Fitzpatrick.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-6
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

Sarah Whitehead , Margaret Gardener , Rose Fitzpatrick .

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Mary Garret, Drummond Clark.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-7
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

Mary Garret , Drummond Clark .

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Judith Phillips.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbero17860111-8
SentenceImprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

Judith Phillips , on whom sentence has been respited at a former sessions, was sentenced to be confined six months in the house of correction .

Old Bailey Proceedings punishment summary. William Cowell Davis, William Shovell, William Collier, Edward Fox, Thomas Ives, Henry Jackson, George Patridge, Mary Greenwood, Samuel Chapness, Daniel Gunter, Charles Creswell, Isaac Simms, Joseph Stoddart, William Smith, William Smith, Edward Robinson, William Gibbs, Thomas Watton, George Robbinson, Richard Smith, Joseph Fitzpatrick, Joseph Jeffs, Henry Murphy, John Oliver, Thomas Brown, Patrick Egan, George Pidgeon, James Jones, Richard Clark, Stephen Langdon, Samuel Yeldham, Joseph Sturmey, Berwick Mayton, Thomas Groves, Benjamin Moor, John Williams, Patrick Burk, Francis Primrose, James M'Intosh, William Cruse, John Cox, William Staples, George Nugent, William Burk, William Hayward, John Clayton, William Shergold, Edward Preston, John Hunter, John White, Thomas King, John Henry Palmer, George Morris, James Duncan, Sarah Whitehead, Margaret Gardener, Rose Fitzpatrick, Mary Garret, Drummond Clark, Judith Phillips.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceDeath > executed; Death > executed; Death > executed; Death > executed; No Punishment > pardon; Transportation; No Punishment > pardon; Transportation; No Punishment > pardon; Transportation; No Punishment > pardon; Imprisonment > hard labour; No Punishment > pardon; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

The Trials being ended, the Court proceeded to pass Sentence as follows.

Received sentence of Death, 7, viz.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. William Cowell Davis, William Shovell, William Collier, Edward Fox.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceDeath > executed; Death > executed; Death > executed; Death > executed

Related Material

* William Cowell Davis , William Holloway , * William Shovell , * William Collier , George Sheppard , * Edward Fox otherwise Jaggers , John Callaghan .

N. B. Those marked thus * have since been executed.

Received sentence of Transportation for seven Years, 24, viz.

John Montague , John Dunlavey , John Scott , George Dyne , John Ingram , Caleb Only , Charles Hemmings , Samuel Baker , Mordecai Marks , Joseph Wilson , William Bartlett , John Drury , Michael Solomons , Thomas Abbott , William Chadwick ,

Barney Clarke , John Powell , Daniel Darby (to Africa), George Jones , William Akenhead , John Arnold, Henry Noah, Thomas Edwards , Charles Aslett .

To be confined to hard Labour two Years in the House of Correction, 1.

Hannah Carr .

To be confined to hard Labour twelve Months in the House of Correction, 4, viz.

Charles Walton , Thomas Knight, Joseph Orchard , Margaret Williams .

To be confined to hard Labour six Months in House of Correction, 5, viz.

Rowland Hughes , Sarah Burman , Ann Green, Elizabeth Brown , Elizabeth Brown .

To be imprisoned one month in Newgate, 1.

Daniel Doland .

To be publicly whipped, 7, viz.

Rowland Hughes , Newman Hooker, Andrew Peters , James Dawes , John Hankin , George Gregg , Daniel Doland .

The following Prisoners, on whom Sentence of Death had been passed at former Sessions, received his Majesty's most gracious Pardon, on the respective Conditions following, viz.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Thomas Ives, Henry Jackson, George Patridge, Mary Greenwood, Samuel Chapness.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Transportation

Related Material

Thomas Ives , Henry Jackson , George Patridge , Mary Greenwood , and Samuel Chapness , to be transported for seven years to Africa.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Daniel Gunter, Charles Creswell, Isaac Simms, Joseph Stoddart, William Smith, William Smith, Edward Robinson, William Gibbs, Thomas Watton, George Robbinson, Richard Smith, Joseph Fitzpatrick, Joseph Jeffs, Henry Murphy, John Oliver, Thomas Brown, Patrick Egan, George Pidgeon, James Jones, Richard Clark, Stephen Langdon, Samuel Yeldham, Joseph Sturmey, Berwick Mayton, Thomas Groves, Benjamin Moor, John Williams, Patrick Burk, Francis Primrose, James M'Intosh, William Cruse, John Cox, William Staples, George Nugent, William Burk, William Hayward, John Clayton, William Shergold, Edward Preston.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Transportation

Related Material

Daniel Gunter , Charles Creswell , Isaac Simms , Joseph Stoddart , William Smith , William Smith , Edward Robinson , William Gibbs , Thomas Watton , George Robbinson , Richard Smith , Joseph Fitzpatrick , Joseph Jeffs , Henry Murphy , John Oliver , Thomas Brown , Patrick Egan alias M'Grab , George Pidgeon , James Jones , Richard Clark , Stephen Langdon , Samuel Yeldham , Joseph Sturmey , Berwick Mayton , Thomas Groves , Benjamin Moor , John Williams , Patrick Burk , Francis Primrose , James M'Intosh , William Cruse , John Cox , William Staples , George Nugent , William Burk , William Hayward , John Clayton alias Paddy Ovster , William Shergold and Edward Preston , to be transported for the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty, by the advice of his Privy Council, shall think fit to direct and appoint.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. John Hunter, John White, Thomas King, John Henry Palmer, George Morris, James Duncan.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Transportation

Related Material

And, John Hunter , John White , Thomas King , John Henry Palmer , George Morris alias Roberts , and James Duncan , to be transported to such place, &c. during the term of their natural lives.

On Condition of hard Labour in the House of Correction twelve Months.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Sarah Whitehead, Margaret Gardener, Rose Fitzpatrick.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

Sarah Whitehead , Margaret Gardener , Rose Fitzpatrick .

On Condition of hard Labour in the House of Correction six Months.

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Mary Garret, Drummond Clark.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceNo Punishment > pardon; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

Mary Garret , Drummond Clark .

Old Bailey Proceedings supplementary material. Judith Phillips.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbers17860111-1
SentenceImprisonment > house of correction

Related Material

Judith Phillips , on whom sentence has been respited at a former sessions, was sentenced to be confined six months in the house of correction .

Old Bailey Proceedings advertisements.
11th January 1786
Reference Numbera17860111-1

Related Material


RESPECTFULLY returns his most grateful Thanks to his Employers and Pupils, for the preference they have thought proper to give to his Mode of teaching and writing SHORT-HAND, which he flatters himself is at once as concise and correct as any other System; he continues teaching in four hours, by four lessons, the whole necessary Instructions in this much approved Art. He also take Trials and Arguments with the utmost Care, which are copied so expeditiously as to be sent home the same Evening, if required.

No. 35, Chancery-lane.

N. B. HODGSON's IMPROVED TREATISE ON SHORT-HAND, price only 2 s. 6 d. and also his new Publication, entitled,


"every System of Short-Hand; to which are added, a Comparative Table of Short-Hand

"Alphabets, and two Extracts by way of Specimen; with two Copper-plates

"annexed," are sold by J. Walmsley, Chancery-lane, and also by Bladon, Matthews, Egerton, Almon, and all the Booksellers.

Letters (post paid) from Purchasers of either of his Books, directed to Mr. Hodgson, No. 35, Chancery-Lane, will receive immediate Answers.

N. B. A few remaining Copies of the remarkable Trial of Messrs. Goodridges and Evans, for Forgery; and of John Hogan (a Black) for the wilful Murder of Ann Hunt , may be had as above.

View as XML