Old Bailey Proceedings.
19th October 1840
Reference Number: t18401019

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
19th October 1840
Reference Numberf18401019

Related Material

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

SESSIONS PAPER.

MARSHALL, MAYOR.

TWELTFH SESSION, HELD OCTOBER 19TH, 1840.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

Taken in Short-hand

BY HENRY BUCKLER.

LONDON:

GEORGE HEBERT, CHEAPSIDE.

WILLIAM TYLER, PRINTER, BOLT-COURT, FLEET-STREET.

1840.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the Queen's Commission of the Peace,

OYER AND TERMINER, AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

The City of London

AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

Held on Monday, October 19th, 1840, and following Days.

Before the Right Honourable Sir CHAPMAN MARSHALL , Knt., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Sir John Bernard Bosanquet, one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; the Right Honourable Sir Thomas Erskine, Knt., one other of the Justices of Her.; Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; Sir Claudius Stephen Hunter, Knt Matthias Prime Lucas, Esq.; Charles Farebrother, Esq.; William Tayler Copeland, Esq.; and Thomas Kelly, Esq.; Aldermen of the said City: the Honourable Charles Ewan Law, Recorder of the said City: James Harmer, Esq.; John Lainson, Esq.; James White, Esq.; John Humphery, Esq.; John Johnson, Esq.; Sir George Carroll, Knt.; and J. K. Hooper, Esq.; Aldermen of the said City: John Mirehouse, Esq., Common Sergeant of the said City; and William St. Julien Arabin, Sergeant at Law; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

LIST OF JURORS.

First Jury.

Frederick John Price

Charles Cox

Thomas Ingleby

Richard Nash

William Puzey

William Dench

George Maskal

Thomas Bowditch

William Browning

John Avant

John Baldey

James Thomas Murray

Second Jury.

Charles M'Dowell

George Robinson

David Rudd

Daniel Pugh

Henry Miles

John Beard

Joseph Burnby

William C. Marshall

Jaret D. Hunt

George Ray

Thomas Marston

Alexander Mackbairn

Third Jury.

William Strude

George Pym

Richard Helton

Henry Poole

William Batchelor

James Parsons

Henry Richard Parnell

William M'Lachlan

Charles Thomas Haynes

Joseph Comfort

James Bateman

Cornelius Alfred Jackwin

Fourth Jury.

Mark Manchester

Benjamin Grout

John M'Dowell

John M'Evey

John Miller

John Mayer

John Thomas Prestage

Thomas Millner

David Phillips

John Edmond Pye

William Pointz

George Purchase

Fifth Jury.

John Orme

John Perkins

Benjamin Perkins

Joseph Norman

Andrew Cosser

Charles Pugh

Frederick Haywood

George Allen

John Dennis

John Grove

Augustus Faber

John M'Laren

Sixth Jury.

George Munder

William Morgan

James Archibald Punton

Robert Barnes

George Rich

William Clark

Jonas Crossley

Thomas Moore

William Phillips

William Reeve

Henry Monk

Samuel Barton

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

MARSHALL, MAYOR. TWELFTH SESSION.

A star(*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—Two star (**), that they have been more than once in custody—An obelisk † that a prisoner is known to be the associate of bad characters.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.

OLD COURT.—Monday, October 19th, 1840.

First Jury, before Mr. Recorder.

WILLIAM MOSSON KEARNS.
19th October 1840
Reference Numbert18401019-2402
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

2402. WILLIAM MOSSON KEARNS was indicted for feloniously forging, uttering, and altering, on the 9th of September, 1836, a certain deed, with intent to defraud Samuel Twaites.—Other COUNTS, varying the manner of stating the charge.

MESSRS. PRENDERGAST and BODKIN conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLES CROWN . I was a clerk in the Warrant of Attorney Office in the Temple. I produce a warrant of attorney from that office, which was filed there on the 7th of October, 1836—it has been cancelled by the authority of a Judge's order.

CHARLES INNES . In 1836, I was articled clerk to the prisoner. I saw this instrument executed by Mr. Twaites—I cannot recollect on what day—I cannot say whether it was executed on the 9th or 19th—I do not remember the day one way or other.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKSON. Q. Do you believe it to be the handwriting of the prisoner? A. I cannot swear whether it is or not—I have not said I did not believe it was his writing—I cannot form a belief whether it was written by him or not—at or about the time the instrument was in our office and executed by Mr. Twaites, there was a clerk named Barton in our office—he is gone to Gibraltar or America—he was lately in Gibraltar—I have not heard from him there—I have heard of him—(looking at a paper)—this is my handwriting—I believe Barton has been abroad sixteen months, but I am not certain—I know he is abroad—he called at my chambers before leaving—I believe he was personally concerned in the transaction out of which the warrant of attorney grew—he continued in the office for eighteen months—I remember the prisoner going to France about this time—he returned at the latter end of October, 1836—I and Barton conducted his business in his absence—I believe Barton prepared the warrant, but I cannot say—the body of the warrant is not the writing of Barton, but of a clerk who is in the office now, but Barton, I believe, prepared the draft—I do not know who filed the warrant—I did not—I do not remember it being filed—I could not undertake to swear whether it was filed before or

after Mr. Kearns returned from France—I cannot say that it was filed some time before he returned—MR. Kearns resided at the office—I believe Twaltes came to the office after October 1836—I cannot say whether he was there in 1837 or 1838—it is impossible for me to say—he was not in any business at all at the time he came to Mr. Kearns, office—I do not know how he got his living at that time.

SAMUEL TWAITES . In 1836 I was a brewer at Brixton. In the course of that year I wished to procure an advance of money from the London and Westminster bank—MR. Kearns was my solicitor at the time—I executed a warrant of attorney to Mr. Kearns that year—it was the renewal of a former one—this is the last warrant—(looking at it)—the original warrant was cancelled, and this was executed on the 9th of September, 1836—I did not read it, nor have it read to me at the time—I saw the date on it at the time—it was dated the 9th of Sept—the word "nineteenth" was decidedly not there at the time I executed it—I am sure it was 9th in both places—no one was present on my part at the time I executed it—MR. Kearns was my attorney—I was aware of the effect of the instrument at the time—I was not aware that instantaneous execution might issue—I took it to be a warrant of attorney at three months, the same as the former one—the other warrant was torn in two, and thrown under the office table—execution was issued under this warrant of attorney on the 7th of December following, within three months—I was in business at the time of the execution—I afterwards made an application to the Court of Queen's Bench—I know Mr. Kearns' handwriting—I believe the word "nineteenth," on both sides of this deed, to be his handwriting—I have seen him write—my property was taken under the execution—it has not been given up to me—I am yet out of possession of the rents due on it—my goods were taken under the execution—I do not know what has been done with them—I have not received them back—I gave no authority whatever for the subsequent alteration of these words—I did not know of the alteration at all till after the levy.

Cross-examined by MR. PHILLIPS. Q. Is this "19th" what you venture to swear you believe to be in the prisoner's hand-writing? A. The remaint that I see here is, to the best of my belief, in the hand-writing of Mr. Kearns—I can read part of t, part of e, the whole of n, and th—since I last saw this instrument, before it came into this court, it has been rubbed with a finger—I do not know who has had possession of it—I know it has been in the Warrant of Attorney Office—I suppose that officer has had it in his custody—I never took it out of that office, nor ever authorized any one to do it—that I swear—in 1836 I was a brewer at North Brixton—I took possession in 1836—I had lived in various parts of London before I went there—I cannot recollect the last place—I was living at No. 11, Richard-street, Islington, but I cannot say I went from Islington there—I believe I did—I was living at Islington about twelve months—I lived in Berkeley-square at one time—before I went to Islington I lived about three month at the New Inn, Old Bailey—I was selling wine on commission there, to the best of my belief, and also at Islington—I cannot tell where I resided before I went to the New Inn—I swear that—I lived in Berkeley-square two years—I was a wine merchant there—I went from there to No. 102, Pall Mall, for some few months, and was in the wine and commission trade—I went from there to Brixton—I lived twice at Brixton—I was a brewer when I was first there—my father and brother were my partners in the wine business—I do not recollect where I lived in 1834—I have no

minutes to tell me—I should be committing myself if I mentioned what I did not recollect—I was never committed—I do not understand what you mean—I was once committed to the Computer for an assault—I forget the man's name whom the assault was committed on—I was in prison a month—that is the only time I was ever in prison, except for debt—I have been in the watch-house once—I have been in prison since, in Chancery-lane, for debt—I know a man named Gougenheim—I once stood in the dock of this Court—that was about the time you mention—I cannot remember the year—I will not swear whether it was in 1884 or not—it has slipped my memory—I had known the prisoner a very short time when I began to borrow money of him—I borrowed a few pounds at first—I had borrowed about 30l. of him at the time the security was lodged in the Bank—I suppose it was a valid security—they considered it so—there was a promissory note—I did not pay it—I am told the prisoner paid it—I have no doubt he did—I owed him from 20l. to 40l. at the time the warrant of attorney was drawn up—I cannot tell how much I owe him now—it is not 600l.—I swear that—I remember 150l.—I cannot swear it is not more than that, because I have never seen a bill—I never lent him any thing—I do not know that I owe him 50l., save the 150l.—I will not swear I do not owe him 200l. or 300l.—I will swear I do not owe him 400l.—my property has paid him the money which I borrowed of him—I swear that, from the Master's report—I cannot state whether I now owe him 300l. or not—if I had his account I should be able to tell—I have asked for his account many a time and oft—I first knew of the alteration in the warrant of attorney on the 21st of December, 1836, the day the property was sold—I saw it then, and recognized the hand-writing then—I preferred this indictment last Sessions—I did not prefer it before, because I had not the means—I have no means now but what my father helps me to—he was not in London in 1837, 1838, or 1839—I lived by my commission agency—I was so poor all the time that I could not prefer an indictment—I did not ask the prisoner for his account to pay him—the horse and gig I used to ride about in, belonged to a person named Mitchell—I had one of my own—the commission business was very poor—I knew Barton, Mr. Kearns' clerk—I did not know of his leaving England—I do not know whether he is here now, he may be—he told me he was going to France, at the time I executed the warrant—I have had an attorney named Richards—I never said to any one that I did not think this was the prisoner's hand writing, nor any words to that effect—I never admitted that it was not his writing—I never said so to Mr. Richards—in 1836 I owed Mr. Kearns 150l. for money he paid on my account, not for money lent and advanced—I had nothing to do with professional business.

Q. Did you owe him for money lent and advanced, and for professional business done, 150l.? A. I do not know—I never said I did—(looking at an agreement)—I do not know that I owed him 150l. in 1836, for money lent and advanced, and professional business done by him—I do not know whether I did or not—I have seen this document and have signed it—I do not think I was in debt 150l. in 1836, for money he had advanced and professional business done—even with this instrument in my hands I believe not—I was once in treaty with a Mr. Allen for a partnership—I have never been a bankrupt—I forget the name of the man I was charged with assaulting—I do not recollect that it was Robert Hughes—I thought it was Carlisle, but I really forget—the accusation was, attempting to kill and murder him—I was honorably acquitted—(looking at the agreement)—I see the

words, "Warrant of attorney for 250l. on account of the said debt"—I was then in treaty with Mr. Allen for a partnership—it says here, that it was agreed the warrant should not he stamped or filed for some time afterwards, to prevent Mr. Allen discovering I was in debt—that is not true—I have signed that it was—I signed what I knew to he a falsehood, and I declared so at the time—I signed it at the time I said so—it was not read over to me—I signed it in the presence of Mr. Riccards, and another gentleman, who is here—MR. Kearns was not present when I signed it—I did not want Allen to know I was in debt—judgment was entered on the warrant of attorney in October, 1836—execution was issued, under which my household premises were sold—this paper says, that long before that the prisoner had been called upon and compelled to pay the bankers 150l. and interest, which was so lent and advanced to me—that was not true—I signed it—proceedings were instituted in the Queen's Bench to invalidate the warrant of attorney, on the ground that some person had, without my authority, altered the date from 9th to 19th—MR. Kearns then, for the first time, discovered that the date had been altered by some person—I signed that.

(Agreement read)—"In the Queen's Bench.—Between William Mosson Kearns, plaintiff; and Samuel Twaites, defendant. Whereas on and previous to 26th day of February, 1836, certain deeds and documents belonging to the defendant, relating to a brewery and premises in Holland-street, North Brixton, were in the hands and possession of the said plaintiff, who was then the solicitor of the defendant, and on that day the same were deposited with William Ewing, Esq., manager of the Bloomsbury branch of the London and Westminster Bank, as security for 150l., lent and advanced by the said Bank to the defendant, on the guarantee or security of the said plaintiff: And whereas the said defendant, being indebted to the plaintiff for monies lent and advanced, and for professional business done, did, on 9th September, 1836, execute to the plaintiff a warrant of attorney for 250l. on account of the said debt; but the said defendant being then in treaty with one Mr. Allen for a partnership, it was agreed that the said warrant of attroney should not be stamped or filed for some time afterwards, to prevent the said Mr. Allen discovering that the said defendant was in debt, or that the said brewery and premises were encumbered; and in a few days afterwards the said plaintiff proceeded to Paris, and did not return to London till about the 29th day of the said month of September: And whereas, in the month of October, 1836, the said warrant of attorney was stamped, and judgment entered up thereon, and in the month of December following execution issued, under which the said leasehold premises were sold, the said William Mosson Kearns having long previously been called on and compelled pay the said bankers the said 150l. and interest, so lent and advanced to the said defendant as aforesaid: And whereas proceedings in this honourable Court were afterwards instituted by the said defendant to invalidate the said warrant of attorney, on the ground that some person had, without his authority, altered the date of the said warrant of attorney from the 9th to the 19th of the said month of September, 1836; whereupon the said plaintiff for the first time discovered, and did not deny, that the date had been altered by some person: And whereas, since the said proceeding in the said Court, the said defendant hath stated that he executed two warrants of attorney pending the said negotiations with the said Mr. Allen, which statement induced the said plaintiff to make further and searching inquiries as to what took place in the office of the said plaintiff during his said absence in Paris, as hereinbefore mentioned, and it hath been discovered, to the

satisfaction of both parties, that a clerk in the office of the said plaintiff, instead of preparing a second warrant of attorney, as supposed by the said defendant, had, to save expense, altered the date of the said first and only warrant of attorney to the 19th day of September, and got the same again executed, and which he, on or about the 6th of October, got duly stamped and filed after the negotiation with the said Mr. Allen had terminated, and which said alteration was made without any willful intention, but in the spirit of the said original understanding and agreement for delaying the stamping and filing of the said warrant of attorney: And whereas the said discovery last mentioned has led to an amicable adjustment of all disputes between the said parties, and the said defendant doth hereby agree to cause his life to be insured in the Asylum Insurance Office to collaterally secure the due payment of the debt due from him to the said plaintiff; and the said plaintiff doth agree to obtain and deposit the deeds of the said brewery with Mr. Riccards, the attorney of the said defendant, who is to receive the rents from the 25th of March instant. And lastly, it is agreed that a certain action of replevin of Bye v. Bower and Crook, now pending, under a distress levied on the said brewery and premises, by or in the name of one Samuel Bower, but at the instance of the said Samuel Twaites, shall be discontinued, and all proceedings under the said levy or distress shall henceforth cease and determine. Dated 17th March 1840.

(Signed)

SAMUEL TWAITES and WILLIAM MOSSON KEARNS. In the presence of Russell M. Riccards, 3, Gray's Inn-square."

Q. Now, that is all false, I suppose, that you signed? A. There is some portion of it correct—I signed it, knowing that some portion was false.

COURT. Q. What use was to be made of this instrument? A. I cannot tell what use it was, but to save himself.

MR. PHILLIPS. Q. Just attend to this portion of the document: "And the said plaintiff doth agree to obtain and deposit the deeds of the said brewery with Mr. Riccards." Were they so deposited? A. They were—I got them out of Mr. Riccards's possession by false pretences—I found my property there, and found by the agreement that I had been defrauded out of them—I did not write to Mr. Riccards to get them—I wrote to say I had got them—I stated the purpose for which I got them, which was a falsehood—I owed Mr. Riccards at that time about 10l. or 12l.—I did not pay him—I did not give him back the deeds—I thought that was honest, under the conduct that was pursued towards me—swear Mr. Riccards did not read the whole of that document to me, only one or two bits, or portions—I signed it for the purpose of getting my deeds, as I was in such hands—I told Riccards at the very time—"I know I have signed that, of which the very portions you have read is incorrect"—I swear I said that—I did not know the deeds were to be deposited with Riccards—I did not know that was stated in the document—that part was not read over to me—he had a lien of 100l. on the deeds, according to the report of the Master.

Q. And you got the deeds fraudulently, knowing that he had a lien on, them of 100l.? A. He delivered them up—my attorney was about to indict him.

Q. Now, I see there is another clause in this, that you were to have your life insured in the Asylum Office, did you get that done? A. I visited one—my brother was one of my referees—he was the medical man—it was requisite for me to refer to a medical man—I am not aware that he put me out of the office—he was warned not to do it—he applied to me, or at least my lather did, to know what it meant; and the reply I made

was, that it was not my intention to have my life insured—I never intended to do so, although I signed a document promising to do so, and had gone to the insurance office—I did not intend to go to the insurance office at the time I signed it—I was not aware there was any undertaking to that amount in the agreement—I knew I was to go to the insurance office—the state of accounts between me and Mr. Kearns was not read over to me by Mr. Riccards—that I swear—(looking at a paper)—this paper was not put into my hands—I never saw it before—it is quite new to me—this paper states that I owed Mr. Kearns 609l. 16s. 9d.—I have heard it stated by my solicitor, Mr. Platts, that that is the amount he claims of me—I have had six or seven solicitors in this matter before I could get justice done me—I paid them a good deal latterly—I have paid 100l.

Q. Would not that have preferred a good many indictments? A. When I got money I preferred it, and that was only this year—I never saw this paper before—if Riccards signed it as my agent, he did it unknown to me—I swear that—on my solemn oath he did not read it over to me, or offer to do so, nor did I authorise him to sign it—he did not tell me the amount—he said 600l., and this says 609l.—I said, "That is an account I will not look at, I have nothing to do with it"—all I saw was the agreement—I believe the first warrant of attorney, which was torn up, had a witness to it, but I cannot swear it—I cannot recollect whether it had or not—I believe it had, and I believe Mr. Innes was the man who witnessed it as well as the second, but I would not swear he was there—that was executed about the time I got the money from the bank—I am now living at No. 2, Frederick-street, Vincent-square, and have been for two years with the same persons there, and in Vauxhall-bridge-road—they removed from one to the other—(looking at a letter)—this is my hand-writing, and this also—(looking at another)—I sent them—I forget who to—those who know it to be true may consider it bad—I had good cause for writing it—it is a strong document—I sent one to the Sheriff's office, and one to No. 5, Red-lionsquare, to the prisoner—MR. Ewing is manager of the Westminster Bank, into which the prisoner paid the 150l. in my default.

(Read)—"Oct. 15, 1840.—Sir, I have been induced to send you the inclosed draft of a placard, which is being placed on the walls of the metropolis, for your future benefit. If it does not, it ought to make you more discreet than to aid and abet a swindling villain to rob me of my property as you have done. Think not that you are the mighty god of war, or that I care one atom for all the power that you or your concern possess. If I am not quickly put into possession of the said property I'll make you and your employers blush at the illegal conduct performed, if shame forms any part of your composition Yours, respectfully, T. TWAITES."

"Caution to the public,—Beware of Swindlers. Hall, 5, Red Lion-square, proprietor; William Mosson Kearns, solicitor. This well matured wretch stuck not at forgery, and defrauding the revenue, &c, in a certain warrant of attorney, and in the first part of this swindling transaction, the London and Westminster Bank lent their wilful assistance, a full description of which will shortly appear through the press." For present satisfaction, apply to No. 2, Bedford-street, Bedford-square; and at No. 50, Lincoln's-Inn-fields, ground floor, 1st door left. For particulars of a marriage settlement fraught with the most villanous dye, apply to No. 81, Gower-street, Bedford-square, and at No. 3, Elm-tree-court, Temple, ground floor."

Q. For what purpose did you send that to Mr. Ewing? A. To warn

him against the prisoner—they had parted with my deeds without my authority—I did not mean to charge them with swindling, but was it proper for a man of business to deliver up my deeds to another without my authority?—the marriage referred to, several persons in Court can speak about—it was the subjugating of deeds of Court in 1831, created by order of the Court of Chancery, and substituting another deed, making himself sole trustee and on that deed he sold and realised to the tune of 6000l., and the poor people are now in the deepest distress—I sent to Mr. Ewing to warn him against lending his wilful assistance to Kearns—he might infer from that what he had done—I wrote that letter to Mr. Ewing to imply that he did not frighten me—it never struck me that I ought to have paid the prisoner any of the 150l.—I wanted justice done me, and what money I could raise was spent in performing it—he disabled me from paying the 150l., having my property sold for 50l.; which would fetch 1,200l.—I did not wish Allen to see that my estate was mortgaged—we had not then come to terms—Kearns was about obtaining me a mortgage for 500l. or 600l.; and till that mortgage was effected we got the London and Westminster Bank to lend 150l. on the security, with a note of hand—the mortgage was never effected—the instrument became due—to clear his name I gave him a warrant of attorney—it went on from period to period, he reporting he had this and that person coming forward to mortgage this property—I was without money in consequence—it travelled on to September, when he got me to renew this document, saying the money would be forthcoming before any settlement with Allen was wanted—it never did take place—I found I should have as much money as Allen by this advance, and that was the reason why I did not wish Allen to see that the estate was in that debt, thinking it might throw him out of the intended partnership if he knew it was so—I know a person named Jackson—I heard that he claimed some furniture in the house—I knew it at the time from him—I sent him to do it—I heard afterwards that he had done it, that he had done what I wished him to do—I sent him after the Sheriff had levied the execution to claim the goods as his, that the Sheriff might not sell, knowing I was in bad hands—they were not Jackson's goods—the goods were not legally in execution—the Sheriff had no right to be there—I believe the Sheriff sold them—I do not know whether it was under the landlord's distress for rent—I was not there at the time—I owed the landlord rent, I cannot tell how much—the goods I sent Jackson for, had been moved off the premises—a man at Marsh-gate removed them—I do not know his name—I desired him to move them—I believe I saw the notice Jackson was to give to the Sheriff—I did not write it—I do not know who did—I might or might not write it—I do not think I did—I do not recollect whether I did or not—I could tell if I saw it—(looking at it)—this is not my writing—I do not know whose it is—I desired it to be written.

(This paper was dated 7th December, 1836, and was a notice, signed "Thomas Beal Jackson" claiming the goods in question, and warning the Sheriff not to seize or dispose of them upon pain of an action.)

It was not true that they were Jackson's things—Jackson is the person I have referred to who has suffered so materially in the marriage settlement—he is living in Norfolk at present—I saw him some months back—he is now a policeman—he was not so then.

MR. PRENDERGAST. Q. Has he been a man of property? A. Yes, the document Jackson was sent with, was to be used at the time the goods

were to be taken by Mr. Kearns under this warrant of attorney—MR. Kearns had issued a distress within the three months, making my warrant of attorney quite different to what it was, and then I resorted to this scheme—when Riccards read part of this agreement to me, I told him it was incorrect—I signed it afterwards, making this remark, "Mark, Mr. Riccards, I am signing, if I sign this, that which is palpably false, and understand also that an agreement is not an oath"—it is stated that there was only one warrant of attorney, which is false—I saw the first warrant torn up and thrown under the table—I do not know the name of the clerk who drew it up—it was drawn up when I went in—I do not think Mr. Kearns has the same person in his office now—this indictment has been preferred not out of my own funds, but my father's—from these proceedings of Mr. Kearns my property has suffered at least 1000l.—I was a person of property at that time—I gave 400l. for this place, and I laid 200l. or 300l., out in improvements.

GEORGE MEADEN . I am articled clerk to Mr. Bishop, an attorney. I have seen this warrant of attorney just now in Court.

SARAH JACKSON . I know Mr. Kearns. I have seen him write many times—(looking at the warrant of attorney)—the word "nineteenth" is very like his writing—from what I have seen of his writing I believe it to be his—I have seen him write, and seen his writing frequently.

Cross-examined by MR. PHILLIPS. Q. Are you the wife of Thomas Beal Jackson? A. Yes, he is at Swarson, in Norfolk, in the police—I did not know of his serving that notice for Mr. Twaites—I never heard of it till this moment—he never told me of it, nor any thing about the furniture moving—if he ever did such a thing I never knew it—I have a lawsuit in hand, which keeps me in town—I believe my husband made as affidavit along with me in this business—I believe the cause of his not being here is, that he has never been made acquainted with the trial that was to come on—I am quite sure be does not know of the trial—it was on the subject of Mr. Kearns' handwriting that he swore with me—I can not say how long ago it is that I first heard of this indictment—I cannot swear whether it was three weeks ago—I might be told of it, and I should think no more about it—it was not any business of mine—it might be three months ago that I beard of it, for any thing I can tell—the fact is, it never entered my memory—MR. Twaites told me on Saturday night I was to attend here—MR. Twaites has repeatedly told me he was going to indict the prisoner for forgery—I should say it is since I made my affidavit that he told me so—I do not know where he told me so—very likely at my own house in Vauxhall-road—my husband has not been in town lately—I have written to him—I never said a word about this indictment—I do not know that my husband owes the prisoner any money—MR. Kearns should first say how much he has had of my husband—he does not owe Mr. Kearns 600l.—I do not know that he owes him as many shillings.

MR. PRENDERGAST. Q. If every thing was settled, do you know or believe that your husband owes Mr. Kearns any thing? A. I do not believe he does—a good deal of our money has passed through his hands—my husband was an independent gentleman when I married him, living in the country—we have had some business in Mr. Kearns's hands a great many years, and he has never been able to get through it, I am sorry to say.

MR. PHILLIPS to GEPRGE MEADEN. Q. You have seen this warrant of attorney before to-day? A. I have, a clerk in the Judgment-office showed

it to me—I asked him to let me look at it—I was not aware what it was until I saw it to-day—I am very well acquainted with the prisoner's handwriting—I should be inclined to say this was not his writing, but there is not enough of it for any one to say—my belief is, that it is not his.

MR. PRENDERGAST. Q. Although you believe that there is not enough to tell? A. The balance of my opinion is that it is not his—I came here as a matter of courtesy to the notice sent by the prosecutor—I was not subpoenaed, but Mr. Bishop was, and he requested roe to attend here, if it was necessary—I am managing his business, and seeing this notice on the table to-day, I thought it better to come down here—I had no wish to get into the box, and I do not know that you told me to—you examined me—the book was tendered to me, and, as a matter of course, I was sworn—I have not the least interest in the case—I merely came here for the interests of justice—I told Mr. Bodkin I came from Mr. Bishop.

THOMAS SAUNDERS . I am in the firm of Blenkinson and Saunders. I know Mr. Kearns, and have had letters from his office—I am not aware that I have seen his hand-writing.

THOMAS ROBINSON . I am clerk to Mr. Pearson, a solicitor, in Essex-street, Strand. I have seen Mr. Kearns write once or twice, and have seen several letters of his writing—I believe myself able to form a judgment of the character of his hand-writing—(looking at the warrant)—the letters in the date of the "nineteenth, appear very much like Mr. Kearns's writing—I should not like to pledge my belief—it is very much indeed like it, but it being only an alteration, it is difficult for any body to swear positively—there is hardly enough, for this reason, because it is written on an erasure—it certainly appears very much like his writing—I do not think there is sufficient to form a belief—the first part I should say, it is impossible for anybody to identify, and I should not like to pledge my belief to the other.

WILLIAM GODSELL . I am a solicitor. I know Mr. Kearns—I have seen him write—I have received letters from him, and have acted upon them—(looking at the warrant)—I will not swear this is his writing—it is not sufficient for me to form an opinion.

WILLIAM EWING . I am manager of the Holborn branch of the London and Westminster Bank. I know Mr. Kearns's hand-writing perfectly well—(looking at the warrant)—I cannot see any character like his usual style of writing in the first part, it is so smeared—in the concluding part there is certainly something that resembles his hand-writing, but I have a great question in my own mind if it is his writing—I do not believe it to be his—there is a resemblance—there is something different—if Mr. Kearns were to sign a cheque in this way I should hesitate to pay it.

SAMUEL GREEN . I was present when this agreement was signed, but I did not take much notice of it—I had not the paper in my hands—I saw Mr. Riccards have it.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Monday, October 19th, 1840.

Fifth Jury, before Mr. Sergeant Arabin.