Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 08 May 2021), April 1849, trial of JOHN CUTTS WILLIAM EVANS (t18490409-982).

JOHN CUTTS, WILLIAM EVANS, Deception > forgery, 9th April 1849.

982. JOHN CUTTS and WILLIAM EVANS , feloniously forging and uttering a receipt for 50l.; with intent to defraud Edmund Salmon.

MESSRS. CHAMBERS, BODKIN, and ROBINSON conducted the Prosecution,

JOHN MUMBRAT . I am Clerk of the Records, in the Writ Office, Chancery-lane. I produce a bill filed by Mr. Edmund Salmon against Mr. Cutts; also two answers to that bill by Mr. Cutts—I recollect Mr. Cutts swearing to the first answer of 9th June, 1848—I administered the oath to him, and also on the second answer—Edmund Salmon's bill was amended on 11th Aug., 1848, under an order dated 7th Aug.—I produce it—it is a further answer to the original bill, and an answer to the amendments—it was put in on 2d Nov., 1848—I administered the oath to Mr. Cutts on thai answer—that oath applied to the answer to the original bill, as well as to the amended bill.

FREDERICK JACOB WRIGHT . I produce from the Record Office, in Chancery-lane, a bill filed by Mr. Cutts against Mr. Salmon, dated 9th Feb., 1848—that was amended after the answer—two answers were filed on 26th Aug., 1848, one by Joseph Smith Salmon, and John Salmon jointly, and one by Edmund Salmon separately, and the bill was amended on 8th July, 1843, under an order dated 3d July—the answer of Edmund Salmon to the amended bill was put in on 25th Aug., 1848.

STEWART TOURNAY . I am managing clerk to Messrs. Goodwin and Co. of Walbrook—they were solicitors for the plaintiff in a cause in equity, of Salmon against Cutts and others—I produce an official copy of an order to inspect the documents scheduled in the amended answer to the last bill-on

10th Feb. I went to the office of Messrs. Brooksbank and Fan, 14, Gray's-inn-square—I had not the order with me at that time—I went by appointment—I called for some of the documents mentioned in the schedule, and referred to in the order (looking at a paper produced by Inspector Penny)—this paper with five receipts upon it was then produced to me by Mr. Hillyer, the managing clerk to Messrs. Brooksbank and Farn, for my inspection, among other papers named in the schedule for the purpose of the cause—an appointment had been made on 7th Feb. by letter, for the 8th—I called on the 8th, but Mr. Hillyer said he had not looked up the documents, they were not ready, and I made an appointment for the 10th—I demanded a copy of it under the terms of the answer, and a copy was given me by Mr. Hillyer, for which I paid 18d.—I have the copy in my pocket.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER. Q. You say you were at Messrs. Brooksbank and Farns in pursuance of an appointment you had made? A. I was—I did not go alone, a person named Boulter accompanied me; he is clerk to Mr. Wilkin, the attorney for this prosecution—Boulter was present at the time of the inspection of the documents that were produced to me—I cannot say exactly how long that inspection continued, perhaps we might have been there twenty minutes or half an hour; I should not think more than half an hour; it is impossible for me to swear we were not there an hour; I do not think it was an hour—I will not swear we were not there an hour—there was a variety of documents.

Q. Were the documents handed to you or to Boulter for the purpose of inspection? A. They were laid on the desk—they were handed to me—he inspected them with me on the desk—these receipts were among the documents that were laid on the desk and inspected by me and Boulter—I do not know whether Boulter had anything in his hand while he was inspecting this particular document—he certainly had something in his hand during the time he was there—he had a pencil in his hand, and copied something from a bill of costs, but I cannot swear whether he had it in his hand at the time of his inspection of the documents or afterwards, when we were copying some bills of costs—a portion of the time I know he had a pencil in his hand—he was making extracts from a bill of costs, whether it was at that time I do not know—I do not remember having the pencil in my hand—I know very little about Mr. Boulter—I have heard it stated that he is a discharged clerk of Mr. Cutts, but I believe it is not so—I have heard that he was formerly in Mr. Cutts' employment, but I do not know it of my own knowledge—he is in the neighbourhood of the Court, outside, I believe—I was in attendance on the Grand Jury but was not called in—Boulter went into the room; he might have been in the Grand-jury room ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—Mr. Wilkin did not attend before the Grand Jury; I believe Boulter attended for him as the attorney—he went into the Grand-jury room alone, unless Inspector Penny went in with him, I will not be positive as to that—he went in before any of the witnesses—I believe he had the indictment in his hand—I wont say whether he had or not; it was either in his hand, or else he had previously handed it to the officer, I am not positive which.

MR. BODKIN. Was any alteration made in this document by anybody whilst you were there?. A. None; that I will swear; neither with a pencil or anything else; it was never out of my sight—I had the responsibility of inspecting it, and there was no alteration—I looked attentively at it all the tone it was before me—it went into the hands of Mr. Boulter last.

COURT. Q. Could any alteration have been made in the document while

you were there? A. None whatever, unless in this way; while I was there I bespoke a copy, and it then went out of my hands into the hands of the clerk of Messrs. Brooksbank and Faro, who I believe is in Court now, and I lost sight of it while the copy was being made.

MR. BODKIN. Q. Boulter was no party to the copy being made. A. No; no alteration could have been made by him or me at the time—Mr. Wilkin was concerned for the other Salmons in the suit—they were defendants—strictly speaking, I can not say that Boulter attended on that occasion as Mr. Wilkin's clerk—I believe the order was for the production to the plaintiff—Mr. Wilkin was concerned for the other defendants—I should say that two clerks of Messrs. Brooksbank and Farn were in the office the whole time these documents were being inspected—I know by looking at the proceedings, that Mr. Wilkin was solicitor for the other two Salmons, he so appears on the record, as I was informed by one of our clerks.

(The proceedings in Chancery were here put in and read, from which it appeared that Joseph Smith Salmon, a brother of the prosecutor, had filed a bill against Mr. Ctlts, in May, 1847, praying for the specific performance of a contract of sale, by which he (Mr. Cutts) had agreed to become the purchaser of Lot 8 for 2,510l., whilst Edmund Salmon, the prosecutor, filed a bill profit that the contract might be set aside for fraud on the part of Mr. Cutts, he not having complied with the conditions of sale by paying the necessary deposit, in the answers of Mr. Cutts to these bills, and in his own bill he expressed his desire to complete the contract, and alleged that he had paid to Edmund Salmon monies on account of the purchase of Lot 8, for which he held his receipts, end in a schedule annexed to his last answer, the dates and amounts of these receipts were set out.)

EDMUND SALMON . I am a farmer, and reside at Weathers field in Essex; I and my brothers Joseph and John were entitled, under the will of a Mrs. Smith, to some property in that county; it was an estate called Saville's Farm in Great and Little Bardfield—that estate adjoins considerable landed property belonging to Mr. Cutts—I first became acquainted with Mr. Cutts when he first came to reside at a place called Little Bard field Hall—I WM married in 1844—I became acquainted with Mr. Cutts about twelve months before that—I married a young lady who formed part of his family—she was the daughter of his housekeeper, and was living in Mr. Cutts' family at the time I became acquainted with him—Mr. Cutts gave her away—I was I minor when I married, under twenty—I was married by license—Mr. Cutts acted as solicitor to the trustees under Mrs. Smith's will—after my marriage I and my brothers were advised by Mr. Cutts to sell the property—I was it that time under age—Mr. Cutts gave no particular reason for advising me to sell before I was of age—he did just as he thought proper, in fact we had so voice in it whatever; he managed it chiefly; whatever he advised we must abide by the consequences—eventually I and my brothers agreed that the property should be sold, and Mr. Franklin was employed as the auctioneer to sell it; we never employed him—he was employed by Mr. Cutts—he was at that time a tenant of Mr. Cutts—he was an auctioneer and farmer—I was it the sale—Mr. Cutts became the purchaser of Lot 8 for 2,510l.—he had early possession given him of a portion that adjoined his own property—there was a crop on it at the time, which was valued by Mr. Franklin at about 113l.—that was. the portion that I was in possession of—he took possession of the whole of Lot 8 at Michaelmas—I have received from Mr. Cutts sums of money since my marriage amounting altogether to 205l.; the first sum was

50l., on 5th January, 1847—I received the 205l. in five different payments; all in 1847—I really am not certain of the dates—I did not receive either of those sums on account of the purchase-money of Lot 8—I never received the 113l. for the crop—some time after, an application was made to me to give receipts for the money that had been advanced to me by Mr. Cutts—I should imagine it was about December, 1847—it was made by Evans on the part of Mr. Cutts—he came to me and said that Mr. Cutts had asked him whether he had got the receipts, and he told him he had—he said, "You know I have not got them,"and he said, "Will you oblige me by giving those receipts to me"—I had got them in a book, and after some time I said I would not do it for Mr. Cutts, but I would for him, he being my brother-in-law—Evans is a brother of my wife's, and that is why I did it—I had got these sums of money at the time I received them, down in a book—Evans took the receipts down, and wrote the body of the receipt himself, and I signed it—I gave him from the book the dates, and the particulars of the sums I had received—it was at my house—he wrote in my presence part of the paper produced—he wrote the bodies of five receipts, and I put my name to each of them, as it appears there now—the words "o/a lot 8" (meaning "on account of lot 8,") were decidedly not there when I signed them; I am positive of it—I believe those additional words to be Evans's writing—I had a pen and ink in the room when he came—in signing these receipts I used the same pen that he did—I believe there was only one pen; at least, I did not see any other; I am certain there was no other in the room—I believe I had received all those five sums from the hands of Evans. (The paper was here handed to the Jury to examine.)

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. We hear that Mr. Wilkin is your attorney in the present prosecution—is that so? A. He is—Mr. John Boulter is the clerk of Mr. Wilkin—when I first went to the neighbourhood of Mr. Cutts' residence, Boulter was clerk to Mr. Cutts—I don't know how long he continued to be so—he left him—Mr. Wilkin has an office at Great Bardfield—I cannot say bow long he has had an office there—Boulter lives in that house—Mr. Wilkin's name is on the door—I do not know whether Boulter conducts Mr. Wilkin's business there in the neighbourhood of Mr. Cutts' residence; I believe he does—I think Mr. Wilkins had not that office at Great Bardfield until after Boulter had left Mr. Cutts—Mr. Williams, of the firm of Goodwin and Co., was my solicitor in the Chancery proceedings—I believe Mr. Boulter has acted for them in those Chancery proceedings.

COURT. Q. What makes you believe it? A. I do not know that he has acted for Mr. Williams in that way.

Sir F. THESIGER. Q. But has he interfered in any way in these Chancery proceedings in your behalf? A. Oh! yes, he has—I suppose he has to a certain extent interfered in this prosecution—Boulter made the charge against Mr. Cutts at the Police-office—he has conducted this prosecution—he went with me to Messrs. Brooksbank and Farns for the purpose of inspecting this document—I believe that was after he had been with Mr. Tournay—these receipts were exhibited to us—we remained but a short time inspecting them, merely to look at them and come out again immediately—it was not ten minutes; not more than five, I should think—I only saw that "o/a lot 8" was added—that was the first time I ever saw it on the receipts.

Q. Did Mr. Cutts at any time advance you a sum altogether of 150l? A. He did; that was before I married—it was in two or three sums, but I believe in three—I believe all that money was given to me by the hands of Mr. Cutts—I never repaid any part of it—I have never paid any interest on

it—a stage-coach was set on foot by some gentleman at Bardfield, which ran to one of the stations—Mr. Cutts became the owner of that coach, and I purchased it from him afterwards for 100l.—I never paid him any part of that 100l.; it was never asked for—all the five sums mentioned in these receipts were given to me by Evans on account of Mr. Cutts—at the time they were given I did not give him any receipts or acknowledgments of any kind; I was never asked—at the time these sums were given me by Evans, the valuation of the crops of lot 8 had been made by Mr. Franklin—I do not know when the contract for that purchase was signed.

Q. Where were these monies given to you by your brother-in-law Evans? A. Well, I believe some at Little Bardfield-hall, others at my own house—I cannot distinguish which of them was given at Little Bardfield-hall and which at my own house—I believe two or three of the first I received at Little Bardfield-hall—that was where Mr. Cutts' office was—I do not know whether they were paid at the office—they were paid at the hall, and I know very well that two 50l.-notes were paid to me at my own house, which Evans brought over—Mr. Cutts was indebted to me at that time—there was the crop—I considered that I borrowed these monies, a part of them, and part Mr. Cutts owed me—part I considered was money borrowed from Mr. Cutts, and the other put was in part of money that was owing to me from Mr. Cutts.

COURT. Q. Are you now speaking of the five sums? A. Yes.

SIR F. THESIGER. Q. What is it that Mr. Cutts was indebted to you for that you think part of this money might have been in respect of? A. Why, there was the crop—I considered that I borrowed the principal of the money, and I considered I should have to pay interest for it—when I say part was in payment, I mean in payment of the crops of lot 8—they were valued at 115l.—we never had any settlement in any way—it was a mere idea of my own that part of that money was in respect of the crops—I suppose at the time I went to ask for the first 50l. it was in payment of the crops, very likely—I do not know what the amount was that was paid me in respect of the crops—it was no particular sum.

COURT. Q. How could you imagine that part was to be applied in payment of Mr. Cutts' debt to you if you cannot tell us what particular sum it was? A. Well, Mr. Cutts owed me 113l., and I owed him 250l., but I considered I was paying interest for that—I have never paid a farthing.

SIR F. THESIGER. Q. As you considered you were to pay interest for that portion of the five sums that was borrowed money, how could you distinguish which portion of the sums you were to pay interest for, and which you were to pay no interest for, in respect of those being payments of money due from Mr. Cutts to you? A. I considered it as borrowed money, except, as I say, that when I wanted to keep my house on, and wanted 50l., why I went to Mr. Cutts, and be buying the crop, I thought naturally enough I could have 50l., and then I consider I borrowed the remainder—I took the 50l. on account of the crop—I mean distinctly to state that the 50l. was paid to me in respect of the valuation of the crops. and all the rest was borrowed money—it was the first 50l. that was paid in respect of the crops—I do not know that I asked for payment in respect of the crops—I merely asked him to let me have 50l.—I always used to be backwards and forwards at Mr. Cutts'—I wanted some money to keep on with—I merely went and asked him whether he would let me have 50l. or 100l., or whatever I wanted—I did not at the same time say that I had not been paid for the crops—the applications for the other four sums were made 1st in the same way—there was no distinction between the application for

the money which I applied in my own mind to the crops, and the other which I borrowed—I never mentioned each a thing—I merely asked for the money at I would if I wanted to borrow money of any one else—there were two 50l.-notes, which I recollect perfectly having been paid at my own house—the first 50l.-note I made application for, was at Little Bardfield-hall in respect of the crops—I believe that was paid to me at the hall—the payment at my own house was 100l. in two fifties—it was only one payment in two 50l.-notes—I said two 50l.-notes before.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT WILKINS Q. Was it in Sept, 1845, that the sale of the estate took place? A. The sale of the estate was in June, 1845, I believe—I was of age in the Nov. following—both my brothers are older than I—the eldest is twenty-eight or twenty-nine, be is a grasier—the next brother to me is between 26 and 27, he is a farmer—I was present when the allotments of the estate took place—I left the farm at Michaelmas—Letch was the name of the in-coming tenant—I did not receive anything from him for the crops that were on the farm—I received about 80l. or 40l. from him for manure and so forth—that was at Michaelmas, after I gave up possession, possibly five or six months after, I really cannot state exactly, it might not be so long—it was not for implements of husbandry, ploughs, harrows, and things of that sort, but manure and several things which were taken at a valuation; fallows for one thing, no farming utensils I believe—there might be, but I do not think there were—there were two or three fixtures in the house, merely a shelf or two, or a window-blind or something—I cannot for certain say whether I did not receive 61l.;—I am not prepared to state what it was—I am not prepared to swear whether it was as much as four months after Michaelmas that I received that money—I cannot say at what time it was—Mr. Cutts had an estate adjoining part of lot 8—it was 8 fields, 21 acres—I believe Mr. Cutts was particularly anxious, for his own sake, that those three fields should be put in one lot—I and my brothers did not refuse that, and say it would be more to his interest to purchase the lot than any other man if the three fields were added to the rest—I certainly never remember such a thing—I never remember Mr. Franklin, the auctioneer, and my brothers together, in my hearing, refuse to assent to that on that ground—I will not swear it did not take place—it was not done, because Mr. Cutts had the entire management of the business, and he did just as he thought proper.

COURT. Q. How could that be? if that was the case he would have put those three fields in one lot. A. So he did; be bad them put in one lot—we had no voice in the matter—Mr. Cutts did just as he thought proper.

MR. SERJEANT WILKINS. Q. Do you mean to swear that those three fields were sold in one lot? A. I believe it was the seventh lot—they were part of lot 8, but I was given to understand it was turned into two lots Mr. Cutts had the whole management of the business, and did just as he thought proper—we had no voice in it whatever—I was a minor at the time—he wished to have the three fields in one lot, but he did not put them in one lot—they were called the Potter hedges fields—I was on very good terms with Mr. Cutts up to Sept., 1847—I and my brothers have expressed dissatisfaction at the bargain—I have expressed dissatisfaction to my brothers, and to others—I have certainly never given notice of my complaint to Mr. Cutts, but I was informed it was bought very much under its value—I do not know that very shortly after Mr. Cutts came into possession of lot 8 he expended a great deal of money in improving it—probably he might, but I have not been on the estate since he bought it—I have been by it—I do not know that he has greatly improved it—I have

been informed that he has done some ditching—I never took any particular notice—there did not appear any such great improvements—no doubt money has been expended on it—there might be a slight improvement of a few pounds probably—I have not visited Mr. Letch, the incoming tenant—I have never been into his house since I gave up possession, or since I threshed out my crops—that was after Michaelmas—I cannot state when I finished threshing—I am not at all aware; as soon as I got my corn out—I had the privilege of going to the premises to thresh out any corn before the next Lady-day—I really do not know what time it was—it was in the evening time that Evans came to me for the receipts—we had something to drink both before and after the signing, the same as we had always been in the practice of doing when he came to my house—I cannot say what we had to drink—it was some kind either of liquor or beer—I cannot recollect—I cannot state to an hour what time he came—it was in the evening time—I do not know what time he left; very likely nine, very likely eleven.

Q. Was Evans sober? A. Yes, pretty well, I believe—I was quite well—I am not aware that Evans had been drinking before he came—he was pretty well when he came—how he was before he left, I must leave—I will say he was sober if you like—I should say he was neither drunk nor sober—my wife was ill in bed—the book that I kept my receipts in was kept is my writing-desk, I believe, in the same room—on my oath my wife did not fetch the book on that occasion—Evans went home that night, at least he left my house—at any rate he did not sleep at my house.

MR. BODKIN. Q. When he first came about the receipts, did he appear to you like a person that had been drinking or not? A. Not particularly, oh no—I dare say he had been drinking, but not to take particular notice of—he had not had enough to be labouring under the effects of liquor, decidedly—I should think it was, perhaps, an hour after he came that £ signed the receipts which he wrote, perhaps more; I really cannot say—it was an hour or an hour and a half—I believe there was some drinking between us after he came before the receipts were signed, and we were smoking a pipe together in that same room—we undoubtedly had something to drink, it was very simple what we had—I am pretty well certain we had something before I was asked for the receipts—neither he nor I drank any liquor to make us at all tipsy before the receipts were signed—I do not remember what it was we drank, there was liquor on the table—he staid after the receipts were signed, possibly, about the same time, it might be two hours; I really cannot state—he would have to go between three or four miles home—I cannot say whether he was on foot or on horseback—he was in the habit of coming to my house so often that I did not take any notice—possibly he came in the chaise, most likely on horseback—he went away by the same conveyance that he came by—he came alone, and I think he went away by himself—he was living with Mr. Cutts at that time—he had been living with Mr. Cutts ever since I knew bin—in 1846 a conveyance was tendered to me by Boulter, then Mr. Cutts clerk, which I refused to sign—that was at Little Bardfield-hall—my brothers were there—we all refused to execute it—before Sept. 1847, Mr. Cutts said he would get me a farm of Lord Mornington, professing to be my friend—I think that was in 1846 or 1847—it was often talked about for some time, Mr. Cutts said he would get it for me, and we would manage it between us—the sums of money mentioned in these receipts were handed to me by Evans—I never had any conversation with Mr. Cutts on the subject, or on the advance of money that he had made.

COURT. Q. Have you never paid back to Mr. Cutts any money that be

has lent you? A. No; there was 150l. borrowed before I was of age, and 100l. for the coach—I was to have the whole of the 118l. for the crop of corn on the farm that I was thus holding—it was wheat and barley—I was tenant of the firm then—Mr. Cutts bought it, let it to Letch, and then I came out—between Michaelmas and the September following I threshed out my corn—I did not thresh oat any of it in 1848—I began to thresh it immediately after harvest—I really cannot say the tine I finished—I got it out as soon as I could—I threshed out as late as Dec. 1848, certainly.

JURY. Q. If you had actually received the 205l. in these five different payments, how came you to say to Evans that you would not give Mr. Cutts the receipts, bnt you would give them to him (Evans), your brother-in-law? A. Why, because Mr. Cutts had treated me in that way, and I said, "I was never asked to give receipts at the time of receiving the moneys, and I do not see why I should do so now."

COURT. Q. Did you think it was the part of an honest man to refuse the receipts? A. Mr. Cutts had not behaved honest to me—I was never asked at the time to give a receipt, not till some time afterwards—I had not quarrelled with Mr. Cutts at that time, but he had the chance of letting me have a farm, and he would not do it—I did not owe him a grudge for that particularly, only that I had been treated very ill all the way through by him, in every respect—he always promised to get me into a farm, and when he had a chance he would not do it; he professed to be my friend, but he was the greatest enemy I had—when Evans asked me for the receipts, I said, "I will give them to you, but I will not give them to Mr. Cutts," and afterwards I said, "If Mr. Cutts wishes to rob me, I don't wish to rob him, I have received the 205l."

JOSEPH NETHERCLIFT . I am a lithographic printer. I have been much employed in the examination of documents, to ascertain the genuineness of handwriting, for upwards of twenty years—I was called upon to examine these receipts—they were then in the possession of a policeman at the police-court—on examining the first receipt, I was struck by observing, through my glass, a pencil-line after the word "Pounds," to write on, I imagine—(looking at it through his glass) I see a broken pencil-mark, the letter "a," the lower part of the "1" in "Lot," the turn of the capital "L," and a pencil-line like the last upstroke of the "8," which is put in ink, and also a pencil-mark with a dash to it—the "a" in ink, representing the word "account," does not cover the "a" in pencil; it is a little below it—the "a" in pencil is still visible—(the Jury here examined the recipts with the witness's glass)—I see a difference between the former part of the receipt and the latter—the "o/s" in "Lot 8" is not written consecutively following "Received of Mr. Cutts £50"—it is written in closer, with a finer pen, and another coloured ink—it is thrust in—there was plenty of room for writing it conesecutively as well as the other part—it was written at another time and with another ink—there is no pencil-line under the words Received of Mr. Cutts £50"—I believe the "o/a lot 8," to be the same handwriting, but written with another pen—the person did not write "o/a lot 8," at the same time as "Received of Mr. Cutts"—it is not written with the same freedom—there is the pencil-mark of the "a" remaining decidedly—it is larger than the "a" in ink, a little over it, and a little under it, and intermingled with it, but a perfect "a"—the ampliate of it does not inclose a space double that of the "a" to ink—it occupies about the same space as it would in the other, and very little more—intermingled with the bottom of the capital "L," and crossing

it, there is a pencil-mark similar to it, as though the "L "was to take that precise space in pencil—by the side of the figure "8" I see what I should call the principal part of an 8 in pencil—it is a little beyond the "8" in ink—I cannot tell whether these pencil-marks were written before or after the writing, because it has been so much rubbed—there is the appearance of its having been rubbed; I mean that portion particularly over "o/a and Lot 8"—India-rubber has been applied there undoubtedly, and not to the rest of the receipt.

COURT. Q. If a letter or a word has been traced in pencil, and you traverse the same lines with ink, will it not have a different appearance afterwards from the ink on another part of the paper? A. Very little indeed, unless the pencil is very thick and greasy; then it would a little, but not where the pencil is light—if the ink covered the pencil, it would be impossible to know which was done first—good ink would cover the pencil entirely—if the pencil came thickly over the ink it would leave a little brown appearance over the ink, and I should know it was done after the ink—I cannot detect it here by this glass—it is all very faint writing—in that particular I would not attempt to form a judgment.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Have you also examined the second receipt? A. I have—I should give precisely the same answer to that as to the first, that the words "Received of Mr. Cutts 15l."is different from the "o/a lot 8"—the "o/a lot 8," in this appears to be written with the same ink as "o/a lot 8," in the first receipt, and with the same pen—it is not written with the same pen and ink as "Received of Mr. Cutts 15l."—there is a pencil-line which goes on to the very end of the paper, and really indents the edges of the paper—it is rather harder there, and is visible to the naked eye—it is exactly in the line in which it is written—there is no other pencil-line in that second receipt—there is a rubbing of some of the words—"o/a lot 8," is rubbed with India-rubber—I have examined the third receipt, and, as regards the writing of the two different parts, I should make the same observation—in my opinion, the "o/a lot 8," in the three, were written with the same pen and ink—in the third receipt there is very plainly to be seen under the word pounds," stretching out, and nearly losing itself in the "L," a pencil-line upon which to write—there is no pencil-line in any other part—with regard to the fourth receipt, I make the same observation as to the character of the writing as I did with regard to the others, and as to the pen and the colour of the ink—there is the slightest mark of a pencil; I cannot call it a line, but broken bits of pencil at the end—I find very little rubbing perceptible—as to the fifth receipt, I make the same observation with regard to the different character of the writing, and the ink and pen—there are no pencil-lines in that that I notice, and I see no rubbing—I have examined Edmund Salmon's signature to all the receipts—I believe they were written with the same pen and ink as the body of the receipts, omitting o/a lot 8."

COURT. Q. Who applied to you about this matter first? A. Mr. Wilkin—he did not show me the document—it was at the police-office, and he asked me to go down there and see it—I told him my opinion of it, and was then called as a witness, not before—I was merely asked to look at these writings, and see whether they were done at the same time.

HENRY ADLARD . I am an engraver, and have been in that business twenty-eight years—I have been a good deal engaged in inspecting documents to ascertain whether they are genuine or not—I examined these receipts last Wednesday at Mr. Wilkins'—they were then in the prisoner*

hands—I remarked with regard to the first receipt that the end of the line was different to the other part of it—after the word "50l.," I thought "o/a lot 8"' was written with a different pen and with different ink to the other part of the line—on close inspection I saw some lines ruled in pencil—the letter" a "in the top line is pencilled underneath, and at the loop at the bottom of the" I "there is also a pencil-mark, and there is a pencil-line ruled underneath this addition—I do not trace the ruled-line in the upper one—the end of it, the "o/a lot 8," has been rubbed, I should think, with India-rubber—it looks as if the India-rubber was greasy and dirty—I make the same observation with regard to the second receipt as to the colour of the ink of the different portions—the" o/a lot 8 "there seems to bear the same character of writing as" o/a lot 8 "in No. 1, in the same ink and with the same pen—I see a pencil-line under the second and third receipts; and my impression was that I saw it under the bottom of the fourth, but I do not see it now—in the second receipt there is a pencil-mark in the" a, "at the right of the ink—I do 'not trace any pencil-marks in the third, and I do not trace anything now under the fourth—I have not had my attention drawn to the fifth receipt—my opinion is that the ink bears the same character as the other—it is a bluer ink than the body—in the third receipt the words" o/a lot 8 "are in a lighter and bluer ink than the previous part of the receipt, and it has not been written with the same pen—it is a harder and stiffer pen—in the fourth receipt it has the same appearance—the ink is not the same colour as that in the previous part of the receipt, and it appears to be written with a different pen—the fifth receipt has the same appearance as to the ink and pen—looking at the words" o/a lot 8 "in all the receipts they appear to be written with the same pen and the same ink—it is difficult to form an opinion as to whether the signature of Edmund Salmon to all the receipts was written with the same pen that wrote the former part," Received of Mr. Cutts".—it seems to me to be the same pen and the same ink, but it is not the same handwriting.

COURT. Q. You say the commencement of all the receipts appear to be in the same ink? A. Yes; and I should say they were written at the same time; but I see the pen has failed in all the receipts in one part—it seems to me to be the same pen—there is the same fault precisely—Mr. Salmon's signature appears to be written with the same pen and ink, although it if a different writing—in the first and fourth receipts, at the turn of the letter "R," the ink has failed, and the two nibs of the pea have merely made two very fine lines, without filling the lines up, as if the ink had not run freely—the pen appears to have flowed fluently, it seems as if it had been replenished—looking at the "E" in the signature "Edmund," to the fourth receipt, it seems as if there had been blotting-paper put over it, and that has taken off a portion of the ink, which has made it paler, but I do not think it is the same colour as "o/a lot 8"—the application of blotting paper would take off the rich blackness of the ink, and make it paler—I do not think it would change the colour of the ink—the "E" is not bluer than the capital "T" in "Twenty" "T" is bluer than the "R" in "Received"—it is not as blue as the "o/a lot 8"—I am not aware that it would become bluer from being dried more quickly than the other part—the end of a line is generally written the wettest; so that if blotting-paper were applied over the whole, it would make the last words paler—I do not perceive that any blotting-paper has been over the end of the line—I judge that it has been over the other part, because the strokes are ragged, and spread—in the "o/a lot 8" I find no raggedness—I think it is a bluer ink—Mr. Wilkin called at my office, I believe, last Monday, and

requested me to attend at his office on Wednesday—I did so, and was then shown these documents for the first time—I stated my opinion to Mr. Wilkin at that time—I was never called upon to appear anywhere as a witness before I gave my opinion to Mr. Wilkin—I was alone at the time—there were three or four clerks in the room.

COURT to EDMUND SALMON. Q. When you and Mr. Boulter went to the office of Messrs. Brooksbank and Faro were any documents produced to yea? A. We looked at these receipts; I believe I took it in my hand to look at it—I should think it is about two months ago—I did take it in my hand—Mr. Boulter also took it in his hand—some one else was present, I believe, at the time; I really do not know his name: there were three of us, I know—three of us went together—it was a gentleman that Mr. Boulter introduced to me—we all three examined it—we were certainly not there more than fire minutes—I merely looked at it, and saw immediately that it was added—I looked at it accurately—Mr. Boulter looked at it about the same time as myself—he had seen it previous to that; so he informed me—he did not look at it, he merely said, "Here it is" and showed it to me, and I found it was different—we stood at a desk while looking at it—it was not a high desk, merely a bench kind of place, it was high enough to vest on while looking—the friend of Mr. Boulter also looked at it—Mr. Boulter is about the building—I have spoken to him since I went out of Court—only one of Messrs Brooksbank and Farn's clerks was present at the time we were looking at these receipts, he saw what we were about—no alteration could have been made in them without his seeing it done.

NOT GUILTY .