Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 26 January 2022), April 1858, trial of EDWARD AUCHMUTY GLOVER (t18580405-441).

EDWARD AUCHMUTY GLOVER, Deception > fraud, 5th April 1858.

441. EDWARD AUCHMUTY GLOVER was indicted for unlawfully making a false declaration of his qualification as a member of the House of Commons.

MR. EDWIN JAMES, Q.C., with MESSRS. WELSBY, BODKIN, and Clerk conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES RICHARD NAYLOR . I am chief clerk in the Crown Office. I produce from the Crown Office the writ of election for the Borough of Beverley at the last general election, and the return to it—(The writ was dated 21st March, and the return 28th March, 1857)—the return states "That the said Mayor and Burgesses and Electors of the said Borough, and others interested in the said election, have elected and chosen the Hon. William Henry Forester Denison and Edward Auchmuty Glover, of No. 28, Grosvenor Square, West, London, Esq."

THOMAS ERSKINE MAY . I am clerk assistant to the House of Commons; I was so in May, 1857. I was present at the table of the House during the whole of Saturday, 2d May, the day upon which Mr. Glover, the defendant, took the oaths and his seat for Beverley—the House was sitting, and the Speaker in the chair—Sir Denis Le Marchant, the Clerk of the House, would administer the oath—I am not in a position to say that I saw the oath administered to Mr. Glover—I have no doubt that the declaration was delivered to myself personally—this (produced) appears to be the statement of the particulars of qualification handed in at the table, in my presence—I have no doubt that this document was handed in, but I am not able to identify it, as having been delivered into my own hand—I should, perhaps, explain to the Court the process of swearing in the members at the commencement of the Session, and the mode of taking their declarations, it will then be understood why I am not able at once to specify this; at the commencement of the Session a great number of members are waiting to be sworn at once, and their names are taken down by one of the clerks at the table, and kept in a list; the Clerk of the House then reads from that list, out loud, in the hearing of the whole House, each name in succession as it stands on that list; every member so called then takes his place at the table, and when they are all

assembled there, the clerk proceeds to administer the oaths, and also the declaration of qualification, which they repeat after him, all at once; when they have taken the oaths and the declaration, they withdraw from the table to their seats, and then the clerk assistant again reads each of those names in succession from the list, and each member, on being called a second time, comes to the table and delivers in to the clerk assistant the statement of his qualification, referred to in the declaration of qualification; as soon as the declaration of qualification has been handed in, the member handing it in proceeds to sign the parchment roll of the oaths, and also of the qualification; there are two rolls, and the lists of the names of the members who take the oaths on each day, are filed and preserved in the Journal Office of the House of Commons; Sir Denis Le Marchant, myself, and Mr. Henry Lee, the second clerk assistant, were the parties who administered the declaration to the members after the general election of 1857, and who took the declarations and gave them the parchment rolls to sign.

Cross-examined by MR. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS (with MR. GIFFARD). Q. Can you tell me how this statement of qualification is prepared? A. Yes—it is usually prepared by the member himself, but with the assistance of the clerk—itis quite optional whether the clerk writes out the description; a form is given, and, ordinarily, a member would prefer writing it himself—doubtles the clerk would be willing to enter the description of qualification, if the member desired it; occasionally a clerk does it for a member by his dictation—somemembers require more instruction than others—it is an inference that may be drawn that a new member would be more likely to require assistance—Ithink there is very little difficulty, inasmuch as there is a printed form kept in the office, a printed heading, which is a blank form of the Act of Parliament; that is filled up in writing, of the circumstances of that the clerk can have no knowledge, they must be in the cognizance of the member.

MR. WELSBY. Q. If the clerk in the Bill Office did assist in making it out, from whose information would he make it out? A. Entirely from the information derived from the member himself, the clerk would merely see that he filled it up in the proper form, and signed it—in the case of a member who had already made a declaration at the hustings, it would be sufficient for the purposes of the declaration in the House if he copied the hustings declaration, provided its terms were in the form required by the Act, provided it described the qualification in the manner required by the Statute; they are the same in effect.

CHARLES ROWLAND . I am one of the clerks of the House of Commons. I produce a statement of qualification, purporting to be signed by Edward Auchmuty Glover—I produce it from my office, the office of the clerk of the Journals of the House of Commons; that is the proper place for it to be kept in—I have also the qualification roll, signed by the members, but I do not know that it is properly in my custody; it is in the custody of the Clerk of the House, Sir Denis le Marchant—there is a general heading of declaration at the commencement of the roll, which I suppose is in the terms of the Statute—it begins, "I, A. B., do solemnly declare and affirm that I am truly qualified"—underneath the word "Beverley" in this roll, I find the signature of "Edward Auchmuty Glover."

Cross-examined by MR. M. CHAMBERS. Q. What is the meaning of this signature of "Henry Edwards" here? A. That is the signature of the other member for Beverley I suppose—that is written underneath Mr. Glover's signature—Iam not prepared to explain how Mr. Edwards came to sign there; it is possible that on the new writ being issued Mr. Edwards was elected instead

of Mr. Glover—a signature is never struck out, the new member signs, underneath the old member—Mr. Denison, the other member for Beverley, has not signed here—there are certain members who do not sign the qualification roll—membersfor Scotland and heirs apparent of peers do not qualify—Mr. Denison would qualify as the eldest son of a peer—he would not sign this roll.

FRANCIS OMMAANNEY . I am a solicitor of Basinghall Street. I have known Mr. Glover since 1853—I have seen him write once or twice—I have had correspondence with him—I believe this signature to be his writing, also the signature to this statement of qualification, and to the hustings declaration—Ido not recognize anything but the signature as his.

WILLIAM NICHOLSON . I am a Clerk in the Crown Office of the Court of Queen's Bench. I produce from that office a statement of qualification purporting to be made at Beverley; it is dated March 28th, 1857. (The statement of qualification made in the House was here read; it alleged that the qualification was derived from lands, tenements, &c., situate at Curragh Clonbro', in the Barony of Orrery, in the county of Cork, Ireland, and the Oaks, at Ospringe, in the island of Harty, in the county of Kent. The Hustings declaration was to the same effect.)

SIR DENIS LE MARCHANT . I am the Clerk of the House of Commons. I took the declaration of the greater part of the members returned at the last general election—I attended at the table of the House, on 2d May, for the whole of the day, except perhaps for twenty minutes or a quarter of an hour, during all of which time I was employed in administering the oaths and taking declarations—the form of declaration is contained in the first page of this book, and the member signs in the page applicable to his own Borough or County—the members come to the table to declare, in batches, and the declaration is read over to each batch—I read the declaration out, or the clerk does, and then the members; they all follow in chorus.

Cross-examined. Q. Was there not a great rush to the table, being a new Parliament? A. There were as many as I think could get into the space, certainly, it was rather a squeeze—they stand on three sides of the table—the oaths are administered first, the declarations follow—after they are sworn, those that have not qualified, stop and take the declaration of qualification; then they sit down and the list is read out, and they answer in succession and sign the book; I then introduce them to the speaker.

HENRY LEE . I am second clerk assistant to the House of Commons. I remember the members being sworn on 2d May—I do not remember Mr. Glover coming with other members, but on referring to a list of mine, which I wrote down at the time, I find his name there—I took this list down as the members gave their names, whilst I was sitting at the bar of the house—I have here the name of Mr. Glover, Beverley—the Speaker was in the chair at that time—I took down the names at the bar, as they went up to the table to be sworn—there was no other Mr. Glover in the House.

Cross-examined. Q. Where is the date to this memorandum? A. I did not take any date at the time; it is a mere paper for convenience, to give to the other clerks—this "Sat, 2d May," is not my writing, that is Mr. Rowland's; this paper would go to the Journal office, of which Mr. Rowland is chief clerk, and he would tick off the names as you see there, the qualifications received—these papers are all preserved and filed. (The declaration was put in, and taken as read).

THOMAS WELCH . I am a member of the Bar of Ireland—I am keeper of deeds and other documents to the Encumbered Estates Court, Dublin. I produce a deed of 16th March, 1846, from J. Glover to Edward Glover, and

nother deed of 13th December, 1848, from Edward Glover to Edward Wrixon, solicitor.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you got the original petition filed in the Encumbered Estates Court? A. Yes (producing it)—I have all the papers and documents connected with the estate, and I have schedules of their contents—itis not my duty to read the documents, but in order that I might understand what I was about to give testimony upon here, I read them this morning—the petition purports to set out the value of the property—no vouchers are filed in my office—I only take charge of the deeds and documents that are necessary to establish the title and other claims—the rental particulars are generally obtained through surveys of the property, and those are kept in the Survey office, attached to the Encumbered Estates Court—the Commissioners in their discretion generally direct a survey, if the estate is a valuable one; if it was a small estate it might not be worth while—the valuers employed are generally men of skill and experience—I have my subpœna duces tecum here (producing it.)

MICHAEL GREEN . I live in the County of Cork, Ireland. I see the name of James Green as a subscribing witness to this deed—he was my brother's son—Ido not know whether he is dead—he emigrated to America, I think in 1851—the other name is John Green—he was my brother—he is dead, to the best of my belief.

Cross-examined. Q. How do you know that James Green emigrated? A. Because I conveyed him to the train the day he left for America; the railway station at Buttesland—I never heard that he had come back—he went to New York—I have never heard direct from himself but I have heard, from letters, that he was there.

THOMAS HEFFERNAN . I reside at Newtown, near Mallow, in County Cork. I attested the signatures of Edward Glover and Edward Wrixon to this deed—thedefendant is the Edward Glover who signed that deed.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you an attorney? A. No—Mr. Wrixon was my son-in-law, and he asked me to witness the deed, and I did so—I have known Mr. Glover a good many years—he is a barrister—his family are highly respectable, as respectable as any in the county.

MR. EDWIN JAMES . Q. Did you know much of Mr. Glover after 1849? A. Not very much, because he left the neighbourhood—(These deeds were put in, and read in part; by the first deed James Glover demised the property of Curragh Clonbro and other lands mentioned therein, to Edward Glover, on trust for certain purposes; and by the second deed, Edward Glover conveyed the said property to Edward Wrixon, who covenanted to pay the sum of 1,000l. to Glover's sisters, a trust imposed upon him by the former deed, and which payment he had not been enabled to make.)

THOMAS FABRELL . I am Chief Clerk to the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland; it is now one court. I produce the petition and schedule of Edward Glover, filed in the late Court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors in Ireland, dated 26th June, 1849, filed on 27th June—the vesting order bears the same date—the matter was finally heard and adjusted on 23d March, 1850—here is my own memorandum made at the time—Edward Glover swore to this schedule on that day, and was discharged forthwith—there is an endorsement on the petition "First arrest 15th June,1849; commitment 15th June, 1849"—he would not be out on bail until after his schedule was filed; he might after that—it was filed on 27th June,1849—I do not know Mr. Glover's signature; I did not see him sign the schedule—it is not signed by me, but by Richard Farrell; he was the

Commissioner of the Conrt at that time—here is "Dublin, 23d March,1850," in my writing; I wrote that at the time the schedule was sworn to—Iadministered the oath; I see that from my having filled in the date—I produce an affidavit purporting to be sworn by Edward Glover, on 13th May,1857, and filed on the 15th.

Cross-examined. Q. Then, as a matter of course, a party who becomes insolvent remains from the time he is arrested until he files his petition? A. Necessarily so, there is no means of getting out, the Court has no jurisdiction until the petition is filed—there was a warrant of attorney given to empower the assignee to enter up judgment at the suit of the provisional assignee against the insolvent, for the amount of the scheduled debts—if any judgment was entered up it would not appear among the records of the Insolvent Court—Mr. Worrall was the trade assignee—it was not the course in the late Court of Insolvency for creditors to prove their debts until a dividend was about to be made—that is called an audit—I do not know that there ever was an audit in this case—I should say there was not; it would not be within my knowledge—I do not know whether the assignee ever filed an account—if there was an audit there would be a chief clerk's report upon it—ifthere is such a document it would be on the files of the Court—I looked and found no such document—I looked generally; I did not make a negative search—I can speak as a matter of certainty that there never has been an audit, but I do not like to speak to it, because it is a matter of record—there may have been an audit, and the registrar not have made his report upon it—Ishould say there has been none.

MR. E. JAMES. Q. Is there an audit unless there are any funds paid in to audit? A. No; there have been no funds paid in, that I know; there is nothing to audit—no funds were ever lodged in Court, for I have looked at the books of the Bank of Ireland for that purpose, and I found that there were none—this (produced) is an examined copy of the vesting order, attested by myself, and sealed with the seal of the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland, which mikes it evidence.

FRANCIS OMMANNEY re-examined. I believe these signatures to the schedule and the petition to be Mr. Glover's writing—this affidavit of 15th May, 1857, is also his writings—(The affidavit being read, stated the total amount of debts appearing in the schedule as 13,325l. 18s. 6d., but that 4000l. was the outside amount for which he had received anything approaching to value or consideration, and of that amount nearly half was for debts incurred on his father's account. The schedule was also read, dated 26th June, 1849, which alleged that the debts for which he had received no consideration, amounted to 12,221l. 7s. 6d., and stated that he had a reversionary interest in part of the lands of Curragh Clonbro', of about 130 acres, subject to his mother's jointure of 150l., and 1000l. for his sisters.) The vesting order was also read.

MONSELL WORRALL . I am a solicitor in Dublin. I have been appointed the trade assignee under the insolvency of Mr. Glover—I was appointed on 16th May, 1857—this (produced) is my appointment—I believe no assets have been paid in to the credit of the estate of Edward Glover since his insolvency in 1849—I have made search in the Bankruptcy Court to find; I believe that no funds have come in—I have examined the books on two occasions—it sometimes happens, I should say, that money is paid to the assignee—none has been paid in this case—none has been paid to me—I believe if any had been paid to the official assignee, it would appear in the bank books—I am not a creditor—I have searched the baok books, and there is no entry of any money brought in to the estate, and I know of none—I

have an attested copy of the warrant of attorney, which was given by Mr. Glover at the time of his insolvency; the original was deposited in the Court of Queen's Bench—I entered a judgment upon that warrant of attorney, on 23d May, 1857—I have a certified copy both of the judgment and of the warrant—the warrant was at the time of his dischage, 28th March, 1850—itwas given for the amount of the debts and costs, 13,326l., and judgment is accordingly—I have not received anything on account of the estate, since that judgment was entered up.

Cross-examined. Q. But has there not been a good deal of property sold in the Encumbered Estates Court? A. There was some sold, it realized about 1000l. I believe—I think that was some months ago, I think since my appointment—Iwas not present at the sale, but Mr. Martin, my attorney, was—an assignee cannot act as attorney for himself; I do not mean Mr. Martin of Beverley, but of Dublin, formerly of Cork—he named me as a very suitable and proper person to be assignee—I was not a creditor, but I was attorney for a creditor, and it was in that way I first heard of it; that creditor is Herbert Eyre O'Donnell—I heard that Mr. Martin was employed by Mr. Leman of Beverley—I do not know that he is the agent of Mr. Wells, the petitioner—there is a very great friendship between Mr. Martin and me—I believe it was some time subseqnent to the Beverley election that I was nominated as the trade assignee; if you will allow me, I will explain how I became acquainted with it, Mr. O'Donnell got a circular as a creditor, and be sent it to me to do what was necessary, thinking there was something coming to him in the shape of a dividend—he is my principal, and it was from him I first heard of it—he is a creditor for 35l.—it was intended that he should be appointed trade assignee, but as be lived in a very remote locality, it was considered that he could not do justice to the general body of creditors, the assignee representing all the creditors—he was a solicitor, but I believe he is a miller now; he lives at Drimolee, County Cork—I do not think there was any very great opposition made to my becoming trade assignee—a Mr. Daley who was a creditor, had a day or two, or a week, to consider, from the chief clerk, whether be would accept the appointment, and then he said he would have nothing to do with it, and the consequence was they considered I would be a proper person—Mr. Martin has acted as solicitor for me ever since, and has attended the Encumbered Estates, and all that.

MR. E. JAMES. Q. Since you assumed the trust of trade assignee in May,1857, have you received one farthing of dividend or money, to divide among Mr. Glover's creditors? A. Not one farthing—the property that realised 1000l. was sold under the Encumbered Estates Court—that was all swamped in head rent; the creditors got none; not a farthing has been received since that affidavit.

MR. M. CHAMBERS. Q. Is there not property selling now? A. I believe there is; I understand there is a rental going to be settled for, a sale of some other property; I did not say of Mr. Glover's; I really do not know—I am aware there is some property about to be sold; but I believe there is nothing coming to creditors—I do not know whether Mr. Glover or his creditors have any interest in it—I believe there is nothing that I can realize—it is my duty to see what I can get for the creditors; and I am informed that it is swamped by prior encumbrances—I have inquired of a Mr. O'Connell and of Mr. Martin—there has been no correspondence between Mr. O'Connell and me; it was only verbal—Mr. O'Connell was not in communication with me, as solicitor for Mr. Glover, in relation to his other property—I believe there is other property to be sold; but what encumbrances there may be, I do not know.

MR. E. JAMES. Q. Do you know of any property to be sold, which, after paying any encumbrances, will realize anything for the creditors under this insolvency? A. I am not aware of any property that will realize anything for the creditors.—Adjourned.

Saturday, April 10th.

SAMUEL MURRAY HUSSEY . I am a land agent and surveyor in County Cork—I am the receiver, appointed under the Court of Chancery, of the property of Curragh Clonbro'—I have been acting as receiver of that property since 24th Feb., 1854—the gross amount that I receive on that estate is 181l. 9s. 8d.; out of that I have to pay for head rent 58l. 10s. 9d., and tithe rent charge 6l. 2s. 10d.; the balance is 116l. 16s. 1d.—receiver's fees and poor rates vary every year—upon an average, the receiver's fees are about 9l.; the poor rates about 5l. 10s.—there are also law costs in the Court of Chancery—I have not the slightest idea what those are annually; they vary very considerably; I cannot give you an average; I can give you each year—the year ending March 1854, it was 16l. 2s. for the whole year; for the year and a half ending Sept., 1855, it was 138l. 15s. 3d.; and for the year ending Sept., 1856, 92l. 4s.; the balance was lodged in the Court of Chancery, according to the rules of the master in Chancery; I apply them according to his direction—he may direct payments out of the money to the creditors; he has so directed—I send in my account; the master decides what is to be done with the balance; and I act accordingly—I am not appointed under the Encumbered Estates Act—I have not got any appointmenthere.

Cross-examined. Q. Who nominated you to be the receiver? A. Mr. O'Connell was the solicitor—I believe he is Mr. Glover's solicitor—I know nothing about money being handed to Mr. O'Connell to be paid to Mr. Glover—I have here a copy of the account I furnished to the Court of Chancery—I believe the order for my appointment as receiver was made on 17th Nov., 1853—I cannot say whether Mr. Wrixon had anything to do with it then; I heard that he had; but I do not know—I heard that this estate was about to be sold; but I cannot say.

MR. E. JAMES. Q. You receive the money? A. Yes, and pay it into the Court of Chancery—I have not received directions to pay Mr. Glover any that money; I have heard that Mr. O'Connell is solicitor for one encumbrancer, I cannot say it of my own knowledge—I have received no directions to pay Mr. Glover any of the profits of this estate since I have been receiver.

GEORGE ANNESLEY . I am a solicitor, of No. 64, Lincoln's Inn Fields. I have a marriage settlement here, but I submit to my Lord whether I am bound to produce it, it was given to me by Mrs. Stokes with strict injunctions not to part with it to anybody—I made this objection to the Committee of the House of Commons, and they did not compel me to produce it; if his Lordship says I ought, I am willing to do so; but I submit that I ought not, as a professional man, disclose any deeds of my client without her authority—Iam not aware that there is any danger in producing it—(MR. JUSTICE CROMPTON was of opinion that it mutt be produced; the witness accordingly handed it in.)

WILLIAM RAWSON TURNER . I am a solicitor, in Russell Square. I am the attesting witness to this settlement, by John Buck Toker, Anna de Burgh, Edward Auchmuty Glover, and William Downing Bruce—I saw it

executed; it is dated 18th Sept., 1854—a few days before it was executed, Mr. Glover came to my office in Gray's Inn, with Mr. Bruce, who introduced him to me—Mr. Glover informed me that a relative of his, a lady, was about to be married, and he came to me to prepare the settlement—I think he mentioned her name on that occasion; the conversation was general, and a further meeting was appointed for the same evening, at Mr. Glover's residence at Maida Hill—he gave me his card, and I went there that same evening at 7 o'clock, by appointment—on arriving there, I found Mr. Glover, Miss de Burgh, and Capt. Toker—Mr. Glover introduced me to them, he said the lady was his aunt; the conversation was as to the properties to be settled by each; the properties mentioned were landed estates in Kent, the property of Mr. Toker; and properties in the county of Cork, in Ireland, the property of Miss de Burgh, Liscarrel, Curragh Clonbro', and Curragh McGower, the whole of the property—Mr. Glover gave me the spelling of the names, one of them, certainly, Curragh Clonbro', I think it was—he said that he was himself a member of the Bar, and I was to prepare the settlement as solicitor for all parties—on the following morning he called at my office; he did not on that occasion give me any account of the Kent property, he had mentioned it the evening before; he spoke of the Harty property as being mortgaged, he did not on that occasion say to what amount, he did on the draft settlement being read over; a draft settlement was prepared, and was read over by me in Mr. Glover's presence to the lady and gentleman, and Mr. Brace, Mr. Glover's co-trustee—this was, I think, on 16th Sept, 1854—the encumbrance was then stated to be 10,000l.; Mr. Glover was merely a party to the deed, as a trustee—Mr. Glover did not tell me where the title deeds were; he said it was impossible to obtain them, and I must be satisfied with the instructions I had, without requiring the inspection of the title—he called at my office again on the morning of the 18th, the day on which the deed was afterwards executed—he brought me the particulars of three mortgages, they were written particulars, I have them here—those mortgages have no reference to the Kentish or Irish property, they related to Middlesex property, they were mortgage debts simply tranferred to the co-trustees; they formed part of the settlement; they belonged to Miss de Burgh—Mr. Glover said nothing to me of any other encumbrance on the Kentish property, except the 10,000l.—Idid not learn to whom that 10,000l. was owing, he did not say a word about a rent charge granted to himself of 325l. a year, or any such amount.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you got any written instructions for preparing the deed? A. Yes (producing them), they were written by Miss de Burgh—shegave me the papers—a portion of them is Mr. Glover's writing, delivered to me by himself subsequently—these are the whole of the written instructions—Ihave no other memorandums—it was from these written instructions that I proceeded to prepare the marriage settlement—they are headed, "Instructions for preparing Marriage Settlement"—I believe the first part of this is Miss de Burgh's writing—the papers relating to the Middlesex and Lambeth property are in Mr. Glover's writing—they were brought to me on the 16th—this list of diamonds and bracelets were part of Miss de Burgh's paraphernalia, which she wished to have settled upon herself—that is in her writing—here is a letter of hers, that I received on 16th Sept., and here is a letter of Mr. Glover's; it does not apply to the Irish or Kentish property, but to other property comprised in the settlement—I received very minute instructions, as to the property, from Miss de Burgh—I think I saw her two or three times, while I was preparing the settlement, at her residence, Stafford House. Bloomfield Road, Maida Hill—I am not prepared to say it was her residence—I

resume it was Mr. Glover's residence, from his card—I received the first instructions on 14th Sept., and the settlement was executed on the evening of the 18th, at Maida Hill—Captain Toker, Miss de Burgh, Mr. Glover, and Mr. Bruce, were present at the execution.

Mr. E. JAMES. Q. This young lady, Miss de Burgh, was going to be married to this old gentleman; what aged person did he appear to be? A. I should think sixty-five or sixty-six, at least; that was six years ago—he was to settle the Kentish property—Mr. Glover represented that property to be Mr. Toker's, and he told me of the mortgage of 10,000l. on it—I do not find any corrections or interlineations, in Mr. Glover's writing, in the first page of these instructions of Miss de Burgh's; there is one on this page, which relates to the mortgage debts assigned to the trustees—the address on the card which Mr. Glover gave me on the morning of the 14th was, "Stafford House, Maida Hill"—(the settlement was put in, and read).

HENRY BATHURST . I am a solicitor at Faversham, in Kent. I produce a deed of settlement, dated 16th Nov., 1853—the attesting witnesses to it in Charles Tucker and George Kennett.

GEORGE KENNETT . In 1853, I was clerk to Mr. Bathurst's brother—this in my signature—I attested the execution of this deed by Margaret Grace Toker. (This was dated 16th Nov. 1853, and by it Miss Margaret Grace Toker conveyed an estate called the Oaks to Philip Champion Toker.)

MR. BATHURST (cross-examined). I hold this deed on behalf of both the parties, Miss Toker and P. C. Toker—they are both living; it has never been out of our possession—it was in my brother's possession until he gave up his practice, and since then it has been in mine—I do not know whether there have been disputes between Miss Toker and Philip C. Toker—I have been away from the neighbourhood for four or five years until the last eighteen months.

MR. CLERK. Q. I believe you are well acquainted with the Oaks estate? A. I know it very well—I cannot say that I know the rents, of my own knowledge—I am not perhaps fully competent to say what would be the value of the property. I know what I should be disposed to give for it if I wanted it—I know the value of land in that neighbourhood—the outside value of the house would be 80l. a year I conceive—there is a cottage and garden, which lets for 25l.; and some orchard land and a cottage for 60l.—I believe there is some woodland, which is cut from time to time, that has run out very much—I don't know what it has produced of late years—I should say the outside value of it was from 8s. to 10s. an acre, taking it through—thereare between thirty and forty acres I believe.

MR. M. CHAMBERS. Q. You do not call yourself a land valuer? A. Oh dear no—I have had no experience in valuing—I was living in the neighbourhood from 1845 to 1852, and I have been living within six or seven miles for many years—that part of the country was then entirely out of railway accommodation; lately it has railway accommodation by the East Kent Railway, which was opened in Jan. last—there is a difference of opinion as to whether that improves the value of property or not—there is not thirty-five acres attached to the mansion—I don't know the exact quantity, it is leasehold, held from St. John's College, Cambridge; I include the house and garden and one piece of orchard land in the 80l. a year—I merely say that is what I would give for it, if it was to sell—I am not aware whether any surveyor has been employed to survey it on the part of the prosecution—I do not want the house—I have not a house of my own at present—I am living at my brother's house—the cottage actually fetches 25l. a year at this time;

it is about half a mile from the railway; it is all close together—Mr. Robarts the tenant has been in it about two years—it has a small garden—it is about fifty miles from London—the land in the occupation of Payne is about twenty-two acres—I believe it is all orchard land—I think there is about thirty-seven or thirty-eight acres of woodland—I do not know whether there is good shooting there, or whether there are pheasants in the wood.

FRANCIS OMMANNEY re-examined. I produce a mortgage deed of 13th July, 1849.

JOHN RANCE HEYWOOD . I am the attesting witness to the execution of this deed by Frederick Metcalfe; I saw him execute it.

NICHOLAS GIBSON WANOSTRECHT . I married a stepdaughter of Henry Stukeley. He left this country for Australia, in 1855—I have had a great deal of correspondence with him since he has been there—to the best of my belief, he is still there; I am quite sure he has not come home—I believe this is his signature, as attesting witness to the execution of this deed by Philip Champion Toker and Janet his wife. (This was stated to be a mortgage deed whereby the Oaks estate was conveyed by Frederick Metcalfe, a prior mortgagee, to Hasler Hollist, Rev. Edward Ommanney, and Frederick Metcalfe, as security for the repayment by P. C. Toker of l,000l., and interest, Metcalfe covenanting that the prior mortgage of 2,000l. should be postponed to the present mortgage.)

FRANCIS OMMANNEY (continued). I was a nominal party to the deed, merely as a trustee to uses—Mr. Hollist and the others are in effect trustees, to pay Hollist first and Metcalfe afterwards—the mortgage applies to the whole of the Oaks estate—I have also some deeds of 21st and 22d April,1851; they are between Hasler Hollist, the Rev. Edward Ommanney, and Frederick Metcalfe of the first part, William Prudence of the second part, Frederick Metcalfe, Octavius Ommanney, and Henry Mortlock Ommanney of the third part.

HASLER HOLLIST . I am one of the conveying parties in this deed. I see my signature to it—William Collins appears to be the attesting witness to my signature; he was at that time a servant of mine; he has since left me—inconsequence of a request made to me by Mr. Greenwood, the Solicitor of the Treasury, I have made inquiries to endeavour to find him—I have inquired of a Mrs. Maude, the widow of the celebrated aurist, from whose service he came to me, and she knew nothing of him, nor did her servants—I then wrote to the superintendent of the Brighton police (for it was at Brighton he was in my service), and could learn nothing of him—the only servant who was with me at that time, a coachman, said that he never saw him after he left my service—I have not been able to learn anything of him; he was with me twelve or fourteen weeks in the spring of 1851.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you give him a character to any one? A. No; I do not know whose service he entered after mine; I have every reason to believe he left Brighton entirely—I believe it was five or six weeks ago that I received Mr. Greenwood's letter.

COURT. Q. In the course of your investigations did you find any person to whom you could apply for anything further? A. No; I do not now know any one to whom I could refer with any chance of success—(MR. M. CHAMBERS submitted that this evidence did not show reasonable diligence in the search of the attesting witness, and that therefore, in his absence, no proof could be given of the signature to the deed. MR. JUSTICE CROMPTON considered the evidence sufficient)—This signature is William Collins' writing, and this is my signature

JAMES BALLINGER . I now live near Lichfield. I formerly lived with Mr. Edward Ommanney—I saw him execute this deed—this is my handwriting.

FRANCIS OMMANNEY re-examined. This is a conveyance of the land to the use of Metcalfe, Edward Ommanney and H. M. Ommaney, the parties of the third part, and an assignment of the mortgage debts to the same parties, on trust to re-assign; that re-assignment is carried out by a deed of the next day—it is conveyed to William Prudence to the use of the parties of the third part—Iprepared the deed—in 1854 and 1855, I gave instructions for notice to be served upon the tenants to pay their rents to the mortgagees; I did that because the interest was in arrear—I ought to have received it—I signed the notices—I have received several letters from the defendant—here is one of 18th July, 1856—that was in answer to a letter I had addressed to Miss Toker. (This being read, enclosed a draft for 30l. towards payment of interest due, and requesting withdrawal of the notice.)The interest fell again into arrear after that; I do not think they paid up all the arrears then—an ejectment was brought before then—this is the Sheriff's return. (This was dated 30th May, 1855, addressed to Margaret Grace Toker, by Metcalfe and the two Ommanneys, claiming the whole of the Oaks estate; Margaret Grace Toker appeared to the writ, and defended to the whole; verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, 16th Aug., 1856; the writ was executed 18th May, 1857.) I have not got the writ of possession, nor an examined copy—I was not present when possession of the Oaks estate was delivered—I have since been in receipt of the rents for the three gentlemen named in the deed—I receive the rents from the tenants, except the tenants of the house—I receive no rent for that—Miss Toker is the tenant of the house—she agreed to pay 60l. a year for it—that was under another agreement—60l. a year is paid by Payne and 25l. by Captain Robarts—at the end of last year there was some underwood cut; it produced 48l.—it is cut once in twelve years, I believe—all was cut, that was fit to cut—I gave instructions to cut all that was fit to cut without injurying the property—I do not know how it was done, whether all was cut, or only a portion—125l. is the whole interest due on that mortgage—there is another mortgage besides of 1,000l.; that is on the same property—altogether the mortgage is 2,500l., at five per cent, interest—I cannot say that I know the Oaks property well—I have seen it—I do not know that I have at different times had conversations with Mr. Glover about the Oaks property, and the mortgages upon it—I think I have; I am not sure—I believe I had in 1853—he was certainly aware of the action of ejectment—he paid some of the interest that was in arrear when I went to take possession; he paid 40l.—Idid not go to take possession; it was done through a solicitor in London, and paid to me—his cheque was paid to me—I think I have received the rents for two years—I think I got into possession before the ejectment, and I was certainly in receipt of some of the rents before the ejectment; all but the house—at this moment there is not much interest in arrear; very trifling—Ithink not above 6l.—I have here an agreement, dated 23d May, 1857, to let the house to Miss Toker.

GEORGE FREDERICK FRY . I am a clerk to Messrs. Sutton and Ommanney. I am the attesting witness to this lease—I saw Miss Margaret Grace Toker sign it; in fact, I saw the four parties sign—this endorsement is my writing—thatenables me to say that Mr. Glover was present, and read the lease over to Miss Toker before she signed it. (This was an agreement between Metcalfe and the two Ommanneys to let, and Miss Toker to take, the Oaks house for three months, at 15l. per quarter.)

MR. M. CHAMBERS to MR. F. OMMANNEY. Q. Was 7,500l. given for this Oaks estate? A. Yes; in 1852—that was a sale to Miss Toker by Philip Toker, her nephew, the same nephew in whose favour she afterwards made the voluntary deed—the interest has been continually in arrear—I think the first rent I received from Payne was in Sept., 1856; Payne was then Miss Toker's tenant—proceedings were stayed in the ejectment for a long time—I have not brought the accounts with me—I cannot speak exactly as to dates, without referring to the accounts—since April, 1857, I have received the rent of the cottage occupied by Capt. Robarts; that would be paid the next quarter after that; I did not receive the April rent; I did not know that he was a tenant until April, when I gave him notice—I received the Midsummer rent; that was the second rent I received—he pays precisely on the quarter day; the first rent he paid me was in June, 1857—I have continued to receive Payne's rent from 1856 up to the present time; I began to receive Payne's rent in 1856, but no other—Miss Toker occupied the house, Payne the land, and Mr. Robarts the cottage.

COURT. Q. Then you worked her with the ejectment until you got her to attorn; was that it? A. Yes.

MR. M. CHAMBERS. Q. Have you any personal interest in this matter? A. The money that was lent belongs to the trustees of my marriage settlement—thedeeds I have produced are generally kept by my trustees—I am a partner in the firm of Sutton and Ommanney—Mr. Octavious Ommanney, my brother, keeps the deeds in his safe at the bank, where they have been deposited—the 1,500l. was lent to Philip Toker; and the property was bought by Miss Toker, subject to the mortgage.

G. F. FRY re-examined. I was present at the trial of the ejectment, and signed the judgment. I recollect Mr. Wright, an attorney now dead, coming to negotiate a lease for Miss Toker—I saw him more particularly on 23d May, last year; that was the date of the lease—I had seen him at our office perhaps two or three weeks before that—the terms of the agreement were settled between him and Mr. Ommanney—at the time of the execution of the lease, I saw Mr. Wright pay 40l., for interest, on her behalf—I took down the particulars of the lease to Miss Toker—I went there—Mr. Glover went by the same conveyance—I found Miss Toker in a field behind the mansion, and Mrs. Capt. Toker with her, formerly Miss de Burgh—they had a marquee, or tent, erected there—Mr. Glover was there; he had arrived there before me—the agreement was received from me by Mrs. Toker, and by her handed to Mr. Glover, for him to peruse and see that it was right—he read it, and then handed it to Miss Toker; said it was quite right, and she was to sign it—at that time, there were two sheriff's officers in possession—they were withdrawn; I left them there; but they had an authority from Messrs. Sutton and Ommanney to withdraw, upon some charges being paid to them by Miss Toker.

Cross-examined. Q. I suppose if there was any writ of possession, that would tell when they went in, if they did go in? A. I do not think it would—thewrit was lodged at the office, and the warrant made out to the sheriff.

CAPTAIN JOSEPH WILLIAM ROBARTS . I occupy the Oaks cottage, part of the Oaks property. I took it from 25th March, last year, at 25l. a year—I have paid the rent to Messrs. Ommanney and Sutton, having received a notice to that effect—I should think that was a fair rent.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you got the notice? A. Not with me—I received it about ten days after I got there—Miss Toker let me the premises I hold under a written agreement from her—this is it (produced).

MR. WELSBY. Q. Has Miss Toker ever made any claim on you for this rent? A. Never, or any body on her behalf; or on Mr. Glover's behalf.

COURT. Q. Have you any land? A. Only the garden, a little more than a quarter of an acre.

JOHN PAYNE . I am a farmer in Kent. I hold part of the Oaks land, about twenty-eight acres—my rent is 60l. a year—this is my third year—about June, 1856, I received a notice from Messrs. Sutton and Ommanney, and since that time I have paid my rent to them—neither Mr. Glover, Miss Toker, nor anybody on their behalf, has made any claim on me for the rent since I received the notice—at the latter part of 1855, I bought some wood of Miss Toker—I saw Mr. Glover on that occasion—he was waiting there to receive the money for the wood I believe—it was 50l.—it was at Miss Toker's house, the Oaks—Mr. Glover said on that occasion, that Miss Toker was the rightful owner of it, and the only one that I should pay—he said, that they wanted to raise about 2,500l., and do away with the Ommanneys altogether—thatwould be about Nov.—this was on the occasion of my paying the first 25l., about the latter end of Oct., or the beginning of Nov., 1855.

Cross-examined. Q. This is glass land, is it not? A. As near as possible—Ido not make a great deal of hay—I make hay of a part—in 1856, I made somewhere about thirty tons—the value of that was about 104l., not 140l.—Ihad orchards, but no fruit—I had a very short crop of hay last year—I have not made 150l. for the two years put together—I made 46l. this last year—Ihave not made as much as 200l. in one year by my hay; 104l. was the most—I will swear I have not made 180l.—the amount I received after paying expenses would not be above 70l.—the 104l. was the gross sale of the hay, and the expense of making, harvesting, and carrying, would bring it to about 70l.—I feed sheep on the grass—we get very little after-grass—we do get some—I do not rent any woodland—there is woodland on the estate.

MR. E. JAMES. Q. I understand you pay a little more than 2l. an acre? A. I pay so much that I do not mean to give that rent for it after this year—itis a very high rent—I believe nobody will give that money when I give it up—itis higher than any land in the neighbourhood—I am a yearly tenant.

MR. WELSBY read a recital in the marriage settlement of 18th Sept., 1854, to the effect, that John Buck Toker was entitled to a freehold estate situate in the Island of Harty, for an estate of inheritance in fee simple, smbject to certain charges thereon, but which last mentioned estate he had lately contracted to sell for the sum of 12,150l.; and by another recital it appeared that he was to enter into a covenant for the payment to Mr. Glover and Mr. Bruce of the sum of 2,500l. part of the purchase money.

MR. GEORGE ANNESLEY (cross-examined). I was not acting at all at the time, these settlements were prepared—they had taken the business away from me—Mrs. Toker handed the deeds to me afterwards—Mr. Turner prepared the settlement—Mrs. Toker delivered the deeds after the marriage—Ido not recollect how soon after—there have been proceedings in Chancery with reference to these deeds, before the Master of the Rolls—thoseproceedings are terminated, with the exception of the costs being paid—Iacted as solicitor in these proceedings for Mr. and Mrs. Toker—I do not act for them now—I hold the deeds for Mrs. Toker; she gave them to me with the understanding that I was not to part with them—I have known Mr. Glover for three or four years—I never heard that he practised at the English Bar—I believe he is principally engaged in literary pursuits—I have seen him a good many times during the progress of the suit—he was a party to it—he was one of the trustees—one of the defendants—the bill was

filed by one of the Trustees, Mr. Bruce—the bill was filed against him—he was made a defendant—I did not act for Mr. Glover in that matter.

FRANCIS OMMANNEY re-examined. I have the deeds of 19th and 20th March—the parties to the Release are John Buck Toker of the first part, Margaret Grace Toker and Molyneux Sheeldham of the second part, the said Margaret Grace Toker of the third part, John Buck Toker, William Jeffries, and Francis Ommanney of the fourth part, William Lowton Jones, Douglas Jones, Sir George Larpent, and Francis Ommanney of the fifth part—the attesting witnesses to the execution by the conveying parties, are Heawood, Cartwright, and Prudence.

MR. HEAWOOD. I saw Mr. John Buck Toker execute this deed produced, and I attested the signature.

CHARLES CARTWRIGHT . I attested the signature of Margaret Grace Toker to this deed; she is the sister of Mr. John Buck Toker—the date was 20th March, 1850.

STANLEY PRUDENCE . I attested the signature of Mr. Sheeldham to that deed.

MR. OMMANNEY (re-examined). The parties did not represent some bank or public company; they were trustees in fact—it is a mortgage in fee—it recites a mortgage to Mr. John Buck Tokens sister of 2,000l., and to others of 2,900l.—her portion was 2,000l.—that is postponed to the other mortgage—the 2,000l. is postponed to the 7,600l.—the whole 2,900l. was not paid off; part was paid off, and the rest belonged to John Buck Toker—I produce the deed of further charge, dated 23d Jan. 1852.

SIR CHARLES CARTWRIGHT re-called. I was the attesting witness to the execution of that deed of further charge by John Buck Toker and Miss Toker.

MR. OMMANNEY (continued). She joins in that to postpone her 2,000l.—thatmade 9,600l. due to my clients, and her 2,000l. besides—it was between John Buck Toker of the first part, and Margaret Grace Toker of the second part—that made 9,600l. to Sir George Larpent and the Ommanneys, and 2,000l. to her—the deed includes other property besides Brewer's in Harty—itis described as Butt's Marsh, and Brewer's Farm—there are no farm buildings upon it—I remember the defendant and Mr. John Buck Toker coming to my office in 1853, upon the subject of these mortgages and other matters—the defendant came about Mr. Toker's mortgages and property—it must have been in the autumn of 1853—the interest at that time had fallen into arrear—Mr. John Buck Toker introduced Mr. Glover to me—there was a general conversation about these mortgages, and the position of his property and so forth—the amount of the encumbrances was mentioned—he knew the exact amount, 9,600l.—I think the purpose of the interview was to speak upon the state of Mr. Toker's affairs, upon his mortgages and the interest being demanded—Mr. Toker wrote to me at last to hand over the deeds to Mr. Glover—I remember Mr. Glover coming to my office three times; twice with Mr. Toker, and I think once alone—I can tell you generally what passed—it was a general conversation about Mr. Toker's mortgages and the encumbrances on his property—I cannot state the particulars of the conversation—Iknow that was the purport, and with regard to the mortgage of 4,000l., Mr. Glover complained that that property had been leased, and Mr. Glover complained that the money had been conveyed to Miss Toker instead of Mr. Toker—I remember particularly that complaint being made—I am certain that the subject of the mortgages upon the Harty property was discussed on those occasions—I am quite certain that the amount was named

—atlast I had a direction from Mr. Toker to deliver the deeds to Mr. Glover—hewrote to me to do so—I told him that I could not do it, as I held them for the mortgagees—I have not got his letter—on the occasions I have referred to, Mr. Glover certainly took an active part in the discussion—Mr. John Buck Toker is not a man very well acquainted with business—he knew it to the extent of there being a mortgage on his property for 9,600l.—I have been for a length of time in receipt of the rents of the Harty Estate; since 1855—Ireceived them in Jan., 1855; they were due at the previous Sept.—they pay six months afterwards, in Jan. and July, but they are due some time before—Mr. Byng was the tenant—he was the tenant, I believe, for many years before I received them—he has remained there, and is described as the tenant in the deed—the amount of interest under those mortgages for 9,600l. at 4 per cent is 384l.—the amount of the half year's rent first received was 194l. for the two properties, Butt's and Brewer's—I cannot tell what Brewer's alone is—the next half year it was 172l. 19s.—there were deductions for the half year received Jan., 1855, it was 194l.—for the half year received in July it was 172l.—there were payments for repairs—the real rental is 216l. half yearly—the actual rent is 432l.—I have given the net amount, 194l. and 172l.—the next year I received about 186l. half yearly—I allude to Butt's and Brewer's—the acreage of Brewer's is about 300, and of Butt's it is about 100.

Cross-examined. Q. This old gentleman did not understand business? A. He is not very old, rather more than sixty—part of the money raised went to pay off old mortgages—the money was raised to join in a speculation in which I was concerned, which speculation commenced about a year before that, I think; a year or two before 1850—it was for making steel—there were patents mixed up with it—there was one place at Manchester and another at Flint—of the Ommanney's there was myself and another one, who was managing it—he had nothing to do with the firm of solicitors; he was a cousin of mine—the patents were bought with the capital of the concern—I cannot exactly say that I recommended this speculation to the old gentleman as a good speculation—I mentioned it to him, and he said he would go into it—I do not consider that the thing was failure, but it stopped at all events about 1854 or 1855—I owe the old gentleman something, not arising from the partnership, but money lent to carry on the partnership with—I am not indebted to him for the partnership accounts, the thing is all at an end—it was managed by a relative of mine, and Mr. Toker himself was down there very often—my cousin managed it, I west down very seldom—Miss Toker'g 2,000l. went into another concern that Mr. Toker was in before I knew him, it was a concern for making pianos—I got him out of that concern—hewas still in that speculation when Mr. Glover called with him at my office—every body thought that the other speculation would be prosperous, down to the last minute—it came to an end principally because Mr. Toker married, and Mrs. Toker interfered—Mr. Glover took some part in it, and the parties would not have anything to do with it—there would have been more money forthcoming, but they would not have anything to do with it—itwas before that, that Mr. Glover came to my office—I keep a day book, in which I make entries of the transactions that I conduct—I went down to the Oaks property many years ago, not since these moneys have been raised—adjoiningthe Oaks is a small piece of land which belongs to Miss Toker, and which is not included in her mortgages, and when I wanted to take Possession, the sheriff's officer told me that she would not go out, and if she did not he must use force—I said, "Do not use force, if you can help it; I

am quite willing that she should remain, if she will give any acknowledgment that she holds as tenant"—she insisted upon being turned out, and she was put into a tent on that land—all the furniture was taken out and put on that land—she afterwards agreed to become tenant, and I was quite unwilling to turn her out—she would not go out, and they were obliged to carry her out—theaction of ejectment was commenced in 1855, and the interest was in arrear—I did not wish to press matters, and I went on till the next year,1856—it got further in arrear, and I obtained judgment, and then I did not press it till 1857, when I saw a notice in the paper, stating that Mr. Glover claimed this property, and that his assignees in Ireland were coming to take possession of it, upon which I thought it was my duty to take possession first—it was after the election that I saw him—it must have been in May—theinstructions about the tent were after the election and after the declaration—Ireceived a notice from Mr. Glover as to the lease for twenty-one years; it was handed to me by Mr. Payne the tenant, signed Edward Auchmuty Glover—I know nothing about the lease or the charge—I saw the lease at the election committee, when I was subpoenaed there as a witness—I think it was produced by Mr. Glover.

MR. WELSBY. Q. Had the interest got into arrears? A. Yes; and then I brought an ejectment—I obtained a judgment in ejectment in 1856—theinterest still kept getting into arrear, and it was not till May, 1857, that I enforced the ejectment, which I did after receiving certain information—I thought it right to enforce my rights on the property—the notice was given to me by Payne—it must have been handed to me I think in Sept. 1856; at that time all the interest was in arrear upon the mortgage—I gave notice to Mr. Payne of the covenant, and a counter notice was given to him by Mr. Glover to pay it to him, but Payne said he would pay it to me—at the time that Mr. Glover gave the notice, the interest was in arrear.

THOMAS BYNG . I am a farmer, resident in the county of Kent. I hold the property in the Isle of Harty, belonging to the Tokers, Miss Toker and Captain Toker—I have held it for thirty years—I have paid rent to Messrs. Ommanney since 1854—I pay 432l. 8s. 4d. per year—that is for Butt's Marshes and Brewer's—I should not wish to give more—it was raised once, and then I gave notioe to leave, and then it was reduced again—it has been at its present rate perhaps twelve years, I do not know exactly—no claim has been made upon me for the rent by Mr. Glover, or Mr. or Miss Toker, since I have paid the rent to Messrs. Ommanney—previously to the first year of my paying it, Mr. Glover came to me for the rent, in 1854—before I paid that first rent, Captain Toker had written to me to pay Mr. Glover, but when Mr. Glover came, I told him that I could not pay him—Mr. Glover mentioned that letter, and he requested me to pay—I said that I could not do it, and I produced the notice that I had received—he said, that he could not take that—since that time, I have not had any further interference from him.

Cross-examined. Q. What are you in-possession of? A. A portion of the salt lands and marshes—I have all that belongs to that estate—I have only a small proportion of the land—the saltings, seven or eight acres perhaps; I do not know the exact measurement, because it goes with three estates—the saltings go with three estates, a portion to each, and the saltings are twenty acres altogether—I hold all the three estates from Miss Toker and Captain Toker—the saltings are of some value, not much—they are flooded with water—we find that the Saltings are better in showery weather, when they get well washed—I pay for the whole holding 800l. a year—there

is another estate besides—I hold under four estates—they belong to Captain and Miss Toker—they are all adjoining together—there is a house—Mr. Glover came to my house where I live—I do not live on the land; I live seven or eight miles off.

MR. WELSBY. Q. What do you pay? A. 800l. a year in all—124l. to Miss Toker—I am tenant of Osewts and Gillon's for 243l. 9s.—the 124l. is for Plain Marsh and White Leas—they are some properties of Miss Toker's—Iheld under Mr. John Buck Toker at a rent of 432l.—I pay the rent to Messrs. Ommanney now for every acre of it; that is Brewer's and Butt's—the captain has nothing to do with any other estates, as far as I know, but his sister's—I do not know the numbers of acres in Brewer's and Butt's—I have not the lease with me that expresses the number of acres.

The declaration made at Beverley by Mr. Glover was here read.

The following witnesses were called for the Defence.

PEARCE POWER . I witnessed the execution of this deed (looking at it)—Iknow the, property called Curragh Clonbro'—I know some property close to it—a divided fourth part was sold last year adjoining it, and held under the same lease—it belonged originally to a member of Mr. Glover's family under the old original lease, and it was divided afterwards—last year the profit rent arising out of it was 27l. a year, and it sold for 1,150l.—that will give you a very good idea of the relative value of Mr. Glover's property—there was the greatest possible competition for it at the time of the sale—my partner in business wished to buy it, and we went through the rental of it very minutely, and examined it, and that is the reason that I know all about it.

Cross-examined by MR. WELSBY. Q. Are you a relative of the Glover family? A. Yes, a cousin of the defendant's—I am a butter merchant in Cork—I cannot exactly tell you the extent of the lands, that is, the number of acres which yielded a rental of 27l. a year, but it was a divided fourth part of the lands; it was a fourth part of the original property divided—I believe the parts were originally the same in extent—it was a divided fourth part—I do not know exactly how it was divided—I do not know whether that which is included in this deed is the same in extent of property, as that having a net rental of 27l. a year; but I know that it is the adjoining property—Mr. Glover's acreage is about four times the extent, I think—I do not know exactly as to the acreage, the rental will tell you—I know about the tenants; it is my business to have a particular knowledge about the farmers—my eldest brother is a Magistrate, and my father was.

THOMAS WELCH re-examined. I produce an assignment from Edward Wrixon to John B. Toker.

COURT. Q. Do you produce this from the Encumbered Estates Office? A. Yes; it came into my custody on 16th Oct., 1857—the flat bears date,13th March, 1854.

MARGARET GRACE TOKER . This is my writing; I saw this executed—(This was a mortgage for 500l., dated 29th Oct., 1855, from John Buck Toker, Esq., to the defendant.)

WILLIAM ELIOT . I saw this deed executed; I attested it—(This was dated 29th April, 1857, and was a rent charge of 355l. per annum for twenty-one years—(I have no recollection of being present when any deed or rent charge deed was produced—I did say upon that occasion what the value of the land was, according to what it went at; I mean the Oaks property; I have a brother-in-law who has land attached to it—I said it was worth 2l. an acre, or over—I have stated that the Oaks estate would be worth 350l. to 360l. a year; in fact I should give it myself—I perfectly know the value of

land in that part of the country—I cannot exactly give the words I did say at the Court, but the Oaks estate is worth 300l. a year—I may have said that the house, stables, woodland, and offices were worth from 350l. to 360l. a year; the house and grounds, that is, the out-offices and the woodland—I have just the same opinion about it now—I understood you at first to mean without the meadow; I include the meadow, with woodland—I include about 28 or 30 acres of meadow in my estimate—I do not hold any farm now, I am out of business; I get my living by industry, and am a freeholder of the county of Kent—I do not do anything in particular, but I amuse myself frequently—Ihave got twelve little cottages, I do not get a great deal for them; I am a lenient landlord; I get, perhaps, 30s. a week—I will not swear that I get that, because they do not all pay their rent, unfortunately; I wish they did—I get 70l. or 75l. a year from them, not on an average, because they are not always occupied; 50l. a year on an average, I mean that—I work in the gardens, sometimes at the Oaks, and sometimes in my own garden—I have gone up to the Oaks as a gardener for these two years past, to amuse myself.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. Do you remember the question put to you, in answer to which you said, 350l. or 360l. a year? A. I was asked what I thought it worth, and what the value of the land was—the question was, "What yearly value would you put on the house and offices and eighty acres of land?"—I believe that was the question I answered by 350l. or 360l., to the best of my recollection—I attested the execution of this deed at the Oaks, at the Mansion House; that was long before I went up to the election committee.

MARGARET GRACE TOKER re-examined. I consulted Mr. Wright, an attorney and parliamentary agent—I told him the state of my property—I first went to him before the Canterbury election, and continued to consult him, from time to time, down to the election for Beverley—I told Mr. Glover, Mrs. Toker, and my brother what Mr. Wright told me—Mr. Wright is dead—what Mr. Wright said, and what I told Mr. Glover was, from the time Mr. Glover was elected to the time he took his seat, that his qualification was as good as any one's in the House of Commons—I told that to Mr. Glover directly after Wright told me.

Cross-examined by MR. WELSBY. Q. This was in the year 1854, was not it? A. Yes—I was not a witness before the House of Commons—I came to London upon that occasion—I came with Mr. Glover—I brought with me that deed.

JOHN AYLETT . I witnessed my hand to a lease, I understood it was—I have no recollection of the date—I believe it was before the Canterbury election.

Cross-examined by MR. WELSBY. Q. What did you witness? A. I recollect signing my name to a certain writing, but I was not aware what it was at the time—I was called in by Miss Toker, I believe it was—I saw her put her name to the deed—I believe it was a lease; that I swear—I was examined on this subject before a committee of the House of Commons, and the lease was handed to me.

Q. I ask you to be careful; were you not asked, "Did you see that deed signed by Miss Toker," and did you not say, "No?" A. I recollect saying, "I have no recollection," and I had no recollection at the time, not being aware what I was called there for.

Q. I will read it to you: "Did you see that deed signed by Miss Toker? No. Did you see her acknowledge it in your presence? Not in my presence. Was Miss Toker present when you put your name to this?

Not to my recollection now. Who was present? Mr. Glover was. Was not Miss Toker there? Mr. Glover was; I have no recollection of Miss Toker being being there."—Did you say that in answer to those questions? A. I did—I was asked by the committee, "When did you put your name to it?" and I answered, "I cannot call to mind the time"—I was then asked if it was Miss Toker's writing, and I said that it was.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. Do you remember saying that Miss Toker was at the Oaks at that time? A. She was at the Oaks; I do not recollect whether I said so—I did not know what I was to prove, when I was called as a witness before the committee—I have no recollection of having seen that deed, from the time I put my name to it till I was before the committee—after my examination was over, I recollected something, but, being called unawares, it escaped my memory, and I recollected that Miss Toker was present—I have no doubt on my mind now that I saw Miss Toker execute the deed.

MARGARET GRACE TOKER re-examined. I remember executing the lease that this man witnessed for me—I executed it in his presence—that was before the Canterbury election.

Cross-examined by MR. WELSBY. Q. Where did you sign it? A. In the dining room at the Oaks—Aylett and Mr. Glover were present—Aylett was the gardener then—I did not see Mr. Glover sign it—I do not remember that he signed it.

(The lease was taken as read.)

ANNA TOKER . My maiden name was De Burgh. I consulted Mr. Wright with respect to Mr. Glover's qualification, and afterwards communicated to Mr. Glover what I heard from Mr. Wright—we consulted him frequently—weconsulted him before the election, and between the election and his taking his seat, before he made the declaration before the House of Commons—he stated that it was a perfect qualification, and that he ought to take his seat—Mr. Wright wrote to tell me, that Mr. Glover's qualification for Beverley had been disputed at the election, in consequence of which I came up from the Oaks to see Mr. Wright in London, but I first wrote to him—I consulted with him on that occasion—I am quite certain that was before Mr. Glover took his seat—I told Mr. Glover what Mr. Wright told me, which was, that his qualification was in order, and that it was a perfectly good qualification, as good as any man's in the House of Commons—he acted afterwards as the parliamentary agent in Mr. Glover's election—I believe the lease for twenty-one years was lost, an the petition to the House of Commons, before the committee; it was at that time in Wright's possession—Wright prepared all those deeds, for the purpose of giving Mr. Glover a qualification, with the exception of Captain Toker's; Mr. George Annesley prepared that—that is in the Harty—I think I know the value of those properties; I consider the Oaks worth 300l. or 360l. a year—before Mr. Glover took his seat, or made the declaration, I had frequently told him that the Oaks was worth 300l. a year—wehad been offered that rent for it that year—we employed Mr. Wright to let the Oaks, and that was the value he put upon it, and we were offered it—we did not take it, because Mr. Francis Ommanney put some difficulty in the way about the mortgages—we wished to pay the mortgages off before we gave up possession—I know the property occupied by Abbott and Fox; that is not comprised in the mortgage at all, or in our lease, it is in the rent charge—ithas paid 60l. a year for some years past—the two proprietors are Abbott and Fox.

Cross-examined by MR. WELSBY. Q. Who is the person who offered you 300l. last year for it? A. His courier; I forget the gentleman's name; he had just come from abroad—he came over and made the offer on behalf of

his master—I believe it was about May; it was beautiful weather—I cannot say whether it was Sept. or Oct.—I think it was in 1854 or 1855; 1855 I should say was more likely—the gentleman was suffering very much from head aches, and he was to have a very retired place, and the courier was going all over England visiting places—we were living there ourselves at that time—Payne was not there then; I think it was before he came—Captain Toker, Miss Toker, and I were living on the property; and Mr. Glover was the ostensible lessee or lessor, whatever it was, but he was not living there—I think he was living in chambers in London at that time, but I do not remember the dates—he occasionally visited us—Mr. Wright resided in Essex Street, Strand—his Christian name was Charles—I could not mention to him what qualification Mr. Glover had, when it was he himself made that qualification; therefore he knew better than I did—all I did was to ask Mr. Wright whether Mr. Glover had a good qualification—before he had this qualification we took the necessary instructions to make it, and he went into the island, and knew our affairs better than we knew them ourselves—I am speaking of between the time the lease was made and Miss Toker's rent charge was made—I did not consult Mr. Wright about Mr. Toker's rent charge; that formed a portion of the qualification—that was not drawn up by Mr. Wright, but by Mr. Annesley, and I know that what he drew up was correct I did not consult Mr. Wright on the occasion of the Canterbury election—I was on good terms with Mr. Wright at the time of his death—since his death, I have complained, both by writing and by word of mouth, of his being one of the instigators of the placing Mr. Glover before the Court, because I understood he had not done his duty as solicitor to his client—since his death, I have complained of his being one of the principal actors in the unjust prosecution before the committee—that was in writing—this (produced) is my signature, but it is not my writing; I cannot tell you whether I read the letter before I signed it—it is my sister-in-law's writing—I will say that I have read it (reading it)—yes, I think I know it by heart—I told you first that I did not know whether I read it before I signed it, because I have not looked at it.

Q. Was this written by your direction: "The three men who were the principal actors in the unjust proceedings before the committee were James Coppock, Charles Wright, and Somerville; the two first have met a fearful fate, as they deserved, and the latter is now dying at a cold water establishment in Ireland, as he deserves," &c.? A. Yes, that is true—that is the same Charles Wright, I believe, of whom I have been speaking; I know it—at the time my marriage settlement was being prepared, before my marriage to Mr. John Toker, I was residing at Stafford House—I do not think that was Mr. Glover's residence also at that time, but perhaps it was; I know he had chambers—he lived there immediately before my marriage to Mr. John Buck Toker—I believe I gave written instructions for this settlement—I do not think Mr. Glover was aware of the nature of these instructions; I think I was more under the influence of my other trustee, Mr. Wm. Downing Bruce—Mr. Glover never saw those instructions while they were in my possession—Mr. Bruce did not live there; his daughter did—I do not know that Mr. Glover sent any papers for the purpose of the preparation of the settlement.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. I see there is a letter addressed to Messrs. Humphreys and Son; are they the attorneys for the prosecution? A. They are—it is in answer to my being subpoenaed to attend as a witness on the part of the prosecution—it was written by my direction—I have attended two days in

pursuance of that subpoena—when Mr. Glover was living there, before my marriage, his sister and her three children were there at the same time, and my sister's husband too.

COURT to GEORGE ANNESLEY. Q. Do you know whether Wm. Downing Bruce is out of the country? A. I believe he is in Scotland.

MR. GIFFARD to MRS. TOKER. Q. Do you know Mr. Brace's writing? A. I think I do—yes, this is it (On the rent charge, as attesting witness).

GUILTY .— Confined Four Months.