Stephen Lavender continued. -There are cuts upon the clothes of this figure. There is one cut in the cape of the coat. There is a cut in the waistcoat, about the middle of the left side, about half an inch in width, done, apparently, with a very sharp instrument. There are two cuts in the shirt, where only one appears in the waistcoat. The cut in the waistcoat is horizontal; those in the shirt are perpendicular.

Mr. Denman. That might arise from a fold in the shirt at the time when the blow was given.

Mr. Gurney. In that case the shirt would have been treble, not double; and there would have been three cuts.

Stephen Lavender continued. -There is a considerable stain on the cut part of the shirt; but there is no corresponding stain on the inside of the waistcoat; there is no stain whatever near the cut part of the waistcoat. I have been frequently in the habit of seeing stains made by blood. The stain here upon the shirt is certainly made by a mixture of blood and water. I did not see the shirt, until five or six days after the transaction; my judgment then was as it is now. If the stain had been made by blood flowing from a wound, it would, no doubt, have been of a much deeper colour than it is. There is a cut about the middle of the waistcoat on the right side. About the same point there are in the shirt several very small perforations, not so large as the cut in the waistcoat, but done, apparently, by some fine pointed instrument: there is no stain of blood upon those small perforations.

Cross-examined by Mr. Denman. Mr. Wakely told me, that he had received two threatening letters before the fire; but he did not say that they spoke of his having cut off the heads of Thistlewood and his companions. He said he believed them to have arisen out of some jealousy at his late marriage.

Thomas Harvey.-I am a surgeon, residing at Walworth. I have frequently occasion to see the stains of blood, and of blood and water, upon linen. The spots upon the neckcloth of this figure seem to me to be blood. The stains upon the shirt seem to me to have been made by some material of a lighter colour.

Dr. Stephen Luke. I reside in Argyle-street, and was called to Mr. Wakely two hours after the fire. I found him with two very slight wounds upon his body, one on the breast, and the other on the lower ribs. One of the wounds had bled a little, the other had scarcely bled at all. Both punctures were upon bone, where there was little but skin to cut. A surgeon (Mr. Keates) had been there before me. ought to say, that it is possible, a wound made upon a bone might exude a light-coloured fluid, similar in appearance to that upon the shirt of this figure; but I do not think, that the wounds, which I saw upon Mr. Wakely, could produce so much stain as that which appears upon the shirt.

William Mead.-I am foreman to the Hope Company. I took charge of the ruins of Mr. Wakely's house on the morning of the fire. I was in possession, and a guard fixed, before the fire was out. Watch was kept day

and night.

We found some plate, but no guineas. We found some plated articles, a liquorstand, and part of a soup-ladle. Mr. Gurney. The soup-ladle is charged as silver in the inventory, at the price of 41. 4s., and the liquor-stand as silver, at the price of 51.

Mr. Adolphus. You are not to assume, that these plated articles are the articles which were charged to you as silver.

Paul Galland.-I am a fireman of the Hope Company. In the ruins of Mr. Wakely's house, I found some silver forks and spoons half melted. I searched for money, but found none. I found that lock (the lock of the desk): the bolt was shot; it was locked.

Edward Leet proved that the silver found in the ruins weighed 73 ounces.

Mr. William King.-I am a surgeon and apothecary. In the autumn of 1819, Mr. Wakely applied to me to attend to his business during a journey he was taking to Devonshire. I undertook to attend all cases except midwifery. Mr. Wakely was absent, I think, about 10 days; and I attended one patient, a decent woman, lodging in Avery

row.

Mrs. Field proved that she was the landlady of the house in Mill-street, at which the plaintiff lived before he went to Argylestreet. Mr. Wakely did not take all the furniture away with him; part he left to Mr. Comley. That part was afterwards distrained for the sum of 17.; after the distress was paid, some property still remained.

Cross-examined by Mr. Denman. All the furniture that Mr.

Comley had, was that which had belonged to Mr. Malison and Mr. Wakely. No goods came with Mr. Comley, or went away with Mr. Wakely.

The broker who made the distress upon Comley, proved, that he valued the goods in Comley's possession, at 197.

Margaret Grierson said, that she lived with the plaintiff in Mill-street. Mr. Wakely took nothing from Mill-street, but books and house linen, and some plate. Witness lived with Mr. Wakely about a fortnight in Argyle-street: whether any thing came after that time from Millstreet, she could not say.

Mrs. Field, called back, said that Comley did not take possession in Mill-street until April. Mr. Wakely left about Christmas.

James Lahee was appraiser at the transfer in Mill-street from Mr. Malison to Mr. Wakely. The whole of the furniture was valued at 46l. 12s., including some articles of plate. Witness knew of the distress afterwards upon Mr. Comley; very few of the articles which witness had valued between Mr. Wakely and Mr. Malison were then remaining: the greater part of them had been removed.

Mr. Denman then called rebutting evidence.

Mr. Parker saw the hands of Mr. Wakely after the fire: they were cut, as if by glass. The engines had begun to play before witness first saw plaintiff in the house of Mr. Thomson. Witness could account for the small punctures in the shirt:-a lancet lay upon the bed with the shirt; shirt was in folds, and the lancet lay upon it. Witness sat upon the shirt and the lancet several

the

the known respectability of Mr. Crewe, those bills were readily discounted. After some time, Mr. Berks carried bills to the plaintiffs', drawn by himself upon persons in London; and those bills were also discounted, the Stafford bank taking the precaution of withholding payment until their acceptance in town was ascertained. To wait, however, the transit of post between Stafford and London, was inconvenient; and Mr. Berks said, "I suppose if Mr. Crewe would endorse these bills for me, you would pay them at once?" The plaintiffs assented; and between the years, 1818 and 1820, notes to the amount of near 40,000l. drawn by Berks, chiefly upon a Mr. W. C. Wright of London, and endorsed by Mr. Crewe, were discounted, and, with two exceptions, duly paid. In those two cases (which were two bills for 500l. each) notice of dishonour was sent to Mr. Crewe, and the acceptances (through the medium of Berks) were at once taken up no answer, however, was given by Mr. Crewe to the letters of advice, nor, as it seemed, had that gentleman ever appeared personally in any of the transactions. Between September and December, 1820, bills to the amount of more than ten thousand pounds, bearing Mr. Crewe's endorsement, were discounted at various dates for Mr. Berks. In the beginning of January of the present year, Mr. Berks fled to America; and Mr. Crewe, being applied to as endorser, declared that he had never had any bill transactions with Berks that the endorsements purporting to be his, were forgeries-and that Berks had been

carrying on a similar traffic (using his, Mr. Crewe's name) with Messrs. Sparrow,, bankers, of Newcastle, and with Messrs. Sprout and Co., bankers, at Nantwich. Now, such an allegation, the solicitor-general said, coming from a man of Mr. Crewe's fortune, character, and profession, could not but carry considerable weight with it to the minds of the jury. At the same time it was impossible (from circumstances), that that statement should be founded in truth. Assertions made by that gentleman in the course of the inquiry, would be shown to be at variance with fact; and witnesses most familiar with his hand-writing, would declare their conviction, that the endorsements were written by him. The bills, upon which the plaintiffs were prepared to proceed, were nineteen in number; and the gross amount was something under 9,000l. As to some of the notes, however, formal proof was wanting, and it was agreed to proceed upon those as to which evidence was ready, leav ing it to be determined out of court (in case of a verdict for the plaintiffs for what sums the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Evidence of rather an intricate nature was then given at considerable length. The most material points were these:-Witnesses swore to declarations on the part of Mr. Crewe, when first applied to as the endorser of the bills in question (declarations as to the course of his money transactions with Berks), which stood in opposition to proved facts. It also appeared that, after Mr. Crewe (according to his own account) knew that Berks had forged upon him in

all quarters, he neglected to take measures for his apprehension. Several witnesses, accustomed to see Mr. Crewe's hand-writing, and among others the clerk of Messrs. Drummond and Co. his bankers, fully believed that the endorsements proceeded upon were genuine. Upon cross-examination, however, one of those witnesses, an inspector of warrants of attorney and such instruments, said, that he believed the endorsements upon the nineteen bills (by whomsoever they might have been written) to have been all written with the same pen, with the same ink, and at the same time. It appeared also, from the witnesses who spoke to the declarations of the defendant, when applied to, after the flight of Berks, that those declarations formed part of a very long and much interrupted conversation.

Mr. Scarlett, for the defendant, described Mr. Crewe as his (the learned counsel's) personal ac quaintance, and an aged gentleman of property and respectability. He denied that any money dealings had existed between the defendant and Berks, except that Berks supplied Mr. Crewe with malt for his use, being paid for the same in bills, which bills, no doubt, were those first carried by Berks to Messrs. Birch and Co. Upon those declarations of Mr. Crewe in conversation, spoken to by two of the witnesses, Mr. Scarlett contended, that those persons must have been mistaken, and complained, that they had visited the defendant for the purpose of drawing him into unwary admissions. Mr. Crewe, who was a man averse to business and of indolent habits, had certainly abstained from exerting

himself to get Berks apprehended as soon as he became acquainted with the fraud which had been practised; but that omission could not render him liable upon bills to which he was no party. The evidence on the part of the plaintiffs as to the hand-writing was far from satisfactory (one witness, indeed, almost proved the defendant's case); but he (Mr. Scarlett) should give such evidence to rebut the claim as would leave no doubt upon the mind of the jury.

Mr. Holt Davison and sir John Chetwode, both long acquainted with Mr. Crewe, examined the endorsements in question, and did not believe them (although there certainly was a strong resemblance) to be in the hand-writing of that gentleman.

Mr. J. Crewe (the defendant's son) declared, that he had never heard of any money transactions between his father and Mr. Berks, except the payment for malt received. The defendant wrote a wretched hand, seldom or never wrote his name twice alike; never had a decent pen in his house, and the ink in use was generally unserviceable. The endorsements in question were neatly written, with great sameness of character through the whole series. Witness decidedly believed that they were not in the hand-writing of his father.

The Rev. L. D. Coburn was clearly of opinion, that the endorsements were not those of the defendant.

Mr. Barnet, an attorney, who had acted as collector for Mr. C. Wright (upon whom the majority of the bills in question were drawn), produced bills to the amount of 10,000l. which had

been drawn upon Wright by Berks, between May and December, 1820; all those bills bore the endorsement purporting to be that of Mr. Crewe. [They were probably those which had been discounted by Berks at Nantwich and Newcastle.]

The Lord Chief Justice summed up the case, and left the whole, upon the evidence, to the jury. The jury, after a few minutes consideration, found a verdict for the defendant.

CORNWALL ASSIZES.

Doe, on Demise of Sherwood, alias Symons, and others, v. Parker and others.

A more extraordinary case than this has seldom occurred. In the year 1763 the head of a respectable family in the county of Cornwall, of the name of Symons, whose residence was at Hatt-court, near Calington, made his will, leaving his estates to his eldest son William, with remainder to his second son Nicholas-remainder to his two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary Anne (the two defendants in possession), with remainder over to the right heirs of the testator. The testator died in 1766, when his son William succeeded him. The second son, Nicholas, was about that time articled to Mr. Charles Rashleigh, a most respectable attorney residing at St. Austle, and had, during his clerkship, conducted himself with such propriety, that, at the expiration of it, arrangements were forming for a partnership between him and his master. Nicholas Symons, however, had unfortunately become attached to young woman of St. Austle, of

a

no very good fame, and had intended to marry her; but this being violently opposed by his family, as well as by Mr. Rashleigh, he was induced to promise that he would not so commit himself. In the latter end of the year 1782, Nicholas Symons went to London to be admitted an attorney of the Court of King's-bench, and a solicitor of the Court of Chancery. He was there received with every attention by Mr. Rashleigh's brother, and corresponded from time to time with Mr. Rashleigh himself. The following was the last of the ceived from him. letters which Mr. Rashleigh re

66

Dec., 1782. "Dear Sir,-Your favour of the 19th ult. I received in due time, for which I return you my most sincere thanks. The contents I perused with very great attention, and was, as you may suppose, amazingly hurt on finding that the matter you alluded to was not settled; and, my dear Sir, what is still worse, and what you will be astonished to hear, is, that I cannot by any means compose myself or get rid of that love or passion, as you may please to term it, I professed for the object, notwithstanding the interval of time, the distance I am removed from her, and the advice of my friends and relations. The latter are in possession of all the facts, and their astonishment and displeasure they have expressed to me. My situation I cannot expect you or any of my friends to pity. I have been my own enemy, and have brought all my misery on myself, and my conduct I am sensible every person must condemn. My reflections are almost too great to bear, and