Carlisle Patriot, 11 Mar 1826 - Cumberland Lent Assizes (18)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 11 Mar 1826   (p. 2, col. 6 - p. 3, col. 6; and p. 4, col. 1-3)

 

CUMBERLAND LENT ASSIZES, 1926.

 

FORGERY—EMBEZZLEMENT—PERJURY.

 

THIRD CHARGE.

 

[continued]

 

Mr. Richard CAMPION.—I reside in London. In June last, I wrote a letter to the prisoner, and I expect there was an inclosure in it.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—What do you mean by "expect?"

 

Witness.—I wrote a letter, gave a bill to my clerk to enter it into the ledger, with orders that the letter should be copied by another clerk, in the usual way, and the letter and bill be sent off by the post. I dare say this was done—I have every reason to think so. I have no recollection of this particular bill, further than such is my usual course.

 

Very much pressed upon this important point—Mr. CAMPION answered repeatedly to the effect, that he could not, from recollection, speak as to this particular bill, though he had no doubt, from his books, of its having been sent.

 

Judge.—Are your clerks here?

 

Mr. CAMPION.—No my lord.

 

Witness then produced a couple of letters which he said had come to him by post, as if from the prisoner, to whose hand-writing he could not speak, having had no personal acquaintance with him.

 

Mr. RELPH was re-called to prove the hand-writing. His answer was that he could not say the letters produced were in the hand-writing of the prisoner. He had seen MOOR write.

 

GLASSON re-examined for the same purpose.—He had seen MOOR write, but could not swear positively to these letters. They were something like, that's all he could say. (Much pressed.) It is very like it. (Still more.) I believe it has some resemblance—but can't swear positively!

 

Judge.—You are not asked to swear positively—but as to your belief. If you had received that letter, would you have acted on it?

 

Witness.—I cannot say, indeed.

 

Mr. CAMPION continued.—The letter I hold in my hand is dated "Houghton, 9th July, 1825" and the Post-mark (Mr. C. lives in the Borough) is the 13th of that month. I expect I had sent a bill of £100, and one of £80, before the 9th of July.

 

Mr. ALDERSON objected to this sort of evidence. His learned friends were raising a new case.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—This is a prosecution for a felony, and ought to be conducted with more liberality.

 

Joseph POTTS re-called, said he believed the letters in question to be the hand-writing of the prisoner. He had often seen him write.

 

Two letters were put in and read:—

 

Addressed to Mr. Richard CAMPION, London.

                                                                                           "Houghton, June 30, 1825.

"Dear Sir—In reply, I have received your last two letters, and their contents. I am, your's, WM. MOOR."

 

The second letter was also addressed to Mr. CAMPION.

                                                                                            "Houghton, 9th July, 1825.

"Dear Sir,—When you send your account, do not mention the last two bills, as Mr. John LAWSON and Mr. David CARRICK know nothing of the transaction, and I do not wish them to know any thing about it. I hope you will oblige me with this. Only send the balance of account; that will do.—I am, dear Sir, your's, WM. MOOR."     (Post-mark, July 13.)

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—The prisoner is charged in the indictment with embezzling two bills of exchange. One of the remittances is a bank post-bill.

 

In answer to a question from the Judge, Mr. CAMPION said he had no recollection of a hundred pound bill. His books led him to infer that they were sent, but they were in London.

 

Mr. COURTENAY submitted that a bank post-bill was a bill of exchange.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—This is not a sufficient description, in this case, although a post-bill may be so held in point of law.

 

Jos. POTTS was again called to prove the hand-writing of the indorsement on the bank post-bill paid to Messrs. HEAD.

 

The bill was put in and read. It was drawn in favour of Wm. MOOR, at the usual date.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—What evidence is there in this case to show that the prisoner had dealings with Mr. CAMPION before the Bankrutcy [sic]? There is nothing from Mr. CAMPION to shew that; and the whole basis of the case fails. And I am much disposed to think that a bank post-bill is not a bill of exchange.

 

Mr. ALDERSON quoted a case, wherein the Court of King's bench refused to recognize a bank post-bill at all by name, not being sent out.

 

His Lordship then told the Jury that the evidence did not make out a case of embezzlement, neither was the property said to have been embezzled properly described in the indictment.

 

Verdict: NOT GUILTY.

 

FOURTH CHARGE.

 

The prisoner was next arraigned for perjury before the commissioners of his bankruptcy, in swearing that he had not received any money from Mr. CAMPION: but as the same difficulties lay in the way of this case as obstructed the preceding one, Mr. COURTENAY said he should not offer the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

 

Mr. MOOR triumphed!—We cannot wish him joy of his victory.

 

 

[to be continued]