Carlisle Patriot, 11 Mar 1826 - Cumberland Lent Assizes (16)

[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.

 

[continued]

 

SECOND CHARGE.

 

MOOR was then tried on the second indictment, for uttering a forged indorsement to a bill for £200, with intent to defraud Mr. Archibals SCOTT. A second count charged the intent to defraud John LAWSON.

 

Mr. COURTENAY again addressed the Jury.—This was an indictment for uttering a bill of exchange with a forged indorsement. Mr. SCOTT was agent to the Leith Bank, and had an establishment in Carlisle. The prisoner presented a bill for £200, and obtained bank notes for it to that amount. When asked whose name was on the back of the bill, he said it was that of his brother-in-law, John LAWSON, of Kirkbampton.

 

Wm. ARMSTRONG examined.—I am in the employment of Mr. Archibald SCOTT, who is agent for the Leith Bank, at Langholm. On the 16th May, 1825, I gave £200 in Leith bank notes, for the bill produced, to Wm. MOOR, the prisoner. I asked him who "LAWSON," the indorser, was, (for the bill was drawn up and indorsed), and prisoner said he was his brother-in-law, and lived at Kirkbampton.

 

Cross examined by Mr. ALDERSON, for the prisoner.—I gave the notes for the Bank, on the part of Mr. A. SCOTT, who is agent for the Leith Bank at Langholm, but he has a bank in Carlisle on his own account.

 

Joseph POTTS, Mr. CARRICK's clerk, was called to prove the forgery of the indorsement. He knew LAWSON of Kirkbampton well, and could undertake to say that that person's name on the back of the bill was not in his handwriting.

 

George ARMSTRONG, another of Mr. CARRICK's clerks called.—The body of the bill was written by me. I filled it up, at our bank, at the prisoner's request, for £200, and the indorsement, "John LAWSON," was then on the back. I know the handwriting of the late Mr. LAWSON of Kirkbampton well: his name on this bill was not written by him.

 

By Mr. ALDERSON.—I saw the signature "John LAWSON" at the time I filled the bill up. Mr. CARRICK would not give him notes for it, on account of having had so many bills of MOOR's come back. The prisoner mentioned the indorsement to Mr. CARRICK, at the time, as an inducement to Mr. CARRICK to discount the bill. I am aware that Mr. MOOR was taken up about this, but I know nothing of his being let go, nor of the reason for it.

 

John LAWSON, son of the alleged indorser, sworn.—I have sometimes seen my late father write. I have seen a difference in his writing—and I don't know that I can swear positively to it. The indorsement on this bill appears like it—and yet it does not. I can't swear positively.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—I ask you if you believe that indorsement to have been written by your father: I don't ask you to swear positively.

 

Witness—(after a long pause, and much perplexity of manner)—I believe it is not. The hand that I have seen him write at home is like it, too.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—Will you swear that it is not your father's handwriting?

 

Witness.—I will not.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. ALDERSON, he said—I have seen my father write on paper for MOOR. Since his death, I have paid Mr. CARRICK, out of my father's estate, the sum of £1200 on his account.

 

The bill was put in—dated "Carlisle, May 16, 1825," drawn on a house in London, in favour of MOOR, and indorsed "John LAWSON," the word "Kirkbampton" under the indorsement.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—That's my case.

 

The Prisoner.—My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury,—I wish to observe that I never had any occasion to forge my brother-in-law's name; for he never refused me his name, to any amount, in his life.

 

Mr. ALDERSON then called the following witnesses in favour of MOOR.

 

Mr. BLOW, attorney, Carlisle, said he was a creditor of the late John LAWSON, had seen him write, and had a bond with his signature. On comparing the indorsement on the bill with the signature to the bond, he was led to believe that the former was LAWSON's handwriting.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.—I am not enabled to speak from a knowledge of the character of LAWSON's writing; only from comparison.

 

John CHRISTOPHERSON.—On the 5th of Nov. last, I was employed by Mr. SCOTT to apprehend MOOR upon this same charge, and I took him to the Bank, and thence to Mr. MOUNSEY's office. I know not what passed there; he was let go where he pleased. I am not a regular constable, but have been sworn a special constable. I don't know why I was selected to perform this particular duty.

 

By Mr. COURTENAY.—I had a warrant.

 

Mr. G. G. MOUNSEY, solicitor.—I was at our office when the prisoner was discharged on saying that he would at any time attend and answer to any charge that might be preferred against him.

 

Mr. W. N. HODGSON, solicitor, called, but did not appear.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—How came the prisoner here? I merely ask.

 

Mr. ALDERSON.—Oh, he was waiting, my Lord, to pay his respects to your Lordship on arrival! (He was in gaol.)

 

The Judge went over the evidence, and explained its bearing to the Jury. The charge against the prisoner was—forgery, and uttering the bill, aware of that forgery. There were several peculiar features in the case. It was not a usual course of proceeding for a man to go with a forged name to persons whom he was aware were fully acquainted with the hand-writing of the individual made free with. This was not like the conduct of a man who contemplates a capital felony. He requests Mr. CARRICK's clerk to fill up the bill, and even asks Mr. CARRICK himself to cash it after the clerk had filled it up. The Jury must be perfectly satisfied that the writing was not that of John LAWSON before they could justly find him guilty. The evidence to that point, however, was of a doubtful character; they had heard what LAWSON's own son had said—the writing was not like his father's, and yet it was; he would not swear that it was not, nor could he swear that it was. In a case so highly penal, they ought to be perfectly satisfied, aware of the consequences which generally follow a verdict of guilty. And there were circumstances which tended to show that the prosecutors themselves did not consider this a case of capital felony. His Lordship had never before heard of a person labouring under such a charge being so liberated as the prisoner was liberated after his apprehension in November; for he was not now in custody at their instance, but on another account: the inference therefore was, that they were satisfied at that time, at any rate. It was for the Jury to say if they deemed this a case so free from doubt as to warrant them in finding a verdict of guilty.

 

The Jury, in less than two minutes, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

 

 

[to be continued]

 

 

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

I promise – I only sent this once!!!

 

Petra