Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

court, because it was the universal opinion of the bar that that decision was contrary to law. In the case of Revett and Braham, the point was, whether the hand-writing was feigned or real; and this was to be determined by persons from public offices, who acted as inspectors. In the trial before Baron Hotham, the inspectors from the Post office were asked whether the hand-writing of the defendant Cator was a feigned hand : so far it agreed with the case of Revett and Braham ; but it went further, and having proved the opinion that the band-writing was feign, ed, they proceeded to ask whether it had been feigned by the person who wrote the libel, and this was to be done by shewing the defendant's writing, and then com, paring it with the libel; this was refused; but so far as whether the hand was a feigned hand, Baron Hotham, in the case of Jackson and Cator, supported the doctrine in Revett and Braham. The question, however, then was, whether, as the Committee has hitherto proceeded, these witnesses should be allowed to be called, and whether the Committee shall receive any further assistance towards proving the hand-writing. The Committee had already exceeded the strict rules of legal justice, and were then only asked to admit the evidence of persons who have been accustomed to examine, and 10 say whether certain hand, writing, submitted to their inspection, he feigned or real, and whether they will not be better able to judge, from persons of such experience, than by their own only; on ihat ground, he should apprehend the Committee would come to a decision.

The question was then put, and the witness was allowed to be called in without a division.

THOMAS METCALFE, M. D. was called in, and examined by

the Committee, as follows:
Yon are a Physician? I am.
Are
you

Mrs. Clarke's medical attendant? I am.
Have you seen Mrs. Clarke in the course of this day? Yes.

Is her state of health such as to prevent her attending to give evi, dence to-day? I thinki totally so.

Can you form any opinion when Mrs. Clarke's health will permit her to attend? I should think in the course of two days.

[The witness was directed to withdraw. [It was inoved and seconded, that the evidence to hand,

writing about to be produced, be not received ; which being put, passed in the negative, without a division.]

Mr. SAMUEL JOHNSON was called in, and examined by the Com

mittee, as follows: What are you? Inspector of Franks at the general Post-office.

How long have you been in that situation? I have been in the office about thirteen years, or rather more; in that situation about six years ; I think it was in 1802 I was appointed to the franks.

In that situation, is it your particular duty to look at hand-writing, and observe its different variation? It is our duty to perccive that no franks pass either from the House of Peers or the House of Commons, but franks by the Peers or the members themselves.

In the course of that duty, it is necessary for you to be very particular in your examination of hand-writing? As much so as our tirne will permit.

[The two letters and the note being shewn to the witness.] You have seen these papers before, in the room of the llouse of Commons I have.

The paper to which particularly I wish to direct your attention is the small paper ; -in your opinion, is that smaller paper the same handwriting as the larger papers? It resembles it so nearly, that I should think it was.

la point of fact have you occasionally, from inspection only, detected false or feigned signatures? Yes.

[The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. ROBERT SEARLES was called in and examined by the Com

mittee, as follows: What are you? A deputy inspector of franks. How long have you been in that situation ? About eighteen months.

[The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] You have seen these papers before? I have.

Look at them, and tell me whether you think they are all the same hand-writing? I think they are.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr THOMAS NESBITT was called in, and examined by the Com

mittee, follows: What is your employinent ? I am in the service of the Bank.

In what departinent of the Bank are you? Principal of the letter of attorney office.

In that office are you in the habit of examining Itand-writings, that are suspected to be forgeries? Yes, constantly so.

How long have you been in that employment? Between thirty and forty years, in the daily habit.

Are you in the habit of examining writings that you so suspect, by comparing them with other writings, acknowledged to be the hand of the same party? Certainly.

In making such comparison, what is your usual habit of doing it ? A signature to a letter of attorney for sale is left at the Bank for me to examine, and if to any other letter of attorney the proprietor has

court, because it was the universal opinion of the bar that that decision was contrary to law. In the case of Revett and Braham, the point was, whether the hand-writing was feigned or real; and this was to be determined by persons from public offices, who acted as inspectors. In ihe trial before Baron Hotham, the inspectors from the Post oflice were asked whether the hand-writing of the defendant Cator was a feigned hand : so far it agreed with the case of Revett and Braham ; but it went further, and having proved the opinion that the band-writing was feign, ed, they proceeded to ask whether it had been feigned by the person who wrote the libel, and this was to be done by shewing the defendant's writing, and then com, paring it with the libel ; this was refused; but so far as whether the band was a feigned hand, Baron Hotham, in the case of Jackson and Cator, supported the doctrine in Revett and Braham. The question, however, then was, whether, as the Committee has hitherto proceeded, these witnesses should be allowed to be called, and whether the Committee shall receive any further assistance towards provin' the hand-writing. The Committee had already exceeded the strict rules of legal justice, and were then only asked to admit the evidence of persons who have been accustomed to examine, and 10 say whether certain hand, writing, submitted to their inspection, be frigned or real, and whether they will not be better able to judge, from persons of such experience, than by their own only; on ihat ground, he should apprehend thc Committee would come to a decision.

The question was then put, and the witness was allowed to be called in without a division.

you

THOMAS METCALFE, M. D. was called in, and examined by

the Committee, as follows:
You are a Physician ? I am.
Are

Mrs. Clarke's medical attendant? I am.
Have you seen Mrs. Clarke in the course of this day? Yes.

Is her state of health such as to prevent her attending to give evidence to-day? I think totally so.

Can you form any opinion when Mrs. Clarke's health will permit her to attend ? I should think in the course of two days.

[The witness was directed to withdraw. [It was inoved and seconded, that the evidence to hand,

writing about to be produced, be not received; which being put, passed in the negative, without a division.]

Mr. SAMUEL JOHNSON was called in, and examined by the Com

mittee, as follows: What are you? Inspector of Franks at the general Post-office.

How long have you been in that situation? I have been in the office about thirteen years, or rather more; in that situation about six years; I think it was in 1802 I was appointed to the franks.

In that situation, is it your particular duty to look at hand-writing, and observe its different variation? It is our duty to perceive that 110 franks pass either from the House of Peers or the House of Commons, but franks by the Peers or the members themselves.

In the course of that duty, it is necessary for you to be very particular in vour examination of band-writing? As much so as our tine will permit.

[The two letters and the note being shewn to the witness. ] You have seen these papers before, in the room of the House of Commons? I have.

The paper to which particularly I wish to direct your attention is the small paper; in your opinion, is that smaller paper the same handwriting as the larger papers? It resembles it so nearly, that I should think it was.

la point of fact have you occasionally, from inspection only, detected false or feigned signatures? Yes.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. ROBERT SEARLES was called in and examined by the Com

mittee, as follows: What are you? A deputy inspector of franks. How long have you been in that situation ? About eighteen months.

[The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] You have seen these papers before? I have.

Look at them, and tell me whether you think they are all the same hand-writing? I think they are.

[The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr THOMAS NESBITT was called in, and examined by the Com

mittee, as follows: What is your employınent? I am in the service of the Bank.

In what department of the Bank are you ? Principal of the letter of attorney oflice.

In that office are you in the habit of examining Itand-writings, that are suspected to be forgeries? Yes, constantly so.

How long have you been in that employment? Between thirty and forty years, in the daily habit.

Are you in the habit of examining writings that you so suspect, by comparing them with other writings, acknowledged to be the hand of the same party? Certainly.

In making such comparison, what is your usual habit of doing it? A signature to a letter of attorney for sale is left at the Bank for me to examine, and if to any other letter of attorney the proprietor has put his name, or has accepted the stock, this letter of attorney in question would be examined by those signatures.

In so doing, are you in the habit of observing the turn of the different hands in writing the names, to see whether the party writing turned his hand the same way? Certainly:

[The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] Have you seen these papers before? I have.

Is there any difference in the turn of the hand between the note and letters ?

[The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Bathurst, and another honourable member objected to the question, as tending to cause the witness to give an opinion not precisely his own.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the propriety of putting such a question. It was not intended to cause the witness to give an opinion not his own; but it was perfectly proper to suggest what his honourable friend (Mr. Brand) had suggested to the witness, in order to assist him in forming a proper judgment.

After a few words from Mr. Elliston, Mr. Beresford spoke to obviate the objections made to the question.

Mr. Wilberforce did not think the objections well answered. If persons were summoned before the Com. mittee, who from their habits and professions were thonght competent to judge of the hand-writing of his Royal Highness, why were their thoughts to be interrupted ? They have already formed their judgment of the Duke of York's band; or why were they brought forward ? Why were persons selected so competent to decide, if they were to receive instructions herc? In his opinion it was proper to let them give their own opinions, by any such questions, uninstructed.

The question was given up.

[The witness was again called in.] State whether you think these several papers were all written by the same person, looking both at the directions and the inside of the Itters? I have looked very attentively at the note particularly, and compared it with these two letters, and after a great deal of attention and care in looking at almost every letter in the note, I am of opinion that it was not written by the same hand.

On what circumstances in that note do you ground your opinion? Because I perceive a neatness through almost every letter of the note, which is not, I think, to be found in the letters; and the whole of the writing in the note appears to me to be of a smaller character than the letters in general are; I think I perceive a stiliness in several of the letters in the note, which I do not perceive in the two letters dated Sundgate and Weyinonth,

« PreviousContinue »