Guildford, Tuesday, Aug. ...
? ma was an action for slander, concerning the plaintiff, in his character of an attorney of the Court of King's Bench, importing that he had forged a wll for the defendant's father, and had thereby defrauded the defendant of property. The defendant pleaded the gen eral issue? " not guilty.' The followng wittnesses were c.alled in support of the plaintiff's Mllr. Abbott, ar attorney of New-inn, proved the admission of the plaintiff as an attorney of the King's Bench. George Price produced a will of the late Mr. Holloway, from Dostors'-Commons. Alr. .John Leach proved that he knew the plaintiff and his late partner, Dlr. Streeter, whonow resided in America, and was aC- qtrainted with the hand-writing of both. The hand-writings, as witnesses to the wrill now produced, of the 12th of October, 1808, were those of the plaintiff and his partner. Mr. D. Sharpe, formeri artic'cd clerk to the plaintiff, proved the signature of the testator to the will in qUestion. AlIr. John Cox, formerly clerk to the p;aintiff, proved that the will now prodticed was prepared by witness in the plaintiff's offilce. He produced the original draught. Witness received his instructions fron the plaintiff. Defendant's father was a client of the plaintiff's. Has seen draughts of other wills in the plaintiff's office, of prior dates to the one now produced. The wvill vwas then put in and read. The testator described himn. self as yeomam, and appointed John Wootls and John Baxter his executors upon certain truits therein mentioned. He divicled all his property amnong all his children, share and share alike. fie hiad two sons and two daughters. The Rev. W. H. (ole, vicar and surrogate of the parish in which the testator died, proved that in June, 1816, the executors produced the will to him with a view to probate. In August of last year, the defendant came to witness and requesied him to procure a copy of his father's willfor him, from Doctors'_CommoWs. Witness, in pur- suance of this request, wrote tJ .Mlr. Moore, of Doctors'-Cemmons from whom he received an answer. Defendant afterwards called upon him. Witness stated that 3Ir. Moore had replied that he could senda copy of the will, which had been proved before witness, but ef- shou d walt for further instructions, thinking there was some mistake. The defendant said he did not want a copy of that vwll, but of another, which he supposed to exist. The de- fendant said that Mllr. WVoocts, the plaintiff, had defrauded him (or used words to that effect), by preventing the right will fiom. being sworn to. Four or five years previously, in 1817, the de- fendant called upon him (a yfew months after the executors had appeared before witness, and had sworn to the will), and complained of 'he executors. On the 21st of F:bruary last, witness met the defendant and the plaintiff by appointment, at the house of AMr. Piggott, in Guildford; on that occasion the conversation began by the plaintiff mentioning the libellous reports which had been circu- lated by the defendant. He said to the defendant " I understand that you have reported that I was Instrumental in forgin;r a will, and that I have thereby defrauded you," or words to that effect. He immediately renuested him to make an apology, or he mutst other- wise vindicate his character bv law, bht he was willing to for- give him, and take no farther notice of the slander, if the defendant would make a proper apology. The defendant said " What I have said, 1 Will stand to." He afterwards raid " There were two wills made by my father, and the wrong will las beenswornto." Hetthensaidthattheplaintifandtheexecutors had kept back the right one, and that they bad defrauded him. Wit- ness remonstrated with the defendant very strongly, and renuesgtd him more than once to mnake an apology to the plaintiff, pointin, outi the consequences if he diti npt, but lie refused to do so. He refused as if he was obstinate In his determination. Cross examined.-The defendant seemed on all occasions when witness saw him to be under a strong delusion that there wag an- ather will. From Lis pertinacity upon this subject the defendant ap- ;eared always. in witness's opinion, to be of wea mind. The de- cendant never stated 4ny ground for the assertion he had made re- specting his fathier's will, exeept that hi father had told him that he mig t expect more money. The defendant is a jobbing tatlor in a small way. Mir. Thomas Piggott, an auctioneer of Guildford, deposed that on the 7th of February last, he law the defendant near the Court- house, in the town, about eleven or twelve a clock. It was a market day. Witness was going to speak to the plaintiff wlho was then on the other side of the street. After speaking to the plaintiff on his own business, the plaintiff said, " Do you know who that little fel. low is on the other side of the way ?" poinating to the defendant. Witness saidl, " Yes; it is John Holloway." The plaintiff tllen said, " I wish you would walk across the road witl me, to hint, for he is always abusing me whenever we come together." Witness went across with the plaintiff, and the latter said so the defeid- ant, "John, yoa are continually abusing me whenever I pass up and down the town; I wish you would explain wyhat vou mean to Mr. Piggott." They then adjourned to the Red Lion Inn, in onler to discuss the matter. Witness said to the defenlant, " Now, John, what have'you to say reSpecting Alr. NVoods ?" The tdefendant said, " M1r. Woods has made two wills for my father; the last will for 1816 my father never signed, and he has defrauded rc out of my property." The plaintiff then requested witness that he might have the use of his house for that day fortnight, the 21st, for the pxrpose of going into this business again, in order that Mr. Cole and Mr. Baxter might be present. The language above.men. tione(d was repeated more than twice. Thle defendant addressed both' plaintiff and witness at different times. Witness understood the will of 1816 to mean the last will proved. On the 21st of Febru- ary, the plaintiff; defendant, Mlr. Cole, and Alr. Baxter met at witness's house pursuant to appointment. The plaintiffthen said to the defendant, " Now these gentlenea are met, explain yourself what you mean by abasing nie ir the town whenever yoa meet nie." The defendant then addressed hiinself to the plaintiff, and said, " Why, you have made two wills for my father, asd the will for 1816 my father never signed, and you have defrauded me out of my property." WVitness renmonsttrated with him, and the defendant got very warm. Witness said to him, " John, you have received rour legaicv, and you have signed a legacy stamp."} He denied it. The legaey receipt was shown to him with his own signature; and vitness said, "I s that your handwriting2 Hollowayv ?" e said it was. After that, the plaintiffproposed togivothe detendant that after- noon to come forward and apologize for the abuse, and said if lie did so, lie should think no more of it. The defentdant took his hat in his ha?nd, and going out of doors, saitl, " HeHwould rot in gaol first." The expressions above-mentioned were u5sed twice_.once to witness, and again to the plaintifF. ('ress.examined.The defendant is sensible enough. Witness has said, since the aSRizeS commenced, that he should not be sur- prised to hear that the defendant was found in the bottomi of the river. The defendant is a tailor, and has a little property. Does not know where he is now. AIr. Keene, keeper of the House of Correction at (Guildford, taid he has frequently heard the defendant say, " Air. Woodsn made a forged will of my father's, and has robbed me of my property." Ifas hcarI hin say this many times, within the last four or fivc years. Cross.examined.-Witness has represented the defendant to be a weak and obstinate man. Neyer heard the plaintiff say that the de- fendant was a madman. dir. John Sturt son-in-law of the testator, p roved that heattend- ed the funeral of tie latter, at which the defeindant was present. The will was read that (lay in the presence of the defendant and then he said he thought it was not his father's will. Witness as?eed him why he th,ought so. He replied, that he thought it wax not his father's will, because the seal of the envelope, in which the will ivas, was broken. The defendant hai said lie thought he should have had 5001. The property was divided, shiare and share alike, amongst the testator's children. Before the case for the plaintiff was closed, Alr. Baron GRAtAw suggested, tiat cpossibly the plaintiff would, under all the circuta- stances, be satishetd with an apology. d1r. .'ergeant TADDY said, on behalf'of his client, that he was quite willing to make a public atonement for the injury done to the plaintiffs's character, lie (Mr. Sergeant Taddy) being quite satis- fied th2t there was not dhe slightest pretence for the imputation cast upon the plaintiff. ilr. G ultxpy (counsel for the plaintiff) said hedoubted the sin- cerity of the defendant's contrition, because abundantopportunity had been afforded him, without avail, of retractati,'o. The apology of his learned triend, the Sergeant, would be insufficient, unless it was made manifest in the result of the defendant's own sense of his mis- conduct. It was stated that the defendant was not in the town, and that no access coulti then be had to him. Mr. Sergeant TADDY, on behalf of defendant, submitted to them, that the discustsion which this case had undergone raust have fully answered the purpose for which the actior was brought-namelv the cornplete vindication of Mr. Woods' character. Itideed, the ac- tion was unneccssary for that purpose, because no man who knew that gentleman could have tlioaght the worse of him from any thirg that could be said by the defendant. Heavy damages against this infaiiuted (defendant could avail the plaintiff nothing, and would have the effect of casting the defendant into a 1aol for life. Mllr. Baron GRtAHAM told the Jury, that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to their verdict, because it was quite obvious that the de- fedant had been actuated by the most malignant motives towards a gentleman of respectability and character. The circuinstances of the defendant ought certainly to be taken'intoconsideration in estimating the damiiages, lest a verdict to an intemperate amount might have the effect of punishing himn beyond the scope of justice. The Jury, after deliberating a few minutes, found their verdict for the plaintiff-Darnages, 101. WEDNESDAY, AUGUtST 25. Befiore Mr. J)sSiec BunRtolsGH. MNIr. Justice BURRtouOX having cleared the eaoh, sat this rmorn- ing to dispose of the foUlowing case in aid of Mr. Baron Graham. THE KlttG V. TitOseAS StJoHES. This was an indictment against the asfendarst for vilful and cor- rupt perjury, assigned upon evidence given by him in support ef an intictnient tried at thie Al ichelmas Sarrey Smssions, 1822, chargingr two respectable tradesmen of Epsom nasmed James Chandler and Timothy Barnard) with stealing a turret-clock iell, two leaden weights, and otlher naterials, the property of the defendant. it appeared that the defendant ha(i been an auctioneer at Chelten- ham, and in the moonth of Julv, 1822, was in possession ofahouse t Epson', which was undergoing repairs, and had for sale a consi- derable quantity of old building materials. The defendant had been indebted to Mr. Chandlerand Ar. Barnard, respectively, for somne articles which they had sold him in the way of their trade. The property which they were charged with having stolen formed part of the building materials alluded to. AttheSurreysursiner assius in that year, the defendanthad indicted these individuals for the robbery, blt thee randuiry ignored the bill. At the Kingston sessions fihow- ing,_e preferred the indictment above mentioned,upon which Mt;essrs larnar(d and Chandler were tried and acquitted before the case for the defence was closed. On that occasion the defendant, dir. Hfbughes, was examined as a witness, and, on his cros-examination by 51r. Adolphus, denied, among other matters, that he had ever sai(l to any body, after the bill was thrown out at the Guildford As- size, " that if Barnard and Chandler were in any way troahle- some, he would bring on the case again in Mlarch following, if it cost hiim 5001., and that they had better he quiet." He also said that a watehman named Sugar had informed him of the robbery the next morning after it took place, and that Chand- ler arid Barnard had gone together about two o'clock on the lthl of July into the stable, and that he (the defendant) went into a loft, where he could see them, both, and heard one of them say, '" There Is that d-ld Su9gar with Hughes, telling or splitting u on us," or words to that effect. Upon these statements the perjury was now assigned. It was alleged that the defendant had in the first place falsely denied the expression of malice im- puted to him; and in the second, that the statement last men- tioned was false from beginning to end. Several witnesses were ex- amined in support of the indictment. It was positiyely swom by ir. Barnard, and bY two persons named Scott and Jeffry, that the defendant, after the Grand Jury had Ignored the bill at the Guildford Summer Assizes, 1822, had stated "''liat if Barnard and Chandler were in any way troublesome, he would bring on the cause again next March, if it cost bim 500I., and that they had better be' quiet." AiLr. Chandler and Mr. Bar- nard swore solemnly that they were never together on the defendunt's I premises on the 11th of July, as sworn to by him, and conse. quently that the defendant's assertion in that respect was utterly false. Evidence was also given to show, that although Chandler had been on the premises at 8 o'clock in the moiningi yet that after that hour he was far away from the premisei, and had never been near them the rest of the day. Air. BRaODE,ticx addressed the jury at considerable length, and the ground of defence taken was, that although, in point of fact, it turned out that there was no just ground for charglng: Chandler and Barnard wirb the robbery, yet the defendant, in giving the evi- dence which le did, was not actuated by malicious motives, but stated, from the information of others, that which was the founda- tion of his belief in the guilt of these persons. 'rhe Jury deliberated for some time. and found the defendant Oaiilty. The judgment will be reserved for the consideration of the Court above. GUILDFORD. TUESDAY. ATTrc. 24.. IVOODS, GENT.. V. 7rnT.T.rA ,Vr