To The Editor Of The Time...
IADVERTISEMENT.1 bIr,-were I to pass unnoticcd the letter of one Andrew Van Sandau, inserted in your journal of Monday last, the public mnight be induced to believe what he bas asserted with regard to me* but when I state the real facts (which I defy hin to contradict), I shall leave it to your candour to determine whether he bas been so hartd. ly dealt by as be wishes to rmake his friends believe, for the pablic have notlhing to do with it except for the sake of novelty. Nr. Van Sannau may writhe under the strictures passed on his professional conduct by the judge, or smart under the finding of the jury, but that does not justify the liberty he has taken with my name, as he mnay in time discover. Mr. Van Sandau is well aware,. that at the time I expressed my opinion as to Lr. Watson's tesponsibility, I had in my possession a document showing he had a fieehold estate in Kent, let to a respectable tenant at 1501. a-year, which I alowed bim and his clerk to inspect; therefbre I den; that it was any false representation on my part, as to .MIr. WVatson s mesas of honotiring an acceytance to the amount of 85L, and which denial I consider proved by its due payment. I, however, selemnlv declare, that I had no knowledge or suspicion of the ouilawry to which Alr. Van Sandau refers, until he (Van Sandau) informed me of it himself, some three months after the bill had been in his possession. As to the pretended forgery (which I assert that it was not), I certainly in- formed Ar. Van San(lau that I had learned from Mr. W'Yatson that the acceptance Was his, instead of particularizing that it was Alrs. Watsn. hlad given me the information that the bill was correct- that it had been accepted for professional business done-and would be paid whendue, which was the case, as is before stated. I also deny that I ever expressed to Var Sandau, or to any otber individual, as asserted by Van Sandau, that I suspected the kill to bea forgery. Jlis renewed application three months after the bill had beea in his possession, certainly caused me to make inquiry in the proper clannel, the result of which satisfied me that his fears for his 801. were groundless. What can be his motives for introdudng my name (being wholly unconnected with th'e trial) with his "clerkh" and *' witnesses," I know not, unless it be to help a bad cause: if he had a good one, I should suppose he had brains enough (being an attor. ney) to establish it; but I have no knowledge of, nor feel any in- terest in, any part of his narrative, save that which regards myself; and after the preceding explanation, which I am prepared to prove I have only to observe that, notwithstanding he so " boldlv asserts," [really tbink this professional ornament ought not to h troubled you nor himself about ine, and possibly it would have been better for him that he had not; lest the opinion of another jury should, in the regular course ofproceeding, form a more impartial coamerAary, on his conduct than ne is entitled to from mc. 1 am. Sir- var elp. dient servant. FREDERIC DORE. 19, Berkeley-squase, June 3, 1824. TO THE EDITOR OF TR,' TIMES. CON'DLCT OF AN' ATTO1LNEY.-ROSR V. VAV q--T