dence as to motive, however, although a circumstance important for the consideration of a jury, was not to be deemed conclusive of a cause; for it did sometimes happen that men committed the blackest crimes from motives known only to themselves, and which could never be fathomed by those whose duty it was to consider of their conduct. The plaintiff in the present case, in furnishing his particular to the insurance office, had estimated his loss at 1,600/., although he could only recover 1,200. from the company. The jury had heard the evidence as to the property in Mr. Wakely's possession, and they would consider how far, upon that evidence, his statement of his claim was likely to be a just one; and estimating the value of the furniture claimed for, they would remember that the greater part of it had been purchased from an outgoing moment of great trouble and confusion. Upon the non-appearance of Mr. Keates, his lordship would make but one remark:-it was certain that the plaintiff could have called him; it was probable that the defendant could have done so. He (the lord chief-justice) wished that Mr. Keates had been called; because the plaintiff, by his own account, must have received a very violent blow upon the head. Now, no witness had spoken to any hurt, having been apparent upon the head of the plaintiff. The case, however, was altogether a case for the consideration of the jury; and, to their decision his lordship, in conclusion, with perfect confidence, committed it. The jury, after retiring for about a quarter of an hour, found for the plaintiff-Damages 1,200. JULY 30. Offley Crewe. This was an action by Messrs. Birch, Moore, and Co. bankers, of Staffordshire, against the defendant, a clergyman, residing in the same county, as the endorser of sundry bills of exchange. The defence was, that the endorsements were forgeries, and not in the hand-writing of Mr. Crewe. tenant, and had therefore been Birch and Others v. the Reverend obtained probably at a reasonable rate. His lordship then detailed the whole of the evidence to the jury, and commented upon those parts of it, which appeared to him most important. The evidence of Beforth as to the undrawing of the street-door bolt was most material; and that of Bliss, as to his having found the door of the back parlour fast, was still more so; because the fastening of the back parlour-door was incompatible with the tale, already extraordinary, told by Mr. Wakely. It was possible, however, that Bliss might have mismanaged the lock of the back parlour-door in his hurry; and it was to be remembered that both the witnesses spoke to facts taking place at a The case, as opened much in detail by the solicitor-general, was substantially this:-A Mr. William Berks, a cheese factor and maltster, near Stafford, began, in the year 1816, to do business with the plaintiffs. He began by bringing them bills drawn in his favour by the defendant, Mr. Offley Crewe, upon Drummond and Co. of London; and, from the known respectability of Mr. Crewe, those bills were readily discounted. After some time, Mr. Berks carried bills to the plaintiffs', drawn by himself upon persons in London; and those bills were also discounted, the Stafford bank taking the precaution of withholding payment until their acceptance in town was ascertained. To wait, however, the transit of post between Stafford and London, was inconvenient; and Mr. Berks said, "I suppose if Mr. Crewe would endorse these bills for me, you would pay them at once?" The plaintiffs assented; and between the years, 1818 and 1820, notes to the amount of near 40,000l. drawn by Berks, chiefly upon a Mr. W. C. Wright of London, and endorsed by Mr. Crewe, were discounted, and, with two exceptions, duly paid. In those two cases (which were two bills for 500. each) notice of dishonour was sent to Mr. Crewe, and the acceptances (through the medium of Berks) were at once taken up: no answer, however, was given by Mr. Crewe to the letters of advice, nor, as it seemed, had that gentleman ever appeared personally in any of the transactions. Between September and December, 1820, bills to the amount of more than ten thousand pounds, bearing Mr. Crewe's endorsement, were discounted at various dates for Mr. Berks. In the beginning of January of the present year, Mr. Berks filed to America; and Mr. Crewe, being applied to as endorser, declared that he had never had any bill transactions with Berks that the endorsements purporting to be his, were forgeries-and that Berks had been carrying on a similar traffic (using his, Mr. Crewe's name) with Messrs. Sparrow, bankers, of Newcastle, and with Messrs. Sprout and Co., bankers, at Nantwich. Now, such an allegation, the solicitor-general said, coming from a man of Mr. Crewe's fortune, character, and profession, could not but carry considerable weight with it to the minds of the jury. At the same time it was impossible (from circumstances), that that statement should be founded in truth. Assertions made by that gentleman in the course of the inquiry, would be shown to be at variance with fact; and witnesses most familiar with his hand-writing, would declare their conviction, that the endorsements were written by him. The bills, upon which the plaintiffs were prepared to proceed, were nineteen in number; and the gross amount was something under 9,000l. As to some of the notes, however, formal proof was wanting, and it was agreed to proceed upon those as to which evidence was ready, leav ing it to be determined out of court (in case of a verdict for the plaintiffs for what sums the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Evidence of rather an intricate nature was then given at considerable length. The most material points were these:-Witnesses swore to declarations on the part of Mr. Crewe, when first applied to as the endorser of the bills in question (declarations as to the course of his money transactions with Berks), which stood in opposition to proved facts. It also appeared that, after Mr. Crewe (according to his own account) knew that Berks had forged upon him in all quarters, he neglected to take measures for his apprehension. Several witnesses, accustomed to see Mr. Crewe's hand-writing, and among others the clerk of Messrs. Drummond and Co. his bankers, fully believed that the endorsements proceeded upon were genuine. Upon cross-examination, however, one of those witnesses, an inspector of warrants of attorney and such instruments, said, that he believed the endorsements upon the nineteen bills (by whomsoever they might have been written) to have been all written with the same pen, with the same ink, and at the same time. It appeared also, from the witnesses who spoke to the declarations of the defendant, when applied to, after the flight of Berks, that those declarations formed part of a very long and much interrupted conversation. Mr. Scarlett, for the defendant, described Mr. Crewe as his (the learned counsel's) personal acquaintance, and an aged gentleman of property and respectability. He denied that any money dealings had existed between the defendant and Berks, except that Berks supplied Mr. Crewe with malt for his use, being paid for the same in bills, which bills, no doubt, were those first carried by Berks to Messrs. Birch and Co. Upon those declarations of Mr. Crewe in conversation, spoken to by two of the witnesses, Mr. Scarlett contended, that those persons must have been mistaken, and complained, that they had visited the defendant for the purpose of drawing him into unwary admissions. Mr. Crewe, who was a man averse to business and of indolent habits, had certainly abstained from exerting himself to get Berks apprehended as soon as he became acquainted with the fraud which had been practised; but that omission could not render him liable upon bills to which he was no party. The evidence on the part of the plaintiffs as to the hand-writing was far from satisfactory (one witness, indeed, almost proved the defendant's case); but he (Mr. Scarlett) should give such evidence to rebut the claim as would leave no doubt upon the mind of the jury. Mr. Holt Davisón and sir John Chetwode, both long acquainted with Mr. Crewe, examined the endorsements in question, and did not believe them (although there certainly was a strong resemblance) to be in the hand-writing of that gentleman. Mr. J. Crewe (the defendant's son) declared, that he had never heard of any money transactions between his father and Mr. Berks, except the payment for malt received. The defendant wrote a wretched hand, seldom or never wrote his name twice alike; never had a decent pen in his house, and the ink in use was generally unserviceable. The endorsements in question were neatly written, with great sameness of character through the whole series. Wit. ness decidedly believed that they were not in the hand-writing of his father. The Rev. L. D. Coburn was clearly of opinion, that the endorsements were not those of the defendant. Mr. Barnet, an attorney, who had acted as collector for Mr. C. Wright (upon whom the majority of the bills in question were drawn), produced bills to the amount of 10,000l. which had CORNWALL ASSIZES. Doe, on Demise of Sherwood, alias Symons, and others, v. Parker and others. A more extraordinary case than this has seldom occurred. In the year 1763 the head of a respectable family in the county of Cornwall, of the name of Symons, whose residence was at Hatt-court, near Calington, made his will, leaving his estates to his eldest son William, with remainder to his second son Nicholas-remainder to his two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary Anne (the two defendants in possession), with remainder over to the right heirs of the testator. The testator died in 1766, when his son William succeeded him. The second son, Nicholas, was about that time articled to Mr. Charles Rashleigh, a most respectable attorney residing at St. Austle, and had, during his clerkship, conducted himself with such propriety, that, at the expiration of it, arrangements were forming for a partnership between him and his master. Nicholas Symons, however, had unfortunately become attached to a young woman of St. Austle, of no very good fame, and had intended to marry her; but this being violently opposed by his family, as well as by Mr. Rashleigh, he was induced to promise that he would not so commit himself. In the latter end of the year 1782, Nicholas Symons went to London to be admitted an attorney of the Court of King's-bench, and a solicitor of the Court of Chancery. He was there received with every attention by Mr. Rashleigh's brother, and corresponded from time to time with Mr. Rashleigh himself. The following was the last of the letters which Mr. Rashleigh received from him. "Dec., 1782. "Dear Sir,-Your favour of the 19th ult. I received in due time, for which I return you my most sincere thanks. The contents I perused with very great attention, and was, as you may suppose, amazingly hurt on finding that the matter you alluded to was not settled; and, my dear Sir, what is still worse, and what you will be astonished to hear, is, that I cannot by any means compose myself or get rid of that love or passion, as you may please to term it, I professed for the object, notwithstanding the interval of time, the distance I am removed from her, and the advice of my friends and relations. The latter are in possession of all the facts, and their astonishment and displeasure they have expressed to me. My situation I cannot expect you or any of my friends to pity. I have been my own enemy, and have brought all my misery on myself, and my conduct I am sensible every person must condemn. My reflections are almost too great to bear, and grieve me beyond expression, when I compare my present situation with that of three months since. Then I anticipated the greatest pleasure, and had nothing in view but happiness: now I have nothing but misery, having already forfeited the little respect my acquaintance had for me, made the world entertain the meanest opinion of me, and gained the displeasure of my friends and relations, all which, I am satisfied from the hints I have received, I have incurred. From these assertions you will probably suppose that I mean to break the promises I made you before I quitted St. Austle; but you may rest assured that I will not, and all I have to hope for is, that satisfaction may be made to the party injured; if that is done, it will, in a great degree, make my mind more easy, though I am convinced I shall never experience happiness more; but out of respect and gratitude to my relations, I am in duty bound to fulfil my promise, whatever may be the event. Now, my dear Sir, believe me when I assert, that I am one of the most miserable beings; what to do, where to go (for I am determined to quit town in a day or two), or what will become of me, I know not. To return to St. Austle, or even to Cornwall, again, I am much afraid I never shall have resolution to do; and after what passed, I don't think myself worthy, nor will it be possible for me, to embrace the offer made by you, and to form that most desirable and honourable connexion which I flattered myself would have made me happy; indeed, every person from this declaration, will certainly think me insane, not to VOL. LXIII. forget all that has passed, and to pursue the path pointed out to me, but sorry am I to say, that I cannot prevail on myself so to do, and that I should make such an ungrateful return for the many favours conferred upon me and the very great friendship I have ever experienced from you, which, with the many other obligations I am under to you, I shall never forget, but always retain with a due sense of esteem. All I have to add at present is, desiring you and Mrs. Rashleigh to accept my sincere thanks for the many favours so undeservedly conferred on me, and my good wishes and sincere regard to you and your's, and to be remembered to all that think it worth their while to inquire after me. In a week or 10 days you may expect to hear what has become of, dear Sir, your much obliged and very humble servant. "NICHOLAS SYMONS." From the receipt of this letter, Nicholas Symons was never heard of more; and it was supposed that he had been his own destroyer. In the early part of the year 1783, a stranger appeared m Liverpool calling himself Nathaniel Sherwood, who purchased a chariot and horses, and established the first public conveyance in that city. Sherwood suëceeded so well by his attention and civility, that he enlarged his concern, and set up a diligence from Liverpool to the duke of Bridgewater's Canal, near Warrington, and was getting rapidly forward in life, when he was unfortunately drowned in the ferryboat from Liverpool to Runcorngap in the month of July, 1802. He had married a servant of the inn, where his diligence put 2 G |