Page images
PDF
EPUB

and night. We found some plate, but no guineas. We found some plated articles, a liquorstand, and part of a soup-ladle.

Mr. Gurney.-The soup-ladle is charged as silver in the inventory, at the price of 41. 4s., and the liquor-stand as silver, at the price of 5l.

Mr. Adolphus.-You are not to assume, that these plated articles are the articles which were charged to you as silver.

Paul Galland.-I am a fireman of the Hope Company. In the ruins of Mr. Wakely's house, I found some silver forks and spoons half melted. I searched for money, but found none. I found that lock (the lock of the desk): the bolt was shot; it was locked.

Edward Leet proved that the silver found in the ruins weighed 73 ounces.

Mr. William King. I am a surgeon and apothecary. In the autumn of 1819, Mr. Wakely applied to me to attend to his business during a journey he was taking to Devonshire. I undertook to attend all cases except midwifery. Mr. Wakely was absent, I think, about 10 days; and I attended one patient, a decent woman, lodging in Avery

row.

Mrs. Field proved that she was the landlady of the house in Mill-street, at which the plaintiff lived before he went to Argyle street. Mr. Wakely did not take all the furniture away with him; part he left to Mr. Comley. That part was afterwards distrained for the sum of 17.; after the distress was paid, some property still remained.

Cross-examined by Mr. Den man. All the furniture that Mr.

Comley had, was that which had belonged to Mr. Malison and Mr. Wakely. No goods came with Mr. Comley, or went away with Mr. Wakely.

The broker who made the distress upon Comley, proved, that he valued the goods in Comley's possession, at 197.

Margaret Grierson said, that she lived with the plaintiff in Mill-street. Mr. Wakely took nothing from Mill-street, but books and house linen, and some plate. Witness lived with Mr. Wakely about a fortnight in Argyle-street: whether any thing came after that time from Millstreet, she could not say.

Mrs. Field, called back, said that Comley did not take possession in Mill-street until April. Mr. Wakely left about Christmas.

James Lahee was appraiser at the transfer in Mill-street from Mr. Malison to Mr. Wakely. The whole of the furniture was valued at 467. 12s., including some articles of plate. Witness knew of the distress afterwards upon Mr. Comley; very few of the articles which witness had valued between Mr. Wakely and Mr. Malison were then remaining: the greater part of them had been removed.

Mr. Denman then called rebutting evidence.

Mr. Parker saw the hands of Mr. Wakely after the fire: they were cut, as if by glass. The engines had begun to play before witness first saw plaintiff in the house of Mr. Thomson. Witness could account for the small punctures in the shirt:-a lancet lay upon the bed with the shirt; the shirt was in folds, and the lancet lay upon it. Witness sat upon the shirt and the lancet several

times, and he thought that the pressure had occasioned the cuts. Cross-examined by Mr. Marryat. The surgeon, Mr. Keates, who attended Mr. Wakely at the house of witness, was now in court.

Mr. Marryat spoke to evidence. No one had seen the cut hands but the witness, Mr. Parker; and the surgeon who first at tended the plaintiff, and who, of course, must be within his know ledge, was now in court; but the plaintiff's counsel did not think fit to call him.

Mr. Denman commenced his reply by observing, that he, on his part, had proved all that he had opened; but the case opened for the defendants had not been made out in evidence. The plated articles, inserted in the inventory under the head of silver, had been so inserted by mistake; and the error would be found corrected in the bills of parcels, by which that inventory had been accompanied. The vouchers sent in had been as full, as under the circumstances could reasonably be expected; and property be yond the amount (1,200.) claimed, was shown by the evidence to have been in the possession of Mr. Wakely. The charge of fraudulent claim, then, being fully got rid of, he would come to the heavier part of the accusation against his client-to that part which affected not only his character, but his life. To suppose that Mr. Wakely had set his own house on fire, was to suppose him contemplating, without any possible motive, the double crime of arson and of murder :-of murder, certainly because, independent of injury to accrue to his neighbours, he must coolly have re

solved to burn his own servants to death. The learned counsel then proceeded, at great length, to comment upon the defendant's evidence; and, alluding to the testimony of Beforth, as to the drawing of the bolt before the street door was opened, he said that the jury must suppose Mr. Wakely a fool, as well as a knave, if they credited the statement of the watchman. If the plaintiff was making up a story, he would, of course, take care to unbolt the street-door; because the probability was, that the door would be broken open by persons from without; and the fact of its being found bolted, would, of itself, amount to a refutation of the tale upon which he was proposing to rely. Mr. Denman concluded by observing, that it was competent to Mr. Marryat himself to call Mr. Keates, if he wished to examine him.

The Lord Chief Justice told the jury, that the plaintiff's claim was resisted upon two grounds:-first, that by making a fraudulent claim, in point of amount, he had forfeited all benefit from his policy; and, second, that the fire at his house had not been accidental, but contrived and raised by his own wilful misconduct. If it could be made out that the property in the plaintiff's house fell very short, not of the sum alleged in this case to have been lost, but of the sum insured, then there would seem to be some motive which might induce a dishonest man to set his house on fire; but, supposing that fact to be negatived, there did not appear to have been any motive which could lead Mr. Wakely to commit the crime imputed to him.

The absence of all evi

dence as to motive, however, al though 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 1,2001. 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 1,2001.

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, aiready 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 500l. 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 fled 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, leaving 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 Davison 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. Witness 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

« PreviousContinue »