[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 13 Mar 1824 - Cumberland Spring Assizes (21)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 13 Mar 1824   (p. 1, col. 5 - p. 4, col. 5, and p. 1, col. 4)

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

 

CROWN CALENDAR. 

 

[continued] 

 

UTTERING FORGED NOTES. 

 

SARAH TODD, 50, wife of Jackson TODD, was arraigned for feloniously uttering at Workington, in this county, a certain forged and
counterfeit promissory note, for the payment of money, purporting to be a one pound note of the Commercial Banking Company of
Scotland, knowing the same to be false, &c. 

 

A bill was also preferred before the Grand Jury against Jackson TODD, her husband, but it was thrown out. 

 

She pleaded Not Guilty. Her appearance was very respectable.—Mr. ALDERSON and Mr. PATTESON conducted the prosecution. 

 

The first count of the indictment charged her with disposing of and putting away the note on the 9th of October; the 3rd, 4th, 5th,
and 6th counts laid the offence in various ways, with the intention of defrauding the Commercial Banking Company of Scotland,
Messrs. WALLACE and THOMPSON, of Workington, &c. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY (who defended the prisoner with much perseverance) moved for a postponement of the trial, on the ground that she had
been committed for uttering a note on the 5th of October, and was now to be tried for another uttering on the 9th. The consequence
was, he said, that she was not prepared for her defence, three witnesses not having been subpœned whose presence was material. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON.—There is no pretence for putting off the trial. She knows very well why she is indicted for uttering on the 9th;
because she destroyed the other note when before the magistrate; so that it is she herself who causes inconvenience, if any is felt.


 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD allowed an interval of an hour or two, and in the mean time proceeded with other business. The prisoner having
been again placed at the bar, Mr. ALDERSON addressed the Jury. They would have to inquire, he observed, first, whether the prisoner
had issued the note as charged in the indictment; and, secondly, they had the more difficult task of ascertaining whether she knew
that it was forged at the time of putting it away. He should adduce his evidence—it was of considerable length, but would, he
doubted not, be very clear when properly before them. 

 

Jonathan MUSGROVE said he was employed by Messrs. WALLACE and THOMPSON (who lately carried on a brewing concern at Workington) to
collect their debts; and on the 9th of October he called upon the prisoner (whose husband keeps a public-house) for money on their
account, and she first said she had none. He told her that she must send some, if only a note. She said she would go and get some,
or try to borrow some; she went towards the door, and in a few minutes returned with a one-pound note (witness did not notice
whether Scotch or English) and said she would give a shilling to make up the guinea. Witness said very well, and requested to have
the cheque-book in order that he might set it down. Prisoner then said she might as well get another note and make it two guineas;
so she went out again, and soon returned with a guinea-note. Witness paid both to Mr. Benj. THOMPSON, after making a few more
ineffectual calls, in that gentleman's office: he was quite sure that he paid over the notes received of TODD, because he had no
others of any kind on his person. He thought he saw Mr. THOMPSON write upon the notes when he paid them to him; and witness
afterwards put his name upon two notes at Mr. THOMPSON's request; but he could not undertake to say that they were the notes
received of TODD. 

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.—Prisoner's husband kept a public house at that time, and the payments were made on his account. She
did not seem anxious to get rid of the notes; she did not pay them until considerably pressed for money; and it was after she had
gone out with the avowed attention of borrowing, that she paid them. Witness merely gave the notes in to Mr. THOMPSON, and that was
all he could say of them. He had often collected money of the prisoner for Messrs. WALLACE and THOMPSON, but never before had
received any bad money of her. 

 

Mr. B. THOMPSON examined.—On the 9th of Oct. he received two notes of MUSGROVE; and on hearing from whom they came, he wrote the
person's name upon them; and he was certain that those now produced were the same. He was before the Magistrate (Mr. CURWEN) on the
9th; MUSGROVE, a person named STEWART, and Mr. RUTHERFORD, manager of a Banking-house at Annan, were present. Witness wrote down
what the prisoner there stated; but he thought it so strong against her, that he discontinued, and advised her not to sign what had
been written. No regular examination was taken. During the course of the declaration, he frequently cautioned the prisoner. 

 

This paper was tendered and objected to: but while an act of Parliament was sent for, Mr. COURTENAY cross-examined Mr. THOMPSON upon
that part of his evidence already given. 

 

Witness was the "Benjamin THOMPSON" whose name was in the indictment, and one of the parties whom the woman was charged with
attempting to defraud;—he was also attorney for the prosecution, employed by the Bank; likewise clerk to the magistrate before whom
the prisoner was examined. The answers in the paper tendered were the substance of the prisoner's replies to the questions put by
witness and Mr. CURWEN. Some of the declarations might have been without questions, for she was very ready; but which of these
witness could not now point out. Before this paper was drawn up, witness had had a communication with an agent of the Bank. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON said he now proposed that the witness should refresh his memory with the paper in order to ascertain the nature of the
questions put. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY submitted that neither the paper nor the declarations were receivable as evidence. He meant nothing invidious; but
here was Mr. THOMPSON, who had had a communication at the time with the prosecutor, and was in fact his attorney, afterwards acting
as clerk to the magistrate, and writes down what he subsequently tendered against the prisoner. More than this, the paper was not
signed by either the prisoner or the magistrate; and it was admitted to contain other matter than her answers. The whole was not
there; and, non constat, what was behind might do away the effect of what was produced. The paper, he contended, could not be made
use of against the prisoner. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON said the real question was, whether he was or was not entitled to put in an examination taken before a magistrate; and
though not of importance to the present prosecution, he was ready to contend that it must be admitted, according to the statute of
Philip and Mary, which had prescribed the mode of taking a prisoner's examination, in other words, a prisoner's declaration. Without
this how could justice be done? If he asked Mr. THOMPSON what the prisoner had said before the magistrate, Mr. COURTENAY would
reply, it is in writing, and you cannot give parole evidence of it; if he put in the paper, it was objected to, because it was not
signed, whereas if the prisoner had mentioned the same facts to a constable, they might have been proved by that person's testimony.


 

Mr. COURTENAY.—His objections, in substance, were these. First, the questions had been put by the attorney for the prosection [sic];
Secondly, by one of the party defrauded; Thirdly, that the answers were not voluntary. Questions had been put, and the declarations
drawn out bit by bit. 

 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.—If the paper were admitted, and it should hereafter turn out to contain any thing improper, the prisoner would
escape. Counsel, therefore, would use their discretion. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON.—Then, my Lord, I shall abstain from putting it in at present. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240729/aefc7da6/attachment.htm>