314. JOHN HIGGINSON proceedingsdefend was indicted, for that he on the 10th day of March last, being a person employed in the General Post Office, received a certain letter, then containing three several bank notes, that is to say, one bank note, No. K. < no role > 245, London, 8th November, 1782, signed and subscribed John Greenway < no role > , for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, by which said bank note, the said John Greenway < no role > promised to pay to Mr. Allen Cooper < no role > , or bearer, on demand, the sum of twenty pounds, and which said bank note is in the words and figures following, that is to say,

"No. K. < no role > 245, I

"promise to pay to Mr. Allen Cooper < no role > , or

"bearer on demand, the sum of 20 l. London,

"28th November, 1782, for the

"Governor and Company of the Bank of

" England, J. < no role > Greenway, entered William Rawlins < no role > ." On the other bank note, No. 1152, London, 6th March, 1782, signed and subscribed John Greenway < no role > , for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, by which said last mentioned bank note, the said John Greenway < no role > , for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, promised to pay Thomas Wilson < no role > or bearer on demand the sum of twenty pounds, and which said last mentioned bank note is in the words and figures following, that is to say,

"No. 1152.

"I

"promise to pay to Thomas Wilson < no role > , or

"bearer, on demand, the sum of 20 l.

"London, 6th of March, 1782, for the

"Governor and Company of the Bank of

" England, J. < no role > Greenway." And one other bank note marked, No. K. < no role > 210, 8th of March, 1783, signed and subscribed John Boult < no role > , for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, by which said last mentioned bank note, the said John Boult < no role > for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, promised to pay to Mr. Joseph Jones < no role > and Company, or bearer, on demand, the sum of ten pounds, and which said last mentioned bank note, is in the words and figures following, that is to say,

"No. K. < no role > 210, I promise to pay to Mr. Joseph Jones < no role > and Co. or bearer, on demand, the sum of 10 l. London, 8th March, 1783, for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, J. Boult: which said several bank notes of 20 l. 20 l. and 10 l. were brought to the General Post Office in London, from one Claude Scott < no role > , and John Willis < no role > , to be conveyed to Wangford, near Southwould, in Sussex, and there to be delivered to Samuel Crispe < no role > , and Seth Crispe < no role > , corn-merchants and partners, and which said letter, upon the said 10th day of March last, at the said General Post Office, done to the hands and possession of the said John Higginson < no role > , as being such person so employed as aforesaid, and that he on the said 10th day of March, being such person so employed as aforesaid, and then and there having such letter containing the said bank notes in his hands and possession as aforesaid, feloniously did secret the said letter then and there containing the said bank notes, then and there the property of the said Claude Scott proceedingsvictim , and John Willis proceedingsvictim ; and the said three several sums of 20 l. 20 l. and 10 l. secured by the said bank notes respectively, then remaining due and unsatisfied .

A second count in the like manner, only charging the property of the notes to be in the persons to whom they were sent.

A third count in the like manner, only instead of charging that the bank notes were contained in a letter, charging that they were contained in a certain packet, and laying the property in the bank notes, to be in the said Claude Scott < no role > and John Willis < no role > .

A fourth count in the like manner, only laying the property to be in Samuel Crispe < no role > , and Seth Crispe < no role > , the persons to whom they were sent.

A fifth count charging that the said letter and bank notes, so coming to the possession of the said John Higginson < no role > , he feloniously did steal, and take out of the said last mentioned letter, the said bank notes so contained in the said letter, the property of the said Claude Scott < no role > , and John Willis < no role > , and so due and unsatisfied, against the form of the statute.

A sixth count in like manner as the fifth, only charging the property to be in Samuel Crispe < no role > , and Seth Crispe < no role > , the persons to whom they were sent.

A seventh count in like manner, only instead of charging that the bank notes were contained in a letter, charging that they were contained in a certain packet, and that the said packet containing the said bank notes coming to the hands of the said John Higginson < no role > , he did steal the bank notes out of them, and laying the said bank notes to be the property of the said Claude Scott < no role > and John Willis < no role > .

An eighth count in like manner as the seventh, only laying them to be the property of Samuel Crispe < no role > and Seth Crispe < no role > , the persons to whom they were sent.

The late Mr. Howarth opened the case as follows: Gentlemen of the Jury, I am council in this prosecution against the prisoner at the bar, John Higginson < no role > , he is charged in the indictment with having secreted and embezzled a letter, and another charge for having stolen bank notes, thereout: this offence is made a capital offence, by an Act of parliament, passed the 7th of the last King's reign, and by that act it is enacted,

"that if any person employed in

"the general Post Office, shall either secrete

"or embezzle any letter sent there for carriage,

"or steal, or take out of any letter,

"any bank note, bill, or other description,

"such person being convicted

"thereof, shall suffer death, as a capital

"felon," upon that Act of parliament, this present indictment is founded.

Sir Robert Taylor < no role > . The prisoner begs a chair, he is so every ill and trembling.

Court. By all means.

The evidence which will be produced in order to enable you to form your judgment on this indictment, will be as follows: on Monday the 10th of March last, a Mr. William Martin < no role > , who is clerk to Mr. Scott and Willis, received instructions from them, to remit down by the post a sum of money, to a correspondent of theirs, at Wangford, in Suffolk; in pursuance of that instruction, in the evening of that day he inclosed in a letter directed to Mr. Crispe at Wangford, bank notes to a very considerable amount, to the amount of 100 l. that letter was sealed up and put into the Post Office that evening; but that letter never went agreeable to his directions; a complaint was made of this at the Post Office, and there were some circumstances in the conduct of the prisoner and in his appearance, which induced suspicions to fall upon him; he had been appointed only a few months before, in October preceeding he had been appointed one of the sorters, in the inland department of the Post-office; these suspicions induced the gentlemen of the Post-office to order an enquiry to be made respecting him, and a peace officer to go immediately and search his lodgings and apprehend him; on the 7th of April, in the evening, the solicitor of the Post-office accompanied by two peace officers went to the lodging of the prisoner, they found him at home, and after some questions put to him by Mr. Parkin, Mr. Parkin desired him to give him the key of his bureau, in the room where he lodged, which he complied with, and he together with Mr. Parkin and the peace officer went up to his lodgings, and on searching his bureau which they opened with this key, three bank notes were found, two of 20 l. and one of 10 l. It may be material for you to attend to the description of them, the bank notes that were put into the letter by Mr. Martin, clerk to Mr. Scott and Willis, were No. K. < no role > 245, payable to Mr. Allen Cooper < no role > , for 20 l. dated the 28th of November, 1782, another was No. 1152, for 20 l. dated the 6th of March, 1783, payable to Mr. Thomas < no role > the satisfaction of the Jury by legal evidence, so in statute law; murder and robbery are crimes at common law: Secreting of notes, or stealing them out of letters, is that offence by the statute law, that is to be proved before the Jury by legal evidence.

Prisoner's Council. I have a very respectable authority Mr. Justice Foster.

Court. Then you should state that authority, I cannot argue it by piecemeals, I cannot go on letting you reply upon me.

Prisoner's Council. It would be presumption in me, my Lord, to say any thing more on the subject, if you do not think the objection forcible.

Court. I see nothing in the objection.

Prisoner's Council. I give it up, I can say no more.

Court to Prisoner. Do you wish to say any thing to the Jury, or to leave it in the hands of your Council to examine your witnesses.

[The Prisoner continued in a constant state of trepidation, and crying during the whole of his tryal.]

Mr. Akerman. The prisoner says, he submits every thing to his Council and the Court.

- WATSON sworn.

I believe you have known the prisoner at the bar many years? - I have known him three years last January.

Was not he apprentice to you? - He was for five years.

How long did he stay with you? - Two years, and from January, to the month of May, or till the beginning of June, he did not stay his whole term.

What was the cause of his leaving you?

Court. You need not go into that, there is no charge against him for leaving his master.

Did you ever intrust him? - I intrusted him with sums of money and goods to a great amount, to the amount of two hundred, or three hundred pounds: I never had any reason in the world to repent of the confidence I placed in him, he was an honest dutiful person as ever came into any man's house, and he is the last man I should have supposed to have seen at the bar.

- EATON sworn.

I live in Little Tower-street, I am master of the academy, he was placed at my academy by a very respectable gentleman of Warwickshire, in the middle of June last, he continued under my care till the October following, he behaved with the greatest rectitude imaginable, nor had I the least reason to suspect his veracity or his honesty.

Prisoner's Council to Mr. Shann. In he course of time you have seen him in his business at the Post-office, how has he behaved? - Very well, he has been about five months, I have no reason to blame his conduct.

- AUSTIN sworn.

I am a sorter in the Post-office.

You are of course well acquainted with the prisoner at the bar? - Since he has been in the office there was nothing in his conduct that could lead me to any suspicion of his integrity.

- EVANS sworn.

I belong to the Post-office, I am in the inland office, I have known the prisoner at the bar ever since he has been in the Post-office, his behaviour has been very good, he behaved with great propriety.

Jury. Was you on duty that evening? - No.

Jury. The letters are stamped, f aced, and sorted, and then they come to the roads, and they had all these hands to pass through before they came to the prisoner's hands; therefore his are the last hands.

Court. No, by no means, they are to be put into the boxes and bags.

- HIRD sworn.

I am in the inland office, I have known the prisoner ever since he has been in the Post-office, his conduct during that time has been very good; I never had any reason to suspect him.

- ADDISON sworn.

I am a sorter in the inland office, I have known the prisoner ever since he has been in the office, I never saw any behaviour but what was very good, I never had any reason to suspect him at all.

When the box is full to the slit, is there a possibility of letters being stolen at the outside? - Before the boxes were altered, letters have been taken out of the boxes on the outside.

Mrs. LEACH sworn.

I believe the prisoner at the bar lodged at your house? - Yes.

What was his general behaviour during the time he was at your house? - He always behaved very steady and very sober while he was with me, I never had any reason to blame his conduct.

Did any of his acquaintance come to visit him at your house? - Sometimes they did, two clerks in the Post-office I understood did.

Did they come frequently to see him? - I cannot pretend to say how often they were there, but they have been there more than once or twice.

Did these clerks stay all night at his house at any time? - Yes, they did.

Can you fix any time when both those clerks laid at the house? - I cannot tell what night.

Do you know any night? - It was of a Saturday night.

Did one of them sleep with him? - He slept with him more than once, the other never slept there but that night, and the other slept in the same room with him in his bed.

The learned Judge then summed up the evidence as follows:

Gentlemen of the Jury. This is an indictment against the prisoner John Higginson < no role > , charging him with having secreted a letter or packet, which contained Bank notes, and which had come to his hands as an officer in the Post-office, and also charging him with having stolen out of that letter or packet three Bank notes. This prosecution is founded on a statute made to protect that grand channel of negotiation, and circulation of property and intelligence in this country, the Post-office; the immense consequence of which to the public you cannot but be apptized of, and to guard against any improper conduct in the officers employed in the Post-office, through whose hands letters inclosing property must often pass; this act of parliament has protected that conveyance by the additional sanction of making it a capital offence, in any person actually employed in the Post-office, to abuse that trust, and to take the opportunity which that employment furnishes, to keep back or rob any of letters sent to that office; this man is proved to have been employed in charging letters, that were to be sent from the Post-office into the country, and the charge upon him is, that he has secreted a certain letter containing amongst others, three particular Bank notes, which are specified in the indictment, which letter was sent by Claude Scott < no role > and John Willis < no role > , who are cornfactors in London, directed to Samuel and Seth Crispe < no role > , who are corn merchants and partners, at or near Wangford, in the county of Suffolk: In order to prove this charge on the prisoner, the first witness who is called, is William Martin < no role > , clerk to Messrs. Scott and Willis, the cornfactors here in London; and the account he gives is, that in consequence of an orders received from the Crispes in the country, there was a parcel of small Bank notes inclosed by Willis, one of the partners, and delivered to the witness; and which the witness made up and sealed, and carried to the Post-office, upon the 10th of March: he says he delivered the letter into the receiving box about eight that evening; there were seven Bank notes in the whole, for the sum of 100 l. but there are only three of them, which it is necessary to trouble you with, because they are all that are brought home to the prisoner at the bar; they are K. < no role > 245, November 8, 1782, to Cowper, 20 l. No. 1152, March 6, 1783, to Wilson, 20 l. and K. < no role > 210, March the 8th, 1783, to Jones 10 l. Mr. Samuel Crispe < no role > , one of the persons to whom this letter inclosing the seven Bank notes was sent, is called, and tells you he lives at Southwold, his partner lives at Wangford, which is within a mile of Southwold, he says, that he and his partner expected a letter inclosing Bank notes, to the amount of 100 l. to come by the post, on the 13th of March, to set out the 10th; he says, he was at his partner's the next day, and there was no letter. Mr. Shann, one of the comptrollers of the Post-office says, the prisoner was properly a letter sorter; but this evening of the 10th of March, he was employed as assistant for the Yarmouth-roads, and he says his business that night was, to charge the letters, and put them into the boxes of the different post towns; he says there was another officer at the same table employed in the same sort of business; he has told you that letters are put into the receiving box, and as soon as it is full it is brought and emptied upon a table, where there are officers called facers, whose business is to stamp these letters, and throw them on their faces; then they are removed after this operation to another table, where those persons that are to charge them, and put them into the different boxes belonging to the different post towns, in order that they may be put into bags, are at work; so that you see every letter goes through different hands, a great number indeed, before it can reach the place of its destination: Mr. Parkin is then called, and he says that there being an account, that this letter had not been received; the 7th of April he was directed to attend, in order to examine the prisoner in case he had come to the office that evening; but he happened not to come, therefore Mr. Parkin was sent to examine the prisoner's lodgings in Great Titchfield-street, No. 40, he found him in the kitchen with Mrs. Leach; he informed him of his business, and desired him to let him have the key of his bureau, he gave him his key without hesitation, he went with him into the room, he opened the bureau with that key, and in a private drawer in that bureau, he found three Bank notes which he produces, and one other Bank note: he says the prisoner made no kind of objection to his making that search. These three notes being produced, it remains to shew you if they are able to do it, in order to make out the charge against the prisoner, that these three notes found in the private drawer of his bureau, are three of the seven notes put into that letter, which was put into the Post-office, on the 10th of March; for this purpose, they call Mr. Martin, who tells you that they correspond in every particular, except that there is a figure of one introduced in every one of them, increasing the number one thousand; he says that figure of one has been added in a different ink, that the alteration is visible, rather an addition than an alteration; that it is visible to have been made at a different time, and with different ink, and it plainly appears where the addition was made, and he has no doubt therefore, but these three Bank notes were originally three of the notes which he put into the letter; and supposing you should be satisfied that there had been an alteration, made since the notes were put into this letter, this would amount to a considerable degree of evidence, to prove that these are the identical notes; but in order to fix it with more certainty, you must be satisfied, and that for that purpose they have called an officer of the Bank to shew you that there cannot be two sets of notes of the same number, and corresponding in all respects as these notes do; because if it was the practice of the Bank to issue a great number of notes, all of the same letter; letter K. for instance, and of the same number and sum; then there being found in this young man's bureau notes with the numbers, letters and sums corresponding with the same numbers, letters and sums upon the notes put in by Martin, would be no proof at all that they were the same; you might as well suppose that one piece of ribbon would be a proof that the maker made no more: they have therefore called an officer in the Bank note office, who is capable of giving you abundant satisfaction on that head; and it does so happen that he is able to carry the evidence beyond the general course of office in the Bank; after telling you that they do not make out more notes than one of the same number, he tells you that one of these notes in particular, which is No. K. < no role > 245, which now appears to be K. < no role > 1245, was made out by him originally K. 245, this was on the 8th of November 1782; he says it contains figures wrote by himself, therefore he knows that the original figures 245, were of his hand writing; he says there is an addition of a figure of one which is not of his hand writing, and which therefore must be made since the note was issued, he says further, that he has examined his books, and that it appears from thence that there was not any such number as 1245 issued on that day, therefore this cannot be 1245 a true note, but must have been altered from 245 for two reasons, first, because he himself made it and issued it, which alone is decisive if it be true; and the other reason is, because there appears to be no note of that date of 1245; he does not know who made out the other notes, but he knows there were notes issued K. < no role > 210. and there was no note K. < no role > 1210; therefore he supposes there must have been an addition of a figure of one in that note, and he says also, that there was a note K. < no role > 1152 issued but no note of K. < no role > 11152; he says further, that there could be no such note as that last issued by circumstance of the alteration of the figure, and he giving no account how he came by these notes; that he ought to be by you concluded to be the person that secreted the course of the bank, for they never go beyond the number 10000; therefore there are two reasons to prove that that note must have been made so.

Gentlemen, this is the evidence upon which they rest this prosecution, and you see what the substance of it is, that a letter containing three notes, the description of which you have heard amongst others, having been delivered into the Post-office, upon the 10th of March, and having been in the regular course of business to pass through the hands of several persons and the prisoner's amongst others, as officers acting that evening in the Post-office, that letter did in fact never come to hand, but was lost or embezzled, or secreted by somebody, and there is found in a private drawer of the bureau of the prisoner, in his lodging room, three notes, which they undertake to prove are the identical three notes which were put with others into that letter: then they leave it to you to make the inference as an inference of fact, fairly deducible from that evidence, that the prisoner having by his situation in the Post-office, the opportunity of secreting that letter, the notes contained in that letter being found upon him, with that suspicious circumstance of the alteration of the figure, and he giving no account how he came by those notes; that he ought to be by you concluded to be the person that secreted the letter, and that took the notes out of the letter, because of the apparent impossibility that any body else should have done it.

The Remainder of this Trial in the Eighth Part, which will be published in a few Days.

Trials at Law, Arguments of Counsel, &c. carefully taken in Short-Hand, and copied with Dispatch by E. HODGSON, Writer of these Proceedings, No. 35, Chancery Lane.

Short-hand taught at Home and Abroad.

This Day is Published, Price 2 s. 6 d. the Second Edition, with Additions, of SHORT-HAND on an IMPROVED PLAN; The Alphabet consisting of Sixteen Characters only, by E. HODGSON.

Sold by J. WALMSLAY, No, 35, Chancery Lane, S. BLADON, Pater-noster Row, and J. CLARKE, Portugal Street.

N. B. This Book, which contains also an Explanatory Copper-plate is a sufficient Instructor of itself, but if any Doubts should arise, they shall be removed on Application to the Author without any additional Expence.

THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ON THE KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY of LONDON; AND ALSO, The Gaol Delivery for the County of Middlesex; HELD AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On Wednesday, the 30th of APRIL, 1783, and the following Days;

Being the FOURTH SESSION in the Mayoralty of The Right Hon. Nathaniel Newnham < no role > , Esq; LORD MAYOR < no role > OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

TAKEN IN SHORT HAND BY E. HODGSON, And Published by Authority.

NUMBER IV. PART VIII.

LONDON:

Printed for E. HODGSON (the Proprietor) And Sold by J. WALMSLAY, No. 35, Chancery Lane, and S. BLADON, No. 13, Pater-noster Row.

MDCCLXXXIII.

THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS UPON THE

KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY of LONDON, &c.

Continuation of the Trial of John Largent < no role > .

It is that sort of presumption from one fact, concluding to another fact, which is ordinarily used in all examinations, and the course of proving facts at this place; and there is no manner of difference whether it be a prosecution at common law, or statute law, because in either case, a fact which constitutes the charge, is to be made out to the satisfaction of the Jury, in the same way by the some course of evidence, without any possible difference; whether they have succeeded in making out the fact to you, is for your judgment.

The prisoner offers nothing in his defence, he might to be sure, if he had been an innocent man, have shown you how he came by these notes, and how they came to be found upon him; but he has given no account of them: his character is undoubtedly very good one, but the question is, what application has that character in a case where the notes which were put into that letter are found in his possession, and he is not able to give you any account how he came by them, he has called a witness indeed to give an evidence, to insinuate a possibility that the letter might have been brought to him, by two other clerks in the office, and that the notes might have been given to him, or brought to him, and so they might have been found in his bureau; that is the tendency of the evidence of Mrs. Leach. In almost every case that comes before you, there is a strict possibility where the positive fact itself is not proved by witnesses, who saw the fact, there is a strict possibility, that somebody else might have committed it: But that the nature of evidence requires, that Juries should not govern themselves, in questions of evidence, that come before them, by that strictness, is most evident, for if it were not so, it is not possible that offenders of any kind should be brought to Justice. Where there is reasonable probability, that not withstanding the appearances a man may be innocent, it is very fair to make use of them: But if it goes further, and if there is nothing but absolute possibility, where all the moral probabilities of evidence are against the prisoner, where nothing can save but absolute possibility that he may be innocent, it would be going too far to conclude him innocent from that, that would make it impossible that public Justice should take its course. Therefore, the true question for your consideration is, whether judging of this fact, as you judge of all other facts, that happen in the course of your dealings with mankind, and your correspondence with one another, it appears to you be proved satisfactorily, and to moral demonstration, that this prisoner must have been the person that secreted this letter, and took these notes out of it, if that be the fair result of this evidence, then the prisoner is guilty, and it will be your duty to find him so. If on viewing the evidence any reasonable doubt remains on your minds, that he is the person that secreted this letter, and took the notes out of it, he will be entitled to your acquital. The public justice of the country is extremely considered, on the one hand, if the charge is fairly brought home to the prisoner, that justice should be done upon him; while on the other hand, if there remains any distant hope of his innocence, he should have the same justice by being found not guilty.

GUILTY . ( Death .)

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Baron EYRE < no role > .