123. NATHANIEL GOODRIDGE proceedingsdefend , LEONARD GOODRIDGE proceedingsdefend , and JAMES EVANS proceedingsdefend , were indicted, for that they, on the 14th day of December, 1782 , with force and arms, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, and willingly act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting, a certain paper writing, with a seal thereto affixed, purporting to be the last will and testament of one Thomas Sawtell < no role > , deceased , and to be signed with the mark of him, the said Thomas Sawtell < no role > , in the life time of him, the said Thomas Sawtell < no role > , to wit, on the 14th of December, 1782, on the first sheet thereof; and to have been signed, sealed, published, and declared by the said Thomas Sawtell < no role > , as and for his last will and testament; which said false, forged, and counterfeited paper writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of the said Thomas Sawtell < no role > , is to the tenor and effect following, that is to say,

"This is the last will and testament of me Thomas Sawtell, late of Saffron-hill, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in the county of Middlesex, tallow-chandler, but now of Brook-street, in the said parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in the said county of Middlesex, gentleman. First, I will, order, and direct, that all my just debts be paid and discharged as soon as conveniently may be, after my decease, by my executors hereinafter named; I give and bequeath to my sister Mary Allen < no role > and her assigns, one annuity, or clear yearly sum of twenty pounds, of lawful money of Great Britain, to be paid by my executors quarterly, by equal portions, the first payment thereof to be made within one month, next after my decease. And whereas my late brother, Gilbert Sawtell < no role > , by his last will and testament in writing, bearing date the 27th day of December, in the year of our Lord, 1767, amongst other things, gave and bequeathed to Gilbert Carr < no role > therein named, the sum of one hundred pounds, to be paid him at the age of twenty-one, which said sum now remains in my hands, as the surviving executor of the last will and testament of my late brother Gilbert Sawtell < no role > , now I do hereby direct my executors hereinafter named, to pay interest for the said sum of one hundred pounds, from the last time they should have paid interest for that sum, until the said sum shall become due and payable. And whereas I have by bond secured the payment of twenty pounds a year to Margaret Enos < no role > , for her natural life, now in full payment and satisfaction of that bond, which is hereby to be cancelled, and in order to make a further provision for the said Margaret Enos < no role > , I do hereby give to her and her assigns one annuity, or clear yearly sum of fifty pounds, of lawful money of Great Britain, payable quarterly, at the four most usual feasts or days of payment in the year, viz. Lady-day, Midsummer-day, Michaelmas-day, and Christmas-day, the first payment thereof to be made on such of the said days of payment, that shall first happen, next after my decease: I also give and bequeath to Elizabeth Goodridge < no role > , wife of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , of Saffron-hill, in the county of Middlesex, broker, the sum of one hundred pounds; I also give and bequeath to the said Elizabeth Goodridge < no role > , my gold watch, chain, and seals, for her natural life, and from, and immediately after her decease, I give and bequeath my said gold watch, chain, and seals to her son George Haynes < no role > , I also give and bequeath to the said George Haynes < no role > , the sum of three hundred pounds, to be paid him by my executors, hereinafter named, at the age of twenty-one, or when my executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I will and direct shall be paid by my said executors, for and towards his cloathing; I also give and bequeath unto Henry Erod Bonstabin < no role > Haynes; the sum of three hundred pounds, to be paid him by my executors hereinafter named, when he shall attain the age of twenty-one, or when my said executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I will and direct shall be paid by my said executors, for and towards his maintainance and education; I give and bequeath to George Evans < no role > , of Fore-street, in the parish of Cripplegate, silver smith, one hundred pounds, and to George Evans < no role > , son of George Evans < no role > , the sum of hundred pounds, to be paid to him by my executors hereinafter named, when he shall attain the age of twenty-one, or when my said executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I order and direct shall be paid by my said executors, towards his maintenance and education; I also give and bequeath to Elizabeth Evans < no role > , daughter of the said George Evans < no role > , three hundred pounds, to be paid by my said executors, when she shall attain the age of twenty-one, or when my executors shall think most proper, and the interest thereof I will and direct shall be paid by my executors, for and towards her maintenance and education; also I give and bequeath to the treasurer for the time being, of the charity school of St. Ethelburga, in the city of London, the sum of twenty-seven pounds, for the benefit of the said charity school; also to Messrs. Jonathan Price < no role > and Wentworth Ogle, executors of the last will and testament of my said brother John Sawtell < no role > , deceased, the sum of fifty pounds each, hoping they will use their endeavours to preserve my interest in my late brother John's will, for the benefit of the person or persons who shall become entitled thereto, under this my will; also I give and bequeath to William Hunter < no role > , of Saffron-hill aforesaid, merchant, the sum of three hundred pounds; also I give and bequeath to - Hunter, wife of the said William Hunter < no role > , the sum of twenty pounds; also I give and bequeath to Elizabeth Slack < no role > , wife of Daniel Slack < no role > , of Newgate-street, London, merchant, the sum of twenty pounds; also I give and bequeath to the said Daniel Slack < no role > , the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, and ten pounds for mourning; also I give and bequeath to Robert Slack < no role > , of Greenwalk, in the parish of Christ-church, in the county of Surry, brother of the aforesaid Daniel Slack < no role > , the sum of one hundred pounds, and ten pounds for mourning; I also give and bequeath to William Atkinson < no role > , of Newgate-street, aforesaid, merchant, one hundred and fifty pounds, and ten pounds for mourning; also I give and bequeath unto John Noble < no role > , of the city of Bristol, gentleman, the sum of one hundred pounds; also to Luke Noble < no role > , of Taunton, in the county of Somerset, the sum of one hundred pounds; also I give and bequeath to my servant, Elizabeth Spraggs < no role > , the sum of three hundred pounds; and to my servant Edward Price < no role > , the sum of five hundred and fifty pounds, and I give to the said Edward Price < no role > , all my wearing apparel and body linen: which said legacies to my said servants, Elizabeth Spraggs < no role > and Edward Price < no role > , I direct to be paid by my executors, to such of them as shall be living at the time of my decease: all which said legacies, except as aforesaid, I hereby order and direct my executors hereinafter named, to pay within twelve months, next after my decease; I give and bequeath unto my friends John Power < no role > , of Carter-lane, gentleman; James Evans < no role > , of Saffron-hill, aforesaid, victualler; William Colton < no role > , of Holborn, aforesaid, cheese-monger; Edward Botham < no role > , of Charles-street, in the said parish, bricklayer; William Cochran < no role > , and Humphrey Hall, of Peter-street, in the said parish, butcher, each of them a mourning ring: and, as for and concerning the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate and effects whatsoever, both real and personal, in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy, I give, devise, and bequeath the same to the said Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns for ever; and I do hereby name, constitute, and appoint, the said Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > and Daniel Hunter < no role > , my executors. In witness whereof, I have to this my last will and testament, contained in two sheets of paper, to the first sheet, set my hand or mark, and to this sheet, my hand or mark, and seal, this 14th day of December, 1782. Thomas Sawtell X his mark. Signed, sealed, published, and declared, by the said testator, as and for his last will and testament, in the presence of us, who in his presence, and at his request, and in the presence of each other, have signed our names, as witnesses hereto, the words

"a mark" being first twice interlined. James Evans < no role > , Leonard Goodridge < no role > , John Underwood < no role > ." - With intention to defraud one Daniel Slack proceedingsvictim .

A second count. For falsely forging and counterfeiting a will, to the same purport and effect exactly, with intention to defraud Mary Allen proceedingsvictim , and Mary Spence proceedingsvictim , wife of George Spence < no role > , and the said George Spence proceedingsvictim , against the statute.

JURY.

William Halfpenny proceedingsjury ,

William Newman proceedingsjury ,

Francis Feather proceedingsjury ,

William Baillie proceedingsjury ,

Samuel Totty proceedingsjury ,

Henry Rose proceedingsjury ,

John Isaac Fanch proceedingsjury ,

William Avelyn proceedingsjury ,

Nicholas Lunn proceedingsjury ,

Thomas Simpson proceedingsjury ,

Samuel Roye proceedingsjury ,

George Marshall proceedingsjury .

Mr. Justice HEATH tried the Prisoners, Mr. RECORDER was also present.

Council for the Prosecution.

SIR T. DAVENPORT,

MR. SILVESTER,

MR. FIELDING.

Council for the Prisoners.

THE HON. MR. ERSKINE,

MR. PIGOTT,

MR. SHEPHERD,

MR. GARROW.

The Indictment opened by Mr. Fielding.

The Case opened by Sir Thomas Davenport < no role > , as follows:

May it please your Lordship and you gentlemen of the Jury, I am councel also on the part of this prosecution, against the unfortunate prisoners now at this bar, who stand there for a crime which it is impossible for any words or any imagination, in my opinion, to aggravate; its heinousness and the pernicious consequences of it, are of such a nature, that every man of common understanding must observe them; this matter has been of very long expectation, it is not impossible, it is more indeed than probable, that many reports, many sayings, many paragraphs in news-papers, may have come to the ears and sight of almost every man; I am clear if it was possible that any prepossessions in point of opinion (I do not say prejudices) should find their way into your minds, you, on this occasion, would naturally dismiss them, because you must know that on this question you, as men, must attend to the feelings of men, and with that attention which, while the lives of you fellow-subjects are in danger, is required from you; at the same time you must know it is your duty to yourselves, your families, your country, and posterity; to prevent the effects which must arise from a subversion of those invaluable rights, which the subjects of this country enjoy, for disposing of their property freely, and absolutely without any controul on the part of the crown, or any interposition on the part of their fellow-subjects. The free disposition of property will be totally prevented if sche mes and manoeuvres of the kind that will be laid before you should obtain to gain credit before a Jury: Gentlemen, I am aware of the difficulty there will be, as well from the pain that every feeling man must entertain, on such a subject as this, as from the vast variety of matter this cause has passed through, and the number of sheets in which it is contained, particularly in Doctors Commons, I say I am aware it will be extremely difficult so to arrange the matter as to make it completely comprehensive on the first state of the case; I will endeavour, however, so to separate the circumstances attending this matter, as to make them as clear as I can to my own understanding, which is the best way of conveying them to yours, and in doing that I shall try likewise to bring several circumstances together, so as to shew you the view in which they appear to me, in order that it may be better understood both by my Lord and by you. The evidence must in its nature take up a considerable length of time, it must consist, as I said before, of a great variety of matter, and it may possibly be so laid before you, and so put together, that it may be comprehended notwithstanding the extent of the matter and the variety of it: Gentlemen, you all of you know, and must feel, that there are a thousand cases in which the actual fact of forgery, and the fabrication of it cannot be proved; there are others, where that impossibility is taken away, sometimes by the admission of accomplices themselves; and, Gentlemen, give me leave now to observe, with respect to accomplices, that they come, as, my Lord will tell you, always under circumstances of suspicion, and are witnesses, of whom juries always are, and always ought to be, very jealous; I mean those accomplices whose confessions arise either from motives of personal fear in themselves, or hopes of rewards from others, or of revenge or malice towards those persons with whom they were themselves concerned; but, at the same time, you very well know that there is a necessity, which the policy of the laws of this country has admitted, of receiving their evidence in some cases, and that where that necessity arises, accomplices have been admitted; they are what the law calls competent witnesses, and their testimony is to be heard; but the weight it is to have, the credit that is to be given to it is, as one of the greatest blessings of this land, left to the consideration of twelve men on their oaths, to the consideration of twelve men of credit, of reputation, and of property: It will be necessary therefore, by circumstances (and I will add too, in favour of the prisoners, strong circumstances) to lay a foundation for corroborating the testimony of such an accomplice as we shall produce, one who had himself so far lost the character and the duty of a subject of this country, as to be concerned in the transaction itself. The circumstances have, in the opinion of some of the learned Judges, always been thought most proper to precede the testimony of the accomplice, I know one in particular, I mean Mr. Justice Gould.

Mr. Justice Heath. That is my practice.

Sir Thomas Davenport < no role > . I have also, my Lord's authority to say it is his, though I have not the honour to know it in practice; but although Mr. Justice Gould, from his great experience and his great attention to every point of the law in that situation, which he has filled so ably, has also adopted that practice, yet, at the same time, it is not constant and invariable, you will see reasons why it cannot be invariable, the story is sometimes of such a nature that it must precede the circumstances that are to corroborate it, it will be my duty, therefore to submit to my Lord, for I shall be extremely willing to adopt any conduct he thinks right in this prosecution, having no wish, no desire on this subject, but to do my duty to the public. Gentlemen, there are a vast variety of circumstances that will very often weigh more with sensible minds than the most positive testimony of witnesses; and of that we have had too many fatal instances to doubt, much less to deny; there have been cases where the three witnesses to a will, as required by the law of this country, which is to pass real property, as distinguished from personal; I say there have been cases where all those three witnesses have denied the execution of the real will, where the circumstances have still established that will, and all those witnesses have been punished for their testimony; I mean the case of Mr. Joliff, which I am sure his Lordship must have heard of, where all the three witnesses to his will one after another absolutely contradicted the circumstances that proved it to be a true one, and they were all punished for their false testimony; there have been cases likewise, once or twice in my experience, where all the three witnesses have supported the will, and swore to it with such strength that would hardly leave a doubt in one's mind, yet it has been proved to be totally false, as in the case of Sir James Chadwick < no role > ; then, gentlemen, you will do in this and every such case that which is natural and probable; you will attend to that, before any testimony of external circumstances, before any saying, or things that are supposed to have passed at different times inconsistent with that probability: I shall, therefore, begin by stating to you the conduct of Mr. Sawtell, the testator in the real will that I shall lay before you, the supposed testator in this supposed will that has already been laid before you in the indictment, and then you will judge from that man, from his way of thinking, and from his constant habitual way of practice, what was his intention and design; he was a very industrious man in the trade of a tallow chandler, he had invented the spermaceti candle, he had taken so much merit to himself on that occasion, that he had a seal with the impression, I think, of a candle in a candlestick, and the words Sperma Ceti wrote round it; he, for a considerable time being in business, had accumulated wealth, arising from his own industry, that had been added to, by accession from his brother, more particularly than any other relation, which was some time about the year 1777 or 1778: In the disposition of this acquired property he had made wills in an early period, and after the acquisition from his brother of the property that is mentioned to you, he had likewise been in the habit of making his disposition by will, and he had employed some attorney in whom he had confidence, and to that attorney he always imparted his wishes whenever he wanted to alter or re-execute his will, which, in point of law, in truth, is a new will; more additions or codicils to it may be executed as additions, but whenever it is executed over again, it is a new will to all intents and purposes, in law as well as in common sense. Some time about the year 1780, his attorney, of the name of Falkner, died, on his death he employed a gentleman of undoubted ability and credit in his profession, Mr. Mumford: in 1780, he employed Mr. Mumford to make his will, in which, as well as in the former ones, for in order to look back to former wills, and to collect the intention of the testator, it was necessary to turn back to such as had been made in Mr. Falkner's life, which was done by this Mr. Mumford, in the year 1780, therefore, a will was made, the same executor, the same residuary legatee, in that will of 1780, that had been in the former will in the life time of Mr. Falkner: in the beginning of the year 1782, in February, Mr. Sawtell again wished to alter his will, or, in other words, to make a new will, and to have his will new executed; in February, 1782, he made a will, the same residuary legatee, the same sole executor, that was Mr. Thomas Slack < no role > , who had been so in the former wills that I state to you, and continued so in the succession of all the real wills that will be stated to you: his situation, in the year 1782, was this; he had a sister who had lived in a course of life by no means agreeable to him, and indeed not fitting for her, she had incurred his displeasure, and had never entered into any of his wills as an object of his bounty, excepting an annuity of twenty pounds a year, that had at first arisen out of a sum of money producing nearly that interest, that had been left by the brother, that you will find in this will as well as this false will (as I now take the liberty to call it, because that is the charge) that annuity remained as a provision for her; there was another sister, what children she had, and where they were, was perfectly unknown; it turns out, therefore, that a daughter of this other sister had married one Spence, and gone to Jamaica, whether living or not he did not know, they are in none of the wills, neither in the real or the false will; Gentlemen, the testator had been in particular intimacy with Mr. Thomas Slack < no role > and a brother of his of the name of Robert, and so strong was his confidence and his trust in both of them, but particularly in Thomas, that in all the former wills he had made him his residuary legatee, and sole executor; he had likewise, in his life time intrusted him with all his property; he had an iron chest in his house, where all his property, his bank notes, his watch, seals, and every thing that was of the most consequence were usually and generally kept, there were two keys to it, of which he was the keeper of one, the other Mr. Thomas Slack < no role > had, he had constant access to and managed his affairs, his money transactions and every other business; he had, besides his friends and relatives, a niece of his wife's, his wife had been dead many years, and a niece of her's that married Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > : She married one Haines before, and the manner and conduct of life of Mr. Haines was not very pleasing to Mr. Sawtell, he became considerably indebted, and so did the widow after his death, to Mr. Sawtell, before she married Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > ; they married, I believe, five years before this false or true will was made; on the marriage he had paid the debts of Mrs. Haines, and had given Nathaniel one hundred pounds with her, who was then a carpenter and in business, for carrying on his trade as such; he had, after this will in February, 1782, made an assignment of some leasehold premises upon or near Saffron-hill, where he carried on his trade, and where Goodridge lived, he made an assignment to Goodridge, thinking it would help him in his trade, as the leasehold premises had three or four years to run, thinking it would enable him the better to renew the leases with the landlord, he being in possession of them: Mr. Goodridge, who had been a considerable time in getting this assignment, employs an attorney of the name of Gregory, a gentleman likewise, I believe, of very good character; he was the attorney who transacted that business of the assignment of the lease: Mr. Mumford being the attorney that he had always, from the death of Mr. Falkner, employed, Mr. Sawtell thought he had done enough for this niece of his wife's, and for her husband; they had no children, he had done quite enough for her in this act of his bounty, besides the portion he had given her; but whether he thought this act might create disputes or contradictions in law, or how far this would be a revocation of his will in February, 1782, and this transaction passed in August, 1782, to prevent disputes of that sort is the only reason that can be assigned, as many transactions passed many papers necessary for him to sign upon the occasion, he did not know what might pass at the time, and he made another will, which was his last real will and testament, as we mean to establish before you on the 4th of November, 1782, after which time I believe he never did or thought of any testamentary act whatever; I say after the 4th of November, 1782; that is a material date, I will only burthen your memory with those that are most material to your attention, and that is one of the most material: Mr. Mumford, who made that will, saw him duly execute it, and called in the witnesses that Sawtell thought proper to have to his will, he sealed it up in a cover, put two seals on that cover, the will itself was wrote on two sheets of paper, a seal to each, and, I believe the signature of the testator; it was wrote on the outside

"The last will and testament of Thomas Sawtell < no role > ." It was put into this iron chest, of which as I told you before, the two keys were kept in the manner I have stated; Mr. Slack was not present either at the instructions for making it, at the execution of it, or in any part of it, nor I believe in any of the former wills, that however may be more accurately stated to you by Mr. Mumford when he is examined: Gentlemen, the story may now be necessary for me to touch upon, after having directed your attention to that material date, the date of that will, which is contended in the Commons by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , who was one executor, and Mr. Hunter an acquaintance of his, and also Mr. Sawtell's, to be the real and true last will and testament of Mr. Sawtell, and if it was, you see most clearly it would revoke all other last wills and testaments except the one he was executing, I think there he did not add the word of revocation, but in legal operation it would be a revocation: the 14th of December, 1782, is the next material date for you to recollect, it is very difficult to remember without referring to notes, and without reading them, and I came to town yesterday, and have given this case all the attention I could, but if I am incorrect, I shall be very much obliged to any gentlemen of either side to inform me better, and to correct me: the 14th of December, 1782, is extremely material in this respect, from the 4th of November up to that 14th of December, or very near the time, some acts have been done, and I lay a great stress always upon what men do; I am not very old in the profession, but I have had a great deal of painful experience on that head; I have always thought, that men taking different turns of mind, perhaps in company, in liquor, or in a thousand different ways, somethings that they have said, and somethings that they have not said, are all very material to be noticed; yet these things are often misunderstood, and often much misrepresented, so that little attention merely to what people say, is to be paid: but it is very difficult indeed to forge men's hearts, you judge a man from his conduct, and not from his professions, it is the most unerring rule that we know: Gentlemen, from the 4th of November to the 5th of December, the testator Mr. Sawtell, had continued all that confidence and trust in Mr. Thomas Slack < no role > , that he had before possessed, uniformly and unterrupted he continued this until towards the beginning of December, he found nobody else capable to conduct any part of his affairs nor even his walks to the Bank; and on the 5th of December, within nine days of this pretended false will of his, two solemn acts, one a general power of attorney to Thomas Slack < no role > , to manage all his affairs, the second a particular power of attorney, such as is called at the Bank, to receive his dividends and interest of his money, were executed: no acts that a man could do could be stronger than these; if you want to look at the regards of a man, look at the treasure where the heart is generally supposed to be, those whom he intrusts with that, are supposed to be the objects of every esteem, of every affection, that he at that time seems to entertain: at the time of the execution of this power of attorney, on the 5th day of December, the testator was confined with a swelled knee to his bed, and had been for a considerable time. Gentlemen, the story that is told in support of this pretended, and this false will, is, that it was necessary that the execution of it should be a profound secret, it was to be transacted therefore with the most profound secrecy, at night, in the stillness and the dead of night, about twelve the witnesses were to attend, to be let in by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , who being as I have stated to you, a friend, and in that sort of connection with Mr. Sawtell, as I have before mentioned, had obtained permission to sit up with him in turns all night, he had two servants at the time, a man and a maid servant, the maid servant, Elizabeth Spraggs < no role > , is unfortunately dead; the man servant, Edward Price < no role > , lived with him to his last dying moments, and was very much benefitted in the real will, as well as in the false one; I see a considerable legacy is left to him, as well as Elizabeth Spraggs < no role > , fifty pounds more in the false will than in the true will, that circumstance shews the gratitude of his master, for his faithful services: Gentlemen, this Edward Price < no role > will be produced to you; and he will tell you what is material, which is, that the very next day, (the 15th of December, the day after) that false will which is produced to you, with the testator's mark to it, dated on the 14th of December, on the supposition that he was so ill, and in so much pain, and so unable to write, that he was only able to make his mark, I shall prove to you that on the 15th of December he was out in a coach, and dined with Mr. Slack, though represented so infirm, and so impotent, that he could do nothing but make a mark, who never made a mark before or afterwards, instead of the name Thomas Sawtell < no role > , which he used to write: after the 15th of December, I believe he was never out, he was better and worse in the afternoon, going to bed early indeed, I believe his liquor was brandy and water, which was his common liquor when he grew more infirm, whether it was made of equal strength or greater as he found the want of it, but he was generally in the afternoon incapable of doing any solemn act, like that of making a will, and so conscious was he of that, that he used to appoint ten or not exceeding twelve, knowing his own infirmities, and his turn to liquor, and the natural consequences of it; at this hour Mr. Mumford will tell you all his appointments were made, and that he was particularly cautious in the due strict punctual attention to that time: Gentlemen, he died on the 9th of February, that will be a third material date for you, the time of his death, during his illness, and the last confinement from the beginning, or if you will please to count it from the 15th of December; I do not know that he ever went out afterwards, though he might be up some times; during that illness so little idea had he of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , as the person to be intrusted with the execu- of his will, that Price will prove to you, that his orders to him, were during his illness, that when at any particular time, he felt himself worse than ordinary, and apprehended himself in more than ordinary danger, that he should send for Mr. Slack; he once found himself in one of these situations, in which it would be comfortable for him to have Mr. Slack, it was between one and two o'clock in the morning, he ordered Mr. Price to go to Mr. Slack; Price who thought he had been dozing, and waking, did not go to Slack, and he went to sleep again; about three days before he died, I think on Thursday the 6th of February, the last time he spoke intelligibly, or scuseably; he returned his thanks to Price, took him by the hand, thanked him for his long and faithful services to him, wished him his health to enjoy what he had left him, and hoped that Mr. Slack would be punctual in paying him; you see that makes it impossible for this man to have left another executor: On the 14th of December, and on the 6th of February, he gives these directions about Slack, to him they were to look for payment, he was to be sent for, every thing was to be entrusted to him; every thing was to be done by him: these are the natural genuine effects of a man's real mind and will. Gentlemen, after this transaction, it will be proper to tell you the story of Underwood. This Underwood, one of the witnesses to the will, and the writer of the will, tells a story, I think from the 18th of December, 1784; in December twelvemonth at the Public Office, in Bow-street, before Sir Sampson Wright, upon an affidavit there made, his story is, that having been concerned for a Mrs. Reeve, sometime antecedent to the year, 1782; because the transactions I am going to speak of, happened in 1781; he had been concerned for her as a woman in poor circumstances, and having a Chancery suit, he was not a man of circumstances, and could not afford to advance, nor had he credit for the expences of that suit; the consequence was, that she was an acquaintance of Mrs. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , she applied to her, and the story was told to Mr. Sawtell, concerning this suit and the poor woman's right, and I think he was induced in 1782 to contribute five guineas towards it on the story that Underwood told, that, he says, is the only time that he ever saw Mr. Sawtell to know him; he will tell you that at the execution of the will there was somebody in the bed, whether it was Mr. Sawtell or not, he did not know; that having so far a knowledge of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , for he had none of him before, nor of Mr. Sawtell; but as I have told you, his story goes on to say, that about the latter end of November, and in this he will be confirmed by his wife, who was present at several of the transactions and her maid; that towards the end of November or beginning of December 1782, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > had frequently been applying to him about getting a will from Mr. Sawtell (all that I say now, you will take to be his story) it was intended that Underwood should draw this will, sometime past, he found his total inability to draw a will for a man whose circumstances he knew nothing of, and whose fortune, where it lay, or what it consisted of he was a stranger to, he therefore said it was not possible for him to do it: then the scheme was formed of getting at his will; it was known perfectly that he had made a will, and it was supposed, and perhaps known, that that will was in favour of Mr. Thomas Slack < no role > , for they knew there was a will; the thing then was to get at this will, which would inform them of all the circumstances they wanted to know, if that could be so managed, and you will see evidently and clearly, that the first part of the false will is copied from the true will; there are several legacies charged in it, there are the two young Haynes's, who are sons of Mrs. N. Goodridge before her marriage with him; for one of them that the testator had provided so much money to put him out apprentice, he had provided for one of these boys, and meant to provide for the other, they do not appear to have legacies in the true will, but in the false they have legacies of three hundred pounds each, Mrs. Goodridge has a gold watch; there are a family of Evans's, (not the prisoner) George Evans < no role > and his son, (the same name as the prisoner) they have three hundred pounds given to them; but the great change to be effected, (the rest I suppose was to give a colour) but the real change was the bulk of the estate, the residue; therefore to change Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > for the residuary legatee and executor instead of Mr. Slack, who was the sole executor and residuary legatee, that was the main object of the will; it was determined to get at this will, how it was I cannot tell you, nor can Underwood, but by the relation of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , he got somebody to make him a key of this chest, out of which he might get the real will; a suspicion fell on a locksmith in the neighbourhood, and as it is impossible to ask him the question, as it must make him an accomplice in the business, I shall not call him to give evidence which must discredit him; it is plain from his relation to Underwood, that he had a pick-lock key that would open and shut this chest; and on the 14th of December, which was the first time he sat up with the testator, that night they went about eleven o'clock, and were let in by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , by a hem, which was a sign by Underwood; there were the attorney, James Evans < no role > , who was a publican at the Cooper's Arms on Saffron-hill, and the brother of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , they were let in, they made researches, Nathaniel got the bunch of keys, and tried an escrutore, and the bureau, and these keys opened it, but the key of the iron chest happened to be in Price's custody, and he being in his room, Nathaniel could not go into that room without waking Price; the truth therefore, as related by Underwood, is that they did not get at it at this time; this disconcerted the plan considerably, therefore nothing could be done till this will was got at, that was to be the guide, that was to be the sort of proceeding by which Underwood was to steer; accordingly they waited some time, and in the first week in January, Nathaniel said he had got the key, and they got the chest open, the will is found, it is read, there is a pen, ink, and paper for a will, and Underwood sat down and copied that will, and the copy of that will is still existing, the copy of the will of the 4th of November; he next proceeded to take instructions from Nathaniel, how he would wish to vary it; now this, you will observe, is said to be by the date of the 14th of December, and they did not get at it by this story till the first week in January; about the 20th of January, or somewhere thereabouts, the first opportunity they had to meet after, it was agreed that Underwood should go to Nathaniel's work-shop, where he had a little sort of compting-house; they went there, and this you will see, when I come to state the confirmation of the story, was upon the 21st, which is as near the time as can possibly be guessed: upon the 21st he copied about one sheet then, Nathaniel was with him afterwards; the next night he came again, Nathaniel was with him, and he copied the other sheet; the other part of this will was performed, if this story is true, on the 22d of January: on the 23d of January every thing was ripe for execution, and you will see on the 23d of January, (the will that they exhibit is not the will of the 23d of January, I will tell you the reason by and by) this will of the 23d of January they all of them attend, Goodridge sits up, they are let in upon a signal, they go up into the testator's room, pulling their shoes off that they might not disturb the servants, who did not know the faces of any of them except Nathaniel; Nathaniel being close to the testator, who was in bed, and the others of them at the foot of the bed; Nathaniel put a pen into the hand of this Sawtell, who was then in one of the states he usually was in, or in sleep, and made a mark to this will, they then went down into the parlour, and subscribed their names to it, and the business was thought to be done: however the next day, or the day after that, within one or two days after it, before the 26th of January, which I think was on a Sunday, they met and had a consultation at this Underwood's, and Nathaniel did not like this date of the 23d of January, for so that will attempted to be executed on this day was dated; why, says he, Slack may be able to prove him incapable on that day, it may be too late: the question then was, what date to give it, and they gave it the date of the 14th of December, that being a time before he was so confined, as to be incapable of executing wills, that being the first time that Nathaniel had sat up with him; the consequence of which was, the seal, and I believe the name, that is the mark, was taken off by way of cancelling this will of the 23d of January, and a pen drawn through the 23d of January, and the 14th of December put, and then it was fixed that Underwood should come on Sunday, the 26th of January, and dine at the house of Nathaniel, and then he should write the will, and that will should be then prepared; and that will of the 26th of January is the real one, exhibited here as the will of the 14th of December: when this was done, the three witnesses signed their names there; they did not meet after that 26th of January, they had not the impudence and folly, as well as the wickedness of going to the house; but Nathaniel said, as to the mark of the name, leave that to me; and the will now produced, with the supposed mark of the testator; when that mark was put there nobody but Nathaniel himself knows, nor how it came there; it will be for your observation, and it is pretty apparent on the face of this instrument, of the false will, that that mark was not put at the same time of the subscribing the names as witnesses, but at a different time, being written with a different ink, blacker; that is a very strong mark of the truth of this story. It had been in contemplation to apply to a Mr. Assiotti, who is supposed to be an ingenious man at that sort of imitation, and he was to be shewn pieces of paper where the name of Thomas Sawtell < no role > was written, to imitate it: Gentlemen, with respect to the true will, which had been so put in a cover, they took two blank sheets of paper, that it might appear in the same state as when the true will was inclosed in it; they sealed up this covering in which the true will had been inclosed with the same covering, and this deception so passed on Slack, that he took it to the real will, he therefore had no suspicion of the deception; there were some pencil marks, which were a sort of direction how and where the name was to be wrote; however that did not take effect, Mr. Assiotti not being at home, nothing was done on that occasion at all: Gentlemen, when this transaction, therefore, on the 26th of January, was performed, there wanted nothing but the death of this poor man to bring this false will to light; when he died, the parties being sent to, they came, Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > was there, Mr. Slack, Mr. Gregory < no role > the attorney, for Nathaniel had the art, and the ingenuity, at that time to send for the real attorney, a man of character; Mr. Gregory, he comes, and enquiry is made whether there is any will, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > produces this out of his pocket, Mr. Slack never dreamt of such a thing; he went home, in the presence of his partner Mr. Atkinson opened this cover, and there he found the two sheets of blank paper: Mr. Mumford being a man of experience and ability, he was too inquisitive for this kind of business; he wanted the instructions of this will and the draught, this was a pinching part of the business, however they told him they were in Underwood's hands, and would be produced in proper time; without that, I take it for granted, Mr. Gregory would have had nothing to do with the business; upon this occasion, the day after Mr. Sawtell's death there was another consultation, then it was concerted that Underwood should draw up pretended instructions, and copies should be made and shewn to Mr. Gregory, and it was so, and they imposed, as naturally they would, upon Mr. Gregory; these instructions were written at his own house the 16th of February, the actual date when these instructions were written, that was the Sunday following the will; instructions for a will of a man who died on the 9th; in fact they were really, and in truth wrote the 16th, so this man tells the story; and you will see, when I come shortly to open the corroborating circumstances, that they appear to be true: when they came to shew the instructions, and the copies to Mr. Gregory, as he wrote the originals, as will be shewn to you in an incorrect way, and in a loose way, as supposed to be taken before the man himself, in order to imitate that which would be the natural effect of instructions so taken; he wrote them in that way, he likewise made a copy of the real will of the 14th of November, when he had got this, the draught of the true will of the 14th of November, he gave it to his wife to keep, she put them into her pocket; it happened very unfortunately that she being very big with child, was brought to bed suddenly, and the papers were all so extremely dirtied, that they were obliged to be put into a tub of water, and that draught of the 23d of January, seems to me to have been burnt, for this reason, that it was so defaced that it was of no possible use, the other two will be shewn to you; then they wanted a date to these instructions; then Mr. N. Goodridge set his wits to work, let me see, says he, Mr. Sawtell was at my house, the 4th of November, I went with him the 9th, being Lord Mayor's day, to tallow-chandler's hall, therefore the 6th of November will be a proper day, you can say you met him at my house, and he brought the will to you; that he suffered you to copy that will on the 6th of November, and on the 9th, he gave you more perfect instructions how he would have it altered, therefore these are the two supposed times; then on the 9th of November were these instructions to be dated: now gentlemen, with respect to the circumstances confirming this story of the man, I shall call to you one witness, who will prove to you, the consultations about the wife of this man getting Assiotti to write the name; I shall prove to you that when that failed by the journeyman of Mr. Goodridge himself, who was in the shop at the time that he came, on the 21st of January, with Underwood, and they were there four or five hours, Underwood writing, and the other looking over, I suppose dictating, the man taking no notice, but going about his work, making some rail work that wanted to be finished, and which obliged him to work later than usual; this man seeing a part of the writing hang out, after Underwood and Nathaniel were gone, he had the curiosity to see what this Underwood had been writing, and there he read the name of Sawtell, and saw two or three legacies; he likewise was at work on the 22d of January, when he was writing a further part of this will: I shall call to you a witness, that will prove to you, that Evans, one of the prisoners, applied to a gentleman of the name of Hudson, a pewterer, a gentleman of character, as I am informed, to be a witness, supposing that Mr. Goodridge could not be there, however he was there. Hudson did not chuse to have any thing to do with it, and had nothing to do with it; that is a decisive circumstance, to go no further, that there was no true will on the 14th of December, it is of itself decisive; therefore, if that witness is believed, there is an end to be sure, of this matter. Gentlemen, I will confirm it further, on that 26th of January, I will shew, Underwood was writing on the 26th of January, when he was making the will that is now produced, that he was a considerable time, on the 26th of January, a writing, at Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > 's, I will prove to you, that he staid and dined there, I will prove that to you, by Goodridge's maid servant, that Underwood was writing, though she cannot tell what, that all the witnesses were there at that time, that Underwood says the three put their names to it, and that Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > undertook to get the testator's mark to it; there again, on the 26th of January, if there had been a will on the 14th of December; if there had not been a reason for altering it, why this new work; but I go further, I call to you a man of reputation on Saffron-hill, Mr. Eames, who I believe was the successor to Mr. Sawtell in his business, when he left off, which was in 1781; I will prove to you, that on the 26th of January, Daniel Goodridge < no role > , with a good deal of concern, and in a very sorrowful tone, came to him, and told him at his shop, says he, Mr. Eames, Mr. Sawtell is very ill, he is confined, he has spoken very favourable of you, he has mentioned his intention to dispose of his estate, and to leave me the bulk of his fortune, and to alter his will; the expression is very remarkable, and to alter his will! alter his will! what on the 26th of January, alter his will, if it was complete on the 14th of December! it shewed it had not any existence antecedent; says Mr. Eames, I am afraid nothing can be done without Ned and Betty, so he called the two servants, the man and maid; says Nathaniel, you are intimate in the house, you know them, I wish you could apply to them, and get them in my favour, then something may be done; Mr. Eames saw Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > and Evans in the fore room, after what had passed at the shop, on the same day, and there repeating again this wish, that Mr. Eames would be his friend, and assist him about Ned and Betty; Evans says,

"Oh get it done, d - n it, get it done:" get what done? why it was all done if this was true: Gentlemen, this seems to me so impossible to resist, and so unanswerable, that I do not know what to add to it; if it did want further circumstances, you would have a great number of circumstances, that would be less material in a case like this, and particularly about money that had passed among them; for on the 9th of February, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > came to the house of Underwood, Leonard Goodridge < no role > and Mr. Underwood were above stairs, in coming down, and going away, Leonard gave her five guineas, at the bottom of the stairs, he put five guineas in her hand and shook hands with her husband, and said, while the cart is going it's right to grease the wheels; he shook the husband by the hand, and said, he hoped they should all stand true to each other; this is on the 9th of February, immediately after the death; another five guineas was given afterwards, that will be proved to you by the daughter, Susannah Underwoood < no role > , who went there in consequence of a letter, as it had been promised that Evans would come there in a day or two, and though the transaction she did not see, she heard money on the table; this account appears likewise from a writing of Nathaniel himself, five guineas was supposed to be left in March, 1783, it is put down March, 1783; however, there is another account follows it of goods that have been had upon credit, necessary things, such as tables, chairs, bedding, &c. to the amount of eighteen pounds, then another figure added by Underwood himself of five guineas more, making twenty-three pounds sixteen shillings, this was to go in part of the account; and I will state to you another circumstance that shews that the account was kept with this view, about the 7th of April, or somewhere thereabouts, this matter being depending in the Commons, a caveat, as it is called, was entered by Mr. Slack, to prevent the probate and the executorship passing there to Mr. Goodridge: Evans and Underwood did not choose to trust to the honour of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > for their share of this booty, and it was then proposed that two bonds of eight hundred pounds each to pay four hundred pounds, one to Evans and the other to Underwood should be given; Underwood was for taking this bond, and they said, no, the matter has not been decided in the commons, though it appears to be an absolute bond on the face of it, it is really meant to be conditional, and not to be paid till the probate is obtained, upon which the bond for Underwood is deposited with Evans, and Evans gives an accountable receipt for that bond to Underwood, and I will prove to you the hand-writing of Evans; I do not read it to you now because it will be sufficient to be read in the course of the trial, it was that four hundred pounds should be paid and discharged as soon as it was determined in the Commons, that is the substance of it: towards the end of the year 1783, the sum of five guineas was paid: the bond of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > to Evans, was frequently talked off by Underwood, and he was to deduct these sums out of that bond; there were applications made to Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > over and over again about money, by Mr. Underwood several times, and there is a letter from Mr. Goodridge to Underwood where he writes thus,

"I received a few lines

"from a friend of yours, and wish I had

"it in my power to help you in your distress,

"but you have called upon me so often

"that I have distressed myself, (till this transaction Mr. Underwood knew no more of Goodridge than I do, he goes on)

"I am astonished at your sending to

"me now, and because I have not trouble

"enough of my own, I must be teazed

"with Mr. Underwood's affairs, and I

"promised you, and I believe Mr. U.

"thinks little about it, when you have

"got your turns served; remember the

"last time when your turn was served

"it was all well, but as to promises they

"are all forgot." This he writes to her whom he had not written to on any other transaction than this business. Gentlemen, I shall also prove to you, that Mr. Underwood applied to Mr. Todd, a person who dealt in spiritous liquors, to advance him money, which Mr. Todd could not or did not chuse to do, when he would have pledged this receipt for the bond, as a sort of security for the money, and this long before any discovery had been made: now, you see all these transactions passed in the year 1783, and confirms his story, they being antecedent to the 18th of December 1784, when he went before Sir Sampson Wright, and made this voluntary confession, from some motive that I cannot state to you, no matter what; whatever therefore his character may be, he is certainly such an accomplice in this iniquity, that tho' he could prove it extremely strong, you would not attend much I am sure to his story, but coupled with these antecedent circumstances, you will learn what the real transaction was, and this circumstance as well as the others you will not forget, namely, the application for a witness on the 23d of January, and the application to Eames on the 26th; all clearly shew that these things had not existed in the testator's mind; for Slack was the only person he had the least idea of as is represented: I conclude, therefore, gentlemen, with saying that long as this narration has been, I shall not mind my own trouble at all, if the case is made plain to you, you will therefore judge where the probability is, that this man so circumstanced, and in the situation I have stated him, should ever make that will on the 14th of December: that is for you to try; if he had made it the 23d of January, and dated it the 14th of December; it would be equally a forgery, though the testator himself might have executed it on the 23d of January, and for this plain reason, the antedating it, and executing it when a man might be incapable; that would therefore have been, without all controversy, as much a fabrication and forgery, as the present. Gentlemen, I will call these witnesses before you, beginning with Mr. Mumford, the former attorney; as it seems to be my Lord's wish and directions, that it should be so, to bring the circumstances before the story of Underwood; and it will be all so connected, and so supported, that there can be no doubt in any man's mind of the truth of Underwood's story, and it can hardly then be said, that a man in the situation of Underwood would come in this last stage and give this account, if it was not the force of truth that extorted it from him: the whole will be left to you, it will be made as short as can be; if I was to call the whole train of witnesses, it would lengthen this trial much more, for I know not how many score there are, but I told you before, I paid little or no regard to declarations, but to the acts of a man; we will, therefore, in as short a manner as possible, consistent with justice, lay this extraordinary case before you.

HENRY MUMFORD < no role > sworn.

I am an attorney in Arundel-street, in the Strand, I knew Mr. Thomas Sawtell < no role > , on Saffron-hill, in the year 1780, I was recommended to him on the death of Mr. Falkner, his late attorney, he sent to me to alter his will, that was in November 1780, I did alter his will, which was executed in due form of law.

Did he ever employ you afterwards? - He did.

How often? - With respect to making his will twice; in February 1782, I prepared another will for him, and another on the 4th of November, 1782, that was the last will, the first was destroyed, that was the will of November, 1780, and the one in February, they were destroyed in my presence.

Have you the instructions for that will in the year 1782? - Certainly not, they were very immaterial.

Mr. Erskine. You are an attorney? - Yes.

Did not you take instructions from the testator for the alterations of his will? - I certainly did, but I do not know where they are.

Did you make any draught? - Yes, that will be produced.

With respect to November, 1780, did you make no draught of that? - No.

Did you take down no instructions in writing? - I cannot remember.

You must tell me one way or the other, whether in November, 1780, when you made this gentleman's will, you took any instructions in writing? - They were merely trifling.

Will you swear that you never had any instructions or any thing in writing of the will of November, 1780? - Certainly not.

You never had? - Not to the best of my remembrance, I had not.

Have you searched for if? - A considerable time ago.

Have you made a recent search to attend this trial? - I have not.

Then, Sir, it seems to me rather strange that you cannot swear you have none subsequent? - I do not recollect I had any instructions in writing, about the will of 1780.

I ask you, if you ever had any instructions in writing from the testator? - I verily believe I had not them in writing.

If you verily believe that, you must have believed it when it was still more recent; did you search for it, Sir? - I do not say I searched for it; I searched for all papers generally.

Then you mean to say you have not any such paper that you can prove to the Court, concerning November, 1780? - No, Sir, none.

Mr. Silvester. Now tell us concerning that will of 1780. - Mr. Daniel Slack < no role > was the residuary legatee, and the sole executor in the will that I saw, which was made before that which was prepared by Mr. Falkner.

The second will was in January, 1782? - Yes.

Had you the instructions for that will? - No, I had not, I drew < no role > a draught of that will, I believe it is in the Commons.

Mr. Erskine. This you consider now as a draught of the will itself, for the instructions are lost you say; in February, 1782, there was a draught of the will, which was taken from some preceding instructions? - Yes, from his former will.

Then when you came to make another will, in November, 1782, that very draught was altered? - Yes.

Then that which is now in the Commons, and which is now called for, is, in fact now, the draught of the will in November, 1782? - Yes, but I believe there may be some little inaccuracy, which I can explain.

Let me understand you; the draught of the will of February, 1782, when you came to make another will in November, 1782; you made it by altering the will of February, 1782? - Yes.

Then that paper in February becomes the draught of November, 1782, though it was originally the draught of February, 1782? - Certainly it is.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I object to this being read, either as the draught of February or of November.

Sir Thomas Davenport < no role > . The draught of February, 1782, when you made the will in November, 1782, was, as I understand you, the draught upon which the alterations were made? - Yes.

Was that will read to the testator? - Yes.

Are the alterations for November, 1782, now visible on the face of that draught? - I do not know that they are.

Then look and point them out? - I do not think that I can do so, but I can very near describe them.

Was the draught, as it now stands, read over to the testator, prior to his making the will in 1782?

Mr. Erskine. Sir Thomas, I must beg your pardon, I must really interfere.

Sir T. Davenport. Was any draught read to the testator, prior to his making the will in November, 1782? - Yes, I believe there was.

Was that draught read to the testator, before he made the will of November, 1782? - I cannot answer that.

Mr. Erskine. That would not alter my objection in the least.

Court. The objection is this, that this being altered, and he not being able to distinguish the alterations that stood originally, he cannot now read it as the draught in February; now you may see how far you can read it as the draught of November.

Sir T. Davenport. Was any draught read to the testator before he executed the will of November, 1782? - If any draught was read, it was that; but no doubt he was made acquainted with the contents.

Do you believe any draught was read to him, in November, 1782? - I do not know whether the draught was, but the original will was, from which that is copied? -

Then is this a copy of the original will? - Most certainly it is.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I submit this cannot be given, as evidence of a draught either in February or November.

Court. Certainly not, you cannot produce the draught before you shew that the original is destroyed.

ROBERT SLACK < no role > sworn on the Voire Dire.

Court. As this is a long trial, if the prisoners wish to be accommodated with chairs, they may.

(Two chairs brought into the bar.)

In this supposed will that Mr. Sawtell is supposed to have executed, you was set down for a legacy of one thousand pounds? - I was.

You know there is a suit in the Commons, in which two wills are in contest; one the 14th of November, 1782, and another of a subsequent date; you are a legatee in both these wills? - Yes.

Mr. Pigott. I submit, my Lord, it is enough, that he has an interest.

Sir T. Davenport. Have you a release? - I have.

Mr. Pigott. You released? - I have

You have no expectations of receiving the money? - No, Sir.

No part of it? - No.

You have entered into no private agreement about it? - I never mentioned it to any body.

That will not do for me? - My expectations may be upon my brother, but never while he lives as I know of, my brother has no children, and there is no relation but me.

Have you no expectation of receiving from your brother, or from any other person on his behalf, any part of that legacy? - No, Sir; are you satisfied now.

Now Sir, observe, have you entered into no stipulation with any person about it? - I never mentioned it to any person, but what I said was, I had given one thousand pounds away; the proctor mentioned it to me, and I said, I would do it immediately.

You made no stipulation at all? - Not the least.

Mr. Fielding. This is a very uncommon examination after a release.

Mr. Pigott. In answering one of my questions, you used the word expectation from your brother? - My expectations are from him as next of kin and heir at law.

Court. Heir at law is no objection, that does not disqualify, an heir at law may be a witness, but a remainder man cannot.

(The release read by the Clerk of the Arraigns, signed Robert Slack < no role > .

"Know all men by these presents, that I Robert Slack < no role > , legatee in the will of Thomas Sawtell, dated the 14th of November, 1782, have remised, &c. to Daniel Slack < no role > , of Newgate-street, London, cotton merchant, his heirs," &c.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, that is no release of this legacy; my objection is, he states himself to be a legatee in the will of Mr. Sawtell, and then goes on to release in general terms, but he does not specially release this legacy; now I humbly contend this legacy is no action, nor cause of action, it is a claim to which the executors must consent, and it ought to be sufficiently released by name.

Mr. Pigott. My Lord, I say this release, which is a release of all debts and demands due from Daniel Slack < no role > to Robert Slack < no role > , upon the day of the execution thereof, would be no bar to a claim by a bill in equity, and there is not a doubt in law, but it is an equitable claim, upon which he may go into the Court of Chancery whenever he pleases, and to which this would be no bar; and I beg leave to put this question, whether any man in business ever heard of a release of a legacy, by filling up a common blank release.

Mr. Shepherd. At the time that release was executed, he certainly had no claim on his brother, for Daniel Slack < no role > does not appear at present to be the executor of that will, for there is no probate granted, the usual way of doing business will certainly have some weight, nobody yet ever saw such a release without the legacy being released specifically, he released something which did not exist, it depends on executors having effects, it depends on the executor's assent; the only thing in the release is simply, that he chooses to call himself a legatee, he does not call his brother Daniel executor.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord as counsel in this case, in the situation in which I stand, I certainly might spare myself the trouble of arguing this point, because it seems to me to be too clear to argue; but as there is such a great phalanx on the other side, I shall throw in my mite upon this question; and I beg leave to observe, how does this man release his brother? not even in the character of executor; but if he did, it is a character that does not belong to him, he is not executor, there is a litigation in the Commons, in the result of which we say it will not prove that he is so: My Lord, suppose the executor may renounce, the execution will then be committed to the next of kin, he is not in a situation to accept of that release; and your Lordship knows there must be somebody in esse, capable of accepting and assenting to the release; now, my Lord, is Mr. Slack such a person? is he the executor of that will of Mr. Sawtell's? there is no such will known to any body, which the Commons have assented to as a true will, and there is no probate of any such will: suppose the next of kin should, upon the renunciation of this gentleman, Mr. Slack, have the probate, would this be a bar as against the next of kin, why he would say, though I will not bring an action against my brother, yet when it is committed to other persons, I will bring an action; would this be a bar to that action? now observe what does he release? he releases all debts and claims now actually due, all claims and rights of action now vested in him, he releases nothing which he at present possesses, and this cannot be a bar to any future interest he may acquire.

Court. There is nothing in this objection, it is said this would not be a good release in equity, the person states himself to be a legatee, the general words are sufficient, all suits in equity, quarrels, &c. My Lord Coke says quarrels are the same as querula, the most comprehensive word whatever.

SIMON ALLEN < no role > sworn on the Voire Dire.

This is my hand-writing, I saw it executed, it is a release in the Commons.

ROBERT SLACK < no role > sworn in Chief.

I knew the deceased Sawtell seven years, I have lived in intimacy with him the last three years, my brother was in a degree of intimacy, I do not think there was hardly a day passed but what they saw each other, particularly as Mr. Sawtell not having much to do, he came there almost every day, he was rather infirm and could not go out without somebody to attend him, he used to go to a particular friend to see the news-papers, which I used to read to him, I saw him for the last three years, almost every day.

There did subsist a great intimacy between the gentleman at the bar, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , and him; when he went up the hill he used to call and see Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , I dare say Mr. Sawtell knew Leonard Goodridge < no role > , and was acquainted with Evans.

Where did Sawtell live at the time of his death? - In Brook-street, he removed there in January, about twelve months before his death.

Do you know any thing of the manner in which he used to keep his treasure or his papers? - That was in an iron chest in a closet, close to his papers, a very large chest, it had only one lock, I fancy it was near a yard over, it was better than three quarters, I do not know what became of that chest.

Your brother did not take it? - No, Sir, that I verily believe he did not.

How many servants had Mr. Sawtell? - He had a man and a maid servant.

What were their names? - Edward Price < no role > and Elizabeth Spraggs < no role > ; the maid is dead, they had lived with him all the time I knew him, which was seven years.

Do you know the confidence that Sawtell placed in Price? - Very great indeed, he lived with him to the day of his death; some time previous to his death he was infirm.

Was it a custom that his servant used to sit up with him on a night? - No, Sir, not till he was very ill; I sat up with him for about a month, till within three nights of his death.

When did he die? - He died the 9th of February, 1783.

You was saying something of three days preceding his death? - Yes.

Did you set up with him the night of his death? - No, Sir, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > did, three days before his death I might set up with him.

Now Mr. Slack having this iron chest, did you ever see him go to it? - Not himself, he could not open it.

Did it ever happen to you to perform this office for him? - Very often, two or three times a week, I looked into it the very day before his death.

Where did you get the key from then? - My brother opened it himself, he had the key by two powers of attorney to transact his business, I understood they were given the beginning of November.

When was it that you understood your brother was first in possession of the key of this iron chest? - My brother had one key.

Mr. Erskine. You are not to state what your brother said to you? - I am not saying what he said to me, I say that for three years before Mr. Sawtell's death, Mr. Sawtell placed that confidence in him, that he let him have a key of the iron chest.

BENJAMIN HUTTON < no role > sworn on the Voire Dire.

( Looks at two Powers of Attorney.)

Is that your hand? - Yes.

Did you see these two powers of attorney executed? - Yes.

(Read, being a Letter of Attorney to receive dividends, signed Thomas Sawtell < no role > to Daniel Slack < no role > , dated December 15, 1782. Witness, William Wilkinson < no role > , Benjamin Hutton < no role > .

Mr. Silvester. How long did you know Mr. Sawtell? - A little time before the year 1779, I cannot recollect the particular time.

Did you know Mr. Daniel Slack < no role > ? - Yes.

Was there any intimacy between Mr. Sawtell and Mr. Slack? - Yes, very great.

Mr. Fielding to Robert Slack < no role > . Did you know the wife of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > ? - Yes, perfectly well.

What relation was she to Sawtell? - I believe she was his wife's niece.

Do you know of any money at any time, given to her by Mr. Sawtell? - At the time of the marriage he told me he gave her one hundred and fifty pounds, or something thereabouts, he said she owed him at the time sixteen years rent he was very glad she was going to be married, and forgave her the rent, for he was glad she was going to be married, as he said that he should get rid of a plague.

When was it she married? - I cannot recollect.

Do you know of any application made at any time after that, either by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > or his wife to Mr. Sawtell for assistance, and what was Mr. Sawtell's behaviour on that occasion? - I remember they made application for five pounds to put out the child apprentice, which I gave to Mrs. Goodridge, I know of no application of Nathaniel's only by hearsay.

Do you know any thing of a Mr. Underwood? - I have seen him three or four times, I knew him in the Fleet prison, I did not know any thing of him prior to the death of Mr. Sawtell, I never heard Mr. Sawtell mention his name.

I believe you know something of the making that first will which is said to be lost? - I knew Mr. Sawtell to make five, and I think I was at the execution of the last.

You remember the will before the 4th of November, the first of the three? - Yes, that was made, I think, the latter end of the year, 1780, in November, I was present and put it into the chest by the desire of Mr. Sawtell.

Were you privy to the contents of that will? - I heard it read over.

Mr. Erskine. Did you read it yourself? - No, it was read to the testator and executed.

Does your memory serve you to speak of what Mr. Mumford read, purporting to be the will of Thomas Sawtell < no role > ? - Daniel Slack < no role > was executor and residuary legatee.

Mr. Fielding. Was Mr. Sawtell at that time so infirm as not to be able to open the iron chest himself? - He could not.

Do you remember any thing of the second will? - Yes, in the beginning of January, 1782, I think it was Mrs. Sawtell, that is his brother's widow, died, he had some money came to him, and he altered his will. That will was read over to Mr. Sawtell in my presence, Daniel Slack < no role > was executor and residuary legatee.

Was there any notice taken of the Goodridges in that will? - No.

Was there any notice taken of the Goodridges in the will preceding that? - No.

Do you remember any legacy being left to Edward Price < no role > the servant? - Yes, five hundred pounds, in November, 1780, I think he had not so much.

Was there any mention about a will after this? - Yes.

When was that? - Why, I fancy the 1st of November.

Into what length did this conversation go?

Mr. Erskine. I object to this conversation unless you can prove the execution of an intention.

Court. You may always shew the testator's kindness to particular persons. - A few months before the 4th of November, before the execution of that will, Mr. Sawtell assigned over some houses with a strange attorney.

Mr. Pigott. Was you present at this, Sir? - I will tell you presently.

No, you must tell me first? - I was present at the assignment of a policy at the Insurance office.

For what, and to whom? - It was an assignment in the Fire Office.

Court. Did the testator declare his reason? - He did.

You must not say what you imagine to be his reason however well-founded that may be, but what the testator declared to be his reason? - He assigned over these houses because one man never paid his rent and the other Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > lived in, the leases were almost expired, the testator declared the reason of his altering his will was, that he was affraid he had signed some paper that probably might be a will; says he, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > might as well have taken my word, for I may have signed something that might have been a will; says he, what does he bring so many papers to me to sign for, probably I may have signed something I should not, I will alter my will, says he, if it be only to alter the date; I saw him sign the assignment of the policy.

Did he write his name to the instrument? - Yes, he did.

At what time was this? - That was about two months or six weeks before the 4th of November, I cannot speak to the time, it might be later or sooner, he made the declaration about the 1st of November, and he desired me to bring Mr. Mumford, and bring the will out of the iron chest, Mr. Mumford read the will over to him, and he said, it might be just as it was, and to bring it to him in a day or two.

Did you ever know that Mr. Sawtell made a mark instead of signing his name? - Never, Sir, he always said, Bob, where must I write it? and then he put his name directly, I never knew him a put mark.

The continuation of this Trial in the next Part which will be published in few Days.

THE TRIAL OF Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , Leonard Goodridge < no role > , and James Evans < no role > ; FOR FORGING THE WILL OF Mr. THOMAS SAWTELL < no role > , deceased: WHO WERE TRIED AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On SATURDAY, the 14th of JANUARY, 1786.

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY E. HODGSON, PROFESSOR OF SHORT-HAND; And Published by Authority.

NUMBER II. PART III. (Of the SESSIONS PAPER.)

LONDON:

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

MDCCLXXXVI.

Continuation of the Trial of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , Leonard Goodridge < no role > , and John Evans < no role > .

How soon was it that you had seen him write before his death? - I never saw him write after the 4th of November, I cannot be positive.

(The two powers of attorney banded to the Jury.)

When did Mr. Sawtell chuse to do his business? - He was very impatient to do his business, if it was very particular, by ten o'clock in the morning.

I believe either from infirmity or habit, he was incapable of doing business after dinner? - He never chose it, he was not incapable, but he liked to have his pint of porter after dinner.

The intimacy subsisted between your brother and him to his death? - I saw him on Saturday night preceding his death about eight, I had no conversation with him about that, the-last conversation I had with him, was very little for a week or so before his death, only shaking hands with him, and sitting with him a little.

Do you believe from the state of Mr. Sawtell's body, that he himself could have got into this iron chest, without the assistance of yourself or some other person? - For three months before his death, he was not able to lift the lid of the iron chest up, nor for twelve months before his death; on the 15th of December I went to his house, and enquired for him, he was not at home, I went there because I had no idea he was capable of going out, on the 15th of December I did not see him.

Do you know how the will on the 4th of November was inclosed? - It was wrapped up, and sealed with his seal, a candle in a candlestick, and a circle, in which spermaceti was wrote.

Describe the cover? - I think it was put up corner ways, I put it into the iron chest myself.

Mr. Pigott. Mr. Slack, did I understand you to say that the day before this poor man's death, your brother took the will out of his iron chest? - The day before the death of Mr. Sawtell, I saw it in the iron chest, at least I thought it was there, I saw the cover, and had it in my hand.

Did you go to the chest with your brother? - My brother was at the chest then, I went to it and took up the paper.

Did you take that paper? - I understood so.

The day before you was at the chest, and saw that paper? - Yes.

You understood afterwards your brother took it out? - I did.

Who did you understand it from? - I never saw my brother till the next morning, then my brother told me that he had taken out the covers, and there was only two blank sheets of paper.

Now, that cover which you supposed to contain the last will of the testator, your brother told you he had taken out of the chest, did not your brother tell you distinctly, that he took out that cover the day before the man died? - I think he did, I do not know whether he took it out the day before or that same morning.

Your brother went with you to the chest the day before his death? - Yes.

For what purpose did he go? - He had a power of attorney to do business, I did not ask him.

You do not know what he went for? - I do not think he went for the purpose of taking out the will at that time, he did not tell me, I was with him, there is a little closet close by the parlour.

What were you both doing there? - I cannot recollect what he was doing.

What did you go to the chest for? - Accidentally, talking to him I went to the chest, and I saw it lay, and I took it up, and laid it down again.

Were not you present at Daniel Slack < no role > 's examination before the Magistrates? - No, I was not, I was at Manchester, I never saw his examination, I never was present at any examination of his concerning that paper.

You have told us that for two or three months before the death of Sawtell, he was not able to lift the lid of that chest up? - No, Sir.

It was very large? - Yes.

It required some strength to lift it, did not it? - Yes.

Had not Sawtell the key? - Yes.

Was there no method by which he could get at any thing in that chest? - I do not know, except it could come through the key-hole.

Why it is very easy for me to give the key to another person, then it does not jump through the key-hole you know; I may perhaps get at something that is in the chest, without its getting through the key-hole to me? - Certainly, Sir.

You have been examined in the Commons, and there you have given an account of the conversation that passed before Sawtell, relative to the supposed will of the 14th of November, you have stated that the testator declared to you, that he had signed papers, and that he might have signed a will, and that therefore he would make another will? - Yes.

Now, I have had the curiosity to turn to your examination, and I will read it to you that I may not misquote it, that the leonent (whom I take to be Robert Slack < no role > ) thereupon remarking, that perhaps among the rest, they might have brought Mr. Sawtell a will to sign? - Very well, Sir.

Do I read right or not? - I do not know what my deposition was entirely.

Do you fancy it is to be got rid of in that way; when I am stating this, that to day you have said here upon your oath, that the tastator in declaring his reasons for making a will, told you, that he might have signed a will brought him by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > ? - We talked all about this paper, and we might both mention it, I cannot say whether I suggested it first, he was dubious and I was fearful.

All I want to fix is this, that so far from this man having declared that as a reason to you, you yourself was the first person that suggested it? - It certainly was the reason.

Now, then having sworn in these two different ways, whether the suggestion of his having made a will did not proceed from you, and not from the testator Sawtell? - I do not know, we were talking of it a long while at the King's Arms, in Holborn.

I say upon your oath, Sir, who began the conversation first? - He said probably he might have brought a will.

But I want to know who first suggested that circumstance? - Then I say, I posibly might; we had a conversation of an hour and half, and who suggested it at first, I cannot say, but I know that was the reason.

You see, Sir, it is thus, that the deponent ( Robert Slack < no role > ) thereupon remarking; now, I ask you as an honest man in the face of this audience, whether you did not first suggest to Mr. Sawtell, that they might have brought him a will; now, answer that as you please? - The conversation began about the Goodridges bringing so many papers, but whether it might or not, I cannot say.

Court. Do you believe that you did? - Probably I might.

Do you rather believe you did? - I might.

You said something about a strange attorney who was with Sawtell, when he executed those deeds you have mentioned; be so good as to tell me who that strange attorney was? - I do not know; the attorney at the execution of the assignment of the policy, I believe was Mr. Gregory.

You was a witness to it? - I think I was.

Look at that paper, you are a witness to it? - Yes.

Did you take that to be a will? - No, Sir.

You saw Mr. Sawtell execute this? - Yes.

Was it executed when it bore date? - I think it was.

Was it read over to him by Mr. Gregory? - I think it it was.

Did not you know perfectly well, that Mr. Gregory was the attorney for the Goodridge's? - I never knew Mr. Gregory, not never saw him till then, I never heard his name mentioned.

Who recommended Mr. Mumford? - I did, after Mr. Falkner's death.

You say Mrs. Goodridge was a niece to the wife of Mr. Sawtell? - She was.

You say Mr. Sawtell said he was very glad to get rid of a plague? - Yes.

That year, in August 1782, he was giving them houses? - I understood he was not giving them at all, he was to receive the rents before the leases were out, that is what he understood I am sure.

Did you ever happen to hear that Mrs. Goodridge was the natural daughter of Mr. Sawtell? - I never heard that.

Never by accident? - No.

Perhaps it is an invention of mine just now occurred? - I never heard it.

You and your brother kept a pretty constant watch on Sawtell? - We were pretty constantly with him, if I was not with him he was very angry with me, probably once a week I might spend an evening with him.

Because in your original examination, you said, you and your brother were constantly with him? - I generally called upon him every day.

Now, as far as you could make it consistent to your respective conveniences, you did look sharp after this man? - My brother was there generally every day.

May be your brother is a pretty near relation to Mr. Sawtell? - Not that I heard of.

May be you are a relation to him? - I never understood that either my brother or me were relations to him.

Mr. Fielding. The cover that you took out of the box with your brother the day before his death, was that the cover you put into the chest on the 4th of November? - It was.

Had it a sufficient mark about it, according to the best of your opinion, so as to enable you to say it was the same? - It certainly was.

Now, as to the conversation that took place between you and Mr. Sawtell, does your memory serve you sufficiently to say, whether you was the man that first suggested that a will might come among the papers, or he to you? - Upon my word, the conversation lasted so long, I cannot say.

Who was it that was there upon that occasion? - I do not know.

Was he the attorney employed by Sawtell? - No, Sir, I heard that he did Mr. Goodridge's business.

What did Sawtell say about the houses? - He said they were assigned over to Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , for the purpose of his having them after Sawtell's lease was out, there was but a few years to come, the quarter day after Sawtell went on purpose to recommend Mr. Goodridge to have them,

What was the value of this assignment? - I do not know, I have heard it was upwards of forty pounds a year, it was not communicated to me till I saw Mr. Gregory < no role > that morning; Mr. Sawtell, said, he was vexed I had not been there the time before, when he signed the other.

JOHN SHAW < no role > sworn in Chief.

I belong to the Prerogative-office, in Doctors Commons, I produce the will which the prisoner brought, I do not know who produced it there, I bring it from the register.

SAMUEL FENTON < no role > sworn.

I am an assistant to Mr. Jenner, who is the Proctor concerned for the persons named in this will.

Look at that? - This purports to be the will which was brought into Mr. Jenner's office, on the 10th of February, by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > and William Hunter < no role > , the executors, who were attended by Mr. Gregory their attorney, they came into Mr. Jenner's office to prove this will.

Is that the same will? - Yes, I know it by the Jurata.

Were they all present? - Yes, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , one of the prisoners attended as executor, whether his hand delivered it, I cannot say.

Were they sworn, Sir? - I see I have wrote the Jurata, and it appears by the signature of the Surrogate, but I do not remember whether I attended them.

Did you read it to them? - No.

Did you see him sign it? - I do not recollect that.

You know the Surrogate's hand writing? - Yes.

Is that it? - Yes.

Mr. Silvester. Now, I produce that paper.

Mr. Erskine. What is it? - The will produced by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > .

Mr. Erskine. I apprehend it is premature upon an indictment for forgery to read the very instrument, upon which the indictment proceeds, unless they can establish some fact or other, which fixes the prisoner with it.

Court. Last night we did it, we called a man who received a bill from the prisoner, then you may call a man to say it is not his hand writing.

Mr. Erskine. This is the very will that is charged as the forgery on this indictment I apprehend that before you can read this will, you must shew by some sort of evidence fit to go to the Jury, that they are the forgers of the will.

Court. No, their producing the will, lays the burthen upon them to shew it is not a forgery; suppose it does not bear the resemblance of the testator's hand writing, how can it be seen unless it is read.

Mr. Erskine. I submit, my Lord, that you are not to taint the minds of the Jury with hearing the instrument read, unless you shew that the thing is in fact forged, no matter by whom; my objection is, you should not read this till you have given proper cause to the Jury and the Court, to believe this is a forged instrument.

Court. How does the reading it convey a prejudice that it is forged, it conveys a contrary idea; they admit upon the face of it, it is a good will, then they avoid it by saying, though it does appear to you upon the face of it, yet we take take upon ourselves to prove it is a bad will.

Mr. Erskine. Suppose an action was brought on any instrument, the authority of it must be proved before it is read, the jit of this indictment is the point of authority.

Court. Here is an instrument coming from the hands of one of the prisoners, it is read to shew, not that it is not the will, but I shall take it as it appears to be, till it is shewn to the contrary.

Mr. Erskine. Then we have no objection.

(The will read as in the indictment, and examined by the record.)

EDWARD PRICE < no role > sworn.

Sir T. Davenport Was you servant to Mr. Sawtell? - Yes.

How long? - About thirteen or fourteen years.

Did you live with him at the time of his death? - Yes.

Do you remember when that happened, on what day? - The 9th of February, 1783.

Was you in the house with him to his death? - Yes.

What other servants had he? - A maid servant, Elizabeth Spraggs < no role > , she is dead; I know the prisoners James Evans < no role > and Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > .

Did you see them at any time at your master's house, both or either of them, in the December before he died? - Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > used to be there often.

Did he set up at nights with the prisoner after you and your fellow servant went to bed? - Yes, Sir, many nights.

Do you happen to remember the first? - the 14th of December, 1782.

Was your late master at home or did he go out on the 15th of December? - The next day he went to Newgate-street and dined there.

Did you go with him? - Yes.

At that time was he able to write? - That I cannot tell.

But by his state of health I mean? - I suppose he could, he could handle a knife and fork.

On this 14th of December, do you happen to remember what time he went to bed? - I put him to bed, but I cannot tell the time.

I do not ask you as to a quarter of an hour or half an hour? - He generally used to go to bed, at that time, about nine, sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

Did you that night see anybody or hear anybody in the house? - No, nobody but what I left, I left Mr. Goodridge to set up with him.

You remember an iron chest that your master had? - Yes.

Do you remember what keys there were to it? - The key of the iron chest wasby itself.

Was there more than one key do you know? - There were two, Mr. Slack of Newgate-street had the one, and the other was in my master's pocket.

Do you happen to remember where that key that was at home was on the 14th of December? - Yes.

Where was it then? - On the 14th of December, before anybody came into the house, I took care of all the keys out of my master's pocket, and put them in my own pockets, and I put my breeches under my head all that night; the next morning Mr. Slack came, and I desired him to take care that every thing was clear, for I had done with every thing, I told him Mr. Goodridge had set up the night before and then I had nothing to do but to take care of my master.

Then during his illness and at any time before his death, do you remember his saying any thing to you if he was taken ill, worse than ordinary, what you was to do? - Yes.

What was that? - When anything rendered him ill, or incapable of his own business, I was to go to Mr. Slack, of Newgate-street, for he was the man that took care of his property.

Now in what stage of his illness had you received these instructions from him? - I had these instructions for eight or nine years, ever since Mr. Slack was executor always, I do not recollect that he gave me any orders to fetch Mr. Slack in any part of his illness.

Do you remember any particular day or night that he so sent or ordered you? - I do not recollect.

Do you remember any thing that he said about Mr. Slack or about yourself? - He always told me Mr. Slack was to pay me my legacy.

Now, do you remember any time before his death that he said any thing particular to you? - Yes, I remember three days before he died, I went to him, and he opened his eyes and looked at me, and asked me how I did, and I made him answer very well, I hoped he was the same, or I wished he was better, or something of that kind, and he desired me to pray for him for he was not for this world, and he hoped Mr. Slack would pay me what he had left me; that was all he said, it was the last sensible word he spoke to me, that was on Thursday, the 6th of February, he died on the Sunday after that.

Now, during the time that you lived there, do you remember who had access to his money and all the valuables that were in this iron chest besides himself? - Nobody besides himself, but Mr. Slack, or somebody by his directions.

Could he himself open that iron chest within a month or two of his death? - I do not think he could open it since the iron chest was in his possession.

How long had he had it? - The brother died in 1777, then directly after that the iron chest came into his house.

Now, when he did go to it he took people always to assist him? - When he went to the iron chest he always called one of the men to help him, I have helped him many times.

Has Robert Slack < no role > ever? - Robert Slack < no role > has many times, he had the management of his business the last year.

Do you remember whether Daniel Slack < no role > used to go to the iron chest? - Very frequently.

Do you remember Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > ever going with him to the iron chest, or having any thing to do with a key of it by his order or direction? - Yes.

When? - Once or twice.

Then he knew there was an iron chest? - Yes.

You have mentioned that he had told you within three days, of his death that Mr. Slack was to pay you your legacy; did he at any time during his illness, or at any other time, tell you that Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > was to pay you the legacy?

Mr. Erskine. That is a strange way of examining your own witness, you should ask him what he said, not put words in his mouth.

Did you ever see Underwood at your master's? - Never, the first time I saw him was at Bow-street, about a twelve month after his death, it was at the examination.

Do you know Leonard Goodridge < no role > ? - I have seen him since my master's death, he never was at my master's house that I know of.

Did you ever see Evans there? - Yes, many times.

Have you ever seen your master write? - Yes, many times.

Did you ever see him in his life make a mark instead of writing his name? - No, never in my life.

FISHER DODSON sworn.

Examined by Mr. Silvester.

I am a carpenter, I know the prisoners, the two Goodridge's are undertakers.

What is Evans? - He was a publican.

Was you employed by either of the two undertakers, and when? - Yes, I was employed by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > .

In what capacity? - As a carpenter.

When was you so employed? - In the year 1782.

Do you know a man of the name of Underwood? - Yes.

What is he? - I always took him to be a lawyer or something in that way.

Did you at any time see him together with either of the Goodridges? - Yes, Sir, I have.

When? - I saw Mr. Underwood with Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > about a fortnight before the death of Mr. Sawtell.

Where did you see him? - At Mr. Goodridge's shop in Fleet-street.

What did you see this man employed about in the presence of the Goodridge's? - He was employed in writing.

Who was there besides Nathaniel? - Only Nathaniel and Mr. Underwood, he was there, I think, about three hours.

Had you any opportunity of seeing what he was writing? - Not that evening.

When did you leave work that day? - about nine.

When did you return? - I did not return to the shop any more that night, I came the next morning to my work.

About what hour? - At the usual time, about six o'clock.

Did you go into the compting-house? - Yes.

What did you observe? - I observed a writing, which I thought Mr. Underwood had been writing the night before.

Where was that writing? - In the writing desk.

Had you the curiosity to read it? - Yes.

What was it? - Why it seemed to me to respect a will of Mr. Sawtell's.

What do you mean by seeming to respect a will of Mr. Sawtell's? - There was the name of Sawtell there.

Did you make any other observations? - Yes, Sir, I read some legacies that were in the will.

Can you recollect any of them? - Yes, there was to Mrs. Goodridge a gold watch, chain, and seals, and after her death to her son George Haynes < no role > .

Do you recollect any other? - Yes, there was three hundred pounds left to Henry Haynes < no role > , and three hundred pounds to George Haynes < no role > .

Was it complete? - There were some more legacies which I cannot remember.

What other observations did you make? - No more than that, I do not remember any more.

Was it a complete will, or only part of a will? - No, Sir, I think it was not a whole will, I think it was three parts of the will, down such a sheet as that.

Was it wrote on the other side? - No, Sir, I think there was none on the other side, but to the best of my remembrance, it was three parts of the way down, I think it was about a fortnight before Mr. Sawtell's death, I am not certain to a day or two.

Which way was it written? - Down ways of the paper.

Was there one or two sheets at that time? - I think, to the best of my knowledge, there was but one.

Now, how soon after you had seen this paper and made these observations upon it did you see Underwood again? - The next day in the evening.

Where did you see him? - In the same place, he was there when I left work, and he might have been there for an hour or two before I left work.

Was either of the Goodridges there at that time? - No, Sir, neither of them at that time when I left my work.

Did any thing particular happen before the death of Mr. Sawtell? - Nothing that I can remember.

When you heard of the death of Sawtell, what passed then? - On the morning that Mr. Sawtell died, I was in bed, and I was called up and sent to Mr. Gregory's, at Wax-Chandler's-Hall, with a parcel sealed up.

Who sent you? - Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , after I came home I was sent over, by Mrs. Goodridge to Mr. Underwood's house with a note to acquaint Mr. Underwood of Mr. Sawtell's death, that was the same morning I had been to Mr. Gregory's.

Do you know Mr. Goodridge's handwriting? - I would not wish to swear to it.

Have you seen his hand-writing? - Yes.

Did you ever see him write? - Yes.

Look at this. - I think this to be the hand-writing of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > .

What do you think of the first? - This here I think to be Mr. Goodridge's handwriting.

Do you believe it to be Mr. Goodridge's hand-writing or not? - Yes.

Have you seen him write often? - Yes.

Mr. Garrow. Mr. Dodson, you told my friend just now you would not wish to to swear his hand-writing? - I would not wish to do a wrong thing.

Then you take that to be a wrong thing to swear to his hand-writing? - No, Sir, I said I would not venture to swear to his hand-writing.

Having said you was so well acquainted with it that you would not wish to swear it? - I think I could.

Do you mean to swear you believe it to be his writing? - I believe it to be his handwriting.

How long is it since you left the service of Mr. Goodridge? - I believe it is upwards of a year and a half.

You have been examined in the Commons? - Yes.

Was you examined before Mr. Underwood was examined in Bow-street? - No, Sir.

No, I thought not; you was examined for the first time in August, 1785? - It is a twelve month ago since I was first fetched up.

Was this an open desk that was in the compting-house? - It was a desk with a single flap, there was a lock and key, it was not locked.

So this writing was left open in the desk for all the people to read? - There was nobody had any business in the compting-house except me and Mr. Goodridge.

What more business had you there than Mr. Hill? - He had no business to set down the things.

You was in the constant habit of going to this desk? - Yes.

And so Mr. Goodridge knew that this was your duty; so this paper you have been examined to was left quite open in this desk, where you went to set down things? - Yes.

Upon the death of Sawtell you heard there was a will in favour of the Goodridges? - No, Sir, I never heard any thing of the kind.

Why, do you mean to swear, my man, that you had not heard that? - I have heard as thus, that they took Mr. Sawtell to be a relation to Mrs. Goodridge, and Mrs. Goodridge always called him her uncle.

After Sawtell's death did you not hear there was a will made in their favour? - Yes.

You did not tell anybody that you had seen this will of Mr. Sawtell? - Not till after Elizabeth Nicklin < no role > went away from Mr. Goodridge's, when she went away Mrs. Goodridge had her box searched, and she told me of it, and I said to Nicklin if I had thought that Mr. Goodridge would have served you so ill, I would have divulged the secret, as I took it to be a secret.

Did not you add this little sentence to it, if ever I have an opportunity of doing for him I will not lose that opportunity? - That I never said to any body.

Do you know a man of the name of Haswell? - Very well.

Will you swear you never said that to him? - Yes, I will.

Hill was your brother journeyman? - We were about a job that night that was to go to James Evans < no role > 's, it was a partition to part off a watchmaker's shop, to make two places to work instead of one.

Do you recollect some business you was doing for Mrs. Close? - That was done afterwards.

Was it a week or a fortnight? - It might be more or less.

Was it within the compass of a month? - I think it was done within the compass of a month, I think it was before Mr. Sawtell's death.

About how long after Underwood came to Goodridge's shop? - I think it was just about that time.

It was putting up some stairs in Gutter-lane? - Yes.

Was Underwood writing all the time? - I do not know, I was not in the shop all the time; he was writing every time I went into the compting-house.

Who was Miss Nicklin? - A fellow servant of mine at Mr. Goodridge's.

She was discharged, and her box searched? - She was not discharged, she discharged herself.

I believe Mr. Goodridge was uncivil enough to search her box? - Yes, she came down to me and told me that, I was at Walton upon Thames, at my father's, I told her, that if so be I had known Mr. Goodridge would have used her so ill as he did, I would have divulged the secret.

Now, what secret was it? - When I saw this will of Mr. Sawtell's I thought it was an improper place to make a will in.

How long was this after the will had been made as you say that she came to you? - A week.

I take it for granted you turned yourself off Mr. Dodson, did not you? - I might have worked longer if I chose, for he offered to raise my wages.

Why, after you told Miss Nicklin this secret, you kept it still a secret? - Yes, I never opened my mouth to Hill about it.

To nobody but Nicklin, did Nicklin tell any body about it? - No, that she did not, I am very clear.

How did the gentlemen find out what you know, do you know that? - Why Mr. Underwood, Sir, sent for me, at least he got people to send for me, when he was taken.

Did you ever tell Underwood that you had looked in the desk? - No Sir, Underwood or somebody told Goodridge when he turned me away, that he had done the worst thing in the world.

How came Underwood to say that? - I do not know.

Did Hill and you drink together that evening? - Yes.

Mr. Silvester. You went into the room several times, while Underwood was busy a writing? - Yes.

(The two papers read.)

"Mr. Underwood debtor to Nathaniel Goodridge, 1782. s. d.

No particular date, lent him 5 5 0

1783. March 6th.

To a Bath stove - 1 18 0

To six beech died chairs 1 11 6

To a mahogany round table 1 4 0

To a steel bowed fender - 0 12 0

To a bedstead - 0 7 6

To a bed and bolster - 1 16 0

To a pair of holland sheets, &c.

The sum total is 23 16 0

Another paper read, signed Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , addressed to Mrs. Underwood.

"I received some few lines from a friend of yours, and I wish I had it in my power to help you in your distress, but you have called on me so often, that I have distressed myself, and I am astonished at you to send to me now, and because I have not trouble enough of my own, I must be teazed with Mr. Underwood's affairs; and as to promises, you, I believe, and Mr. V. thinks but very little about, when you have got your turn served; for remember last time, that when your turn was served, it was all well, but as to the promises, was all forgot.

Nath. Goodridge."

Saffron-hill, Wednesday, 2 o'clock, 1784.

JOHN HUDSON < no role > sworn.

(Examined by Mr. Fielding.)

I knew the deceased Mr. Sawtell, ten or eleven years before his death and up to his death.

Did you know of any intimacies subsisting between him and Mr. Slack? - Yes.

Of what nature were they? - Every day Mr. Sawtell went to Mr. Slack's house, almost.

Do you know either of the prisoners? - Yes.

Which of them? - Two of them.

Did Evans ever make any application, and when, relative to the will of Mr. Sawtell? - Mr. Evans in January, 1783, came to my house in the afternoon, and asked me if I was engaged for the evening, I told him no, he then asked me if I would come to his house that night, about eleven, or between eleven and twelve; there would be an attorney at his house, with some few friends, that would go with me from thence to Mr. Sawtell's house in Brook-street, to be witness to his will.

This you say was in January? - In January.

Do you know what part of January? - About the 23d, I asked him in whose favor the will was made, he said in Mr. Goodridge's.

Which of the Goodridges? - He did not mention any christian name.

Did you know the Goodridges before? - I knew Nathaniel; then I asked him if it would come to the ears of Mr. Slack, in Newgate-street, if I was to be a witness to the will; and he said, he believed in course of time it would, and I was to have a suit of cloaths or a ring, if I would go, and be witness to the will; when I found it was not in favor of Mr. Slack, I told him I hoped he would excuse me, he left me in the afternoon, about three, four, or five, I cannot particularly speak to the hour, but it was after dinner.

Did you see Evans at any time afterwards, and resume the conversation? - I met him a few days afterwards, and asked him if he had got a witness, and he said, yes, the business was done, nothing else passed.

Mr. Erskine. You are a friend of Mr. Slack's? - Yes.

I believe Mr. Evans knew perfectly well, you were a friend of Mr. Slack's? - No doubt of it.

Mr. Evans did not wish that Mr. Slack should know any thing about this will making, as he said it must come to his ears in time; did you gather from that, that this was to be secret business, and that Evans did not wish Mr. Slack should know it? - I took it to be so.

And therefore he came to you, who was a friend of Slack's, about a thing that Slack was not to know; is not that a very odd thing, that a man, out of five or six hundred thousand people, should six upon you, who he might be sure would go and tell him? - Evans desired me to keep it a secret; I was as much a friend to Evans as to Slack.

So your evidence appears to day; had Mr. Evans no friends, think you, that were not friends to Slack? - I do not know.

I ask you this plain question, if you wanted to do a thing you meant to keep a secret from me, would you go and pitch upon a particular friend of mine, above all others, to tell it to in preference to any strangers; would you now? - I do not know whether I should or not.

Look at the Jury, and tell me whether, as a man of sense, and a man who has not lost his reason, would you, if you wanted to injure me in any such a way, that I should not be able to correct it, would you pitch upon a particular friend of mine, upon one of these gentlemen here; would you be guilty of such an absurdity? - No, not at all, there is no absurdity in it.

Would you do so, would you conduct yourself in that way? - I cannot tell you any more.

But I will make you; would you do so, as a man that is not in bedlam; is Mr. Evans a fool; was Mr. Evans in his right senses; is he a prudent, discreet man? - I suppose so.

Why should you think he is a greater fool than you? - I do not know; I am very happy I acted in the manner I did in the business.

When might it first occur to you, that this was a material circumstance; did not you go to Mr. Slack directly, and say to him, I would have you be on your guard, things are not going on well here, I have refused a suit of cloaths and a ring; did you tell Slack that? - No, Sir.

Then you are not so good a friend to him as you described: when might it first occur to you, to tell any body that you was interested about it? - It was some months before Mr. Slack knew that I knew any thing about it.

When you was sworn in the commons, you said, you lived with him on the most friendly and intimate footing imaginable? - What kept this in my breast, was the intimacy with the prisoner; he is a relation of my wife's.

How long was it before you met him in the street afterwards? - I cannot speak to the time in this business.

Mr. Fielding. Had you any greater degree of friendship or intimacy with Mr. Slack than you had with Evans? - No.

The 23d of January was but a short time before Mr. Sawtell's death? - No.

Do you know in what condition Mr. Sawtell happened to be in at the time of this application? - I cannot say, I never was at the house, any more than what I have heard, Mr. Robert Slack < no role > came to me eight or ten months after.

CHARLES EAMES < no role > sworn.

Examined by Sir T. Davenport.

I live at Saffron-hill; I am a tallow-chandler, I succeeded Mr. Sawtell, I know Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , I remember Nathaniel's applying to me about Sawtell's will: on the 26th of January 1783, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > came to my house, about ten in the morning, he had a shilling's worth of candles; I asked him how Mr. Sawtell did, and he said he had been sitting up that night with him, and he was much as usual; that he had been making all over to him that night by promises, that he was disposed to alter his will in his favour, and desired him to get his attorney for that purpose; but it must be done privately, as Mr. Slack and Atkinson were frequently backwards and forwards; he said he did not know any body that had a greater influence with Ned and Betty than I had, they were the servants of Mr. Sawtell, and begged I would go for that purpose, and speak to them, if they could be entrusted with it, there was opportunity enough, I informed him that I was going to Greenwich that day, and should not see them, he pressed me once or twice, I told him I should be sorry if I should be the instrument of depriving Ned and Betty of what I knew Mr. Sawtell had designed for them, as Mr. Sawtell had frequently informed me that he had left them something handsome, he said whatever their legacy was, it should be doubled, and I should have something handsome, I said d - n their money I will have nothing to do with it: whether I asked him to drink, or whether he asked me to drink, I cannot say, but upon that we went to the house of James Evans < no role > , and then had a pint of purl in the bar, and nearly the same conversation was repeated in the presence of me, Goodridge, and Evans, and on Goodridge saying, that Sawtell was disposed to to alter his will, Evans said, get it done, get it done.

Upon that occasion did any thing more pass, or did you part? - I made answer that if Mr. Sawtell was in his senses, and disposed to alter his will, he might do it without the assistance of Ned, Betty, or me; I left them and went to Greenwich; on the Tuesday following, Mrs. Goodridge, Nathaniel's wife, met about, fifty doors from my own house.

Court. That is no evidence, the prisoner was not there? - No.

Did you know Underwood at that time? - No, I never saw him till I saw him at Hicks's Hall, a year ago.

Did you ever know Mr. Sawtell in any part of his life time, make a mark instead of writing his name? - Never in my life.

Mr. Pigott. Mr. Eames, I take this to be the third time that you have given an account upon oath of these transactions? - It is.

You were first examined in the Commons on the 26th of April 1784? - I was.

You were examined on the behalf of the Slack's? - Certainly.

You were examined for the second time on the 9th of August 1785, sixteen months afterwards, is that true? - I believe it is, I cannot recollect the dates.

Do you happen to know that Mr. Underwood gave his information, and was committed upon it? - Yes.

Was Underwood in custody when you was first examined in April 1784? - No.

Was not you present at Underwood's examination? - No.

You heard when he was committed? - Yes.

Was it after you were first examined? - Yes.

Was you or was you not in Bow-street, when Underwood was examined? - No.

Now Mr. Eames, this conversation which you have proved to day, namely between Mr. Goodridge and you, did you on the first examination in the Commons, say one word about that conversation? - I did not.

Is there one word of what you have sworn to day in your first examination? - No.

Not one word? - No.

Were you sworn, Mr. Eames, to swear the whole truth? - Yes.

Court. Are not they examined to interrogatories there?

Sir Thomas. That is the whole.

Mr. Pigott. The second time you was examined was after Underwood was in custody? - I believe it was.

When did you for the first time disclose all this you have been telling to day? - I disclosed it at Doctors Commons, and to other people the day it was spoken.

Who subpoened you to come into the Commons? - Mr. Slack.

Did nobody ask you what you could prove? - I never was asked, to my knowledge, one word by the parties concerned.

Now, observe, you stand here in a public Court of Justice, before a great number of your fellow subjects; how do you reconcile to the character and conduct of an honest man, to have known that transaction, and not discovered it? - It was a matter that hung much upon my spirits, and as such I could not form a resolution to declare it; the examiner at Doctors Commons did not ask me a word about it, it was a matter that I thought would lead to a criminal business, and I was afraid to utter it at first, but when there was a criminal business about it, I knew it must come forward, and I discovered it to Mr. Boucher, of Spital-fields.

Why must it come forward if you did not disclose it? - I had disclosed it to Mr. Boucher; give me leave to inform you, that is with reluctance that I now stand here, and if I had not been subpoened, I should not have stood here.

Between the two examinations, did you tell any person, no matter whom, that you had disclosed all you knew, upon your oath? - No, I never did.

Pray, do you know any man of the name of Lawrence Green? - Yes, I do.

Now, you never happened to tell him what I say? - He must know that I told him all that I knew after the death of Mr. Sawtell, within a few days after the death of Mr. Sawtell, I did tell Mr. Green the very thing.

Did you never say to Mr. Green, I have been examined at the Commons, and there I disclosed all I knew of the matter? - No.

You never did? - I do not know to my knowledge that I did.

Will you swear that you did not, look at the Jury, and either affirm or deny as you chuse? - I never told Lawrence Green; I had said all I knew in Doctors Commons.

Do you know a man of the name of Pollard? - Yes.

Mr. Slack is a friend of yours? - No, he is a great enemy,

Did you ever say to Pollard, that you wished for Mr. Slack to get the day? - I never did.

You never said that if Mr. Slack got the day, you should get an hundred pounds? - I never did, Mr. Slack is no friend of mine, nor ever was.

You do not deal together? - Yes, I do.

What, considerably? - Not very considerably, I deal with him for cotton.

How does it happen, that in this great City of London, you chuse to deal with a man that is your enemy? - You may make as much of that as you please.

This is one of the new phenomena of this cause, I want to have it understood, you say, Daniel Slack < no role > is an enemy of yours? - I say, he is no friend of mine.

Yet you deal with him? - Yes.

Why do you chuse to deal with him? - I never left him, I dealt with him all along, it is my pleasure, I chuse to deal with him.

Did you owe Mr. Sawtell any money? - I owed him a hundred pounds, I am not ashamed to own it.

You have not paid that to any body? - No.

You never happened to have any conversation by accident (for if you converse with an enemy, you know it can only be by accident) about this hundred? - No, never, no never, spoke to him on the subject; nor to Pollard nor any one man in the world on that account.

ELIZABETH NICKLIN < no role > sworn.

I was servant to Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , I went there in August, 1782, and remained there till July 1784.

How came you to quit the service? - Because I did not like to stay after my mistress died; I saw Underwood and the two Goodridges in the dining room, at Mr. Goodridge's house, writing, about a fortnight before Mr. Sawtell's death, I do not remember seeing them after his death, I cannot say how often before; there was Mr. Evans came in the course of the day, and went into the room.

Was that the time when Evans and Goodridge were there, that this man Underwood was busy writing? - Yes.

After the death of Mr. Sawtell, do you recollect Underwood's coming to the house? - I do not.

Did you hear any conversation about the will, from either of the prisoners? - No.

Do you recollect what day of the week it was? - It was of a Sunday.

Mr. Sheppard. was you examined at the Commons? - Yes.

Did you say any thing about Leonard Goodridge < no role > being in the house, you swore that you could not answer any further to the articles than you did, and then you did not say that Leonard Goodridge < no role > was there, do you mean now to swear that Leonard Goodridge < no role > was there? - Yes.

You went away in consequence of your mistress's being dead? - Yes.

Your box was searched, I believe, you did not leave the family with any other reason, but because your mistress was dead? - No.

When did your mistress die? - In May.

How came you to go to Mr. Dodson? - I meant to live in that part, I had no place then; I left the family in July, about a fortnight after Dobson left the family, I had lived in that part of the country, and I went down to see an acquaintance.

Your box was searched? - Yes.

I believe you was a little angry about it? - Yes, I was.

Did you mention it to any body? - Yes.

Who to? - To my friends that were in town.

Did you mention it to any body else? - No, Sir, not before I went down.

Who did you mention it to afterwards? - I cannot recollect.

Do you remember mentioning it to Mr. Dobson? - Yes, after I went down.

Did you ever say to any body that you would certainly be revenged on your master for it? - No, Sir, never.

What did Dobson say when you told him of your box being searched? - He did not say any thing, only it was a very wrong thing.

Did not he say that he was very angry, that he would be up with Mr. Goodridge for it, that he would be revenged for it? - That was all he said, that I recollect, he never said any thing about being revenged.

Did he say what he would have done, if he had known it before? - No, Sir, not that I recollect.

Did he say to you that he would have divulged their secret, if he had known they would have used you so ill? - He did not say any thing to me then of it.

How long do you think it was before you went into service? - I cannot say.

How long do you think? - I had no place to go to, or else I should have gone sooner, I w ent to Walton to see an acquaintance, I lived at Weybridge, I went to see an acquaintance of mine in Surry.

How came you to go to Wilton at all? - On purpose to see them, I went to see a fellow servant.

Upon your oath was there any body at Walton besides Dodson that you went to see? - No, Sir.

Now, did not you live under his protection when you was at Walton? - No, Sir.

Did not you lodge at the same house with him? - No, not where he lodged, I lodged at a public house there six weeks as near as I can guess.

Where were your friends? - My acquaintance I had was a fellow servant of mine, that I lived with at Chertsey.

Where was you between the time that you quitted Mr. Goodridge, and went into service again? - I was at Chertsey.

What was the name of the house that you lodged at, at Walton? - At one Mr. Clarke's I lodged when I first went down at Chertsey, Dodson came to me at Chertsey, I sent nobody to him to tell him I was there.

How came he to guess? - He knew I was coming to that part to see my fellow servant I told him I should go down in that part.

How was it you did not go into place, are you married? - Yes.

Who is your husband? - Fisher Dodson.

How long have you been married? - I cannot say to the day.

About what time was it, and where? - I have no right to answer you to that.

Court. There is no harm in your answering to that.

Now, upon your oath, where were you married to Dodson, in what church? - I have no right to tell you that.

Mr. Sheppard. His Lordship has just told you must? - No, Sir, I shall not.

Now after you have been telling that story, do you refuse answering that question before the Jury, and do you expect credit if you do.

Court. You must answer that, where was you married? - I did not come upon that subject.

That does not signify, you must answer that question?

Mr. Garrow. Let Dodson go out of Court till she has answered that question? -

Court. You must answer? - No, Sir, I have no right to answer.

Yes, you must, you are under the obligation to answer? - Not to that subject.

Yes, you are.

Court. Do you mean to stand to it that you are married? - Yes.

Then you must answer it, there can be no harm in answering, if you do not answer, the consequence is, I must commit you to prison? - That is not what I came upon.

Mr. Fielding. My Lord tells you that you must answer, if you are not married confess it.

Court. You must say when you was married and where.

Mr. Recorder. If it is not true that you are married, the sooner you retract it the better.

Court. Were you married in a church? - I shall not answer to that, for I did not come upon that subject.

Are you apprehensive of bringing upon yourself any penalty or punishment by answering? - Not that I know of.

Then there can be no reason for your not answering, if you do not answer I shall commit you presently, if you are not married and you have hastily said that which is not true, you are at liberty to retract it again; are you married? - No, Sir.

Mr. Sheppard. Then I am sure I will not ask you another question.

BENJAMIN JOHNSON < no role > sworn.

Do you know Evans? - Yes.

Did you ever see him write, look at that paper and tell us whether you believed that to be his hand-writing? - I cannot pretend to say, it is a good deal like it.

Do you believe it to be his? - I do, but I cannot be sure, I should suppose it to be his, I would not make oath of it.

Mr. Garrow. You say you would not swear to it? - No, I would not.

Who are you? - My name is Benjamin Johnson < no role > , I am a carpenter in Talbot-court.

Are not you a tenant of Mr. Evans's? - No, I was.

Had you never any words with Mr. Evans? - None but what I was brought to.

Did not he charge you with defrauding him of a quarter's rent? - He did.

And I believe he summoned you to the Court of Conscience? - He did, I was examined in the Commons.

You said there that you was very much irritated at the treatment of Evans, and that you did not doubt but you expressed great resentment, is that true? - No.

I will read it to you,

"a difference of words happened between him and the said James Evans < no role > , and by such his treatment the respondent was irritated, and doubts not but he expressed great resentment of his treatment to him." - I did swear that, it is true that we had words, he certainly used me very ill, I know it now, he recovered the taxes.

You still know that he used you very ill? - Certainly.

You was examined after Mr. Underwood was in custody? - I know nothing of Mr. Underwood, I cannot say any thing about his affairs.

You was not examined till the 3d of September? - I believe not.

That was after Mr. Underwood was in custody? - It was.

Who applied to you to be examined in the Commons? - Mr. Slack sent some young man with his compliments and would be very glad I would attend there.

Who applied to you to know if you could prove Evans's hand-writing? - The very same person.

Did you see him sign this receipt for rent that you have been talking about? - Yes, I never saw this will till I was examined in the Commons.

You knew at that time that Evans was in custody as having been concerned in forgery? - Yes.

You knew that this piece of paper was to be produced in evidence against him? - Yes, when it came there, not before.

You thought it was material to go there? - Yes.

Then how comes it you swore this in the Commons that you did not know or was not aware that the paper you then proved would materially affect him? - I did not know till then, I swore to the best of my knowledge, I should suppose it was his handwriting, I should suppose within myself, by the manner of the writing, it was his.

When you knew it was to be used against him in a criminal prosecution, how came you to dare to swear that you was not aware it would materially injure him; did you read the receipt that was given to you? - I only looked at the name.

ALEXANDER SCOTT < no role > This name instance is in set 1530. sworn.

I know Evans.

Is that his hand-writing? - So far as the letter I, and the E, and the scrawl at the bottom, I know no further, he has signed bills for me for fires, when fires happened about the neighbourhood, I am engine keeper of St. Andrews.

Court. Do you believe the whole or do you disbelieve it? - I will not take upon myself to say the whole of it; I believe it is as far as the I and the E, and the scrawl.

What do you mean to say that one half of it is his writing and the other half not? - If I had his hand-writing in my possession I would not swear to it.

What is your belief? - My belief, if I was to go so far as to speak the truth is, that it is his.

Mr. Erskine. Mr. Scott, if I understand you right, you say this, that you have not acquaintance enough with this person's hand-writing to take upon you to swear in such a case as this, that that is his handwriting, and though it may look like it, you have not a firm belief in his hand-writing? - God forbid.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, in the most trumpery civil action in the Court of King's Bench, this would not do.

Court. How often have you seen him write? - I have seen him write very often.

Are you acquainted with his hand-writing? - No further than what I see here, I verily believe that to be his hand-writing, but I will not swear it.

You have seen him write? - Yes.

Are you, by seeing him write, acquainted with his hand-writing? - Yes, I perfectly believe it.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I never yet in my life, in a capital case, heard a man permitted to say that he has a firm belief of his hand-writing.

Do you think this a capital case, and do you know you are examining upon your oath, and will you take upon yourself, in the presence of God and your country, to say you believe that is his hand-writing? - I really believe it is.

Then how came you to distinguish between the letters I and E and all the rest of the letters? - I see they are all joined together.

You said that as far as the letters I and E you thought they looked like it? - In regard to the letter E, he always made the head of the E larger than the bottom.

How long is it since you saw him write? - Eight years ago.

You have not seen this writing which I hold in my hand now since you said you could not take upon you to say it was the hand-writing, but that the I and the E were, and that you partly believed it; now since you made use of that expression you never have seen the paper, for I have had it in my hand ever since, how came you to swear to the contrary now? - There is the top of the letter I, he always used to make it smaller, I do partly believe it, and I do believe it from my soul; if my child was gone to sea for twenty-eight years I should know him again.

What are you, Sir; I believe you are the man that declared war with the King of France? - That is not the question.

Are you the man? - I am.

How long did you stay in Newgate on that business? - Not at all.

What gaol was it then? - I was two days in the Compter but very well maintained.

You are a thief-taker, are not you, Sir? - Aye, if I saw any man pick your pocket I would take him.

You are so much a thief-taker, that you seem to have caught yourself to day? - No, I think not.

Read, signed James Evans < no role > , the 7th of April, 1783.

"Received of Mr. John Underwood < no role > a bond, bearing date the same day, of Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > to John Underwood < no role > for four hundred pounds, and which bond I hereby promise to deliver to the said John Underwood < no role > as soon as the said Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > shall have administration granted to him from the will of Mr. Thomas Sawtell < no role > , deceased.

JOHN TODD < no role > sworn.

Do you know John Underwood < no role > ? - I do.

Look at the receipt and tell us whether you ever saw it in the hands of Underwood.

Mr. Pigott. I object to this, because it is a transaction between the witness and Underwood, neither of the prisoners being present or a party.

Court. The objection to this evidence is merely to lay a foundation to introduce Underwood, first of all it has been proved to you that Underwood wrote this.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord, this evidence cannot at all be received, I say the Court will not do that which is palpably, grossly wrong on the face of it, if they cannot examine into what he has said, can they examine into what he does? he is so bad a witness, he is so little to be credited, that no act of his, no conversation of his, no testimony of his, even on his oath, can be so received as to go to the Jury, they bring this man to shew that this paper was at one time in the hands of Underwood; it would be good evidence if he was to be tried, suppose in a burglary, if any of the prisoners pledge any thing, it is evidence against them: Though there is no doubt about his guilt, the only question is, whether he singly is guilty, or whether he with other persons is guilty, and not the prisoners: he is a man who cannot be received unless most strongly confirmed; if such a witness were permitted to lay his head together with any other person with whom he might advise, to have these things and shew them all about the town, so as to get rid of his own examination, there would be an end of the boasted liberties of the country; I never recollect any such evidence has been received yet.

Court. It has been proved by other witnesses that this is the hand-writing of Evans, the only question is whether this may be received, now I think it is admissible evidence.

Mr. Recorder. I am most clearly of opinion with the learned Judge that this evidence is admissible, the objection is not pointed to the witness, the evidence is this, a paper has been produced in Court, which, by some evidence admissible, no doubt but upon the credit of which the Jury are hereafter to decide; is proved to be in the handwriting of one of the prisoners, then the other evidence is to shew that the paper was at such a time in such a place, and that is to be shewn by the evidence of a witness standing unimpeached.

Did you at any time, and when, see that paper in the hands of Underwood? - I saw the paper in Underwood's hands at the time he was committed to the Fleet, I saw this in the possession of Mrs. Underwood and him together, in September, 1784.

Mr. Pigott. How happened it that Underwood was in the Fleet Prison? - I do not know what for, but he was committed by my Lord Chancellor.

Did you never hear Underwood say what it was for? - I cannot say, I dare say he would not open his mind to me on the occasion.

Was not it about perjury? - I never meddle with any thing that does not immediately concern me, I do not know.

You recollect you have seen a paper in the hands of Mr. Underwood, the paper subscribed by the name of Evans? - I do.

Did you read it? - I did, and to the best of my knowledge it is the same paper, I do not speak positively.

In your examination in the Commons you said thus,

"This deponent did not then peruse the whole of the said writing, but to the best of his present recollection did observe the name of Evans thereto subscribed." I have asked whether you read the whole of that paper purporting to be a receipt from Evans to Underwood, and you say you did; now I say that previous to this, you were examined in the Commons, and you said, that the deponent did not then peruse the whole of the said writing, but to the best of his present recollection did observe the name of Evans thereto subscribed, but did not observe what his christian name was to it; now observe, you first deny positively that you perused the whole, then you add that to the best of your recollection you saw the name of Evans thereto subscribed, but did not observe what his christian name was; is it true what I have been reading, is your evidence in the Commons? - It is.

Sir T. Davenport. Did you or did you not read enough of it, so as to be sure it is the same? - Yes.

Mr. Pigott. What do you happen to know of this Mr. Underwood? - Some years ago a person of the name of Evans turned swindler in India, and gave my brother a draught drawn on one John Underwood < no role > , Esq. at last I found this same John Underwood < no role > , I found him to be the son of Dr. Underwood of the Borough, a man of the most unblemished character; I saw the young man at that time in very low circumstances, when I urged him to use his industry to get my money, which he did on the swindler's coming to London, this led me to a little kind of respect for him.

But what I want to know is the general character of this Mr Underwood? - I think it very indifferent, very indifferent indeed.

You do not happen to know how he got into the Fleet? - Not absolutely, but I heard it was by the commitment of the Lord Chancellor.

Now, from Underwood's general character, would you believe him upon his oath in a Court of Justice? - Why, I do not know, after what has happened I should hesitate very much.

After what has happened you say you should hesitate very much? - Yes, I should.

JOHN UNDERWOOD < no role > sworn on the Voire Dire.

Examined by Mr. Erskine.

Mr. Underwood, I shall trouble you with a very few questions before your examination; first, I shall be obliged to you if you will tell me whether that is your handwriting or no? (shews him the instructions he produced to Mr. Gregory.) - This is my hand-writing.

You are a subscribing witness to this will which you now come to invalidate.

Sir T. Davenport. That is no question on the Voire Dire, on the Voire Dire the only question is, whether he has such an interest as totally rejects his evidence.

Court. You may attack a witness two different ways.

Mr. Erskine. I conceive the rule of Voire Dire is this, that before a witness is examined in chief, he shall be asked such questions as the Court shall think proper, I am bound to take every thing that he says to be true under the Voire Dire, I am entitled to ask that man any one question which I think fit, to which he shall think fit to answer, and when I have got all these answers, I say, that upon these facts disclosed by the witness himself, and taking them to be true, he is not by the law of England a competent witness.

Court. Go on.

Mr. Erskine. I ask you whether you are not a subscribing witness to the authenticity and truth of that will? - I am subscribing witness to the authenticity, but not to the truth.

Jury. Then you come to tell us a lye?

Mr. Erskine. It is vastly beyond my conception to understand you, whether or no you did not mean to attest that that was such a will? - I cannot say that I did as an attorney.

Did you sign this will,

"Signed, sealed, published, and declared by the within-named testator, as and for his last will and testament, in the presence of us who in his presence, and in the presence of each other, and at his request, have signed our names as witnesses hereto? - Before it was signed or sealed I subscribed my name.

Then, Sir, you thought proper to subscribe your name as a witness before the will was sealed and before it was executed? - When the truth of the business comes out, you will know the whole of it.

When shall we know that truth comes from you? - When the whole of the business is related.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Gregory? - I am.

As there are so many persons present, I may venture to trust you with a bit of paper, though I shall want it back again; perhaps that is your hand-writing? - It is.

Then I think you delivered this paper which I am now about to read to you, to Mr. Gregory. (Reads.)

"On or about August, 1781, I first saw Mr. Sawtell, I was sent for to Mr. Sawtell's several times, to the house of Mr. Goodridge, about Mrs. Reeves, and on my informing him of the hardship of the case, Mr. Sawtell advanced five guineas. On the 6th of November, 1782, I accidentally called at Mr. Goodridge's, and there I saw Mr. Sawtell, and, after some time, he asked if I was not the attorney who had Mrs. Reeve's cause, which being answered in the affirmative, he, after some time, said he had made his will, but was very unhappy or dissatisfied, or words to that effect, and then applied to me for that purpose, but said it must be done with secresy, and seemed determined, and desired they would leave the room, they accordingly did, he then produced a will he had made two days before, and desired I would immediately copy it, which I did, I returned the same to him again, and then took his instructions, when I had done, he desired I would meet him again on the Lord Mayor's day, and after making some immaterial alterations, Mr. Goodridge and he went, I think to Tallow-Chandler's Hall, but first desiring I would not bring the will to his house till he sent to me, but on the 14th of December Mr. Goodridge came to me, and desired me to attend him at Mr. Sawtell's house, at a quarter after ten at night, we all went up stairs into Mr. Sawtell's bed-room, who was awake, and said I am glad you are come; I accordingly proceeded to read the will, with which he seemed perfectly satisfied, and said it would be very troublesome in the situation he was to write his name, I told him his mark would do as well; then he executed the will, and, applying himself to Mr. Goodridge, said, God bless you, take care of what I have done for you, or words to that purpose; we all went away." This which I have been reading to the Court and Jury, you have acknowledged to be your hand-writing and delivered as such solemnly to Mr. Gregory? - I did.

The will was contested in the Commons? - Yes.

You gave him this account under your own hand? - I did, I believe, before the will was proved.

Did not you at a subsequent time give that paper to Mr. Gregory? - I did.

Now, look Sir further at this paper, and tell me upon your oath (if that makes any difference) whether you did not give that as a copy of the instructions which you took down from Mr. Sawtell's mouth to make his will? - I did.

Reads,

"As far as concerning the rest of my estate and effects of what nature or kind soever, I leave to the said Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , &c. for ever."

You told Mr. Gregory, I believe, that there was some alterations which the deceased Mr. Sawtell had suggested to you at the time of taking the instructions; this is a whimsical situation I am in, to be obliged to take what you say for truth; this you gave as a copy of the instructions which you took down from old Sawtell for his will? - I did.

You was afterwards examined in Doctors Commons, and you gave a very long and circumstantial account of that business, upon your oath; you positively swore, you was then solemnly sworn upon the gospel to speak the truth? - Not a doubt of it.

Reads,

"And is so assured in his conscience, and firmly believes that there was not the least force, fraud, imposition, persuasion, artifice, device or contrivance, used or practised by any person whatever, to prevail upon or induce the deceased to make that will, but the deceased appeared to the deponent to be in his perfect senses, and capable of knowing what he did, the witness never saw him after the execution of the will, and knows nothing of his manner of living." Here then you did declare that this was a true valid will made by yourself, and that you saw it executed, did you swear that or did you not? - I did swear it.

I believe you was cross examined on forty five cross-interrogatories in that Court? - I was.

Persisted to give this full account of it? - I did.

And Mr. Underwood, are you come here in the character of a witness, to tell my Lord and the Jury that every thing you deposed to before, was absolutely false, and without any foundation? - I came here as a criminal.

That is no answer to my question, you do not come so, I wish you was at the other end of the Court? - I certainly have entered into a base combination with the prisoners, I can only say this, I have done a wrong thing, and that I am sorry for it.

How are we to know that you are not doing a wrong thing to day, then you come here to falsity your attention to Mr. Gregory? - I am a criminal in the business, and I come here to make all the reparation I can.

Are you come here to falsify, upon your oath, that which you swore in the Commons, and that which you delivered to Mr. Gregory? - A man that does wrong, has a right to do right.

Do you, aye or no? - I am come to do right.

Do you come to falsify every thing you have heretofore sworn? - Not a doubt of it but I am.

All of it! - Yes, all that I have done on account of this will.

The conclusion of this Trial in the next Part which will be published in few Days.

THE TRIAL OF Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , Leonard Goodridge < no role > , and James Evans < no role > ; FOR FORGING THE WILL OF Mr. THOMAS SAWTELL < no role > , deceased: WHO WERE TRIED AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On SATURDAY, the 14th of JANUARY, 1786.

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY E. HODGSON, PROFESSOR OF SHORT-HAND; And Published by Authority.

NUMBER II. PART IV. (Of the SESSIONS PAPER.)

LONDON:

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

MDCCLXXXVI.

Continuation of the Trial of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , Leonard Goodridge < no role > , and John Evans < no role > .

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, I feel myself in a situation so perfectly new, not because I am inexperienced in the history of judicatures, not because I am inexperienced in the history of civilized society; but because I am unacquainted with any case like this, and therefore, if I should not be able to give all the assistance to my clients, which in humanity and justice I owe them, I hope I shall stand excused; I am so astonished at what I hear and see, as not to be able to recollect the language in which I address your Lordship; I must make three objections to the competency of this witness, and I make them after cross-examination, on the Voire Dire, that I may have an opportunity of taking them collectively, and not separately: the three objections I make to his evidence, are these: first, that he appears on his own confession, and upon the statement of the counsel for the prosecution with respect to him, to be an accomplice in this crime, with which the prisoners are charged; and I mean to contend before your Lordship, that there is not a sufficient foundation laid in evidence, such as would induce your Lordship to leave the guilt or innocence of the persons to be decided by the evidence of such a witness; and that your Lordship cannot consistent with your conduct, receive this witness after the foundation you have laid down: I think that if even Mr. Underwood stood under none of the circumstances which are stated, that simply he is an accomplice: my second objection, which I beg to be added to the other, is, that he is a subscribing witness, which is one of the most solemn and deliberate acts, that any man can do to society; he is, upon his own confession, a subscribing witness to that will; that he says under that attestation, he saw the testator execute, and he has confirmed the truth of that attestation to Mr. Gregory in the most solemn manner, that no fraud, imposition, or device whatever was used in obtaining that will, and now in order that the prisoners may be taken away from the face of the earth, this man is to contradict the whole of his former evidence; there is a third character in which he stands, he has attested upon his oath in the Commons, as to his subscribing of this will, he stands as an informer, he stands convicted of perjury, on his own confession, and there is no judgment of record required against him; you have previously said, as a guide to the rules that we are to govern ourselves by at the bar, that you expect an antecedent foundation to be laid before an accomplice is admitted; the meaning of that is evidently this, an accomplice shall not be called before the foundation is laid for his evidence, for first, it operates as a snare to the Jury; secondly, it wastes the time of a Court of Justice, and no Judge would say to a Jury, you are to pay no respect to this man, unless he is corroborated by other circumstances: the crimes with which the prisoners at the bar are charged, are simply these; that they have forged or caused to be forged, the will in question; it is not for the uttering and publishing, but for the act of forging; and I beg leave to say no evidence has been yet given to impute that crime to the prisoners: it appears that Mr. Slack was not connected with the testator, Mr. Sawtell, in blood; and by every witness it appears that Mrs. Goodridge was his wife's niece, and it appears that he was extremely intimate with him, and he assigned him lease-hold premises and dined with him: my Lord, presumptions do not weigh in criminal cases, those which are of great avail in civil cases, are of no avail in criminal; but, says a very experienced lawyer, there is such a superior presumption in christian charity, that the presumption is much stronger in the innocence of prisoners than any presumption that can arise of their guilt, until the contrary is proved; if I am to examine the evidence, what does it amount to, that Mr. Slack is a stranger, and that Mrs. Goodridge is a relation, that Mr. Slack is a friend, and Goodridge another; now, suppose they had got at the residuum, and that the legacies did not swallow up the whole, God forbid probabilities are to put men on their defence, charged with the perpetration of a criminal offence, but that is not the case: as to Mr. Price in his evidence he has laid no antecedent foundation for the evidence of an accomplice; Mr. Price has proved nothing, and Price says this, that for some time before his death, this Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > had set up with the testator, and attended him in his sickness; it seems to me the strongest reason in the world, why a man is not to be neglected by the sick man in his will, for there is no object that can operate on the heart of a good and benevolent man, like the man who chuses to sit in a dark loathsome chamber with a sick man, rather than go out into the open air, and a man must have a great friendship for another, when he chuses to trust him in an office like that of sitting up all night with him, so that Price states things that may lead your Lordship to believe that he was the person who by his own choice he took to; and Price also says, that he remembers his going once or twice to the iron chest.

Mr. Recorder. I know some of the first criminal lawyers receive the evidence of the accomplice first, that is no ways contrary to law, it is a matter of discretion; but I conceive the principle of law is, that accomplices in all cases are admissible witnesses, but witnesses so discredited that unless there are some circumstances proved by witnesses deserving of credit, to confirm their testimony, it shall not even be left to the Jury, whether they will or will not believe them: with respect to this man, I must say, that from what has come out from the Voire Dire, he stands by no means in the light of a common accomplice, the objection to him is an objection to credit, a man's coming to unswear what he has sworn before, if he were not an accomplice it would be a much greater objection to his credit, and no Court or Jury can rely at all on his testimony, beyond what is proved by other witnesses.

Mr. Erskine. My Lord, this man stands in a situation so very different from a common accomplice, so contaminated with guilt, that I venture to say he cannot be believed; why is he to be believed? The only reason why a witness can be competent, and is to be received, is, that the Jury are to suppose, that the man comes under the sanctions and solemnities of religion, that he is influenced, not only by the fear of that punishment which the law can inflict upon him here, but stands much more in awe of that greater punishment, which it is in the power of the Supreme Being to inflict upon him in a future state: Why cannot a man convicted of perjury be examined as a witness? Because he has shewn that he pays no regard to the solemnities of religion, and though liars may often speak the truth, the life, the same, and the property of any individual must not depend on the testimony of any man that is not fit to be believed; and though to be sure it would not be once in a hundred times, that you could get a gentleman of so steady a countenance, as Mr. Underwood, to tell you all this is false, because he is the first man alive that ever did so; I cannot bring such another instance, there were many instances on the restoration of King Charles < no role > the Second, of persons who had been found guilty of perjury, and the evidence came viva voce to prove their perjury, the Judges said, if they could get the best evidence they would.

Court. What cases were those.

Mr. Erskine. I did not bring down my books with me, but in our day a witness never can be permitted to say one thing upon his oath, and then be permitted to tell a Court and Jury that the whole of that was perjury, because there is no degree of competency due to him; does your Lordship wish to have such a witness examined? can you tell the Jury that such a man is to be believed? Why he might be indicted upon his own examination; for if a man swears to two contrary propositions which are not true, you may indict him upon that; and would it not be a hard thing, that those three men at the bar should suffer death on the evidence of such a witness as Mr. Underwood: I cannot conceive any thing more distressing to your Lordship sitting as a Judge, than that such a man as this should be examined, that the time should be consumed, and that a snare should be laid for the consciences of the Jury, only that you should let them loose on that snare; but I am sure that the Jury have too much good sense, too much humanity, and too much christian charity to condemn any man upon such evidence: If I have offered any thing that does not meet with the opinion of the Court, I am sorry, I am sure I stand in a case perfectly new, it is no wonder I do not know better in such a case.

Mr. Pigott. My Lord, if the situation in which your Lordship now stands, was a situation in which a Judge ever before found himself, I think I should have discretion enough not to repeat any thing that Mr. Erskine has said; but I think that from the first moment that jurisprudence has been known, and from the first crime in the world down to this time, there never was such a cause as this in a Court of Justice; there never was a witness offered to a Court under such circumstances, and therefore, I do assure your Lordship, that with the utmost respect to the decision of your Lordship, I speak of the accomplice Underwood. It is of great importance to every citizen in the world, I do not say of this free country only, but I say on the face of the earth, that, that witness should be rejected as incompetent; for if he was to be received, unless God Almighty was to make a new revelation of his will, I protest I do not see how any man's property can be safe, if a witness comes into a Court of Justice, uttering the first word, he says, I did, (not in some other time, not in some other case, not in some other period, I did) commit perjury, but upon this very subject, upon this subject whether this was a valid will or not, I delivered the copy of the draught to the attorney, and after all I deposed deliberately making my solemn appeal to God for what I said, and I stood a cross examination of forty-five interrogatories, which were calculated to draw forth what I now call the truth of the case; but all I deposed was false. My Lord, there is no crime so great as high treason, yet if there existed persons base and wicked enough to conspire against that life, precious as it is in the eye of the law, and a witness had been called who could prove that crime of high treason, if that witness at any other time had been convicted of perjury, though he should have committed it in the earliest period of his life, though he should have lived half the life of man in the course of amendment and repentance, though he should be received in all societies with respect, yet he cannot be received as a witness; why? because he has once shewn, that in one instance, he has disregarded the sanction of a solemn appeal to God! if that man, John Underwood < no role > , whom it is this moment my misfortune to see, had perjured himself a hundred thousand times over upon all the subjects on which he had ever deposed in a Court of Justice, would he stand (I ask any man in conscience, and in reason, and in common sense) would he then stand in such a predicament as he does in this very case; he says, in that way I did depose, now the very first word he utters is, it is all false! Now, my Lord, upon what principle is it that a perjured man is unworthy of credit? why, because he has sworn falsely, not upon the subject that relates to this question, but upon any subject whatever; he has once sworn falsely, and what has once happened may happen again: consider, my Lord, the predicament in which this man stands, he is one of the three witnesses to this will, and has also been called upon by process, therefore I am sure it is a case totally new, for if any of your Lordships are of opinion that any thing like this has been decided upon any principle that reaches it, then I am perfectly content to say that my time has been mispent; this case is perfectly new, and I humbly submit it would be, of all situations, the most singular for the Jury, and singular for your Lordship to tell the Jury, to receive that man's testimony; but God forbid that such testimony should be received, if it should, I am sure that any twelve men picked out of the cells of Newgate would not sentence three of their fellow creatures to death upon the evidence of such a man.

Mr. Sheppard. My Lord, I shall confine myself entirely to this question, whether Mr. Underwood can be a competent witness, and, my Lord, the evidence by which competent or not competent is to be tried, is this, whether it is possible that any man, on any occasion, can give any credit to the witness that is to be sworn; that I take to be the distinction between competence and credit: if there is any thing which can lead the Jury to hesitate whether they shall believe him or no, then it becomes a question of credit; but if every body would cry out it is impossible to believe his evidence, it then strikes me it is as impossible to take his evidence, as if there was a record of perjury: When a man is convicted of perjury, no man can give credit to him however probable the story he tells may be, however, confirmed otherwise, still the man himself, in that situation, deserves not the smallest degree of credit; now can any man who has heard Underwood confessing that he first attested to this will, and afterwards upon mature deliberation he deposed in the most solemn way that the whole was true; and now he comes here into Court and admits he has perjured himself; can any man who has heard all this doubt whether he can be convicted of this perjury or no? he stands to all the world a perjured man; does not he stand as infamous as if he was upon record? If there was the smallest circumstance in his situation which could induce a Jury to doubt whether he was perjured or not, it might go to the Jury; but he is not competent, as, upon his credit, not the smallest discretion can be exercised.

Mr. Garrow. I take the liberty of troubling your Lordship with one word on this question, and I say, that such a monster of profligacy, so unlike any thing God ever made, as Mr. John Underwood < no role > , who stands now before your Lordship, never appeared in a Court of Justice before; and ought to go forth to the world with a title made for Mr. John Underwood < no role > alone: You have it proved by witnesses called on the part of the prosecution, that Mr. John Underwood < no role > is not to be believed upon his oath; the Jury have heard from Mr. John Underwood < no role > that he has not only given under his own hand, sitting in his closet, a full account of this will of Mr. Sawtell, and instructed the proctor to form interrogatories to support it, but he goes through every minute circumstance, and is confirmed by other witnesses, yet he does not stop there; for Mr. Underwood in the possession of this secret, goes about it, knowing it t o be a secret, he is employed as a solicitor, the suit is going on to judgment, the probate is about to be granted, and then Mr. John Underwood < no role > , urged by necessities which his own profligacy have brought upon him, Mr. Underwood in the Fleet, to which the Lord Chancellor had committed him; this Mr. Underwood applies to these parties to administer to the necessities he has involved himself in; they refuse it, and then for the first time Mr. Underwood says, now I will negative every syllable of that proof I have given under the sanction of an oath; now I will go before a magistrate and negative all I have sworn! now he says, I have done very wrong, and I come to day to make all the restoration I can, now for the first time in my life I come to do an honest act; suppose it possible (but to suppose it is to insult your Lordship and the Jury) suppose the evidence that should be given should induce the Jury to find the prisoners guilty, where is the assurance that to-morrow he will not say, now for the first time I feel some compunction, now I am going to make restitution the first deposition I made was the true one, do something to save me from damnation if you can? how can the Jury depend on the testimony he has to give them? how are they to believe the truth of that which he told in the Commons or his present story, which is confirmed by no witnesses but those infamous witnesses which have been set up since Mr. Underwood went before the Justice? My Lord, do, for God's sake, consider to what extent a determination to receive such evidence may go: It was my misfortune once or twice to be a subscribing witness to a will, but if I had the misfortune to attest another will, how do I know that that man who, if he was also a witness to the same will, might not go and say, this is a fabrication from the beginning to the end, I will call witnesses, I will produce some opinions too of Mr. Garrow, and I will go and indict that man at the Old Bailey, I will convict him for not having assisted me in my necessities: My Lord, I am supposing a man who had only lent his signature, who should in the first instance come and say he was not a witness to the true will, is there any body whose property is derived under testaments would be secure, if a subscribing witness to the same will can be permitted to falsify his own signature, to say I know that is my own hand-writing, and I know the thing is a fabrication from the beginning to the end: My Lord, persons convicted of felony are incompetent witnesses, but they are meritorious men compared to this witness, yet you cannot receive these men, however sincere their repentance may be, however conformable their lives may have been since to the strictest ruin of propriety and virtue: My Lord, is that the case of Mr. John Underwood < no role > , who comes here to swear that he has been perjured though whole volumes of depositions? My Lord, permit me to say, where there is a verdict only for the crime of perjury there may be a doubt; a late case, which made a considerable noise and was attended with very powerful arguments, seemed to falsify some persons that those who had penned certain affidavits, had not employed all the correctness they might, and it is still in some men's minds a doubt whether that man was fairly and strictly convicted: Is it so here? Have you any doubt whether he was guilty? have you any doubt whether he was corrupt, have you any doubt whether he was wilfully perjured? when he states now that he did that on the most mature deliberation, and added new forgery to forgery, and on the most mature deliberation sat down to make new minutes of instructions, as if they were old ones, and thus adding guilt upon guilt; Mr. Underwood, it is said, cannot be convicted of perjury by confronting his two depositions, I am very sorry to hear it, I am bound to believe it, the danger to society becomes infinitely stronger, because Mr. Underwood having heard that, and knowing the tendency of his deposition to day, is to go all the length of it; he is not like a witness coming into Court swearing as the woman did this day, first that she was married and then that she was not; I say he comes here tonight to perjure himself, I can demonstrate that; I assume that this will, which is now the subject matter of this indictment is a true will, that it was executed under the circumstances described in the Commons, I am supposing (and I beg pardon again for the supposition, which is an insult to your Lordship) how can there be any evidence offered to the Jury to confirm that testimony which was given in the Commons, to contradict that which he should give to night? there may be cases of persons being bought off by wicked persons: the argument was pressed by my friends that preceded me with all the ability that can be, and I contest that, in this case, Mr. Underwood cannot be received as a witness: I wish I could ask the Jury if they have nothing before them, it is a sheer question of competency, and it no longer can be pretended to be a question of credit; the question of credit can no be supported against a man who stands here, I repeat, it as a monster of human deformity.

Court. I think there is sufficient ground to admit the accomplice generally, when the attesting witnesses are called, they are constantly cross-examined; it is admitted that in cases of wills attesting witnesses may speak to the sanity of the testator: put the case of duress, suppose a man makes a bond, a subscribing witness is called, suppose a man puts a pistol to his breast and to the witness's breast, should it be said that that matter should not be unravelled? as to the other case, whether the witness is competent to be received, or whether his swearing differently in the Commons to what he has done, is an objection to his credit, I have always understood that the incompetency of a witness is founded on a disability of law which can only go to the record, the other only goes to his credit.

Mr. Recorder. However painful it may be to be obliged to hear the evidence of a man standing in the situation of Underwood, I cannot help entirely concurring in the opinion of the learned Judge as to his competency; this matter has been ably and ingeniously argued, and it would tend very much to confound the distinctions between credit and competency, if those distinctions were not maintained: can any man say that a man confessing himself guilty of every enormity that can disgrace human nature, is intitled to any degree of credit? and yet I am clearly of opinion that such a man would be competent; the question of credit is a question that always rests with the Jury, that of competency always rests with the Court; the objections to credit are infinite, as infinite as reason, philosophy and the workings of human nature can suggest; the objections to competency are few, and clearly defined by law, they are absolute disability of the person to give evidence, that he is a person convicted of perjury; I conceive it has been mistaken that the testimony of that witness is rejected, because when he is examined the Jury ought not to believe him, that is not the reason; the reason is, that he has been convicted of a crime to which the law affixes a disability to give evidence, therefore the man who is convicted of perjury, or any other crime to which disabilities are anexed, though many of them if examined would deserve the protection, and the credit of the Jury, for instance, a man convicted of a rape under particular circumstances, might be entitled to belief upon his oath, if it were not for such conviction; the perjured man is not rejected because he cannot be believed, but from his situation: now, no relationship however near and dear, disqualifies a person from giving evidence, except that of husband and wife alone, and that arises from their being in consideration of law one and the same person, they are not either of them permitted to give evidence for or against the other, but father for a child, or child for a parent, may give evidence; you cannot weigh the degree of interest, but any interest however small, disqualifies the party from being examined as a witness at all; because men should not be exposed to the temptation of giving evidence: the objections to credit and competence are perfectly distinct in their nature, the objection in this case is an objection to credit merely, and the Court may be bound by the rule of law to hear such a witness, though they may not believe him, for he may be under circumstances in which no man alive ought to give the smallest belief to his oath, that is for the Jury to consider; but I am of opinion he is a competent witness if offered to the Court.

JOHN UNDERWOOD < no role > sworn.

Was you ever in your life on any occasion employed by Mr. Sawtell? - Never.

By whom was you employed in the present transaction? - A Mrs. Reeve came to my house, a person whom I had formerly a Chancery suit for, and who was a very distressed person, the suit was commenced in 1776, I had had her in my house a year or a year and a half, I asked her for some cash, she said, she had a friend, a Mr. Sawtell, who lived on Saffron-hill, a tallow-chandler, and that she would apply to Mrs. Goodridge, who was his niece; this was in May 1781, I was desired to attend at Mr. Goodridge's house on Saffron-hill, to inform Mr. Sawtell of the case of this old woman, Mr. Sawtell some how or other answered me very short, and I went away affronted, and never saw him afterwards, but a few days after Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > brought five guineas to a Mr. Wolf, in whose house I lodged, that was the first time I ever saw Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > ; at length he became rather interested in the old woman's business, and attended me from time to time, and I think to the best of my recollection. I carried on the prosecution in Chancery for a twelve month, at length Mr. Goodridge was dissatisfied with my proceeding in Chancery, and he employed a Mr. Lucas, an attorney of New Inn, to superintend the business, and I gave him up all the papers; I never heard any further of Mr. Goodridge, till sometime in the latter end of October 1782, when Mrs. Reeve came over to my house, informing Mrs. Underwood that Mrs. Goodridge had some gowns to dispose of, Mrs. Underwood attended, and purchased these silk gowns for five guineas; about the latter end of November of the beginning of December, Mrs. Reeve came to my house, and desired me to attend Mr. Goodridge, on Saffron-hill, and I attended in consequence thereof; and I met him at Mr. Evans's house, and Mr. Evans and Mr. Goodridge took me into a parlour in that house, and after some conversation of the business of Mrs. Reeves, Mr. Evans opened his mind in the following manner.

"You know old Mr. Sawtell, who advanced you the money on that business, he is ill, he has made his will, but has not mentioned either Goodridge or his family in it, and he has made a will, and has left it all to those d - d rascals he Slacks, who are no relations to him, and it is a pity so much money should be lost:" Evans said,

"Old Mr. Sawtell often comes to my house to spend an evening, and if you will draw a will, I can get him to sign it, as if he was a witness of mine, as he has done before, and if you will call in occasionally when he is here, and will draw up such a will, we will give you a hundred pounds;" and he immediately went up stairs, and brought down his will which Mr. Sawtell witnessed, to shew me Mr. Sawtell had done it; he then desired me to call occasionally, and leave my address in case he should come, they did not know then where I lived, I did call several times, but Mr. Sawtell had not been out from home; at length Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > came to my chambers in Lions Inn, and informed me that the old man grew worse, and that some other expedient should be thought of, and he desired me again to call at the house of Mr. Evans; I did call, and upon a conversation between Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > and Mr. James Evans < no role > , they said, it would be no harm to forge a will, if it could be done, as it would be giving the property where it ought to go; after a deal of conversation, I accidentally mentioned the name of a Mr. Assiotti, who was very clever in drawing of names or any thing of that kind, he was very clever in drawing models, and they told me if I could prevail on Mr. Assiotti to draw the hand of Sawtell, they would give him twenty pounds, I told them it would be to no use to draw a will, without I could ascertain the property of the deceased, and after a long consultation thereon, it was agreed that Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > should get to sit up with Mr. Sawtell, to get a sight of his will; on the 15th day of December, he came to me and told me he should sit up with Mr. Sawtell the proceeding night, and that if I would attend the 16th, he would let me in with Mr. Evans, and I was to attend on Mr. Evans for that purpose; I accordingly attended at the house of Mr. Evans about eight at night, he told me Mr. Goodridge sat up, and I was to wait there till twelve o'clock; at twelve I and Evans went to the house of the deceased in Brook-street, Evans gave a hem, which was the signal agreed on between Mr. Goodridge and him, and the door was softly opened by Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , he introduced us into a parlour, and afterwards went up stairs to the deceased; in a little time he came down again, and said, Mr. Sawtell was awake, and he could not possess himself of the keys, Evans went away, and left me there; about two in the morning Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > brought down the keys of a bureau which stood in the parlour, he opened the desk and looked for a key of the iron chest, wherein he thought the will must be deposited, but he could not find the will there, nor in all the drawers of the bureau; accordingly he gave over the search, and informed me he would seek it some other time, as he thought Mr. Slack must have the key; about a week or ten days after, I called at the house of Mr. Evans, who informed me that they had got a man to make a key to the iron chest, as they could not find it, and that he expected it would be completed in two or three days, or a few days: in the first week in January 1783, Mr. Goodridge came to my chambers again, and informed me the key was complete, and desired I would attend at the house of Mr. Evans again, which I did, and there I saw Mr. Goodridge, who said, he was to sit up with Mr. Sawtell that night, and Mr. Evans desired me to call again a little before twelve, I went home after that, and called at the house of Mr. Evans, Evans and me went together, and were let into the house of Mr. Sawtell as before, we went into the side parlour, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > there produced the key of an iron chest, which was rough and newly made, and in a closet in the parlour there was an iron chest, which was opened by this key, and he took thereout a paper sealed up and wrote upon

"Mr. Sawtell's will," which was opened, I believe we had all a hand in it, wherefrom I took a copy, at that time, which copy was examined by Evans and myself.

Mr. Erskine, (holding up Underwood's affidavit.) Did you take it at Sawtell's house? - I am aware of that affidavit, Mr. Erskine; I then went to the house of Mr. Evans, and from thence home.

Where is that copy which you then took? - I believe it is in the hands of the Proctor, it is in being.

Was a copy of that copy delivered in? - Yes.

Look at that? - This is a copy I took in the house of Mr. Sawtell, I was then to draw a whole draught, and to attend on Mr. Assiotti, whom I have before mentioned, to see if I could not get him to write the hand writing of Mr. Sawtell, and in pursuance thereof, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > brought me two bits of paper, with the name Thomas Sawtell < no role > wrote thereon, and also brought over to my house an impression of a seal, a candle and candlestick, with the words, Sperma Ceti, wrote round, which were the same, as was the seal to the will; I went to the house of Mr. Assiotti, in Long-acre, I saw his wife, we had some words about family affairs, and I went away; and was then determined to have nothing more to do with the business: Mr. Goodridge attended me from time to time, and when I told him I would have nothing more to do with the business, he was quite at a stand; he told me, if I would go through it, he would give me a thousand pounds, I then sent Mrs. Underwood to Mr. Assiotti, and she did not see him, she came home, and I was fully determined not to meddle further in the business at all; Goodridge came to me again, and when I informed him of my intention of having nothing to do with it, he was speechless for near half a minute, he then said, will the old man's mark do? and I said yes, and he asked me to stay in the chambers 'till the afternoon, and then he brought Mr. Evans to me, and it was agreed, that he should get the old man to make his mark to the will; I went home with him to Mr. Evans's house, and there took instructions for all the legacies that were to be in the will.

Who gave instructions? - Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > and Mr. Evans, sometimes together, and sometimes separate.

What time did they give you the instructions? - In the afternoon, Mr. Goodridge then desired I would attend at his workshop, to engross that will, for he had a compting-house in the workship, and he desired me to do it, for the old man was very ill, I attended accordingly, and engrossed one sheet of that will, and left the copy and one sheet engrossed in a desk in the compting-house, and on the ensuing night I completed it, and I think, as near as I can, a night or two afterwards I was to have attended the execution of the will, and to call at his house; I did so, and then for the first time I saw Leonard Goodridge < no role > .

What time was this? - It was on the 23d of January as near as I can recollect, I went with Mr. Leonard Goodridge < no role > and Mr. Evans to Mr. Sawtell's house, in Brook-street, where we were again let in by Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > as before, he went first of all to the iron chest and took thereout a gold watch, to which was appending a seal with which the will was sealed, he then went up stairs himself, and he came down stairs again, and desired us to pull off our shoes and follow him, but only to stand just at the feet of the bed and make no noise; old Mr. Sawtell lay in bed in a state of insensibility to all appearance, and Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > took him by the hand and put a pen into his hand and made him make two marks, one opposite the seal and the other at the bottom of the first sheet of paper; we then went down stairs and witnessed the will, and it was agreed the other will should be taken out and burnt and destroyed; the other will was then taken out and destroyed, and two sheets of paper were instituted in the room thereof; I then went away, and as near as I can remember, it was the ensuing morning that Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > came over to me, and said, says he, the will that we have executed will not do, I asked him the reason, why, he said, it is of too early a date, it was dated the 23d of January, the day of the supposed execution; and, says he, you must come over to my house on Sunday and engross another will, dated the 14th of December, this was the 26th of January, exactly a fortnight before the old man died; I accordingly attended at Mr. Goodridge's house, and engrossed such fresh will, and Leonard Goodridge < no role > and myself and Evans witnessed the same, he undertaking to get the old man to put his mark and put the seal; this was in Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > 's dining-room, then I left them: This is the will I wrote on the 26th of January, and witnessed as I have told you; in a fortnight afterwards I received a note from Mrs. Goodridge signifying that Mr. Sawtell was dead, and desiring I would stay at home and somebody would call upon me, I went out to have my hair dressed in the afternoon, and I was sent for home, and I saw Leonard Goodridge < no role > , and he asked me to go out with him, I went out with him to the public-house, and he said, now the old man is dead I hope we shall stick true to one another.

What day was that? - The 9th of February.

What time of the day? - About four in the afternoon.

And where? - At my own house; we went out of my house to the public-house, I came home with Leonard Goodridge < no role > and he, and I, and Mrs. Underwood went up stairs, he gave Mrs. Underwood five guineas, and said to her, it is good to grease the wheels while the cart is going; I just spoke two or three words to him and went away, he came over again in a little while, and desired I would go over with him to Evans's, I went and saw all the parties, M r. Leonard Goodridge < no role > , Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , and Mr. James Evans < no role > ; Mr. Goodridge told me I must go to Mr. Gregory, for he was the party concerned, and we agreed among ourselves how we should make up a case to speak to Mr. Gregory thereon: and I went to Mr. Gregory's house, and told him the whole of the case as agreed between us: Mr. Gregory desired I would bring over the papers, and make a memorandum of all I had told him in writing; and, agreeable to several meetings we had had, I drew pretended instructions for the will of Mr. Sawtell, at my own house, and we examined the instructions with the draught to see that it was all fairly transcribed, I then left these supposed instructions and the draught of the will with Mr. Gregory, these are they: Mr. Gregory also desired him to bring him a copy of the real will, of the 4th of November, of Mr. Sawtell's, and afterwards I went to Doctors Commons, where I gave this unfortunate testimony; about the 2d or 3d of April, Mr. Evans came to the public-house in Queen-street, in my neighbourhood, and sent for me, I lived then in America-street, he said to me, I think, Underwood, it is very proper we should be secured for this business; says I, what do you think of it Mr. Evans, says he, I think we cannot have less than one thousand pounds, and we ought to have security; I said we must have a bond if we have any security at all, we can have no other; he told me to come over to Mr. Goodridge's, and he would back it; I came to Mr. Evans's, and Mr. Goodridge was sent for, I opened the business, at length Mr. Goodridge agreed we should have each a bond for four hundred pounds; accordingly on the 7th of April, I went over with two blank bonds to Mr. Evans's house, which I filled up for four hundred pounds each, and they were executed, I witnessed Evans's, and Evans mine; after they were so executed, Goodridge said he should not like to have his bonds exposed, and proposed for Evans to keep both, and proposed that they should be sealed up till the probate of the will was obtained; and as a security to myself I wrote a memorandum or undertaking, whereby Mr. Evans undertook to deliver me up a bond as soon as the probate was signed; this is the receipt Mr. Evans gave me for my bond, after which we had several meetings, I had at least, and Mr. Gregory once or twice, at the house of Mr. Jenner, and I gave the evidence that has been stated in the Commons in support of that will.

What became of all these papers afterwards? - Those papers that were executed on the 7th of April, the receipt for the bond and the undertaking I gave to Mrs. Underwood as soon as I brought them home, to put by, and she unfortunately put them in her pocket, and she kept them in her pocket till she was brought to bed, and they were spoiled as they appear now; the receipt I gave to her on the 7th of April, the moment I came home, and I never had it in my custody till November was twelvemonth, then I gave it up.

Are these the two sheets that were in the cover? - They are, there are two pencil marks, under the seals, this is the cover that contained the true will.

Mr. Erskine. After what I have said of you, Sir, and more especially of what you have said of yourself, you may be very sure that I shall not waste many words upon you, and I hope it will be the last time I shall ever speak to you; you know very well these unfortunate gentlemen at the bar have no opportunity of contradicting this business; how comes it you swore to the truth of this will before? - It is an unfortunate circumstance that ever I became acquainted with the prisoners at the bar.

How do you think, as you did not swear the truth then, that the Jury can tell whether you swear the truth now? - That is to be left to the opinion of the Jury.

I believe you was in very great distress about the time this new light began to shine upon your mind? - I was in distress; I have a large family.

That is an excuse that some other people have made in this country you know, you applied to Mr. Goodridge? - I did.

You wanted money? - I did.

But as for Mr. Slack, you never had any promises of money from him? - No, never.

Nor any expectation? - I cannot say that.

Then you have some expectation? - I had no expectation at all at the time I laid the information, the expectations which I had from Mr. Slack, were, they promised me they would go to my father and see what they could do for me.

Why you had an expectation of an advantage? - They told me if I would come along and tell the truth, they would do all they could with my father to serve me.

Nothing at all said about money? - No, nor I never said so to any body.

Do you happen to know a person by the name of Jacques? - I never heard of such a man.

Perhaps there is no such man living, you shall know presently? - With all my heart.

You never said that Slack offered you a thousand pounds? - Never in my life.

And that God knew that you had not a shilling, and you hoped he would direct you for the best? - I never said so, as to God directing me for the best, I wrote a letter to Mr. Leonard Goodridge < no role > , which may be produced.

Then you never did say to a person of the name of Jacques that Mr. Slack had offered you a thousand pounds, in order that you may swear for him, and that you hoped God would direct you for the best, you never said so to Mr. Jacques? - No, nor any thing to that effect.

Might you be at Mr. Goodridge's house about the 24th of November? - I was.

Do not you know that Mr. Jacques lived in that house of Leonard Goodridge < no role > 's at that time? - I do not know that, I never did say that, nor any thing like it, I never said I was exposed to temptations by Mr. Slack.

Was there not a promise from Mr. Slack and several other gentlemen that they would go to your father and get things set right if you would come in and swear this? - No, if I would do the thing that was right.

What was that? - To let the right owner have the property.

What conversation had you with Mr. Slack and other gentlemen? - No promises of pecuniary assistance whatever, they promised if I would come forward and do what was right, they would speak to my father.

I think you say that this receipt for the bond you first wrote over on the 6th of April, when Mr. Goodridge was sent for and came, what time of the day was it? - I believe it was in the afternoon, it was the day before the bonds were executed, and the bonds were executed on the 7th of April.

Goodridge came over to Evans's house on the 6th of April, and you saw Evans and Goodridge at Evans's house, was it in the afternoon or forenoon? - I cannot say which.

What time was the bond executed? - It was as soon as the candles were lighted.

Now suppose it should turn out that it should be utterly impossible that a syllable of this should be true? - I cannot think that.

You shall see in a minute, you was examined before Dr. Ducarell? - I was.

Now here is a third deposition that contradicts both these, here is your affidavit before Dr. Ducarell has no reference to either, you have been pleased to say to night that the old will was copied at Sawtell's? - Yes, that I positively swear.

Did you always swear that now, even when you got into the right path, and was to do what was right under those promises? - I am perfectly aware of what you have got in your hand.

But I am not perfectly aware of what you have got in your head; you have said just now to the Jury, you positively swore that you are positively sure that the old will was copied at Sawtell's, now this was when you began to be a good boy; mind, your affidavit runs thus,

"and that he this deponent afterwards, by the express desire of Evans and Goodridge, went to the said Evans's, on or about the 22d of January, 1783, when the said will of Thomas Sawtell < no role > was produced in favour of Slack and Atkinson?" - I did not take it at Evans's house.

How came you to swear it then; mind, before you took that deposition in the Commons, you made affidavit before Dr. Ducarell? - I did.

In this affidavit, which was the first you swore after these promises of Mr. Slack, you say that the old will was copied at the house of Evans, when you came into the Commons you swore the contrary, and now to night you confirm the contradiction of this? - I will give the Court an account of the reason why this affidavit was made, there was then no notice taken of this being a forgery, and so this was made because I did not think they would be so fool-hardy to have appeared here on such an affair as this, I did not criminate so much as I should.

I know that you are in a truly ridiculous light? - It positively was copied at Sawtell's house.

And you swore the contrary twice over on both sides of the question? - Mr. Slack nor none of the parties knew the criminality of the business till I surrendered at Bow-street.

You appeared personally, (Reads)

" John Underwood < no role > of New George-street, in the parish of Christ-Church, in the county of Surry (he calls himself a gentleman!) maketh oath that he is the writer of the two sheets of paper, and was first consulted upon, in the house of the said Evans on Saffron-hill, and asked if he this deponent would draw a will, &c. that afterwards, by the express desire of Evans and Goodridge, he went to the said Evans's house in and about the 22d of January, 1783, when the said will in favour of Slack and Atkinson was produced by this deponent;" now, observe Mr. Underwood, you, who did not want to criminate these men, charge them with a direct and palpable forgery;

"and this deponent, upon his oath, faith that he never received any instructions from the deceased:" Why do you mean to say there is no crimination here against these men? - I mean to say that when I drew < no role > that affidavit I was in hopes they would have given up the matter, I certainly had given up the matter.

Then was that your reason, because you thought they would give it up upon your affidavit, did you, therefore, wilfully give it up upon your own affidavit, and did you draw it falsely instead of truly? - There was nobody knew it was a forgery till I went to Bow-street; I did not want to prove the destroying the will to criminate so much as that: On the 7th of April, as soon as I went home I gave the receipt for the bond to my wife, I am positive sure of that.

Now, as this is not true, is all the rest a lye? - I cannot think that; and she kept it till some time in November.

(Reads.)

"That accordingly the said bonds were respectively sealed up and given to the said James Evans < no role > , who gave a receipt, and deponent says the said undertaking remained in his custody till about the latter end of November last, when he delivered up the same. - The examiner misunderstood me.

Was it read to you? - Yes.

Did you sign it? - I did.

Mr. Silvester. Did you shew Mr. Gregory < no role > the draught with the seals torn off? - I had it in my hands.

Court. Do you mean the will dated the 23d of January? - Yes.

Did Mr. Gregory examine those papers? - I read them over, and he had the instructions.

Then Mr. Gregory must have seen this cancelled will? - He must see it.

Mr. Silvester. What were the promises that were made? - That if I would come forward and do the thing that was right they would take care I should not be hurt, and they would take care to do every thing that they could with my father to restore me to his favour.

This affidavit that has been talked of by Mr. Erskine, was that made prior to your going to Bow-street? - Three weeks or or a month before.

Had the prisoners then been charged with the forgery? - No.

Did any body know of it? - No.

Where were these receipts and papers kept? - They were kept in a drawer in my house.

The receipt and the instructions read to the Jury.

The instructions for the will read.

"No. 1. Instructions for Mr. Thomas Sawtell's will, 1782; Mary Allen < no role > , my sister, the sum of twenty pounds yearly and quarterly payments; Gilbert Sawtell < no role > , by his last will and testament."

Mr. Mumford. This was the cover in which was inclosed the real will, it was in the iron chest, there is no substantial difference in the legacies, here is a recital of twenty pounds a year, I am in doubt whether it was not twenty-two pounds a year, the residue is the same, only given to Goodridge instead of Slack.

Were the former wills correspondent? - The same legatees and the same executor, this draught has a legacy to Mr. Falkner, I never altered it, I only made it a new will by re-executing it.

The will read as set forth in the indictment.

Is there any mention of any legacies to the Goodridges in any of the former wills? Certainly not.

Was Daniel Slack < no role > present at either of these consultations? - No, I should not know him if I was to see him.

At the times, had you any particular way of doing business, or any particular hour of doing business? - He desired me to be there by ten in the morning.

Mr. Pigott. Robert Slack < no role > is the brother of Daniel Slack < no role > , he has no children, perhaps it might so happen by accident or otherwise, that Robert Slack < no role > was present, though Daniel was not? - He was present certainly.

Was he a witness to any of them? - No, Sir.

Sir T. Davenport. Did this man take any part at all? - Certainly not, he was at his house, and at his business.

Did he live at Sawtell's? - He was principally there, he was very frequently there, he had the conduct and management of the old gentleman's concerns in some measure, he used to attend him backwards and forwards to different places.

THOMAS NORTHOLDER < no role > sworn.

Mr. Robert Slack < no role > fetched me as a witness to a will of Mr. Thomas Sawtell < no role > 's, he sent for me, and said he must trouble me once more, I had witnessed a will of his.

Was he in perfect possession of his mind at that time? - Yes, as much as I have known him for twenty years.

Mr. Sheppard. Do you serve Mr. Robert Slack < no role > with meat? - No, Sir.

Mr. Robert Slack < no role > fetched you, I think you say? - Yes.

JOSEPH BAKER < no role > sworn.

Do you remember at any time witnessing a will of Mr. Sawtell? - Yes.

What did he say? - When I came he desired me to set down, he wanted me to witness his will, I was not there five minutes before the execution was over.

Mr. Garrow. Who applied to you? - Young Mr < no role > . Slack, he came for me by order of Mr. Sawtell.

ANN UNDERWOOD < no role > sworn.

When was you first acquainted with any of the prisoners at the bar? - My first acquaintance with Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > was the beginning of November, 1782.

What occasioned your knowing them? - The occasion of my knowing them was, a person recommended me to buy some things of Mrs. Goodridge, the wife of Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , she had some things to sell for Mr. Evans.

What were the things? - Gowns and petticoats, my husband was out twice, once till two in the morning.

Did you buy any? - Yes, Sir.

Do you recollect to what amount? - Yes, Sir, five pounds.

Do you remember Mr. Goodridge's, either one or the other, coming to your husband? - I think, as near as I can recollect, it was about the first week in January, 1783.

Do you recollect whether at any time your husband being out till late? - Yes, Sir, he was out till four in the morning; Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > came to our house, I think, the first week in January, and the conversation with him I overheard; I was not immediately let into the light of it, but they wanted me to go to Mr. Assiotti to get him to write the name of Thomas Sawtell < no role > on two sheets of paper.

Are these the papers or not (shewing them to her) have you any reason independent of what Mr. Underwood told you for knowing these sheets? - Yes, here is a pencil mark under one of these sheets.

Are these the same papers that you observed when Nathaniel was there? - Yes.

After he was gone you observed a pencil mark? - Yes.

Did you hear at any time while Nathaniel was there, what purpose these papers were for, or what mark? - Yes, Assiotti was to write the name, and Mr. Underwood, or somebody was to fill up the will.

Did that pass while Nathaniel was there? - Yes, about a day or two after Nathaniel came.

What did pass, or did any thing pass concerning the purpose of that visit, while Nathaniel was there? - The second time Nathaniel brought two seals, and we were to get a seal engraved from that impression, which was in red wax, I was to have got them done; and the third time in January, I recollect my husband was invited by Nathaniel to dinner, he came about Friday and asked for Mr. Underwood to dine with him on the Sunday, I think that was the 26th.

Did he mention the purpose for which he was to dine with him, or any thing that was to be done? - The purpose of his dining there was in order to take a copy of the will, because they thought it was of too late a date, in order to antedate it.

Who said that? - Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > .

What was the date of that will? - I think the 23d of January.

Did he give any reason why it must be an earlier date? - No, my husband dined out on that Sunday, but I do not know where he was; a journeyman; of Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > 's brought the intelligence that Mr. Sawtell was dead; Leonard Goodridge < no role > was at our house that day; the first time Nathaniel came, and young Goodridge, Leonard Goodridge < no role > , came after, whom I did not know, and they went out together for a little while, when they came back he gave me five guineas, and said, while the cart was going it was fit to grease the wheels, going down stairs he shook Underwood by the hand, and hoped they would all stand true to each other; on the Monday following Mr. Goodridge came over to our house again, and I heard him say that Mr. Underwood was to go to Mr. Gregory, his attorney, and take all the papers, and that it was proper there should be some instructions, and Mr. Underwood drew < no role > some papers on the table, I set by him while he wrote the instructions which he was to carry to Mr. Gregory; Mr. Underwood wrote some instructions on a sheet of paper, I should know them.

Are these they? - (looks at them.) These are the instructions, a copy of these were taken soon after the latter end of February.

Was that paper the paper that was carried to Mr. Gregory? - That remained with me, there was left in my custody, by Mr. Underwood, a receipt for the bond, and the copies of two wills.

This is one, what became of the other? - The other was burnt because it was so much spoiled, I had these papers the 7th of April, at night, 1783, the first time I had it.

Did you happen to see Evans whilst you had that paper or that receipt, did any thing pass? - Yes.

Relate what that was? - In the month of June, 1783, I was obliged to go to the Fleet; I went to Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > 's house, and there was Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > and Mr. Evans at supper, I asked them if they would let Mr. Underwood have any money, I said I had the receipt for the bond in my pocket, and it was very odd they would not let me have some money or give me the bond, they said it did not matter, it was only a conditional one.

Which of them said that? - I think it was Evans.

Did you make any answe r, or did any thing more pass? - I said, that Mr. Underwood said he would arrest Mr. Evans for the bond, then I went away; Mr. Evans advanced five guineas more in October following.

Did he accompany that advance of the money with any thing said? - He said it was not in his power to advance any more.

Did you keep that receipt and those other papers? - Yes, I kept them till November, till they went into the Commons.

Mr. Erskine. You live with your husband? - Yes.

And have done constantly, I take it for granted? - At all times, when I could, when he was in confinement, I was as much with him as could be.

How much was you in this scene of wickedness? - I knew he was doing a wrong thing.

You did, you knew from the beginning to the end, that there was a wicked contrivance to defraud Mr. Slack, and you was quite happy and contented at all this? - Not very contented, I was affraid to divulge it; on Sunday the 16th, Mr. Underwood wrote the instructions on a sheet of paper.

You think yourself bound to obey your husband more than you are to obey God or any other man? - Yes.

Then perhaps that operates a little upon your mind to day? - Yes.

It would not have been very pleasing to your husband if you was to give the lie to every thing he said, you would have a battle at night? - No, I do not think that, I wish always to go with my husband, and would not tell an untruth.

How came you not to tell about this forged will? - I was not asked.

What was the greasing of your cart wheels, did not your husband at the time he gave information about this will, say, whether he was not reduced to the very lowest distress in the world? - He wanted money to carry on his business.

Was not he reduced to extreme poverty, almost in great distress, it surprises me that you should be so glib about the dates of these wills, the 23d of December, and the 14th of November, had not you these circumstances from your husband? - No, Sir, they are circumstances that I was intimate with, I knew the 23d of January from other circumstances.

How came you to be so certain about the day that the will was dated? - Leonard Goodridge < no role > I saw on the 9th of February at our house, I am positive sure of it, it was in the afternoon about four o'clock, or between four and five.

Am I to rely upon you for the truth of these circumstances? - Yes.

Have you any doubt about it? - No, Sir, I saw Leonard Goodridge < no role > between four and five, on the 9th of February, the day that Sawtell died, at Underwood's, between four and five in the afternoon.

I think it was at supper you saw these people, and that you said that it was very hard that you could not get either money or bond? - Yes.

You said your husband would arrest them? - Yes.

Are you sure you said nothing more than that? - I do not know that I did.

You did not threaten them with any thing further? - Not that I know of.

You did not make use of any threatening expressions to them, as if you thought they were connected with some villainous business? - That was all that passed.

You have been examined before? - In the Commons.

Now let us see ( reads)

"and that she had the receipt in her pocket, upon which she threatened them, that if they would not relieve her husband, they must abide by the consequences? - I swore that at the Commons, I have said so to Nathaniel < no role > a many times, I heard my husband say there was likely to be an opposition.

You have had many conversations with your husband about all this business? - No, I have not, I do not like to mention it.

You have taken him you know, for better for worse, and change as he changes.

Sir Thomas. By the consequence you meant an arrest? - Yes.

Mr. Erskine. If I understand you right, you said, a pencil mark was put by your husband at the place where Assiotti was to write the name of Sawtell? - Yes.

Now look for the place? - This is the place.

(Points out the outer marginal part of the outer margin.)

Your husband is grown very fat, who maintains him? - I believe Mr. Slack's attorney has paid for the bills.

You are very well fed and very well taken care of? - We are not in want of any thing.

That pencil mark is made in the place where Assiotti was to write Mr. Sawtell's name? - Yes.

Was it made before the seal was put on? - Yes.

SUSAN UNDERWOOD < no role > sworn.

Mr. Fielding. How old are you? - Seventeen, I know Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > .

Was you ever sent with a letter by your father to him? - Yes, I think it was about the month of September, I cannot say whether it was September or October, it was in the year 1783:

Mr. Pigott. Did you ever read the contents of that letter? - No.

Mr. Fielding. What passed between Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > and you? - His wife was in company with him at breakfast, she said, money was exceedingly scarce, and they did not know how they should get it; Mrs. Goodridge said, she supposed I knew the contents of the letter, I said, I knew the greatest part of it.

Did they give you any money? - They gave my father money, I was in an adjoining room, I heard the money.

Did you see them deliver the money to you father? - No, Sir, I did not listen to the conversation, but I heard the chinking of money, I saw my father give some to my mother.

Did any thing more pass between you and Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > than what you have related.

Mr. Pigott. Your father had a law suit for Mrs. Reeves? - No, Sir, that affair was over.

Was not that application for money that Mrs. Reeves owed your father for that law suit? - Not to my knowledge, my father in that letter threatened to arrest Mrs. Reeve, if Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > did not send the money.

Mr Fielding. Did you know the contents of the letter? - Yes.

How far? - That he was in want of money, and that he desired them to send some, and if they did not, he would arrest Mrs. Reeves.

THOMAS PULLEN < no role > sworn.

I live with Mr. Bogg the proctor, I know there is a suit in which he is concerned for Mrs. Edith Spence < no role > , his next of kin, I know very little of the matter.

Court to Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > . Have you any thing to say in your defence? - I leave it to my counsel, my Lord.

Court to Leonard Goodridge < no role > . Have you any thing to say? - I leave it to my counsel, my Lord.

Court to James Evans < no role > . Have you any thing to say? - No, my Lord.

Mr. Erskine. On the part of the prisoners, your Lordship and the Jury very very well know, that it is out of our power to make any observations on the evidence, therefore I am persuaded you will give me leave to state to your Lordship, what I call my witnesses to.

Court. No.

Mr. Erskine. I never yet heard the objection made in my life.

Sir T. Davenport. I am very much affraid of a speech.

Mr. Erskine. I wished that the Court and Jury might have understood what I call my witnesses to, but as I must not explain it, you Gentlemen of the Jury must pick out the defence as you can, you must hear it, and pick it out as you can; but, however, I may ask you whether you have the dates of the 6th and 7th of April, and the 9th of February, when this bond was said to be executed, upon the 6th of April it was settled that it should be done on the 7th of April, and after the candles were lighted, on the 7th, the bonds were executed, and the receipt was given; on the 9th of February, Leonard Goodridge < no role > is stated by Underwood and his wife to have said that the wheels should be greased.

THOMAS POLLARD < no role > sworn.

Are you acquainted with the prisoner Leonard Goodridge < no role > ? - Yes.

What are you? - A stone-mason.

Where do you live? - In Clerkenwell-close; I have heard a good deal about Leonard Goodridge < no role > , on the 9th of February 1783 in the afternoon, which was the day that Sawtell died.

Now, do you happen to know where Leonard Goodridge < no role > was on that day, from what time to what time? - I was invited to dine with Leonard Goodridge < no role > on Sunday the 9th day of February, and I went to his house a little before two, and we dined at half after two, and I drank tea, and staid there till past ten o'clock; I do not know that he ever was out of my company.

Can you take upon you to say, that he remained at his own house during the time that you was there? - He never was out of the house, I dare say, I can take upon myself to say he never was in his yard, I cannot say, but he never was in the street.

Who dined there besides? - There was one Mr. Collier, Mrs. Collier, and Mr. Collier's wife sister.

Then you are sure of the day? - Yes, I am sure, I have a book in my pocket that will give you a good satisfaction about it.

When was the entry made? - The next morning, I have made entries for twenty years.

Let us see what you have got in it (Reads) dined at Goodridges? - I positively do say it, that on Sunday the 9th of February, I dined at Mr. Goodridge's, with Mr. and Mrs. Collier, and I do not think he was out once.

Do you recollect going on the 6th of April any where? - Yes, I do, very well.

Where did you go on the 6th of April? - I went to Barnet, beyond the twelve mile stone, Mr. Evans the prisoner went with me, I breakfasted at Mr. Evans's house, about eight on Sunday morning the 6th of April, as I went with him to Barnet, we went to Hendon, and dined by Finchley church, and slept at the Mitre, at Barnet; I was employed to measure a piece of ground, and tell the value of it, for him to make a purchase off.

At what time did you set out to return to London? - We dined on Finchley-common, and we came to London between ten and eleven at night.

You are sure you did not get to town till that time? - Yes, we went to his house, we walked all the way, and I staid till near twelve at night on the 7th.

Now, I will tell you a thing that will surprise you a little; it has been said here to day that Mr. Evans executed a bond on that day at his own house? - I can say nothing to that, I know he was along with me from Sunday morning eight o'clock, till Monday night twelve o'clock.

Have you any more doubt about what you have been telling the Jury, than you have of your own existence? - No, Sir, it is as true as I stand here.

Jury. Have you that in your diary? - Yes.

Now, Mr. Pollard, where was this ground you was measuring? - The ground belongs to Mr. Emmery, I am positive sure I was in company with Mr. Evans from eight o'clock on Sunday morning, till near twelve on Monday night.

Did you meet any body coming to town or see any body? - No, not that I knew, but there was a man overtook us somewhere on this side Finchley-common, he was a stranger to me, but the man spoke to Mr. Evans, and he came along with us.

Sir T. Davenport. As you are so very regular, can you tell the day you committed the first act of bankruptcy? - I cannot tell you, I never was a bankrupt in my days.

No commission? - No, Sir.

Never any taken out? - No, Sir.

Do you remember the day your creditors met in order to make a composition? - I suppose I may.

When was the day you made a composition with your creditors? - I never made a composition with my creditors in my life.

Did you ever meet them? - Yes, it was in the year 1781, I suppose.

In what month in 1781? - It might be somewhere in November or December; I was arrested several times, and I called my creditors together, and great part of them are paid, and all the money I owe in England, is not above eighty or ninety pounds.

Will you be correct to the month you met your creditors to compound with them? - I cannot.

Have you no memorandum of that? - I suppose I may at home.

Have you or have you not, have you your books for 1781? - Yes, I will shew you something about it; on the 13th day of December 1781, I was arrested by a Dr. Bull, for eighteen pounds seven shillings, and this Doctor I gave him some money, I paid him the remainder since, I I have no entry of the compounding, for the lawyers run away with all the cash.

Will you shew me in this book any entry of your dining at any other place besides this time? - I do not know that I can, but you may see by the complection of my countenance that I am not to be brow beat; I am a man that do not dine very often at a private house.

Now I will give you the whole year of 1781 to find me another entry except that.

Mr. Erskine. You made that entry about the 6th or 7th of April, on the spot? - I made it in the field on the spot.

Sir T. Davenport. It was very material to enter this dinner, you can tell exactly what you had for dinner at Goodridge's? - We had a haunch of mutton, and boiled beef, and there was a pye, I believe it was a damson pye, I am not sure.

How many minutes walk is it from that place to Underwood's house? - I do not know where Underwood lived, it is in the Borough, it would take an hour and a half to walk there and back.

When was you first called upon, and did first disclose this matter? - I suppose it may be four or five months ago.

Who applied to you? - Leonard Goodridge < no role > asked if I could tell the time that I dined at his house, he did not tell me the time, I told him by eight or nine o'clock I was merry.

Have you been frequently in the prison to see them? - I suppose I have been there forty times, I am intimate with them all, and if you was there I would go to see you.

Why did you enter that dinner? - My reason is this, I had some business to do with Goodridge, I have no entry about any other dinner, there is another entry in that book of dining with him on Tuesday the 7th of January.

Had not something passed on the 7th of January about a will? - I never heard any conversation about any thing being done about a will.

Mr. Erskine. I observe, on the 7th of January you lost a shilling at cards, and on the 9th of February, you gave a shilling to the servant.

THOMAS COLLIER < no role > sworn.

I dined at Mr. Leonard Goodridge < no role > 's on Sunday, while Mr. Sawtell lay dead.

Was any body expected to come there to dinner? - Yes.

Who was expected? - Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > did not dine there.

Did Pollard dine there? - I do not recollect that circumstance.

What time did you dine? - About half past one, I staid there till seven.

During that time was Leonard Goodridge < no role > absent from his own house for any time? - I do not recollect.

Mr. Silvester. When was it? - It was on Sunday, I was told that Mr. Sawtell died that morning; I made no memorandum, I do not recollect Pollard there, my wife was there, she is not here.

JOHN JAQUES < no role > sworn.

I lived servant with Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , in 1784; I am a carpenter, I worked with him.

Do you remember in 1784, Underwood's coming to him? - Yes, it was the 24th of November.

Did you hear any conversation between Underwood and Leonard Goodridge < no role > , when he came? - Yes.

What was it? - Mr. Underwood came to Mr. Goodridges's house about eight in the morning, he asked if Goodridge was at home, I said, yes, Underwood was in the kitchen, Goodridge came down and asked Underwood how he did, Underwood said, he did not know how he did, for it was a sad thing to be tempted; he had been with Mr. Slack the night before, and he had offered him a thousand pounds to do what he could on his side, and on his behalf; he hoped God would direct him for the best, for he would not starve, nor his family, even at the hazard of his life; Mr. Goodridge made answer, and said, he would have nothing to do with him or Mr. Slack either.

Mr. Fielding. You have known Leonard Goodridge < no role > sometime, I take it for granted? - Yes.

Where may you live now? - No. 219, St. John's-street; the last person I worked with was Mr. Cox; I never made any depositions in the Commons.

You never have been sent for? - No.

When was it you was desired to come here? - The first session after they were indicted.

Where was Leonard Goodridge < no role > at this time? - He was in the work-shop, I was going out, and Underwood was at the door, I opened the door for him; I was in the kitchen when he came, where there was some spikes and nails, they were in the kitchen then.

Underwood made use of this declaration in your presence and hearing? - Yes.

PHILIP HUMPHRIES < no role > sworn.

I am acquainted with Evans, I formerly kept a public house in St. John's-street; I remember seeing Evans on the 7th of April 1783, about seven in the evening, I was on this side the dirt-house, between that and Highgate, there was a gentleman with him, but I do not know who he was, we walked together.

What time did you come to town? - It might be very high nine, we came home a little before eleven: I know the day, because I went to see a person, I never parted from them till I came to town.

SAMUEL HILL < no role > sworn.

I was a fellow servant at Goodridge's with Dodson.

Do you recollect when you came to London? - I was not in London till November 1783, I was at work at Mrs. Closes's, in Gutter-lane, I was making some stairs; I quitted Mr. Cox of Islington, to go to Mr. Goodridge's.

Did you go immediately there? - I did this job for Mrs. Close, in Gutter-lane, in the month of November, 1783.

Mr. Silvester. When did you begin to make memorandums? - I set that down.

Do you mean to swear that Dodson worked there in 1783? - Yes, Fisher Dodson and me both worked together at Mrs. Close's.

Have you any memorandum of the time? - Here is a memorandum I made as far as this, I had been at work at Mr. Jaques, and drew up a memorandum.

How will that prove that you was at work at Mrs. Closes's? - It was within the six or eight weeks that I worked for him.

Do you recollect a maid servant by the name of Nicklin? - I heard of her, and may have seen her, I never spoke to her that I know of.

Do not you remember an attorney in the back shop? - There was, I remember now, we came out of the shop together, and went and drank together, that was about November 1783.

I suppose you told Mr. Goodridge what you knew, when you heard of this? - No.

Did not you declare that you kept out of the way for fear of being met by the prosecutor? - No, Sir, I never was affraid of meeting any person.

Did you ever say you kept out of the way? - No,

Was not you applied to by the prosecutor to come here? - I had a subpoenea to come here.

Was not you applied to by the prosecutor to come here? - I was no further applied to than being supoened, I never declared to anybody that I kept out of the way for fear of being brought here on the part of the prosecution.

How came you to come here to prove this was on November, and not in January? - I cannot prove it any otherwise than in November, because it was in November.

Mr. Erskine. Had you ever been in Goodridge's service before you went to Coxe's? - No; I never was in his shop, the beginning of 1783, I did not know my way to the shop.

When you saw this man writing in the shop, it was in November 1783, and Sawtell had been dead nine months then? - Yes.

- COX sworn.

I am a carpenter, I employ men, I keep an account of the men I employ; I know Hill the last witness, I employed him, he came to work for me on the 21st of October 1783, he came on the Tuesday and left me on the Saturday night.

Mr. Silvester. Do you know where he came from? - He was at work for Jaques.

Who was Jaques servant to? - Jaques was servant formerly to Goodridge.

Which of the Goodridges? - To Leonard Goodridge < no role > .

SUSANNAH CLOSE < no role > sworn.

Do you recollect employing Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > to do any business for you as a carpenter? - Yes.

What was it? - To make a pair of cellar stairs.

Do you recollect at what time that was? - In November 1783.

You are perfectly sure it was in November 1783? - Quite sure.

Are you sure it was not in January 1783? - No, Sir, it was in November, I recollect the time, I expected a gentleman out of the country, that was going to America, and he was to be with me a month; about the 18th of November, on a Saturday evening, they were finished; Mr. Goodridge and both his men worked till twelve at night.

Who were both these men? - Hill and Fisher.

Mr. Fielding. Are you sure it was in November? - Yes.

Now, was it not in the year 1782? - No, 1783, I will shew the bill.

How came you here to day? - I was subpoened three days ago.

Mr. Sheppard. Was that the first time you was ever spoke to about it? - I was told some time ago, I might be called on, it may be six months, it may be seven months.

HARRIOTT CLOSE sworn.

I am daughter to the last witness, I recollect Mr. Goodridge being employed to do some business for my mother perfectly well, making a set of cellar stairs, altering a bedstead, and some other work, as near as I can recollect, it was about the middle of November 1783.

Can you possibly have made such a mistake as that it might have been in January 1783? - No, Sir, I am very sure of that, I recollect that the work was finished on the Saturday night, the lottery beginning to be drawn on the Monday, I know the stairs were made, because we expected a gentleman out of the country about that time, who was going to America, he did not come, he altered his plan; I have no doubt at all about the time.

Who did the work? - Hill was one and Dodson the other, Mr. Goodridge and his two men all attended together to finish the work.

Sir T. Davenport. How long had Hill been with Goodridge? - I cannot tell.

Had these men worked for you any time? - Yes, that was in the December before, both Dodson and Hill, particularly Dodson, I remember him, and I remember Hill too.

Mr. Garrow. You are sure that the business of the stairs was done in November 1783? - I am perfectly sure of that.

- GREGORY sworn.

Have you been in Court to day while Mr. Underwood was examined? - I have.

Have you attended his examination? - I did.

You attended particularly to his evidence, where he says, he held in his hand a draught with the seal torn off? - If it had been as he represented it, I must most certainly have seen it, any clerk to an attorney that had not been six months with him, must have made the observation; I want to see if that which Mr. Underwood brought into the Commons is the draught, (looks at it) I verily believe this is the draught he shewed me, and not the draught he spoke off, the draught he spoke off, he told me he had torn off the seal and the name, is it possible that that could have escaped my observation.

You think it could not? - It could not upon my oath, I verily believe he did not shew me such a paper as he mentions, on the contrary, I believe this to be the draught that he shewed me, for this reason, he pointed out to me that when he attended Mr. Sawtell with this draught, Sawtell made mention to him that he had made a mistake in two or three of the legacies, particularly that he had altered them with pencils, and that he had inserted maintenance and clothing, and struck out education, in my office he pointed out that to me; says he, here Sir, I have done it with a pencil.

Then Mr. Gregory, how can it be true that he shewed you a cancelled will, with the name and seals torn off? - I do not believe it.

At the time that Underwood came to you, to give you an account of what he had done, did he give you a clear account? One of the clearest accounts that ever was given by man.

Could you have had the least idea from his declaration, that it was not a fair and just will? - No man could have had a shadow of doubt.

And he gave you this paper which he acknowledged to? - He gave me a copy of instructions, which he told me he took himself from the testator's own mouth at Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > 's house, the 6th of November, I asked him then, whether he drew < no role > any draught; he told me he did, I asked him whether he read over the draught, he told me he did on the 9th of November, being Lord Mayor's day, that then the testator himself made the alterations which are in pencil and appear here; his account of the forged will, with the two seals torn off, I believe to be totally false on my oath.

Mr. Silvester. You was, I believe, originally the attorney to the Goodridge's? - I was for Nathaniel.

In short you did all his business as an attorney? - For the two brothers, for some years.

When was the last time you did any business for them before this will was made? - I cannot say that.

Did not it strike you as very odd that they should employ Underwood to make a will? - The very reverse, Sir, I understood it was Mr. Sawtell himself that employed Underwood, and not Goodridge, for the very moment Sawtell was dead, Nathaniel sent to me, to come to his house on the morning he died, which was the morning of the 9th of February as represented to me, and sent a parcel by Fisher Dodson, it was this will of the 14th of December 1782, I cast my eye over it, and he desired me to come to Mr. Sawtell's I stepped there directly, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > opened the door and asked me into the parlour, I gave it him, and he put it into his side pocket, and went into the parlour, that was the first time I had seen the will upon my oath; Daniel Slack < no role > was in the parlour then; a caveat being put in, I thought it very necessary to see the attorney who made the will, in order to ask him proper questions concerning it; the next day after his death, I went with Nathaniel and Mr. Hunter his co-executor, to the Commons, in order to prove it, I did not want to see Underwood, till I found that a caveat was entered, when I did see Underwood, I asked him first of all, whether he had been acquainted with the testator, he said, he had, he said, through a Chancery suit he had been concerned in for a Mrs. Reeve; I then asked him whether he ever had taken any instructions, and from whom, about Mr. Sawtell's will; when he produced these instructions to me, I took them into my hand, I have a copy of them which he gave me.

On having the copy of them in your hand, it was examined by the original will he had in his hand? - No, Sir, the copy against the genuine instructions, not the instructions against the will, if he had held that in his hand I must have seen it, I had no suspicion at the time, I believed it to be as fair a transaction as any in the world, I supposed Mr. Sawtell was in possession of it; another circumstance, I saw Mr. Underwood many times upon this business, and when it was given out that Daniel Slack < no role > , the present prosecutor, found out the cover of a former will, and two blank sheets of paper, I asked Underwood if he knew any thing of them, he said no, he did not he declared.

Mr. Erskine. How long have you known the Goodridges? - I suppose I have known Leonard Goodridge < no role > for twenty years or more, I have known Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > about fifteen years.

Have you known much of him? - Certainly, a great deal of him, I have employed them both in their respective capacities of carpenters and undertakers; if I was now called upon, on my oath, to name an honest man, or one man more honest than another, I do not know any two men that would sooner have entered my mind, than Nathaniel Goodridge and Leonard Goodridge < no role > .

These persons were apprised of these prosecutions, and if they had a mind to have escaped they might? - I was furnished by Mr. Sheppard, with a copy of the affidavit of Underwood against the will, I was greatly astonished, I immediately went to Mr. Jenner the Proctor, and saw Mr. Jenner, Mr. Jenner himself immediately made application to the two Goodridges, in order to talk to them about the matter, Mr. Sheppard gave me a copy of the receipt of Evans, and I wrote a letter to him, and Evans received the letter and came up to town, I know he had the letter, and he came from Wales to meet the charge, and for fear he should not on my letter, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > went to fetch him; Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > came first to meet the charge, then Evans.

Had not they a full opportunity of escaping? - Certainly.

I need not ask you after the very honourable character you have given of the two Goodridges, whether you believe it possible, that they could be capable of committing such a crime? - I do not believe it, I have no reason.

Sir T. Davenport. Before you had an answer from Evans, did not Nathaniel Goodridge go down to Wales? - He did.

Had he any occasion to go there but to see Evans? - That I cannot say.

But to your knowledge? - No, I believe he went to fetch him up.

WATSON HASWELL < no role > sworn.

I lived with Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , I know Fisher Dodson, he lived there at the time I did, and I knew Elizabeth Nicklin < no role > , she went away, and used to confiscate and take some things belonging to Mr. Goodridge, I acquainted him of it, and he gave her a months wages and sent her off in a fortnight; Dodson and she were very well acquainted, Dodson had left Goodridge's service some time before Nicklin.

Have you met Fisher Dodson at any time since Nicklin was turned away? - I have.

Had you any conversation with him about that circumstance? - I had, he told me Goodridge had kicked up a fine row about parting with Betty, he said he had no right to stop Betty's box, I said he had, I said if she had nothing in her box but her own, she need not have been afraid of his opening it, so he was very angry, very angry indeed, and made use of such expressions, and d - nd Goodridge, and said if ever he had it in his power he would do him a mischief for stopping Betty's box.

Mr. Silvester. When did Betty go away? - The latter end of June or the beginning of July, 1784.

Now he had gone away a week before that? - I do not recollect the particular time.

Was not it in 1783? - No, it was in 1784, I recollect it very well, it was soon after Mrs. Goodridge died, and I recollect her going away then, there was such a piece of work about it; Mrs. Goodridge died, it might be in February, 1784, I cannot properly say the time.

What reason have you to recollect that this happened in 1783, and not in 1784? - I have no particular reasons, but I recollect it perfectly well, I recollect I was there at the time, and that it was 1784.

Have you put it down at all? - No, I cannot particularly recollect the time Mr. Sawtell died, I lodged at the house when Sawtell died, I cannot recollect properly when it was.

How soon after she died did these persons leave Goodridge's service? - They left it after she died, but I cannot recollect how many months.

Was it a few months? - I cannot recollect any particular time.

Was Hill there? - Yes, he worked with Dodson, I did not work with him.

Do you recollect the time you went to lodge at Goodridge's? - It must be about the beginning of the year 1782, I remember they did work together, but not at the the time of Sawtell's death.

LAWRENCE GREEN < no role > sworn.

I live in Clerkenwell, I know Mr. Eames.

Have you ever had any conversation with Eames about his examination in the Commons? - Yes, I had once, I have spoke with him several times, I think the defendants had been in custody three weeks, it was reported that Mr. Eames had had an offer of five hundred pounds to be concerned in this forgery, I went to him, he declared to me that it was not true, and that what he said, and that what he had sworn in the Commons, which was on his first examination, was all that he knew; I was acquainted with Sawtell, I had dealings with him, the last money I paid him was the 2d of April, 1782, I paid him between one and two, I went to his house in Brook-street.

Who was there with him? - Mr. Slack's brother was there, he counted the money and wrote the receipt by the desire of Mr. Sawtell, Mr. Sawtell said I cannot see to write, Robert, write for me, and he wrote the receipt which I have here, and Robert Slack < no role > , after he had wrote it, said, Sir, will you sign it, he said yes, I will, but I can hardly see, and he assisted him to put his hand upon the paper, and he wrote his name, I know all the three prisoners, I have known Nathaniel about six or seven years, I have known Leonard about ten or eleven, and Mr. Evans ten or eleven.

What is the general reputation of the Goodridges as to honesty? - I never heard the least imputation upon them.

Is their character a good one? - Yes, I have always found it so.

You never heard a whisper to the contrary? - Never.

Mr. Fielding. Sawtell signed his name? - Yes, with the assistance of Mr. Robert Slack < no role > .

- PARDON, Esq. Under Sheriff, sworn.

Mr. Erskine. You receive the rents and ground-rents of a certain audit upon Saffron-hill? - I did the 28th of October.

For what purpose? - To receive a part of the ground-rents for some ladies at Gloucester, Mr. Sawtell was lessee of some houses; in October, 1782, I think the 28th of October, Sawtell came there to receive his rents, and brought Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , and he said he should give him the rents, he staid to dine, he said he married a relation of his wife's.

- CLARE sworn.

I knew Mr. Sawtell, I am an attorney, but my principal business is receiving the rents for particular estates, to the amount of seven or eight thousand pounds a year, I have met Mr. Sawtell several times, I have met him two or three times a week coming up Hatton-Garden, but in particular one morning, some time in the latter end of 1781, it was a Sabbath morning, when I got down my steps I saw Mr. Sawtell then nearly on the pavement, and I over took him, and I asked him how he did, and he said to me, as near as I can recollect, how do you do, he then took me by the arm and said I should go with him to Sagoe's coffee-house and have a dish of coffee, I told him I was particularly engaged, I said to him he was late, he said he was vexed, he said he wished I would go with him to the coffee-house, for he wanted to consult with me about his will or a will, I told him I hoped he had not lived to that age without making a will, he said no, but he could not get one to his mind, he said he wanted to do something or to provide for a daughter or child, I then said I did not know he had any children, he said he had one that he respected or considered as a child, he said she was married to one Goodridge or Goodwich, and he was a carpenter and undertaker, and as hard-working a dog as any in England, there was some other little conversation, but by this time we had just got to Sagoe's coffee-house, I wished him a good morning, but he took me by the hand and asked me into the coffee-house, I told him I could not, but would call upon him another time, he said if I would not go with him then I might be d - nd, he also said, talking about his will, that they would not let him make a will to his mind, I do not know who he meant by they.

Mr. Silvester. Where do you live? - In Hatton-street.

A housekeeper? - Yes, Sir.

What are you? - I am an attorney; but my principal business is, I am employed by a gentleman at the bar to receive rents; it struck me, as we were not vastly intimate, I had no kind of respect or regard for Mr. Sawtell, I had no wish to have done it if he had chosen it.

When was this? - I rather think it was about the month of September, 1781.

SAMUEL SNAPE < no role > sworn.

I live at Islington.

Do you remember any time in November, and if you can tell us the day so much the better, that you saw Mr. Sawtell? - On Lord Mayor's day, 1782, I saw him in the parlour at Tallow Chandler's Hall, Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > was with him.

Did you sit by Mr. Sawtell? - I sat next to Mr. Goodridge.

Did Sawtell say any thing about Goodridge? - Yes, Mr. Goodridge stood behind Sawtell, and Sawtell turned about and said, Goodridge, come and sit down by me, you come to help me, you shall be my heir.

You are sure you heard him say so? - Yes.

I believe they dined together there? - Yes, I was there, they behaved very sociable and friendly to one another.

Mr. Silvester. You dined there? - Yes.

And you and the old gentleman got pretty merry? - We were chearful.

He was not what you call a sot? - He liked to help his neighbour.

Are you positive to the words that he made use of? - Yes.

Was you always sure of the expressions that he made use of? - Yes, Sir, I think I was positive to the same I have said.

In the Commons you said

"This deponent thinks he added the words, you know you are my heir, or to that effect, but cannot swear particularly to that particular.

Was this before or after dinner? - Before dinner.

Who did you sit next to? - Mr. Goodridge, and he sat next to Sawtell.

How long have you been deaf? - I am not very deaf.

LYDIA DUTHY < no role > sworn.

Did you know Mr. Sawtell in his life time? - Yes, I was at Mr. Goodridge's on Lord Mayor's day, 1782.

Did you see Mr. Goodridge there? - Yes.

Who did he come in company with? - With Mr. Sawtell, he staid there about an hour and a half, they seemed on very good terms, exceedingly so, they had been to Tallow Chandler's Hall to dinner, they went away together.

- OLIVE sworn.

You are a surgeon and an apothecary, I believe you attended Mr. Sawtell in his last illness? - I did.

Upon that occasion had you any opportunity of seeing Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , one of the prisoners at the bar? - Yes, Sir, I saw him, every time I went he always was attentive to him and seemed fond of having him about him to move him and to do the necessary business, he was generally there and seemed to be the acting person about him, and there was a man there about him pretty much, I began to attend him the beginning of December, 1782, I attended him about the first or second week in February, till he died.

Mr. Silvester. Did you ever see him there before December, 1782? - I do not recollect, I think I have seen him there, but I did not attend him before, I had attended in the family before, and I think once I attended him, it was about the 7th or 8th of December, I attended him a week, he had a variety of matters, there was the burning of his legs by sitting by the fire.

How often did you attend him in a week? - Most likely I missed very few days in the whole time, my partner might go some days, I might one or two days be missing, I am very sure it was but very few days in the latter part of the time, he was not capable, I do not think he was capable of going out after I saw him.

Mrs. WALLIS sworn.

I knew Mr. Sawtell in his life time, I have conversed with him about Mrs. Goodridge.

What was the nature of that conversation? - I had been acquainted with Mr. Sawtell above twenty years, and in the course of that time I have always heard him speak of Mrs. Goodridge, it was his whole discourse to me, he never was easy but when she did any thing for him that he wanted to be done.

Did you ever hear him say any thing of the nature of the relation between them? - Aye, a thousand times, when her first husband was dying, him and me went to the bed side, and he shook hands with Mr. Haines, says he, John, do not be uneasy about your family, for I will do for them; and she used to come to him every Sunday to dinner before she married Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > ; Mr. Sawtell told me Mr. Slack was no relation at all, and every thing was given to Mr. Goodridge.

Mr. Silvester. What are you? - A woman I suppose.

What profession are you? - A pawnbroker, I was acquainted with him a matter of twenty years, I was not acquainted with him after he left off business, I have seen him since.

How many years before he died had he left off business? - I cannot tell you.

How often did you see him after he left off business? - I cannot tell you that neither, I did not see him for twelve months, he gave her all his wife's clothes and one hundred pounds.

Did you ever hear him say any thing about his will? - Yes, Mrs. Goodridge came to me and was crying, I asked her what was the matter, says she my uncle has made his will to a cotton merchant, and his name is Slack, and she desired the favour of me to speak to her uncle, and accordingly the next day he called upon me, and sat down by me, I said to him after all your promises to provide for Haines, you have made a will in favour of Slack, so says he, poh poh, she is a good girl and I will do for her and her family, she shall never want, which might be a year and a half before his death.

Was that before he retired from business, - I cannot tell you.

GEORGE MORRIS < no role > sworn.

I have known the late Mr. Sawtell about sixteen years and upwards, I have kept a shop in his neighbourhood very near fifteen years.

During all those years have you known him? - Yes, except one time I was at sea a little while, I knew Mrs. Goodridge, her name was Haines, I know she always came to our house on every merry-making day, such as his birth-day or a wedding-day, nothing went right without she was present in his family, and among all his friends.

State to the Jury who was his principal favourite? - Mrs. Haines, afterwards Mrs. Goodridge.

Did there happen to be any remarkable likeness between them? - Yes, she certainly was very much like him, he was more partial to her than any person I know.

Mr. Silvester. When was this? - About sixteen years ago.

That was during the life time of his wife? - Yes.

JAMES SAWTELL < no role > sworn.

Was you acquainted with the late Mr. Sawtell? - No doubt of it.

Are you acquainted with Mrs. Goodridge? - I knew her when she was Mrs. Haines, I knew her seven years.

Had you opportunities of observing whether Sawtell had affection and regard for her? - He generally had her there most days to dinner, he seemed to shew affection and regard, I never heard whether he intended to make any provision for her and her family.

- FENTON sworn.

The witnesses on the allegation were examined in August, 1785? - Yes.

Was there any opportunity to answer these allegations but by an exceptive allegation? - Certainly not.

It is in contemplation to put in that exceptive allegation? - Yes.

Mr. Silvester. You might have put it in if you chose? - The allegation might have been in about this time.

Mr. Erskine. I have a great many witnesses to call to the character of the prisoners, but I wish to call witnesses to shew who this Mr. Underwood is, we have four-score witnesses to character.

Jury. We shall be satisfied with a fifth part.

Call the Rev. Mr. Sellon.

Mr. Garrow. My Lord, please to let Mr. Sellon be examined first, for if he stays till the last, he will not be dismissed time enough for his Sunday's lecture.

The Rev. Mr. SELLON sworn.

I know Mr. Leonard Goodridge < no role > , of St. John-street, Clerkenwell, I have known him above twenty years, he lives in the parish of which I am minister, I have had some little dealings with him at times, and have been a witness of his proceedings and conduct as carpenter under the commissioners of the paving act, his behaviour has been that of a civil, sober, industrious man, a man of probity, honesty, and integrity; I never knew any harm of him, and indeed I never heard any harm, and as far as I can judge, from my own personal knowledge of his general character, I never could believe him to be guilty of the crime laid to his charge.

JOHN ARIS < no role > sworn.

I know Leonard Goodridge < no role > , I am a very near neighbour, I always found him an honest man, that is his general character, he has taken several hundred pounds of my money, I know him to be a tender husband and a good master.

Do you believe him a man capable of committing such a wicked act as is laid to his charge? - I do not indeed upon my oath; I know Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > but not intimately.

JOHN HEAVEN < no role > sworn.

I know all the prisoners, I have known Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > for seven or eight years, his brother about four years, and Mr. Evans the same; with respect to Leonard Goodridge < no role > I have had transactions with him in business, I am in the undertaking and appraising line, I have done business with Mr. Nathaniel Goodridge < no role > , and I have found him in all respects as honest and impartial a man as ever I met with in the whole course of my life, and do declare that I do believe him to be an honest man in all his transactions before this, of which I know nothing; I have had some dealing with Evans, with respect to collecting the rents, his general character as far as I know of him is that of a very honest man, he was always fair and square in all his transactions with me.

- SEARCH, Esq. sworn.

I am foreman of the Middlesex Grand Jury, I have known Leonard Goodridge < no role > for twelve or fourteen years, a distinguished character for justice and honesty.

Mr. Pigott. You have found him so and all the world who talked to you about him told you so? - Yes.

Mr. HALL sworn.

I am a Common Council man, I am a builder, the prisoner Leonard Goodridge < no role > worked for me twenty years ago, I have known him particularly well ever since, I recommended him to my timber merchant, and he thanked me for recommending him so good a character, a very honest industrious man, I have recommended him to several hundred pounds worth of work that I might have done myself, because he lived in the neighbourhood.

- COLLIER sworn.

I have known Leonard Goodridge < no role > several years, a very honest just man.

Did you ever hear a whisper to his disadvantage? - Never in the least.

Never an insinuation to his prejudice? - No.

Mr. Erskine. All these lists we hold in our hands are filled with names to character equally respectable.

Jury. We are satisfied as to the character.

NATHANIEL GOODRIDGE < no role > , LEONARD GOODRIDGE < no role > , JAMES EVANS < no role > ,

NOT GUILTY .