116. WILLIAM LUDLAM proceedingsdefend was indicted for that he, having in his possession a bill of exchange on Mess. Martin and Co. bankers, in London, for twelve pounds, dated 22d October, 1787; upon which said bill of exchange was a false, feigned, and counterfeited acceptance, signed E. D. Stone, dated 5th November, 1787, on the 8th of November , falsely and feloniously did utter and publish as true, the said false, forged, and counterfeited acceptance of the said bill of exchange, with intention to defraud Goslib Augustus Treyer proceedingsvictim , knowing the same acceptance to be false, forged, and counterfeited .

A second count, for that he having the same in his custody, accepted as before-mentioned, feloniously and falsely did make and forge on the back of the said bill of exchange, an indorsement thereon, in the name of William Washington < no role > , with the like intention.

A third count, for feloniously uttering and publishing as true, the said forged indorsement, knowing it to be false, with the like intention.

GOSLIB AUGUSTUS TREYER < no role > sworn.

On the 8th of November last the prisoner came to my house in a coach; I live in the Haymarket, and gave me orders for snuff of various sorts, and German pipes, to the amount of seven pounds three shillings; and after I had packed them up, he gave me an order for six pounds of Oroonoko tobacco, and five bottles of foreign snuff, and gave me directions to send the second order to Mr. Washington, No. 17, in Mortimer-street; he gave me this paper as the direction where I was to send the second order,

" William Washington < no role > , Esq; No. 17, Mortimer-street," Cavendish-square, London; the first order he took in the coach; but before that he gave me this draught in payment; I rather started at it, because I never had had any bills of him before.

Did you know the person of the prisoner before? - I had seen him at my house frequently, and he told me it was a very good bill, on the house of Mess. Martin, Stone, and company; and he said, do not you see it is accepted by one of thepartners? I answered, if it is from that house, it is a very capital house, I have had many bills upon it; when that was done, I desired him to indorse it, and I dipped a pen in the ink and gave it to him to indorse it; and he had the glove on, and he wrote with the glove on, the name William Washington < no role > , he did not write his real name; when I sent the second order according to his direction, which was in the afternoon, after he was gone, the people where I sent the second order, refused to take it in, saying such a person did not lodge there; then I ran myself there, and asked the woman; she said there was nobody lodged there but only mechanics; then I went to the house of Mr. Martin, and Co. and presented it, and asked if it was a true one; and they told me it was a false one, and they refused payment; then I went to Sir Sampson Wright's, and we did not find him till he was taken in the Minories, eight or nine days after, till he was advertised; then I went to the Counter to see him, and it was the same man; I know him perfectly by sight, he talked German, and I talked German with him frequently; but I never knew his name; he is indicted by the name of Ludlam, that is his original name.

How do you know that? - His own friends have been with me, and told me his name was Ludlam; his cousin has.

Did you know what situation of life he was in at the time he came to your house first? - He was an officer, I know.

Was he in regimentals? - Not in full regimentals, only in frocks.

You did not know where he lodged, till he gave you that paper of directions? - No; I asked him where I was to send this to, and he took and tore it from a letter.

(The paper of directions put into Court.)

What did you do with the bill? - I offered it for payment to Mr. Stone, and they refused me payment, then I went to the office, and shewed it to the Justice; they made me write my name on it, and it was delivered to this gentleman. (Jealous.)

Mr. Garrow, Prisoner's Counsel. Do you happen to know whether this prisoner has been in America? - I do not.

Do not you know that he has, for some years past, used the name of Washington? - Yes, he has left that name of Washington before.

Have you had any connection or transaction in which he has used the name of Washington, either by leaving a card at your house, or by calling himself by that name, or any other way? - I never knew, till after this transaction, that my wife told me he left a card in the name of Washington.

Did he tell you which house of Martin and Co. this was? - In Lombard-street, he told me.

CHARLES JEALOUS < no role > sworn.

I received this bill from the prosecutor, on the 27th of November, and it has been in my possession ever since; I know nothing of the charge.

(The bill put in and read.)

"12. Derby, 22d of October, 1787.

"Thirty days after date, pay Mr. John

"Wright, or order, 12 l. as value received,

"and place it to the account of, Gentlemen,

"your humble servant, George

"Brown. Messrs. Martin and Co. bankers,

"London. Accepted the 5th November,

"1787, E. D. Stone. Indorsed,

"J. Wright, W. < no role > Washington."

(Examined by the Record.)

SAMUEL JACKSON < no role > sworn.

I belonged to the house of Messrs. Martin and Co. I am a clerk there.

What is the firm of the house? - James Martin, Richard Stone < no role > , John Foote < no role > and James Porter < no role > : under the firm of Martin Stone < no role > , Foote and Porter.

Do you know any thing of that bill; was it ever presented to you? - Yes, I believe this is the same bill that Mr. Treyer brought one evening to our house, and enquiredafter the goodness of it; the answer given him was, that the bill was not a good one; that it was a forged one, and in addition to that, we mentioned another circumstance that had lately come to our knowledge.

That you need not enter into; look at the acceptance of that bill? - This is not the acceptance of Mr. Stone, the partner in that house; his name is Richard; the initial of the Christian name here is E. D. I know nothing more of it.

Mr. Garrow. I understand there is another banking-house in London of that firm? - No Sir, there is a banking-house, with a Martin in the firm, but that Martin stands last instead of first; that is not in Lombard-street.

Is there ever a Mr. Stone in that house, Not that I know.

There is a Mr. Stone in Mr. Payne's house, is not there? - Yes.

Do you know that acceptance? - No, I cannot say I do.

Court. Now, Mr. Ludlam, this is the time to make your defence; and the fact of your having offered this bill to Mr. Treyer, is certainly proved beyond all question, if the Jury believe him; that it is not a true bill is also proved; now you gave him a paper of directions where he was to carry a second parcel of goods, which appears not to be true, and you carried off the first parcel of goods, so that in truth, you wronged him of the first parcel, and deceived him in the second instance; that is a very strong circumstance against you; now Sir, what do you say for yourself? I hope you will be able to explain it.

PRISONER's DEFENCE.

I received these bills of Mr. Thomas Allamby < no role > , my Lord, the beginning of October, at the Bull-inn, Bishopgate-street; and as Mr. Allamby and I had been intimate from our child-hood, I never suspected them to be bad ones, and as Mr. Allamby is now dead, I cannot bring him forth; I was in hopes, had I put off my trial, that I might have brought people from the country, to have proved our intimacy, and the money transactions that have passed between us.

Court. That would not have been even evidence for you, unless you could have proved the delivery of these bills.

Prisoner. I believe, my Lord, I could have brought witnesses to have proved the delivery of the identical bills.

Court. What answer do you give, Mr. Ludlam, as to the fact of your giving that direction to carry a second parcel of goods to a place where you did not live? - I had lodged in Mortimer-street, for two months, very nigh, in a room, with a gentleman of the Navy, named Worrel.

Where did you lodge at that time? can you give the Jury any satisfaction on that point, and why you ordered these goods to be sent to the other place? - I had lodged there so long, I did not, in the least, doubt but they would have taken them in; and I dare not have them sent to my own lodging, being very much in debt in name of Ludlam.

Have you any thing more to say, Mr. Ludlam? - Nothing more.

Court to Mr. Garrow. Have you any witnesses for him.

Mr. Garrow. I am afraid not, my Lord; but he has not stated any reason why he went by the name of Washington.

Court. I understood by your examination, that he had so gone.

Prisoner. I have gone by the name of Washington ever since the year 1785; Mr. Riley attends; he is subpoened.

Mr. Garrow. State to my Lord the fact that Mr. Riley can prove? - I was admitted at the Free Masons Tavern, by the name of Washington, and I refer to Mr. Riley to prove that.

(Mr. Riley called, but did not appear.)

Court. Gentlemen of the Jury, this prisoner, William Ludlam < no role > , stands indicted, for uttering a forged acceptance of a bill of exchange; and also is charged, withhaving uttered a forged indorsement of that bill of Exchange, dated at Derby, the 22d of October, 1787, for 12 l. drawn by George Brown < no role > , payable to Mr. John Wright < no role > , or order, thirty days after date, for value received, and it is drawn on Messrs. Martin and Co. Bankers, London; it imports to have been accepted on the 5th of November, 1787, by a person described on the acceptance, E. D. Stone; and it purports to have been indorsed by Wright; the person to whom it was paid; and by W. Washington; it is the acceptance that is charged to be forged of Mr. Stone, and it is that indorsement by Washington that is charged to be forged; the prisoner is not charged with having forged either of these, but with having uttered the bill with the false acceptance and indorsement, knowing that they were so; by uttering is meant that he passed it in payment, and used it like a true bill, when he knew it was false; upon the facts of the case on the evidence, it stands thus: this prisoner had used the house of one Goslib Agustus Treyer, who lives somewhere in the Hay-market, and deals, among other articles, in snuff. (Here the learned Judge summed up the evidence and then added as follows:) On the paper which he left with Mr. Treyer, which looks like the cover of a letter, are written these words,

" William Washington < no role > , Esq; No. 17,

"Mortimer-street, Cavendish-square,

"London." Now, if in indorsing the name of Washington there was no particular fraud meditated, that would not be considered a forged indorsement; signing by the false name, will not alone, unless there is a fraudulent use made of it, make it a forgery, so as to expose him to the charge of making a forged indorsement; upon this evidence, I think it must be taken to be a bill on Martin, Stone and Co. who are bankers in Lombard-street; and to have upon it a forged acceptance: but the material point for your consideration is, whether this man, who offered it in payment, appears to you to have uttered it, under circumstances that prove he had some concern in the forging of the bill, or that he knew it was forged; I directed the attention of the prisoner in his defence, to that point which seemed to me to press him most, with respect to the knowledge; because, if you find a man uttering a bill, which turns out to be forged, with all the circumstances on his part that are open and fair, and no disguise whatever; you will not conclude, merely from the circumstance of his having the misfortune of uttering a forged bill, that he knew it was forged; on the other hand, if you find him playing any tricks, or using any disguise, or any management that demonstrates any fraud in the passing that bill, you will conclude he had such knowledge; the circumstance that presses this man, is certainly, that he came there, and gave two different orders for different parcels of goods; with respect to the largest parcel of 7 l. 3 s. he takes this away with him in a hackney coach, therefore he actually got the possession of these goods, and carried them off, and where he carried them to no body knows; with respect to the other parcel of goods, he gave a direction, which turned out to be a direction that was not a true one; it was not a place where they were likely to be received, and in fact the people would not receive the goods, so that the question is, whether that is not an artifice to prevail on the man to part with the first parcel of goods, on a false security, and that is the way in which it applies: now, he says first, as to the bill, he received it from Mr. Allamby; his trial was put off last sessions, to give him an opportunity of establishing that fact, Mr. Allamby is dead, and he cannot now establish it by calling Mr. Allamby; and to be sure it would not be a very likely thing that he would come here to prove that he put a forged bill into his hands; he says to that, if his trial was put off longer, he might have been able to establish that by other testimony; but he was not able to state any circumstance that could induce the Court to suppose, that if any time was given to him, it would be possible for him to shew the fact that he received it from Allamby;therefore, that the Court cannot take any notice of; but with respect to the more material point as it strikes me, which is the transaction itself with Treyer; what he says, is this; he wanted such goods, and took away such as was convenient to him; he took it to his own lodgings, which he was obliged to keep private on account of his distressed situation; and he says, it occurred to him that he might order the other part of the goods to this other place where he had lodged before, as he supposed that they would take them in; and he says, that that circumstance therefore ought not to operate upon you, that he meditated any fraud on the prosecutor; it is on that subject principally upon which your discretion is to be exercised; here unquestionably is a bill with a forged acceptance upon it, passed by the man at the bar; the question is, whether he must have known this was not a true bill at the time he passed it; to be sure originally, a man who has the misfortune to pass a forged bill, is bound to prove how he came by it, and there might be a great deal of indulgence on that point for a man who might have the misfortune to pass a forged bill; because a man may receive a forged bill and lose his evidence, as the prisoner says he has; therefore, jurors in all those cases, look more narrowly into the manner of the circumstances, under which the man acts the moment he passes the bill, and form their judgment, rather from these circumstances, more than from the passing the bill merely; for though his saying he received it from another person would not be a direct answer; yet if a man passes a bill with every circumstance of fairness and openness without the least disguise, there is great reason to suppose that he did not know it was a forged bill, unless there is proof that he knows of the forgery; now, you will consider the manner in which this man conducted himself at the time he passed this bill; if you believe he was conscious this was a forged bill, and he knew it, then he is answerable to the extent of this indictment which charges him with the uttering the false acceptance; with respect to the indorsement, if you can satisfy yourselves about the acceptance, I think you may satisfy yourselves about the indorsement, having put that name publicly on it, which there is some evidence he did go by at that time; but upon the other point particularly you will consider seriously, and do justice to him and the public credit by your verdict.

Jury. My Lord, we wish to know when he received the bill of Mr. Allamby.

Court. We cannot ask the prisoner questions now.

Jury. Because I think he said he received them in October, and the date of the acceptance is the 5th of November.

Court. It would not be fair to press the prisoner with very sharp observations, on what he says here in his defence; as to what he says now, if it does not make for him, it should not make against him, because we do not ask him to accuse himself, but to defend himself; as to what he said at the time he gave the bill to Treyer you do well to consider that.

GUILTY , Death . On the first Count; Not Guilty of the two other Counts.

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