117. The said WILLIAM LUDLAM proceedingsdefend was again indicted, for that he on the 3d of November, having in his custody and possession, a certain bill of exchange with the name of Storr thereto subscribed, bearing date, Newark, 3d September, 1787, and to have been drawn by - Storr, and to be directed to John Pybus < no role > the elder, and Co. New Bond-street, London, for 20 l. to Thomas Carr < no role > , or order, seventy days after date, on which was contained a certain false, forged and counterfeited acceptance in writing, with the name J. Pybus, the elder, thereto subscribed , tenor of which said acceptance is as follows;

"accepted 21st of October, 1787; J. Pybus," did on the said 3d ofNovember , feloniously utter and publish as true, the said false, forged, and counterfeited acceptance of the said bill of exchange, with intent to defraud John Bagalley proceedingsvictim , well knowing it to be forged.

A second Count. For that he, on the said 3d of November, had in his possession, a like bill of exchange, on which was contained, a certain false, forged, and counterfeit acceptance, being the acceptance of John Pybus < no role > , the younger, and did publish the same as true, with the like intention.

JOHN BAGGALLEY < no role > sworn.

I keep a hosier and hatter's shop in Fleet-street ; on Saturday the 3d of November, about five in the afternoon, the prisoner came to my house, he looked at some hosiery and hats to about fifteen pounds, I am not sure to a few shillings; he then put his hand into his pocket, and said, he had not quite cash or bank enough to pay for them; he had a bill and receipt made out in the name of Watkins.

Was he purchasing for himself or another? - He said they were for himself, that he was going out in the civil establishment in the East India Company's service to Bengal.

Did you see some cash in his hand? - I saw some cash, it was gold, but what I cannot say; he then said, here is a good bill, will you chuse to take it; I looked at the bill, took it and read it, and made several trifling excuses, and avoided parting either with the bill or the goods; at last I put the bill in my pocket, and knocked the goods back with my elbow, which were ready packed up; and I told the prisoner, as he was a stranger to me, before I parted with the bill or goods, I must make a proper enquiry about the bill; he said he was going to dine at the Bull Inn, in Bishopsgate-street; he said he lived No. 3, Dover-place, Newington Butts, and would call again in about an hour; I told him I would send to Dover-place the goods and the difference, after I had enquired about the bill; I told him I should do that first; he said that was needless, as he would call again for the goods and the difference; as soon as he went away, which was in a hackney-coach, I went directly to Mr. Pybus; I did not offer it for payment, but I asked them whether it was a good one; they replied it was not.

To what Pybus did you go? - To Mess. Pybus and Co. in New Bond-street, where the bill is addressed; Mr. Pybus junior informed me it was a forgery; I came back as soon as possible, and found he never had called; he did not call again; a week elapsed before I gave myself any trouble to enquire about him, and I never saw him after, till I saw him in custody before the Lord Mayor; after he was in custody I went to enquire for No. 3, Dover-place, to ask if a person of the name of Watkins resided there; there is no number to the house in Dover-place; I took the third house from the beginning, as you go to the Elephant and Castle, and there was no such person; I went to the third house from the other end, which is a lady's boarding school, kept by a person I have known some time, and no such person resided there; I know nothing of the bill further than I was told at Mr. Pybus's; the bill is in the same state I received it, except my name at the bottom, and a bit of paper pasted at the back.

(The bill read and examined by the Court.)

"Newark, Sept. 3, 1787.

"Twenty days after date pay Thomas

"Carr, Esq; or order, 20 l. as value received,

"and place it to the account of

"gentlemen, your humble servant,

"Z. Storr.

"Mess. Pybus and Co. New Bond-street,

"London.

"Accepted 21st October, 1787. J.

"Pybus."

THOMAS DENNISON < no role > sworn.

I belong so the house of Mess. Pybus and Co. I am a clerk there.

What is the firm of that house? - John Pybus < no role > , John Cole < no role > , John Pybus < no role > , junior, John Grant < no role > , and Fagan Hale.

Where do they live? - In Bond-street.

Is there any other house of Pybus and Co. in Bond-street? - No, nor in London that I know of, nor any where else.

Look at that bill; do you know any thing of that bill? - No, I do not.

Do you know the drawer? - No, we have no such correspondent.

Look at the hand-writing of John Pybus < no role > , the acceptor? - It is not his handwriting; there are two Mr. Pybus's; it is neither of their writing.

Do the parties ever accept separate? - No they do not; they accept Pybus and Co. or Pybus, Cole, and Co. they never accept separate.

Who are the persons that do accept in your house; have you any clerks that accept for your house? - There is one, his name is Raines; I know his hand, that is not his writing; he always accepts in his own name for the house.

Then that certainly is not the acceptance of any of the persons that compose the firm of Pybus and Co.? - It is not.

Court. Mr. Ludlam, what have you to say to this? - Nothing.

Court to Jury. Gentlemen, it might happen to an honest man to have a bad bill; but if he conducts himself as an honest man, if he utters the bill, and gives a true account of himself, it may be a reason, though a bill is forged, not to charge the person who utters it with knowing it to be forged; the question here is, whether he knew it to be a forged bill; and most unhappily the circumstances are very strong against the prisoner; he represented himself to be a man of the name of Watkins, his name being Ludlam; representing himself to be a person, going on the civil establishment to Bengal, and using that pretence to get this bill negotiated, and never returning; instead of which there is no such person living in Dover-place, he never comes back again at all, but abandons both bill and goods; these are circumstances that do manifest a consciousness that that bill was not negotiated in a fair and regular course; therefore what can we infer, but that the prisoner must have known what sort of a bill? this poor unhappy man has no answer to give to it at all, and I am afraid it is a case too clear to admit of any answer.

Jury. Let us see the bill.

(Shewn to the Jury.)

GUILTY (Of uttering) Death .

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