PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Miss DUPLOCK.
COMMITTAL OF A MIDHURST SOLICITOR FOR FORGERY.
PETERSFIELD, Friday.
At the Petersfield Petty Sessions, this day, Mr. E. Wardroper, a solicitor for many years in extensive practice at Midhurst, in the county of Sussex, was brought up on remand, charged with forgery. The magistrates present were the Hon. J. Carnegie, J. B. Carter, Esq., and R. Steele, Esq.
Mr. Adams, of the firm of Deane & Co, Alresford, conducted the case for the prosecution, the prisoner being unrepresented.
The information charged the prisoner with having, on the 21st of June, 1859, at Petersfield, feloniously forged a promissory note of 275l., purporting to be the promissory note of Charles Hurst, payable at the London and County Bank, Petersfield, with intent to defraud the said Charles Hurst. He was also charged with having uttered the said note, with intent to defraud the London and County Joint Stock Banking Company.
The first witness examined was Mr. Henry Lacey, who said: l am manager of the London and County Bank at Petersfield. I have been the manager of that bank about eighteen years, and have known the prisoner abont fifteen years, during which time he has kept an account at our bank. In the course of our transactions he presented this note (produced) to me on the 25th of June. He brought it himself to Petersfield and presented with it a check for 20l., and a 5l. Bank of England note. As nearly as I can recollect he said it was a note of hand of a client of his, who owed him the money. I afterwards received this letter (produced) which is in the prisoner’s handwriting. [The letter was dated ‟Midhurst, 2nd of July,” it enclosed checks to the amount of 411l., which prisoner requested might be placed to the credit of his account. He further solicited as a favour that the bill of Mr. Hurst,—whom he described as the owner of property in that town and neighbourhood, and for many years resident there—might be discounted if he (the prisoner) should require it, alleging, as the reason of his request) that considerable sums of money were owing to him, some of them already due, and showing that the bill was sure to be met at maturity. Witness continued:] I made advances upon the faith of the promissory note, and held it as security for those advances.
Mr. Charles Hurst deposed: I reside at 37, Carlton Terrace, Kentish Town, London. I am a client of Mr. Wardroper. The bill produced does not bear my signature. I never saw it until it was shown me three days ago in London. I never gave Mr. Wardroper any authority to sign that bill. It is not in my handwriting nor is it my usual signature, and therefore it must be a forgery.
No further evidence was adduced.
The Chairman, having administered the usual caution to the prisoner, to the effect that whatever he said would be taken down in writing and might be used in evidence against him,
The prisoner said: I confess that it is a forgery. I admitted it from the first, and it is on my own confession that I appear here. It is a forged note and no one knew of it.
The Magistrates then formally committed the prisoner for trial at the ensuing assizes to be held in December next, and the witnesses were bound in their own recognizances, Mr. Lacey to the amount of 200l. and Mr. Hurst to the amount of 100l. to appear and give evidence.
Although it is stated that there are numerous other defalcations to a serious amount, this was the only case investigated.
The prisoner, who appeared to be about 50 years of age, was suffering from illness, and, we understand, is under close surveillance.
(See also
07-Dec-1859
23-Nov-1859)