gow and Dublin and other places, I meant the expression figuratively like the poets. In the conversation I had with Dr. Sutherland, I remember in discussing the ingratitude of man towards his Creator, having remarked, that brutes were more thankful for his gifts, and that even chickens in taking their food, threw back their heads in token of adoration and gratitude to the Almighty. In the event of my wife not having sanctioned the breaking of the china, I should have thought it wrong of her that she loved those things, but then I would not have acted contrary to her wishes. The Bishop of Sodor and Man and I did not agree on all religious subjects. We had some correspondence on the words "the altar of the Lord," mentioned in Scripture. I was of opinion the words "the table of the Lord" ought to be substituted as I conceived it a more plain designation, and that it would have had no reference to the Roman Catholic religion. I have lived some days on bread and water, and did so thinking it was more profitable to body and mind. I believe that medical men know the treatment of bodily diseases. I do not consider myself a single individual personifying our Saviour, but I am of opinion that, like the disciples, I was sent on earth to fulfil a divine purpose. In conclusion, Mr. Davenport very impressively remarked, that many of the things which now appeared strange to men, would be unravelled by the light of eternity.

A further mass of evidence was brought forward on behalf of the executors of the late Bishop of Sodor and Man against the commission.

Among the witnesses examined

were, the Rev. William Perceval Ward, son of the Bishop, Dr. Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, the Bishop of Lincoln, Archdeacon Goddard, and others. None of these gentlemen had seen any marks of unsoundness of mind in Mr. Davenport. They considered him to be a person of strong religious feelings, who believed it to be his duty to devote great part of his property towards religious purposes. The chief Commissioner, in summing up the evidence, told the jury that the question they had to try was, whether Mr. Davenport was so far insane as to be incapable of taking care of himself and his property; and although he admitted that it was most important that they should not leave out of their minds altogether what had been the habits and manners of life of Mr. Davenport, and more particularly his religious habits, yet that was not the foundation on which they were to bottom their verdict. The sole question they had to try was, whether now, and how long since, in the language of the law, he had been non compos mentis.

The summing up occupied about six hours and a half, and after rather more than an hour's cousideration, fourteen out of the twenty gentlemen that composed the jury, returned a verdict-"That at the time of the taking of the inquisition, George Davenport was a person of unsound mind, and that he has been in the same state of unsoundness of mind from the 31st of July, 1837." The remaining six jurymen, it was understood, entertained a different opinion. Throughout the proceedings the court was daily crowded to excess.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

APRIL 9.

Alleged Forgery of a Will.

Thomas Williams. Esq., of Brynbrass Castle, near Carnarvon, was indicted for having, on the 19th day of July previous, uttered certain forged documents purporting to be the last will and testament, of Jones Panton, Esq., deceased, late of Brynbras Castle and Plasgwyn, in the same county, with intent to defraud Barnard Panton, Esq., and other the next of kin of the deceased, he well-knowing the same to be forged.

It appeared that the prisoner formerly practised as an attorney in Wales, but having in the year 1828 married a daughter of Mr. Jones Panton, the testator, immediately discontinued his profession and lived upon his property. Mr. Panton's death happened on the 24th May, 1837, and the family, according to the custom of the country, assembled at the castle after the funeral, to hear the will read; but in consequence of the prisoner having abruptly absented himself, the reading was postponed until the 9th of June following. By this will and its codicil, which were dated severally in November 1828 and November 1829, after reciting a deed of settlement of certain estates on the elder son (who afterwards died), the testator devised his unsettled property to his male and female children in equal shares. A codicil added in 1831, however, revoked part of the bequests named in the previous testiment, and constituted his fourth son (viz. the prosecutor), heir and sole executor. The prisoner allowed the prosecutor to prove this will with

out raising any objection, and shortly after entered a caveat against it, and mentioned that he had in his possession a will in which the testator had appointed him sole executor, and his wife the principal and residuary legatee. The body of this second will was in the handwriting of the prisoner, and consisted of eleven scrips, one of which bore the date of the 7th of May, 1837, and on all of which by the aid of strong glasses, pencíl marks were discoverable.

The original subscribing witnesses were the prisoner John Williams, the prisoner's man servant, since dead, and two of his maids, Ellen Evans and Ann Williams. These last were in consequence indicted on a similar charge to that on which their master was tried. It was admitted that the signatures were in the testator's handwriting, but it was contended that the documents were not in existence at the time of his death, and that they were subsequently fabricated by the prisoner in a very curious manner. It was alleged that the testator's signature had been obtained to certain pencil documents which were afterwards rubbed out, and the will written over. For the prosecution the following witnesses were called. Among others, whose evidence is less material,

Thomas Williams, esq., is an attorney at Carnarvon, his daughter married Mr. Panton, the prosecutor, in the year 1832. Witness prepared the second codicil (produced) in the year 1831; and he and his two clerks attested it when executed by the testator. Prepared another codicil on the 29th of May, 1833, by the direction of the deceased. It, among other things, revoked a bequest of 400%.

to Lauretta Maria Williams, wife of the prisoner, and reduced the sum to 2001.

Mr. Panton (the deceased) was a man of great property. Was aware when his daughter married the prosecutor, what interest he had in the will. They have only one child living. They lived on terms of great affection with the deceased. The grandchild was a great favourite. Never was aware of any change of affection down to the time of his death, the 26th of May last. Witness saw him on the 12th. Received a letter, requesting him to take the will to the mansion of the deceased. It had been in his possession ever since the execution of the last codicil. They were read over to him. At that time there was no apparent change in his health. The deceased said he wished to give Mrs. Williams 2,000l., instead of 2007. in the former codicil. He said he wished to give to Barton's daughter (his grandchild) 3,000l., to be payable at the age of twentyone. He said, "I shall not do it to-day, you shall do it some time else." No third person was present at this conversation. Mr. Barton Panton afterwards came in, and the will having been sealed up; the deceased said to him, Here, take my last will and codicils, take and keep them."

Cross-examined.-The deceased once brought a charge against the prisoner respecting a diamond ring. The prisoner had an action brought against him by a lady for a breach of promise of marriage. It was his clerk found out there were some pencil marks on the disputed documents during the inquiry before the examiners in the month of January last.

George Bettys, a slate-mer

chant, at Caernarvon, was on intimate terms with the deceased. Deceased always appeared to be very fond of the prosecutor, his wife, and child. Remembers being engaged to go to Chester races last year with Mr. Barton Panton on the 3rd of May, but he did not go, as Mr. Panton complained of a severe cold. He (Mr. Bettys) remained with him all that day. The next morning, Mr. Panton told his son to go to the library and bring down a roll of papers. The deceased said, "Here, Barton, are receipts for stock and funds to the amount of 29,000l. or 30,000%. I have given you all the money I have got in the house, and at Hollywell and Mould's, the bankers." He also told him he gave him all the arrears of rent due on the respective estates. He also said,

I also give you all my interest in canal and mine shares, as well as all my plate, books, wine (handing the keys of the cellar), my farming stock and all my personalities of every kind." He enjoined his son to take care of Ann and little missey, meaning Mrs. and Miss Panton, observing that he could not be long with them. Had an interview with Mr. Rumsey Williams, the father of Mrs. B. Panton, on the subject of this conversation. Mr. Panton said to witness, " when you called upon me previous to the marriage of my son with Miss Williams, I told you that if they lived with me until my death they should have the bulk of my property. Now you have seen my promise realised." Saw the deceased on the 13th of May. He died on the 26th of that month. Was with him daily down to the day of his death, and attended the funeral, to which the prisoner came very late, and he

was not seen after the mourners left the churchyard.

W. Barton Panton, esq.: I am at present high sheriff for the county of Anglesey. I am the youngest son of the late Barton Panton, esq. My father came into considerable property by the death of my uncle. I always lived with my father from my cradle to the time of his death. We were very affectionate to each other. I married in 1832, when my father stipulated that we should live with him, and that was assented to. Witness and wife always administered his medicine to the time of his death. The intimacy and affection never diminished. After my father brought an action, the prisoner seldom visited them. I knew of my father's testamentary paper at the time I was married. I had engaged to go to Chester races, but my father wished me to stop at home, as he had something important to say to me. He gave me all his property.-[The witness here detailed the conversation related by Mr. Bettys.] This was about three weeks before my father died. My father gave me a long sealed paper parcel, in the presence of my father-in-law (Mr. R. Williams), and said, “Here, Barton, this is my last will and testament, with the codicils." I would not have the will read after the funeral, because the prisoner had withdrawn from the company. A few days after the funeral the prisoner and his brother came to him in his carriage, and said, "Have you anything to say to me?" I said I was busy looking over the papers, and he went away. The prisoner afterwards saw the will, and took notes from it. Never heard that he had a will until the 26th of July. When he ascertained the

fact, he gave instructions for the proof of the will to be opposed in the proper office.

Cross-examined. - My father told me the contents of the will on which I claim, shortly before his death. He always after the death of my brothers told me he had made a will in my favour. My father and my deceased brother, Paul, were not friendly. He had not seen him for seven years before his death. My father was not out of the house on the 7th of May, 1837. I did not go to church that day. It was a wet day. My father was sitting in the parlour. The butler, footman, and other servants were at home. Mr. Hugh Price was there as a visitor to my father.

Hugh Williams Price, Comptroller of Customs at Beaumaris. Had known Mr. Panton, sen., fourteen years before his death, and was very intimate with him. Knows that he entertained a great affection for the prosecutor, and his wife and child. Has heard him make express declarations respecting them. He said, he had provided very handsomely for his son. He was at the house of Mr. Panton on Sunday, the 7th of May, the morning of which was fine, but it was stormy and hailed towards noon. Knows Mr. Williams (the prisoner), but did not see him there that day. Witness did not remain in the house with the old gentleman all the day. He was never away more than half an hour at a time. He walked out with the old gentleman on that day, but did not go more than 400 yards or so from the house.

Several of the servants of the late Mr. Panton were called to prove, that on the 7th of May, the date of one of the alleged forged

documents, their master did not leave the house, and that the prisoner had not come to Plasgwyn. Several hours were employed in the examination of the scrips, on which a kind of ground plan, and the names of some streets in London, and the words E. D. R. Hurlock, were traceable. This gentleman being called, proved, that that he had been tenant in common with the deceased of some houses in various streets in London, and that negotiations had passed between them through the medium of the prisoner on the subject.

For the defence, Thomas Owen, the prisoner's coachman, swore, that on the 7th of May he drove his master to Plasgwyn, and that on the road thither, and about twelve miles from the house he met Mr. Barton Panton, Mr. Bettys, and Mr. Price, on horseback.

The Rev. Getting Williams, brother to the prisoner, was next called. He confirmed the evidence of the last witness as to his brother's visit to Plasgwyn on the 7th of May, and added the following important testimony:-"At the latter end of March I was at Plasgwyn with my brother and his wife. After my brother and sister had left the room, Mr. Panton said to me, "If anything happens to Tom, I must beg of you to take care of poor Lauretta, as I have left Tom my executor." I did not mention this conversation to my brother until after the demise of Mr. Panton, when my brother told me, that he was Mr. Panton's executor. I told him, I was aware of that fact, Mr. Panton having told me so.

It was

by my advice that my brother did not immediately after the testator's death make known that he

had a will in his possession. I said, that under all the circumstance Mr. Barton Panton having already produced a will, it would be better for him to go to London and consult his proctor how to act.

Mr. Williams's two maid-servants being brought up from Newgate to give their evidence, distinctly swore to having witnessed the signing, sealing, and delivering of the disputed documents by Mr. Panton on several occasions during the years 1834 and 1836, at Brynbrass Castle, and to having put their signatures to the same.

Their testimony was given with great clearness, and completely established the innocence of the prisoner, who, consequently, received a verdict of acquittal.

The trial occupied five days, and excited great interest.

COURT OF CHANCERY. 20th.

In re Davenport.

Mr. Richards and Mr. Chandless appeared in support of a petition, which prayed, that the executors of the late Bishop of Sodor and Man might be directed to retransfer to the account of Mr. Davenport the sum of 6,000l. East-India dock stock. The lunacy of Mr. Davenport had been carried back to the 31st of July, 1837, and the stock in question had been transferred by him to the late bishop for charitable purposes at the beginning of November last. It was further prayed, that the costs might be paid out of Mr. Davenport's estate.

Mr. Russell said, he had to present a counter-petition. His client, Mr. Ward, the son of the Bishop of Sodor and Man, stated,