West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 8th August, 1851 Part 2. THOMAS SEYMOUR, 21, was found Guilty of stealing a handkerchief from the person of SAMUEL BOND, at Five-Lanes, on the 7th of July, was sentenced to Six Months' Hard Labour. THOMAS BROWN, 19, was charged with stealing a gallon of beer, the property of his master, WILLIAM MATHEWS, at Minster. Guilty. One Month's Hard Labour. JAMES BLEWETT, 15, was charged with stealing a blue cloth jacket, the property of JOHN HARRIS, at Egloskerry. Guilty. Three Months' Hard Labour. NISI PRIUS COURT - MORSHEAD and OTHERS v. CORRY - Mr. COLLIER appeared for the plaintiffs, who were the Rev. JOHN PHILIP ANDREW MORSHEAD and others. The declaration stated that Mrs. Morshead had by indenture let certain premises to defendant for twelve years from the 25th of March, 1845. The only question in issue was with regard to the deed, which defendant pleaded he had not made. Mr. ROBERT STEPHENS, the attesting witness, was called, and proved that the deed was executed by Mrs. Morshead and the defendant. The action was brought by plaintiffs as the devisees in trust under a will, and the amount claimed was for rent, less some allowances for sums paid. Verdict for plaintiffs for ?42. 16s. 5d. Mr. Collier prayed speedy execution, which was granted in a week. RICHARDS v. JACKA - Mr. COLLIER said the plaintiff was Mr. JOHN RICHARDS, and the defendant Mr. CHARLES JACKA. The declaration set out the use and occupation by defendant of a certain tenement called Rashleighs, the property of the plaintiff, and after making certain deductions, the amount claimed for rent of the same was ?108. Mr. G. H. BELLRINGER, cashier and clerk in the office of Messrs. MILLETT and BORLASE, of Penzance, who are agents of plaintiff, was called to prove the occupation of the tenement by defendant, the terms on which it was held, and the payments on account which defendant had made. There was no defence. Verdict for plaintiff for ?108. Mr. Collier applied for speedy execution, which the Judge ordered in three weeks. Doe. Dem. HEARLE v. SAMPSON - An action of ejectment, in which defendant failed to appear. Judgment by default. SPRY, Knight, v. HOCKING - Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH and Mr. COLERIDGE for plaintiff; Mr. CROWDER and Mr. SMIRKE for defendant. This was an action on promises, and Mr. Coleridge opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Sir SAMUEL THOMAS SPRY, and the defendant Mr. RICHARD HOCKING. The declaration stated that on the 21st of June, 1843, defendant made and delivered a promissory note to plaintiff for ?20, with interest at five per cent., for money lent. Defendant pleaded, first, that he did not make the note; secondly and thirdly (two pleas the same in substance), that the money was given as a bribe; fourthly, that he had paid the money fifthly, that plaintiff had discharged him from the debt; and sixthly, that he did not make the promise. On these pleas issue was joined. Mr. M. SMITH addressed the jury for the plaintiff. The case was a very simple one; the action was brought by Sir Samuel Spry to recover on a promissory note ?20, given by defendant to him. They were perfectly aware that a person who gives a promissory note makes an admission of a debt due to him to the person to whom he gives it, and the ordinary way of proving such a debt was to produce the note. They had heard from Mr. Coleridge that there were two pleas on the record; one, that the note was for a bribe given to defendant at a certain election; and secondly, that it was not given at that election, but at some future time. There seemed to be here some inconsistency; and he believed it would be found there was no ground whatever for those pleas, but that the money was lent and security given for it in the ordinary way. Mr. Samuel Spry was elected member for Bodmin in 1843, and this transaction took place four months afterwards, when there was no future election in contemplation; and unless it could be said that no gentleman must be allowed to lend money to any of his constituents, there could be no possible ground for the defendants to come into court. He then called RICHARD HARRIS, a bailiff of Bodmin, who proved that the signature to the note was in the handwriting of defendant. The note was then read:- "21st June, 1843, - I promise to pay Sir Samuel Thomas Spry, Knight, or order, on demand, the sum of ?20, of lawful money of Great Britain, value received. Richard Hocking." This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Crowder addressed the jury for the defendant. His learned friend said this was a very simple case, and so it was as he had put it; but it was not quite so simple after all, for it was a case of bribery, as he should show them, and therefore the note in question was utterly void. His friend had condescended to make one remark on the nature of the pleas, namely, that they were inconsistent, because one of them alleged that the ?20 for which the note was given, was advanced for defendant having voted at an election, whilst another alleged that the money was advanced to influence his vote at another election. He (Mr. Crowder) did not well see the inconsistency of such a statement, and in fact his friend had opened precisely what was defendant's case, namely, that the ?20 were given to him for having done his duty in giving his vote for Sir Samuel Spry in 1843, and that defendant was held liable on that note if he did not vote for Sir Samuel another day. He did not vote exactly as Sir Samuel Spry liked in 1847, and therefore the note was put in force against him. The note bore date, June 1843; it was now August, 1851, and it seemed rather late now to bring forward such a simple case of a promissory note for ?20. His friend said it was very hard if a candidate could not lend a constituent ?20. No doubt it was very hard, but how was it the candidate did not call on his constituent to return him the money thus lent in this ordinary way, before so long a lapse of time, for they would find that the action was not commenced till May, 1848. He believed he should be able to explain that circumstance, and to show that this was as clear a case of bribery as ever existed. The only difficulty would be to find such witnesses as should distinctly prove and establish the case; for no doubt in all such cases there was some difficulty. Bribery could not be proved very readily before a jury, because they could not bring those witnesses who knew of the transaction to depose to the facts before a jury. He should be under the necessity of calling before them a gentleman who was the agent of Sir Samuel Spry on the occasion in question, - a gentleman, however, who would no doubt tell the truth in reference to this matter. It appeared that the defendant, Mr. Richard Hocking, was a grocer in Bodmin, and had been a voter there for a great years. There had been several elections in Bodmin of late years; in 1832, 1837, 1841, 1843 and 1847. Before 1843, Mr. Hocking was in the habit of giving his support to the liberal interest; but he then, it seems, saw the error of his ways, and considered, no doubt, that Sir Spry, was a candidate wholly fitted to represent the borough of Bodmin. He certainly had a full right to give him his vote on that occasion. They did not find that any money was handed over before the election; not at all, but he went manfully and properly to the poll, and gave his honest and disinterested support to Sir Spry. This was on the 9th of February, 1843. Accordingly, after this, the transaction in question took place; his friend said it was four months after, and undoubtedly some time elapsed, for such things are not done immediately; they were too gross, and would be observed by everybody. It seemed however, that in June, 1843, defendant Hocking went to the office of Mr. COMMINS, jun., solicitor, who was then agent for Sir Spry. Mr. hocking had some property mortgaged to a Mr. PEARCE, who was pressing him for payment of the interest on the mortgage money, and Mr. Commins was the attorney for Mr. Pearce. Mr. hocking offered, in the first place, to Mr. Commins, to sell this property, which was the Golden Lion Inn, to Sir Spry. Mr. Commins, told him that Sir Spry would not purchase the inn, but he would lend him ?20, for which he must sign a paper produced, which was in Mr. Commins's handwriting. Mr. Hocking was not called on to pay the stamp; but it was perfectly well known to Mr. Hocking what he got that money for, and it was not to be supposed that Mr. Commins did not know what he was about. The less that was said in such transactions the better. What was the use of saying, "I give you this for bribery, because you voted in 1843 for sir Spry, and you will be so good as to vote for him at the next election, or this note will be put in force against you." There was no occasion for people to say all that, and it was not usual in such cases to say so. The paper, however, was signed, and would, he believed, have remained till that day, but for the unfortunate election in 1847 when he lost his election. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages ?27. PASCOE v. TRELOAR - For the plaintiff, Mr. SERJEANT KINGLAKE and Mr. BEVAN; for the defendant, Mr. CROWDER and Mr. SMIRKE. The trial lasted a considerable time, but was only of interest to the parties concerned. Mr. JOHN PASCOE was the plaintiff, and Mr. THOMAS TRELOAR the defendant. Plaintiff had been clerk to Messrs. GRYLLS and HILL, of Helston, from 1834 to 1850; defendant was also a clerk in the same office. It had been the custom of Messrs. Grylls and Hill to allow one of their clerks to take out license as an auctioneer, and to act in sales in which their firm was concerned, the proceeds of the fees at such auctions going to increase the clerk's income. The senior clerk of Messrs. Grylls and Hill, named DOBB, had, prior to the end of 1841, held this office of auctioneer; getting up in years, he then resigned, and plaintiff (as alleged by him) was appointed by the firm to succeed him as auctioneer, and defendant to be the assistant at the auctions. In 1842 and 1843, there were some extensive sales of the Duke of Leeds's property, and the auctioneer was entitled to a per centage on the purchase money. The monies, however, were paid to defendant Treloar from time to time, and it was to recover what plaintiff alleged to be due to him that the present action was brought. On the other hand, Messrs. Grylls and Hill, the partners in the firm, gave evidence for defendant, that the arrangement made by them and of which Pascoe was distinctly informed, was that the office of auctioneer should be held jointly between Pascoe and Treloar, this being particularly Mr. Grylls's wish, who considered that the latter being the senior clerk, had the prior right to the perquisites of the office. Messrs. Grylls and Hill also gave evidence that the arrangement was that the two clerks should share the fees and perquisites arising from the sales, equally between them. About one-half of the proceeds (with the exception of some small sums) had been paid over by Treloar to Pascoe, but the latter claimed the whole and brought this action to recover the remaining moiety. There was evidence given by MARY ANN PASCOE and WILLIAM JAMES, that they had heard Treloar say about Christmas, 1847, that he had about ?100 in hand, and was ready to pay it over to plaintiff, but Mr. Grylls would not let him. This evidence, however, the learned Judge thought was open to the interpretation that Treloar was referring to the proceeds which had accrued subsequently to Pascoe's giving up the office, and that he was willing to go on again in conjunction with Pascoe, equally sharing the proceeds. Plaintiff's claim, if the whole of the auction perquisites were paid over to him, amounted to about ?90, but the learned Judge directed the jury that if they believed the partners, Messrs. Grylls and Hill, he thought they must find a verdict for defendant. It appeared that plaintiff had applied to the partners on the subject, but had failed to succeed to his satisfaction; and that he was now secretary to North Basset mine, and to Mr. LYLE. A verdict was given for defendant. During this trial, the jury were allowed to leave the court for five minutes. One of them, named SAUNDERS, did not return with the rest, and after waiting for him a short time, the trial proceeded with eleven jurors, and on Saunders making his appearance, he was fined by the Judge forty shillings. POPHAM v. COATES and ANOTHER - Mr. CROWDER, Mr. BEVAN, and Mr. M. SMITH for the plaintiff; Mr. CARTER for the defendants. The plaintiff was Mr. CHRISTOPHER WALLIS POPHAM, of Trevarno, in Sithney; and the defendants were Mr. WILLIAM COATES, of London, and Captain NICHOLAS. The action was brought in respect to Pengelly mine, of the sett of which defendant Coates had sought to obtain a license from Mr. Popham. The circumstances connected with the case were fully reported in this paper, when a trial in relation to Pengelly mine came before the Court of Stannaries. The present action against defendant was for a trespass in seizing and taking some tin ore and tin-stuff, for which plaintiff claimed to recover ?174. 11s. 4d. The witnesses examined for plaintiff were Captain SAMUEL ADAMS, his toller, WILLIAM DAVEY, pay clerk on the mine, JOHN OLD, and JOHN PASCOE. Some deductions being made for the amount claimed, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for ?159. 3s. CROWN COURT, Tuesday, August 5. (Before Lord Campbell.) - EZEKIEL HARRIS, 15, pleaded Guilty of stealing a pair of boots, the property of WILLIAM COLLINS, of Lostwithiel. Sentence Three Months' Hard Labour. SHEEP STEALING - JOHN RICHARDS was indicted for sheep stealing in the parish of Breage. This prisoner was convicted at the last Spring Assizes, and Chief BARON POLLOCK passed on him a sentence of twenty years' transportation. The law, however, only admits of fifteen years' transportation for sheep stealing, as the extreme limit of punishment for that offence. The mistake having been discovered, Messrs. GRYLLS and HILL, solicitors for the prosecution, to obviate an application for a writ of error, applied to the Chief Justice, Lord CAMPBELL, at Exeter, who granted a writ of habeas corpus, under which the prisoner was brought from the Bath gaol (where he had been taken as a transport on his way to undergo his sentence) and was brought again to these assizes, to be tried on the remaining indictments against him. The prisoner was now placed at the bar, and by the advice of his counsel, Mr. Collier, pleaded Guilty to a charge of stealing a ewe, the property of HENRY POLKINGHORNE, at Breage, in November, 1850. He also pleaded Guilty to another indictment for stealing a ewe, the property of STEPHEN DAVEY, of Breage, on the 15th of November; also Guilty of receiving, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Collier made an application on behalf of the prisoner stating that some money was found on him, and that ?10 had been given up to him at the last assizes, by order of the Chief Baron, to defray the costs of his defence. He had another sum of ?14, which was in no way connected with the robbery, and Mr. Collier applied that this be given up to him, as although he had pleaded guilty, considerable expense had been incurred on his behalf. The learned Judge said he could not make the order applied for. Mr. Collier said it was understood between his friend on the other side and himself, that the sentence passed at the last assizes should not be enforced, that therefore no writ of error would be applied for, but the prisoner would be subject to the sentence that his lordship might pass at these assizes. In passing sentence, the judge said, John Richards, you were convicted at the last assizes on the clearest evidence, and sentenced to transportation. There was an error in point of form as to the validity of the sentence, but if a writ of error had been brought, the Court has the power to pass a right sentence. It appears you have carried on these practices to a considerable extent, and have been robbing farmers of their sheep one after the other, until at last the law has overtaken you, and you stand to receive sentence for the offence of which you have confessed yourself guilty. The sentence of the court is that you be Transported Beyond The Seas For The Term of Fifteen Years. STEPHEN JOHNS, 25, was found guilty of stealing, on the 29th of July, at the parish of St. Ive, a bag, and between two and three pecks of wheat, the property of SAMUEL WENMOTH. HENRY BULLEN, constable of Callington, was called to speak to the prisoner's previous good character. Sentence, Six Months' Hard Labour. ARSON - WILLIAM HARRIS, 26, was charged with feloniously attempting to set fire to a certain straw lying on the ground near to a stack of barley, the property of Mr. BRENDON. Another count charged him with setting fire to a stack of barley. Mr. COLLIER for the prosecution called GEORGE SARGENT BRENDON, who occupies a farm in the parish of Lawhitton, and has a linhay, a mowhay, and a mow of corn. Has no dwelling-house on the farm. On Monday, 9th of June, went to the farm between one and two o'clock in the day. Saw a stack of straw there on fire; it was close to the hedge, and only a few feet from a mow of corn, and about a foot from the linhay. Witness extinguished the flames. HENRY CONGDON, a labourer in the employ of Mr. BRENDON, was on Monday morning on his farm at Lawhitton. Saw prisoner about a quarter before twelve at the gate leading to the Lawhitton farm, about twenty-two yards from where the straw was afterwards seen on fire. Prisoner was lounging on the gate. Witness went to his work in another field; after wards saw the reed burning, but on going to the place no one was to be seen. BENJAMIN SAMBELL, policeman of Launceston, saw the reed on fire at Lawhitton on the 9th of June. Before that, had taken the prisoner in custody at Launceston, because of what prisoner told him. Prisoner said, about half a mile or more from Launceston, he had set a farm place on fire; he did not know to whom the place belonged; he said, "I have set fire to one end of the reed that is furthest off from the barleymow." He said, "when I came on the hill, I saw it burning very fast." Witness locked him up and went to the fire; the end furthest from the linhay had been set on fire, as prisoner had said. When witness came back, he asked prisoner why he set fire to the place. He said, my father left me a good deal of money, and I have lent it to my father-in-law; he will not pay me the money or take me into his house; I set the premises on fire to be transported, as then I should be sent out of this country." The prisoner offered no defence. Sentence, Ten Years' Transportation. There was another indictment against him for setting fire to the linhay, but on this no evidence was offered. MARY BENNETT, was found Guilty of stealing a pint and a half of gin, the property of JOHN HOARE, of the Jubilee Inn, at Launceston. Recommended by the jury to mercy. One Month's Hard Labour. THOMAS SYMONS, 20, was indicted for a burglary in the dwelling-house of JOHN SLADE, at Penryn. Mr. COLE conducted the prosecution. Mr. Slade is a watchmaker at Penryn. On the 17th of June, between nine and ten at night, he closed his shop and dwelling-house. Between four and five in the morning, he was alarmed by a neighbour, and found that a panel had been removed from the shutters of the shop, and a pane of glass broken. There had been taken away four watch-cases, a sugar tongs, and a locket, which were in the shop-window. On the 18th of June, prisoner offered the stolen watch-cases for sale to a buyer of old metal at Penryn, called Dyson, who having heard of the robbery gave information to the prosecutor. A former conviction at the Quarter Sessions in October last, for stealing a duck, was proved against the prisoner. Sentence, Ten Years' Transportation. WILLIAM SANDERS, 25, was charged with stealing a pair of trousers on the 18th of June, the property of PHILIP BUNNEY, of Penryn. Six Months' Hard Labour. JOHN BENNETTO, 16, was charged with stealing at Truro, on the 14th of July, a crown, four half-crowns, four shillings, and a piece of calico, the property of THOMAS CLIFT. The money was stolen from under a box in a stable where prosecutor had placed it. Guilty, Twelve Months' Hard Labour. ELIZABETH EVANS, 25, was charged with stealing a pair of shoes, belonging to WILLIAM MILLS. Mr. BEVAN for the prosecution. The shoes were stolen from prosecutor's stall in St. Day market, on the 12th of July. Guilty. Six Months' Hard Labour. SUSAN GREEN, 27, was indicted for stealing from the person of JAMES QUINTRAILL, farmer, a bag containing half a sovereign, and nineteen shillings in silver. Prosecutor stated that on the 30th of June, prisoner followed him from Mr. SODDY's passage at an inn at Camborne, to the horse-fair; when there, prosecutor was talking to a man, and prisoner stood alongside of him four or five minutes. Prosecutor felt her hand in his pocket, and she ran away. By the Judge - I was not drunk of fresh, had only two pints of ale that day; prisoner offered me 30s. to make it up. - Policeman PRIDEAUX stated that he apprehended the prisoner; there were three men with her, who ran away. Verdict, Guilty. Twelve Months' Hard Labour. DANIEL DAVEY, 26, was indicted for stealing at Callington, in May last, a cloth coat, the property of Mr. JASPER, coachmaker, Callington. Prisoner, when apprehended at St. Neot by constable BULLEN, was wearing the coat. Guilty. Six Months' Hard Labour. WILLIAM BARBARY, 18, was charged with stealing a duck, the property of MARTIN SKEWES, an innkeeper at Chacewater. At second count charged the prisoner with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen. Verdict, Guilty of stealing. A person called TIDDY said the prisoner was of rather weak mind, and had had too much indulgence. Sentence, Three Months' Hard Labour. Another indictment was not proceeded with, which charged the prisoner with stealing two ducks, the property of WILLIAM WORRALL, of Kenwyn. CHARLES SYMONS, 14, was indicted for an offence against the order of nature. CHARLES HAWKE, of St. Day, Gwennap, was called to give evidence in the case. Verdict, Not Guilty. JAMES BARNECOAT, 19, was indicted for an unnatural offence. The charge was proved by the evidence of ELIZABETH STATRIDGE, of St. Ives. Verdict, Guilty. The Judge - Let sentence of death be recorded against him. By the law of England, the abominable offence of which he has been found guilty remains a capital crime. The sentence will not be carried to its full extremity, but he certainly will be sent for life beyond the seas. NICHOLAS COCK was indicted for feloniously ravishing MARY THOMAS, at Redruth, on the 2nd of August, and JOHN JOHNS was charged with being present and aiding and abetting him. Mr. HUGHES for the prosecution, and Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the defence. SAMUEL RICHARDS, post-boy at Andrew's hotel, Redruth, spoke to having seen the offence committed by prisoner Cock, between nine and ten on Saturday night last, in an unoccupied garden adjoining a lane at the back of the hotel stables. Johns was there also, with three other men. JAMES F. ANDREW, brother of Mr. Andrew who keeps the hotel gave evidence to the same effect, and said he gave Cock in charge to Mr. LANYON. ABSALOM SIMS, engineer, saw Cock at the place, and aiming to strike the woman. SARAH BODILLY saw Cock strike Mary Thomas twice on her face, whilst she was on the ground; she is a poor widow woman, supported by the parish, and sixty-one years of age. Cross-Examined - Many persons were present; but no one interfered when Cock struck the woman. By the Judge - Have heard reports about her; have heard she was given to drink, but do not know it. JOHN CHARLES LANYON, high constable of the eastern division of Penwith, took Cock in charge in the garden, who said he would not go, he had done nothing; he went on some way and then struggled to escape; I called on those about the place to assist me. He said the blood on his clothes came by his nose bleeding. Cross-Examined - I have no doubt he had taken something, but he was not drunk. Mary Thomas, the prosecutrix, said she has a daughter living near the Brewery at Redruth. On going from her daughter's house on Saturday night towards Mr. RUNNALLS's, a butcher, to buy meat, she was passing through the lane at the back of the stables, when she met five men; two of them (the prisoners) she knew; they dragged her into the garden, and both prisoners committed the offence complained of. The witness further detailed their ill-usage; she only knew the two prisoners; if assistance had not come, she should have died there; was put home by Mr. Cocking, the overseer. Cock made bruises in her face, by striking her when she screeched murder. Cross-Examined - Had had nothing to drink that night. JANE NICHOLLS, daughter of Mary Thomas, said her mother was at witness's house that night; had had no beer there; was perfectly sober when she left. CHARLES TREGONNING, policeman of Redruth, spoke to the state of prisoner Cock's clothing, and also that of prosecutrix on the night in question. Cross-Examined - Had never seen Mary Thomas intoxicated. THOMAS HODGE, constable at Redruth, apprehended Johns, and described the state of his clothing. ROBERT BLEE (who took the affirmation as a Moravian), is a chemist at Redruth; on the night in question, from information, went to the garden; saw Mary Thomas there; described the situation in which she was found, her face bruised, swollen, dirtied, and bloody; got some cold water, and sprinkled and washed her face, which seemed to recall her senses in some slight degree, so that she was able to hear questions, and give some incoherent answers, which some of the by-standers wrongly attributed to intoxication; such incoherency would be produced by blows on the head. Afterwards examined her at her house. (Described the result, and also what was observable in the garden next day). Also examined and described the state of Cock's clothes. Mr. Blee, in giving evidence, said he had avoided as much as possible all technicalities, on which Lord Campbell said, "I much approve of the sensible manner in which you have given your evidence, in thus avoiding technicalities, and I believe you the more to be a man of education and of science." Mr. HARRIS, surgeon, Redruth, said he had also examined prosecutrix, and agreed with what had been described by Mr. Blee. (A strong feeling seemed at times to be excited in court by the atrocious character of the case, the details of which are of course unfit for publication). Mr. Holdsworth addressed the jury for the prisoners, and was complimented by the Judge for the propriety and ability of his defence. The jury returned both prisoners guilty of rape. They both however asserted that they were not guilty of the crime. The Judge said - The evidence against you leaves no doubt on my mind of your guilt. It can be of no service to you now to impute wrong to the witnesses, and the only atonement you can make to the laws of your country, will be with repentance, contrition, and reformation. But a few years ago, you would have forfeited your lives to the offended laws of your country; for in a case of this sort the last sentence of the law would inevitably have been allowed to take its course. The legislature has thought fit to mitigate the punishment inflicted for this offence; the reason is that the degrees of guilt in this offence vary so much that it is difficult to say that death should be inflicted in all cases; but in such a case as yours, if it could have been selected and characterised, I am sure the capital punishment would have been still retained. The learned Counsel who addressed the jury very ably on your part, pointed out truly that there was something unnatural in your brutality. An old, infirm woman, became the victim of your unnatural lusts, and you, to gratify those lusts, resorted to violence almost unparalleled; and I say it is alarming and shocking to find that we live in a country where such outrages are perpetrated. But justice has speedily overtaken you. You committed this outrage only on Saturday night last, and now the sentence of the law is pronounced upon you, which is that for this offence you be severally Transported Beyond The Seas For The Term Of Your Natural Lives. The Grand Jury ignored the bill against JAMES HORNBROOK, charged with having stabbed and wounded THOMAS BENNETT, at Torpoint, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Also the bill against PHILIPPA SANDOE, for forgery.