JOHN COATES, a prisoner for debt at defendant's suit.

That about the month of October, Mr. James asked him to accept two bills which he wanted to settle some debts of Mrs. Cullen's—that he did not like to accept them, but James said he would take care of them—that they were drawn by a friend of his at Philadelphia—that he accepted them but did not observe by whom they were drawn—that he did not know the drawer; the bill produced was one of them, the other was for 250 dollars—that he was afterwards uneasy about it, and requested Mr. Smith, a friend of his, to call with him upon James, as he had frequently desired James to inform him who was the drawer and indorser, but he put him off, saying they were friends of his and he would take care of them—that Smith called with him at James's house, he was very civil, and produced the bill for 250 dollars and tore off the acceptance and gave it him, said he would get the other, but the holder was out of town—that he then desired to know who was the drawer and indorser; James laughed, and said it would be dif­ficult to find them—the bills were both the same hand writing, drawn and indorsed the same, except the sum which was for 250 dollars—that his first knowledge of James was taking out a warrant against him for six shillings, after that James lent him 100 dollars for a friend of his, which he paid him and offered to pay for the use, which he would not take, but said you may some time or another serve me—that he was first induced to believe the bill forged, as they appeared to be wrote with ink of the same color as his acceptance, which he wrote in James's parlor—said the bill was drawn and indorsed with ink the same color as his acceptance, was sure it appeared so by the bill (which was then produced, and upon examination appeared all different inks and hand writings)—that he never said he would hang James or that he wished to see him hanged—that he did not a short time be­fore the trial take James by the arm and request him to be friends and bare no malice—that no such thing ever passed—never begged to be friends—admitted he was bail about the month of October and justified, and that James prevented his having the three-fourth act, and had arrested him upon the note produced, (which was for 100 dollars, on Robert Charnley, indorsed by Coates, Smith and Daniels, with Smith's name struck through with a pen)—that he purchased hats of James, and gave him a note on Mr. Smith for 24 dollars at 90 days—admitted the note (which was produced, both bills passed due and unpaid)—admitted he had not put them in his schedule to take the benefit of the act, nor the forged bill in question, but admitted he was liable for it—said that as he and Smith were going home from James's, Smith told him that James acknowledged he drew the bills himself.

JAMES SMITH, a hackney coachman and tavern-keeper, Van­derwater-Street, Pearl-Street; his real name is ARROW­SMITH, wa [...] sued by defendant.

That Mr. Coates informed him he had accepted two bills for James and was afraid he should be in trouble—that he blamed him—would not go with him unless he promised to have no words— [...]e went with him to James's house at his request, desired him to [...]ake notice of what passed. Coates asked James about the bills, who was the drawer and indorser; Coates was angry but James laughed, and said it would be difficult to find them, for he w [...]ote them himself, and thought it a very good trick, but he pro­ [...]ced one of the bills and burnt it; that was for 250 dollars, in every respect the same as the one produced, dated, drawn and indorsed the same. James was a man of address, a sensible man (being asked by James's council if he was not a cunning man,) he said that he was a very cunning man—the note for 24 dollars being produced, admitted he gave it for some hats Coates bought of James, that he sued him for it, and that Daniels was bound for him; recollected the bill for 100 dollars (with the name struck through,) said that Mr. James was always very civil to him and had often invited him to drink wine at his house, had often called and drank wine with him.

CHRISTOPHER IRVIN.

That he received the bill of Mrs. Cullen for payment, of some goods she had of him some months before, that he paid her the balance (about 50 dollars)—that she informed him the bill was good, and he told her he would take it upon her knowledge of the parties; she did not indorse it until some days after she was applied to for that purpose—that he believed James informed his attorney where to find Coates—that he saw James at the hall when the witness was attending to go before the alderman, who told him if he called on Mrs. Cullen, believed she would settle that bill—that he answered it is a very odd business from the ac­count Coates gives of it. James answered I know nothing of it.

Mr. HYSLOP, merchant, New-York.

That Mrs. Cullen paid him a bill drawn, accepted and indors­ed the same as the one produced, that the sum was 255 dollars that she was indebted to him, and he gave her a note for the ba­lance (about 50 dollars)—that he did not much like the bill, therefore made his note payable when that bill was paid—that Mrs. Cullen afterwards informed him she could not pass his note, not being made negociable, and desired to have the bill back as she had a friend would give her the cash for that; he informed her he could find no such person as the drawer and did not much like it, but she said it was a good bill; he returned it and she returned his note.

[Page 10] The witnesses were now called for the defendant.

ROBERT STEWART, Esq merchant, New-York.

That he knew the witness Coates—that he was a character be­low mediocrity—not a good character—would not believe him on his oath.

Mrs. TILLY.

That Coates was her tenant—had used her very ill—was a ve­ry bad character—removed without paying his rent—would not believe him on his oath.

JOHN BORRIS, the keeper of Symonds's tavern, Wall-Street

That he was present at the debtor's prison when James was going out, having been to see Mrs. Cullen; Coates was a pri­soner and took James by the arm, requested he would shake hands with him and be friends, and bare no malice for what had passed, James pulled his arm away, would not speak to him; when he was gone Coates swore he would hang the villain—often heard him swear he would hang James if he could—that he was a damn'd villain—ought to have been hanged 20 years ago—That he kept him in prison and prevented his taking the benefit of the act—that he would not take Coates's oath for two-pence—that he informed James of Coates's threats.

JAMES REYNOLDS, Dr. WILLIAM BARTLETT, JO­SEPH GEORGE.

That the witnesses often heard Coates swear he would hang James, and say he was a damn'd villain—ought to have been hanged 20 years ago—would hang him if he could—that he had prevented his taking the benefit of the act.

The witness Reynolds.—That he was present when Coates was ordered to be put into the dungeon—that he damn'd and blasted the Sheriff, and all his people, all the judges and courts in the country—and that he did not care a damn for any of them.

MARY POTTER, late servant to Mrs. Cullen, sent for from Trenton.

That she was present when Mrs. Cullen received a letter with two bills from Philadelphia, sent her by Wicks—that she knew Mr. Wicks, who was at Mrs. Cullen's about 14 months ago, and purchased goods of her—was sure he was in her debt.—Upon cross-examination she was so confused, never being exami­ned as a witness before, that her testimony was of no service.

ELIZABETH POTTER, JANE ANDERSON.

That the witnesses knew Mr. Wicks, he was at Mrs. Cul­len's about 14 months ago—the witness Potter recollecting his purchasing goods of Mrs. Cullen—had reason to believe he was in her debt—did not board with her.

JAMES MAITLAND, Esq merchant, New-York, SAMUEL FORBUS, Gent. New-York.

That they had known James from his first arrival in this country—lived in the same house with him—had reason to be­lieve him a man of property—was always ready to lend money, had often lent to them, and knew of his frequently lending to other friends—lived in affluence as a gentleman—kept a good horse and had a house well furnished—had no reason to believe him distressed—did not act as a broker, but appearep to lend his own money— Mr. Maitland said that he knew the women who had been examined—that they lived in the same house with him—believed them very good characters, always believed them very good girls, never heard any person say any thing against them.

EDWARD BUTMAN, stable keeper.

That James's horse had stood in his stable upwards of one year—was one of the best horses in the city, worth five hundred dollars—remembered his buying him and that he purchased ano­ther horse at the same time, which he afterwards parted with, after that he purchased a chair and wanted to purchase another horse—well knew that he paid for them all—appeared as a gen­tleman—always ready to pay for every thing—often paid him before it was due, and had lent him money several times—offered a little while ago to lend him five hundred dollars, having mentioned the want of not being able to collect money—that the horse was then in his stable and the property of Mr. James, who had a house well furnished—always appeared and behaved as a gentleman in every respect.

WILLIAM L. ROSE, Esq attorney, New-York, noted the bill for Mr. IRVIN.

That when he noted the bill, he saw James, who advised him to arrest Coates, as the only means of getting the bill paid, as Mrs. Cullen was unable to pay—promised if he heard of Coates to let him know—that some time after James called at his office and informed him Coates was in town, to be found at Smith's, and advised his being arrested—that he was at Smith's, the bill was put in his hands by Mr. Irvin, for the purpose of suing Coates—is not certain whether he sued out a writ against him or not.

Witnesses were new called to impeach defendant's character.

DAVID JOHN DANIELS, keeps a tavern, New-Slip, near the [...] real name JOHN JENKINS.

T [...]es in England—that he was a man that bore a b [...] was then asked whether he never went by at [...]ers)—that he never went by any other [...]nd—never went by the name of Jenkins—his [...] Jenkins, but Daniels.

[Page 12] — NOTT,— TOMLINSON, keeper of the Circus Coffee House.

That they knew James in England—his general character was bad— Nott stated that he used to bring quitam actions against Lottery Office keepers.

— COSTER, Esq merchant, Pearl-Street.

That he knew the witness Daniels—that his name was Jen­kins—that was his name in England—had no doubt but was po­sitive he always went by the name of John Jenkins—was a ve­ry bad character—would not believe him on his oath.

JAMES CARRUTHERS, from London.

That he well knew the witness Daniels in London—that he kept a public house in Fleet-Lane, within the rules of the Fleet Prison, where he (the witness) had the misfortune to be a pri­soner and often went to his house—that his name was John Jen­kins—he never went by any other name than Jenkins in London—his name was over his door—positively not mistaken—was acquainted with him, and never knew him by any other name than John Jenkins.

There were several witnesses now called in support of Coates's character, but I have not their names, they had known him and had dealings with him, that he behaved honestly to them and knew nothing against him.

Having stated the substance and effect of all the evidence gi­ven on the trial, with all due deference I beg leave to submit the following observations, to shew the improbability of the testimo­ny of John Coates and James Smith, and of my committing the offence.

It will be readily admitted there are few men will ever commit a bad act, particularly when attended with such penal consequen­ces, without some prospect of advantage, and here could be none to me, and to Mrs. Cullen would have been the heighth of injus­tice and cruelty, without any assistance except delaying the pay­ment of two hundred dollars for forty days, and then subject her not only to be sued but to an indictment, when it was prov­ed beyond all doubt that I had it in my power to assist her with cash if I thought proper; but suppose I had wished her to nego­ciate such bills, for a dollar I might have procured half a dozen names that would have done as well as fictitious ones, and then the law could not have affected her or me. But suppose me ca­pable of such cruelty, injustice, and folly, can it be believed that I should have been so great an ideot as to acknowledge it to Coates, the very person it was intended to deceive, and in the presence of his friend Smith, when there could be no evidence a­gainst me; therefore to answer no other purpose than to expose [Page 13] myself, and after this, go and inform Mr. Rose where to find him, and recommended that gentleman to arrest him for payment of the bill I had acknowledged to have forged and promised to take care of; surely this cannot be believed of a man of great ad­dress, and very cunning man as Smith proved me; or that such a man would make him his companion and confident, and of­ten invite him to drink wine at his house. I will do Mr. Smith the justice to say that his person, address and appearance is not likely to deceive or subject him to the confidence or acquaintance of any man who wishes to support either character, credit, or a genteel appearance; every person is respectable that performs the duties of his situation; but such a man as Mr. Smith (I shall only say a hackney coachman) would feel very aukward to be made the companion and confident of such person as he describ­ed me. I am confident the observation must be very striking to those who know us. But if this was the case why should I [...]ue Mr. Smith for only twenty four dollars, after I was charged with this forgery? He did not give evidence to obtain the warrant nor in any manner appeared in the business until the morning of tri­al: surely if I had made such confession in his presence, I must have known it, and having intrusted him with a secret of so much importance, should have continued him my friend and compani­on; and it was clearly proved that I had it in my power to be friends with Mr. Coates a short time before my trial. Mr. Bor­ris proved, and many other respectable witnesses can prove, that, Coates took me by the arm and begg'd I would shake hands and be friends, and bare no malice for what had passed; he well knew the effect this must have had on the minds of the jury, and on being asked the question, positively denied it, also denied that he ever damn'd me for preventing his taking the benefit of the three fourth act, or for keeping him in prison, or said that he would hang me if he could, all which I can prove by at least six witnesses. How­ever, Mr. Borris proved sufficient to shew that I might have made friends with him before the trial. It would have been a fortu­nate circumstance for me if I had been guilty, in which case I should have made friends with Coates, and then Smith would ne­ver have been heard of as a witness; but confident of my inno­cence I spurned at his attempt to shake hands, and not only con­tinued him in prison but prevented his taking the benefit of the three fourth act, for which Mr. Smith was his petitioning credi­tor, for near three hundred pounds, yet could not pay me a note of twenty four dollars, but after judgment against him, procured his friend David John Daniels to be bail for his g [...]tting the forty days which the act allows upon security to men unable to pay; when I attended and prevented Coates having the benefit of the act I declared in the presence of Peter Jay Munro, Esq who also attended to opp [...]e him, that I would ever prevent his taking the benefit of that act, as it appeared by his schedule delivered in up­on [Page 14] oath that he had been insolvent upwards of two years, owed three thousand pounds, and had not a shilling to give up to his creditors, although only a few months before he had been bail in a great number of actions and justified himself worth large sums of money after payment of all his debts. Mr. Munro also knows the degree of credit due to the testimony of him and Smith, as he calls himself, but whose real name is Arrowsmith, which can be proved by Arthur C. Beaumont, Esq and by the bail prises in that name. Colonel Moreton and the justices of the ten pound court, well knew Smith's real name, at least what he used to go by, and the degree of credit due to him, Coates, and their friend David John Daniels.

Since I have been convicted, Colonel Moreton had the good­ness to inform me he well knew them, and would not take their oaths for a penny. But they have taken a very effectual means of preventing my giving them any further opposition, or pro­ceeding to recover my property. I submit that such circum­stances, and what will hereafter appear, involves great suspi­cion on the testimony of such men, particularly as Coates proves himself not only implicated, but the principal in the crime he has fixed on me: He accepts bills drawn upon him in the name of Thomas Smith, and upon being pressed for payment, he insist upon it there is no such person as the drawer, and six months after they are due goes before a magistrate and depose that he accepted the bill in question for me, and he suspected there was no such person as Thomas Smith the drawer. But finding that he could not frighten me by such step, and that such evidence would not be sufficient to convict me, he brings forward his friend Smith at the trial, and they prove, not suspect, but that I acknowledged the bills drawn by me, and that there was no such person as either the drawer or indorser. And also that a bill for two hundred and fifty dollars, Coates said I tore off his acceptance and gave him, but Smith stated the bill was burnt; Smith also proved that I acknowledged writing the bill myself, Coates only that Smith told him I said so. But what could induce them both to make a mistake in the amount of the bill destroyed, yet both agreed in such mistake, viz. that the sum was 250 dollars. Mr. Hyslop, a merchant of respectability, proved that he was in possession of the bill for some days, and the sum was 255 dollars; his surely is a strong circumstance to induce a belief they had agreed upon the testimony they were to give, though they differed in some respects. Coates in his evidence states, his first acquaintance with me, was taking out a warrant against me for six shillings, (which is the truth, as will be hereafter explained.) This is a pretty strong reason for be­lieving he would not rely uopn the honor of such a man, who would not pay six shillings without a warrant; yet after this accepts two bills for 450 dollars without any receipt, or under­taking [Page 15] to shew, though he had no knowledge of the drawer—did not believe there was any such person; by what means was he to recover the money from me, supposing he had paid the bills. My confession in the presence of Smith is stated to have been long after such acceptance, but my saying I would provide for them was sufficient, yet had before proved I had not the honor to pay six shillings. Can any ma [...] believe such evidence? But it is said why don't I bring forward the drawer, whom I never knew or heard of, and whether there is such a man in existence or not I cannot tell; the indors [...]r I have seen, but never had any acquaintance or connections with him. The accepter of a bill is presumed to know the drawer, and the person who pass a bill is presumed to know from whom they received it, which appears by the last indorsement; but will the law permit the accepter of a bill to prove the drawer upon whom he please? If this is law no man is safe, and opens a very wide field for fraud. What man after my conviction would endeavor to compel the payment of a bill, or resist the vile proceedings of such men. I who never had the least concern with the bill am called upon to prove who drew it upon Coates, and also who passed it to Mrs. Cullen, who I was not permitted to call upon as a witness, because they had thought proper to indict her also, or she would have proved who she received it from, and for whom Mr. Coates accepted it. Mrs. Cullen's servants proved that Wicks the indorser was in­debted to her, and she has since mentioned a circumstance which puts that matter past all doubt. In the month of January, 1798, [...]he delivered upon oath a schedule of all her estate and effects, [...]ich is in the recorder's office; by which it appears that Wicks, [...]ndorser of the bill, was indebted to her 500 dollars at that time and the charge of forgery was never heard of until the month of April following. My council (General Hamilton.) desired Mrs. Cullen's trial to be brought on first, which was her request [...]; but the Attorney General answered, "gentlemen, I know [...] you are at, but James must be tried first." The learned gen [...] desired he would not suppose them at any thing but what app [...]ed and said there was the appearance of great prejudice, wh [...] did not like. And I must here beg leave to observe, at the [...] when I applied to the honorable gentleman to be my council, [...] informed me, that if it appeared on the otrial I was guilty, [...]as the most improper person I could em­ply, for in such case [...] would say nothing for me, which I rea­dily consented to, and great satisfaction when I reflect upon his great exertions in my behalf; to mention his abilities, phi­lanthropy, and benevolence, [...] unnecessary, they are universal­ly known to far surpass the panegyric of the most able writer; therefore I shall only say I feel [...]teful sense of the obligations I am under, for his great and disinterested exertions, and humane attention and offers of service since my trial. I hope the Attor­ney [Page 16] General will also pardon me for mentioning another circum­stance, as it entitles me to a very pointed observation:—Only two or three days before he presented the indictment against me, he assured me and my council, Mr. Riker, that there was no prosecution intended against me, there was no evidence to af­fect me, and told me he should not have been surprised if the recorder had discharged me upon my own recogniza [...]ce. [...] said he should present an indictment against Mrs. Cullen; I in­formed him that if he did my evidence would acquit her, for I knew Wicks the indorser, and [...]as much surprised that he did not think it more proper to ind [...]ct Coates, who from his own affidavit before the magistrate appeared to be the principal, by accepting a bill that was false, which was uttering it, and with­out such acceptance no other person could have passed it. I was in court when the bill of indictment was presented against me, and informed Mr. Riker, who assured me I must be mistaken, for the Attorney General was incapable of such deception. I mean no imputation upon that honorable gen­tleman, who I also believe is incapable of endeavoring to entrap or deceive any man; but it warrants this inference, that he was not then acquainted with Smith's evidence, knew of no other than what appeared by the depositions before the magistrate on which the warrant was obtained. I have strong reasons for be­lieving the bills drawn for the purpose of imposing on Mrs. Cullen, by the contrivance of Coates and Wicks, to get more goods from her. If I had acknowledged forging this bill and promised to pay it, why did Coates and Smith apply to me five months after, to purchase some hats, which they heard I had [...] dispose of, and at length they prevailed on me to sell Coates w [...] came to twenty four dollars. I would not sell them on his [...] credit; therefore this proves my opinion of him, and on [...]eir joint credit only for twenty four dollars, so as to recover i [...]e ten pound court: Smith's note was given for payment at ni [...]y days, which I sued him for in the ten pound court, and [...]en I had judgment, made oath of danger, which compelled hi [...] to give se­curity for payment at forty days. He then thre [...]ed revenge, but little did I expect he meant thus to revenge hi [...]self. Daniels became his security, this was only a short time before my trial, but it is probable they would have given such note if I was to provide cash to take up the forged bill. I [...]all now explain the circumstance of the warrant, and how C [...]tes afterwards became indebted to me: he had a power of a [...]orney to collect debts of Robert Cha [...]ley's, and applied to [...]e for three dollars and a quarter; there was six shillings charged for an oil-skin for my hat which I had paid; this I informed him, and on the following day he called, said it was a mistake of Mr. Charnley's. I paid him two dollars and a half, he gave me a receipt in full, and the next day or two, sent a constable with a warrant for six shillings [Page 17] more, which I paid the constable rather than go over to the jus­tices upon such a [...]illing matter—Some months after this he cal­led upon me, to inform me Mr. Charnley was in great distress, all his goods at Newark had been attached by the Sheriff to the amount of five hundred dollars for about seventy, which if I would advance should all be placed in my hands as a security. At this time I had a note of Charnley's passed due and unpaid; with a view of securing this note to be paid, I consented, and went to Newark and paid the money, on Mrs. Charnley's pro­mise (her husband being absent) that all the property should be sent to my house; but she afterwards informed the Coates took care she should not perform her promise, and had not only kept all the goods but her clothes likewise; this is all I ever had to do with Coates except selling him the hats, for which I had Smith's note indorsed by him.

I shall now state how I came by the note on Charnley, which was indorsed by Coates, Smith and David John Daniels, to whom I gave the cash—Daniels I had known in England by the name of John Jenkins, and he was acquainted with a circumstance there I wished not to be known in this country, fearful of being censured (which I had ever been careful to avoid) by those not acquainted with the particulars, which I shall hereafter state. He applied to me in great distress, just discharged from New-York gaol, and requested I would give him cash for that note which was at thirty days; I gave him the cash, and when it became due he brought me another exactly the same, but at sixty days, which I received, and gave him the other; I also lent him twen­ty five dollars to purchase some cloth to make me some clothes, as he is a taylor, but he thought proper to keep the money. When this note became due, not being paid, which was the 29th of Octo­ber 1797, (three weeks after the date of the forged bill) I gave it to Arthur C. Beaumont, Esq attorney in this city, and desired hi [...] to give Notice to the Indorsers of the Non-payment, which he did, except to Coatcs, who had absconded; I threatened to sue Smith, when he called upon me, which I believe was the first time I ever saw him, and assured me that the indorsement was not his hard writing, that Daniels had forged it; this I communicated to Mr. Beaumont, who informed me they were a bad set, that his name was Arrowsmith, but assured me Smith did not deny it's being his writing when he gave him notice of the non-payment; rather than have any words with such people, I consented to strike his name off upon Daniel's paying me the twenty five dollars he ow­ed me, and on his promise to pay the bill soon, which he acknow­ledged was not Smith's writing, that Smith's wife wrote it; this is the note I sued Coates for.—Another [...] cumstance will prove my opinion of Coates. A few days before the time, he pretends to have accepted the forged bills for me. William T. Broom, [Page 18] Esq Attorney at Law in this city, informed me that Daniels had applied to him to accept Coates as Bail for a man he had ar­rested, stated him to be a good man and that I knew him; I in­formed Mr. Broom that I was surprised he should mention my name, as I assured him that I knew very little of him, and what I did know was not much in his favor; advised him not to take him; as I would not. Surely this had not the appearance of my wishing to raise money or pass bills on Coate's credit, in which case I should certainly have given him a good character. It will appear upon enquiry, that Coates, Smith and Daniels, were common hired bail, and bail for each other whenever arrested. Coates was bail for Mrs. Cullen, for which she has since informed me he extorted money from her, and imposed upon her these bills I have no doubt. As to David John Daniels, whose name is John Jenkins, as will appear by the evidence of Mr. Coster, merchant, Pearl-Street, made his escape from the Fleet Prison in London, about three years ago, and came over to this country in the name of Daniels, as a servant to Mr. John Wat­son, a prisoner in the State Prison, who was arrested soon after his arrival in this country for a large sum of money; when Da­niels presented himself before the judge as bail, and offered (and I believe did) to swear himself worth ten thousand pounds or thereabouts; but Mr. Coster, who was the agent employed against Watson, attended, and proved all I have mentioned, and can prove much more; upon which he was rejected. Daniels not being able to get any more money from me, and my refusing to countenance several very dishonorable matters which he pro­posed, began to be very troublesome, until at length I forbid him my house. He then distributed divers inflamatory papers, which he stuck up at my house and several other places, for which I su­ed out a writ against him in the mayor's court, and upon my trial had the consummate impudence to appear as a witness to impeach my character in England, although he had some time before in­formed Judge Pendleton as I was riding past, that he knew me in England, was a very respectable man there, of great pro­perty.—It fully appears from the evidence of Mr. Borris, that he informed me of Coate's threats a short time before my trial, at which time I was at full liberty, and must have known of my acknowledgements to him and his friend Smith if I had ever made them. Surely this was sufficient to alarm a guilty man, and send him from a place where he had no particular business to call his attention and attendance; no family connection whatever. But if my own safety was so very indiffererent; wi [...] believed also that I could be so cru­el to Mrs. Cullen, with [...] fatherless children, to surrender her to prison that she also might be indicted, when I had it in my power, not only to go myself but send her away also, and not only refuse to be friends with men capable of doing us so much [Page 19] injury, but proceed to irritate them by every means in my power; all this must be reconciled as the conduct of a man of address, a very cunning man, to induce a belief of my guilt. I feel for that poor woman and her children, more than myself, for send­ing her to prison where she yet remains for debt, and has been sued for the very bill I am found guilty of forging; many at­tempts were made use of to induce her to believe I had ill treat­ed her, and to swear false against me; but not with standing her sufferings, which she might have avoided by such means, she resisted the attempt with indignation, and has made an affidavit of all the facts which hereafter appears; at the time the indict­ment was found, on being taken into court, I requested to be tried immediately, which the Attorney General declined, but upon my consulting with council, though they assured me there was no danger, recommended me to send to Trenton for the servant, who knew of Mrs. Cullen's receiving the bill in a letter from Wicks, as they heard it was intended to prove the bill my hand writing; but Mr. Riker, who is well acquainted with my hand writing, obtained a sight of the bill, and assured me it had no resemblance of my writing, but he heard Coates was to prove it, therefore recommended my having such persons in court as knew my writing, and also to the character of Coates, to those points only my witnesses were subpoenaed. At the trial this was not attempted, but Coates stated, that his inducement for believ­ing the bills forged, was in consequence of their being wrote with ink all of the same colour as his acceptance, which he wrote in my parlor; being asked more particularly whether he meant the bill produced, he answered yes, that the drawing, and indorsements, appeared wrote all with ink of the same colour as his acceptance, but the bill being produced proved this to be false; the acceptance, drawing, and indorsement, were all dif­ferent coloured ink, and hand writings, this is a clear proof of perjury, without any evidence whatever. Another circum­stance will prove him perjured without the assistance of evi­dence; his schedule delivered upon oath in or about the month of April last, proves him to have been insolvent for two years before. His affidavits made in the Mayor's Court from the month of July 1797, to January 1798, states himself worth double the sums after paying all his debts, for which he then became bail; therefore I trust no person can believe him, or his friends Smith and Daniels worthy of credit. I submit that I have not only proved this, and their being all connected to ruin me, but also that they actually committed perjury to convict me; without any allusion to those matters, which renders their testimony so extremely improbable, that it is utterly impossible to believe their evidence; I also submit that I have clearly shewn their motives and interests in my con­viction, and for their circulating such false and wicked reports to injure me; but for such reports I am ready to believe (what [Page 20] is so commonly spoken of and believed,) that no other man would have been convicted upon such evidence, nor would any such attempt have been made on any other man; my character being destroyed, was a sufficient ground work for my ruin, a bad man is supposed capable of every thing, however improbable; the circumstance that gave weight to such impeachment of my character, is as follows: In the year 1790 a friend of mine, a debtor in the Fleet Prison, London, upon some trifling dispute with the keeper, was put into a damp dungeon; bei [...]g a bad con­stitution, he sent for his doctor, who assured the keeper that if he was continued there it would cause his death, he refused to release him; I obtained order of Lord Loughborough to release him, who was then chief justice of the common plea, but having been kept seventeen days in such confinement, he lingered for about a month and died; upon his death he requested me to bring forward a prosecution for the good of others, which was done by subscription. I was very active in it though not a witness, and presented an indictment against the keeper for murder, which was found a true bill, but one of the principal witnesses being taken very ill, and the court refusing to put off the trial, he was acquitted, and then the keeper indicted me, the doctor of the deceased, and several other persons for a conspiracy: he also in­dicted me and several others for effecting the escape of a prison­er; upon the first indictment we were tried and acquitted, after the examination of all the keeper's witnesses, without being call­ed upon for a defence, which I begged the court would enter upon, assuring them I was then preparéd to prove the murder, but this was refused; I was discharged from the other indictment upon my own recognizance, but was afterwards tried and con­victed, upon an affidavit being read supposed to be made by the pri­soners who escaped, which was afterwards proved to be false and forged; the keeper was therefore discharged from employ­ment, and I received his Majesty's most gracious pardon.

At this time Daniels, in the name of Jenkins, was the keep­er of the Tap at Newgate. This prosecution against the keep­er caused me a number of very powerful enemies, (which every man is subject to that resist such persons) particularly a­mongst some Lottery Office Keepers, who paid the Keeper a year­ly stipend for having their names on his books as debtors, and living in the rules, this being some protection for them they car­ried on unlawful insurances in the lottery; I ordered Suits to be commenced against them, and recovered many penalties; they then charged me with receiving such penalties, and settling some of the suits without leave of the court. I was called upon to answer that charge; and upon such answer I was indicted, upon an Indictment containing twenty three counts, and gave one hundred pounds bail; but having such a host of enemies by the advice of my Friends, I paid the 1001. and agreed to leave the [Page 21] country for a little time, as I had been in the contest for several years; but this did not satisfy. One of the Lottery office keep­ers was also the printer of a Newspaper; he caused a number of illiberal paragraphs to be inserted in many of the newspapers and magazines to prejudice such persons as were not acquainted with me or the circumstance, which I have reason to believe was to prevent my return. The circumstance of the indictment for murder gave me great trouble and many enemies, yet I shall ever consider it as a meritorious act, which gives me pleasure on re­flection. I have now fully stated what brought me acquainted with Daniels, and have given my enemies such power over me, and also the colour to such reports, and would proceed to state every circumstance of my life, but fear I have already tired the patience of the reader, being entirely unconnected with the present mat­ter. With respect to my character in this country (except my connection with Daniels) no man can impeach, and those in Eng­land, I have fully stated that can with truth be alledged against me. Many respectable persons in England will not only prove that they believed my character has been impeached unjustly, but that I ever acted honorably, and did not leave my country in debt.

I shall now beg leave to submit a few general observations, to shew that if the evidence was true, which I trust can never be supposed it does not appear sufficient to warrant a conviction for forgery, and uttering a bill of exchange with intent to defraud. Coates proved that he accepted the bill for me, and that I promis­ed to provide for it. Smith that I acknowledged in his presence to have both drawn and indorsed it. This was not imitating the hand writing of any man, because they prove there is no such person; at all events it cannot be pretended to defraud Coates, who states he accepted it for me. Then who was it to defraud? not Mr. Irvin—I never negociated it to him or any person whatever, nor is there any attempt to prove that I did, for what appears to the contrary it might have been taken from my desk by some per­son and passed away without my knowledge—Would this have subjected me to any prosecution, under the act to prevent forge­ries commiting with intent to defraud? I submit not, and that the commiting a Forgery is no Offence, unless with intent to defraud. Suppose I had made such bill with intent to pass it, and upon re­flection saw the bad consequences attending it, and altered my mind, could I be said to have commited an offence within that act. Supposing all the evidence true, I conceive it was no proof of my guilt; whether I was guilty or innocent could only be proved by Mrs. Cullen; she uttered the bill, and was to ac­count how she came by it. I am presumed to be guilty because my character was impeached.—I will readily admit the writing of a fictitious name upon a bill with intent to defraud, is an offence within the act, but that intent must be proved by an attempt to obtain property or credit, either for himself or another. I sub­mit [Page 22] there never was a conviction before, either in this country or in England, for a man's writing a fictitious name upon a bill or slip of paper, to answer no purpose whatever. There was no at­tempt to prove the bill my hand writing, or that I ever received or attempted to obtain any profit or advantage from it, only the accepter proves he does not know the drawer, his friend proves that I confessed I wrote it myself.

I shall content myself with the observations I have made, and proceed to state the depositions of Mrs. Cullen and her servants, first earnestly soliciting the pardon of those gentlemen whose names I have found necessary to introduce, and for such parts as may appear immaterial and unconnected: and shall now con­clude by appealing to the candour and impartiality of every man of this free and independent country, renowned for justice, wis­dom, humanity, and liberal sentiments, heretofore revered as an asylum and security from unjust persecutions, in full confidence that no sophistry, artful insinuations or illiberal reports, will in­fluence their opinions, but consider it as a case that may soon be their own, and that the establishment of such a verdict so obtain­ed, would render a very dangerous precedent in this commercial country.

With all due respect, I beg leave to subscribe myself The public's obliged and obedient Servant,

City of New-York, Supreme Court, The People versus Robert James, FOR FORGERY.

Eliza Cullen, of the city of New-York, widow, late boarding-house keeper, being duly sworn, upon her oath saith, That in the month of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven, this deponent received by the post from Philadelphia, a letter with two bills of exchange, drawn as appeared at Philadelphia in the name of Thomas Smith, payable to John Wicks or order, the one for 200 dollars, and the other for 255 dollars, and to the best of this deponent's recollection, they were drawn at forty and fifty five days after date, and directed to Mr. John Coates, merchant, Pearl-street, New-York, that they were sent by John Wicks to this deponent in part payment of 500 dollars due from him to this deponent, and indorsed by the said John Wicks; that deponent's servant Mary Potter, delivered the said letter with the bills inclosed to this deponent, and on the day deponent received them, or on the next day, the said John Coates called at this deponent's then house in Wall-street, that being un­well not able to go down stairs, this deponent delivered the said bills to another of deponent's servants, Elizabeth Potter, with in­structions for to get the said John Coates to accept them: she [Page 23] soon returned with them accepted, and deponent requested the said Robert James, the defendant, to give cash for them, which he refused, and deponent paid the bill for 200 dollars to Carruthers and Irwin, in discharge of a debt deponent owed to them of 150 dollars or thereabouts, and they paid the balance, and deponent indorsed the said bill, for which this deponent has been sued since the conviction of the said Robert James, who had not any inter­est whatever in the said bill, nor no interest or concern in this deponent's negociating it, nor did he know the time when or to whom the said bill was negociated, nor had the said Robert James any interest or concern in the other bill which was for 255 dol­lars, which deponent paid to Mr. Hyslop in discharge of a debt deponent owed him, but he afterwards returned it to this deponent, saying, he did not like Coates and could not bear any satisfactory account of the drawer, and saith, that the said Coates soon after absconded from his house in Pearl-Street, and removed his fur­niture in the night without paying his rent, as deponent was in­formed, and verily believes, therefore deponent thought proper to return the bill for 255 dollars by the post, directed to John Wicks, to be left at the Post-Office, Philadelphia, and positively saith that Robert James never had any interest or concern in the said bill which deponent returned to Philadelphia as aforesaid, so that what Coates and Smith gave evidence upon said James's trial res­pecting the bill being destroyed in their presence must be entirely false and unfounded, and positively saith that before deponent paid away either of the said bills Coates assured her were very good, and that Smith the drawer was a merchant living at Philadelphia, and was a very good man, but that he would take care to pay them when due, and wanted this deponent to let him have some other goods which Wicks had wrote for, desiring deponent to deliver them to Coates, which deponent refused until the bills were paid, and deponent has never heard from Wicks since but has reason to believe Coates is connected with him, and saith, that after the bill for 200 dollars was due, Coates assured deponent it should be paid, but deponent about three months after was surrendered to prison by the said Robert James the defendant, who was bail for depo­nent in several suits, and deponent has been in prison ever since, and was tried for uttering the said bill knowing it to be forged, but acquitted, and saith, that John Wicks the Indorser of that bill, was indebted 500 dollars to deponent, as may be seen by this de­ponent's schedule in Mr. Harrison the recorder's office, delivered and sworn to several months before any charge was made of forg­ing said bill, either against deponent or the said James; and de­ponent saith, she has reason to believe the said charge was found­ed in malice, to extort money from the said James, or some other undue purpose, as a short time before his trial the said Coates, in the presence of this deponent, her daughter, Mr. John Borris and several other persons, took the said Robert James by the arm and [Page 24] requested to shake hands and be friends and bare no nalice for what had passed, which James refused, or to speak with him: and he the said Coates then swore he would be revenged of him, and saith, that the said Robert James boarded with deponent about four years, appeared to be a man of fortune, and paid ready mo­ney for every thing, kept and appeared to have no other than gen­ [...]ee [...] acquaintances; saith, that James Smith never appeared to be his acquaintance, recollects his calling two or three times re­specting some bill, but never was asked to drink wine, and de­ponent believes he never did drink in the house, or deponent must have known it, or would have heard it from one of her ser­vants, who always had the keys in deponent's absence; that de­ponent had several executions in her house, by which means all her papers has been lost and destroyed; and that if deponent had been tried first, which by her council she applied for, would have given evidence as herein stated, although several applica­tions were made to this deponent, prior to the trial to induce this deponent to give contrary evidence, as it was intimated to this deponent that the said James had treated deponent very ill, and was endeavouring to fix the whole matter upon this deponent, who always stated the same as in this affidavit to her council and every other person, and that he was entirely innocent, which de­ponent has good and sufficient reasons for believing; and de­ponent saith, that the said Robert James is a considerable credi­tor of the deponent's, and his property, which never did belong to this deponent, has been taken in execution by deponent's cre­ditors, in discharge of executions issued against this deponent.

City of New-York, Supreme Court, The People versus Robert James, FOR FORGERY.

Mary Potter, late servant to Eliza Cullen, boarding-house keeper, being du [...]y sworn, upon her oath saith—That she well remembers John Wicks, and has reason to believe he was in­debted to her; and in or about the month of October, 1797; this deponent delivered a letter from the post-man to the said Eliza Cullen, that on opening the letter she said that Wicks had been as good as his word, and had sent her two bills, or she expressed herself to that effect; that deponent saw the two bills, and they were drawn upon John Coates, and indorsed John Wicks; that this deponent lived in the house as servant with the said Eliza Cullen during the time the said Robert James boarded with her, which was near four years, until the month of December, 1797, when deponent left her and went to live at Trenton, where depo­nent resided until she was sent for to be a witness on the trial of [Page 25] the said Robert James, when deponent was so very much con­fused by the council, (never being examined as a witness before) and being so much alarmed at the unfortunate situations of Eliza Cullen and Robert James, that she is induced to believe her evi­dence was of no service to him, not being able to speak what the knew; but this deponent's character is well known at Trenton and in this city, and believes that no person who does know her will believe her capable of swearing to a falshood; and deponent saith, she has reason to believe that the evidence given by Coates and Smith was false; that during the time this deponent resided in the house, Smith never appeared to be an acquaintance of the said Robert James's, nor never drank in the house to this depo­nent's knowledge or belief, remember his calling twice only re­specting the payment of some money, but did not appear as a man likely to be the acquaintance of James, whose acquaintances appeared to be gentlemen of respectability, of which description the said Smith did not appear; and if the said Smith had drank wine in the house, as he stated in his evidence, it must have been known by Eliza Cullen, Elizabeth Potter, or this deponent, one of whom always had the keys of the wine; and saith, that the said James always appeared as a man of fortune, that had money to pay for every thing he had, as deponent hath reason to believe, as no person ever called a second time for money to the know­ledge or belief of this deponent.

City of New-York, Supreme Court, The People versus Robert James, FOR FORGERY.

Elizabeth Potter, late servant to Eliza Cullen, being duly sworn, upon her oath saith, That she well remembers John Wicks, and has reason to believe he was indebted to the said Mrs. Cullen for goods purchased of her; and in or about the month of October, 1797, deponent informed her as she was in her bed-room up-stairs, that Mr. Coates was in the parlour be­low, that she then gave her two bills to carry down for him to accept; that deponent delivered them to the defendant Robert James, who was in the parlour, and he gave them to the said Coates, who read them over, and said they were right, and wrote upon them, who after writing on them the said Coates himself de­livered said bills back to this deponent, and the said Robert James looked at them to see they were right, but did not appear by their conversation to have any concern whatever therein, but presenting them to said Coates agreeable to deponent's request, and deponent took them back to the said Eliza Cullen; and [Page 26] saith, that Smith, the person who gave evidence against the said Robert James, never called upon him more than two or three times to the deponent's knowledge or belief, which deponent understood the first time was respecting the payment of some bill, and the last time he called deponent was present, and he joined in a note with Coates for 24 dollars for the payment of some hats, as James refused to let Coates have them on his note only, that he wanted more, but James refused, and to the best of deponent's recollection this was in the month of March last; but he never appeared as the friend or acquaintance of Mr. James, nor as a man from his appearance likely to be so, as Mr. James' acquaint­ance all appeared gentlemen of respectability; nor did the said Smith ever drink a glass of wine in the house to the knowledge or belief of this deponent; and saith, that the said James boarded with Mrs. Cullen for near four years, during which time this de­ponent lived in the house as a servant, that Mr. James always ap­peared as a man of fortune that paid for every thing as he had it, and no person was ever sent away without their money to the knowledge or belief of this deponent, who has every reason to believe him perfectly innocent of the charge for which he has been convicted, and that the evidence given against him by Coates and Smith' was false.