Did he make no objection ?---He did not say a word of it in my hearing. He only said the space of six months is written. Did Mohun Persaud see Bollakey Doss's name written to it ?---He did. Why did Mohun Persaud desire you to go to Maha Rajah ?---He desired me to go along with him. Why?---He did not tell me any thing particular. I explained to him the Nagree paper. Cross-Examination. What was the sum mentioned in the Curra Nama ?--I saw a promise in favour of the governor and Mr. Pearson likewise account of a bond for jewels. There was some promise in favour of Maha Rajah; and lastly for 35,000 rupees, on account of teeps. To the article of the bond for jewels, no sum was specified. There were sums specified to the Maha Rajah and the governor; but I do not recollect what they were. Is the Curra Nama you now mention the same you made up the books from ?---It was the same, but I did not extract the account. Pudmobun Doss did. Who produced the Curra Nama, Mohun Persaud, or Maha Rajah ?---Maha Rajah sent for it from his house. There was another Persian letter. Did you point out to Mohun Persaud the name of Bollakey Doss on that paper?--Mohun Persaud took the paper in his own hand, and read it. Was this the first time you had seen the paper?---Mobun Persaud took me to the house Pudmohun Doss shewed me before. Why did not you mention this before ?--Mohun Persaud forbid me to mention it: he has given me no victuals for these four years. Did you then remember it ?---Mohun Persaud had forbid me to tell. As you were sworn to tell the whole truth, and have mentioned this Curra Nama so often, why did you not mention this circumstance before?--If nobody asked me about it, why should I tell the bad actions of Mohun Persaud? Court. Because it is to save the life of an innocent person.-.-A. Now you ask me the question, I recollect it; I did not before. Whom have you conversed with since last night?--I went down to examine the papers; came here, went home, and did not see or converse with any one last night. Have you spoke to any one to day?---I went to the house of Mr. Jarrett, to converse with a Nagree Moburer. Were there any other people at Mr. Jarrett's? ---There were 10 or 12 people. Did you converse with any of them?---I did not: I conversed with my own man. Did you speak to your own man about the Curra Nama ?---I did not speak to any one. I spoke to nobody but the Court. Did not you send a written account to Maha Rajah of every thing that you knew ?--I did write a Persian letter to Maha Rajah: Maha Rajah wrote a Persian letter to me. Having read it, I wrote him an account of books, and accounts, and a few words of circumstances that happened before Bollakey Doss's death. Did you in that paper relate this circumstance?---So far as related to Pudmohun Doss, I did. Did you write that paper for the purpose of acquainting the Maha Rajab of all you knew? -I did inform him of all the circumstances, but this. Why did you not inform him of this?—Mohun Persaud desined me to say the words were erased and stratched out: and therefore I did not say any thing about it. When did Mohun Persaud desire you to say this?-He told me a great while ago before Ballgovin of all the circumstances. Did you mention in your letter, that you wrote to Maha Rajah, what Mohun Persaud had said to you?-No. Why did you not? can you tell any honest reason? Because I am a servant to Gungabissen, and Mohun Persaud is his attorney, and Gungabissen lives with Mohun Persaud. Did you shew Mohun Persaud the letter you wrote to Maba Kajab?—I did not: I only wrote to Maha Rajah to acquaint him with the accounts. Did you write nothing, but concerning accounts?-I must own the truth. I did not write to Maha Rajah any thing about this circumstance: Mohun Persaud is a great man ; he told me not. Was not Maha Rajah a greater man than Mohun Persaud?-I was much afraid of Mobun Persaud. Did you recollect this circumstance at the time you wrote this letter?-I did not. If you had recollected it, would you have wrote it?-I certainly should. Then your being afraid of Mohun Persaud, was not the reason why you did not write it ?I am much afraid of Mohun Persaud. [Question repeated.]—I was afraid of Mobun Persaud. [Question again repeated.] I did not recollect it. The being afraid of Mohun Persaud, and the not recollecting it, are two different reasons. Both of them cannot be true: was it because you were afraid of Monun Persaud, or because you did not recollect it?-[No answer could be procured.] When did Mohun Persaud first bid you mention it ?-He took a written paper from me in this written paper, he made me write ten words I did not know, and leave out ten words I did know. Do you mean that Mohun Persaud occasioned you to write to Maha Rajah ?-Mohun Persaud and I were on bad terms, when the affair was in the Adawlet. I gave evidence in favour of Maha Rajah: the complaint was, that Maha Rajah had taken money oppressively. I gave evidence that he did not. Were you at that time afraid of Mohun named in the will of Bollakey Doss: the ninePersaud-No; I was not afraid at that time.teenth, to which the evidence most forcibly ap Were you afraid of Mohun Persaud, when plies, for publishing the same knowing it to be you said that the books of the army were sepa-forged, with intent to defraud Gungabissen and rated from Bollakey Doss's other papers by Hingoo Loll: the 20th and 21st, which charge his order?-Mobun Persaud forbid me to tell. the forgery and publication to be with intent I am afraid of him. to defraud Gungabissen, the surviving executor. When was it Mohun Persaud told you not to mention it?-I believe a year and a half, or There has been no evidence at what time two years ago. In the late prosecution Maha the instrument was actually forged; and there. Rajah told me, if I would write out a paper, 1fore it may be difficult for you to ascertain wheshould have my wages. I did write out a paper: I do not know the particulars. Did that paper contain all you know of this transaction?-I wrote it out, and I copied it. Did Mohun Persaud tell you what to write, or did you tell him?-Mohun Persaud wrote it out first: he used to tell me, when I wrote it out, he would pay me the wages; it remained 10 or 14 days on the bed of Gungabissen. Did Mohun Persaud, at any other time, except the time last mentioned [i. e. about two years, or a year and a half ago] desire you not to mention it?-In the paper he gave me to copy this is not mentioned, which I observed could not add any thing to it. [Question repeated.]-No; about two years, or two years and a half ago, he told me two or three times, but never told me since; I put him in mind I knew another circumstance. Did he ever mention it but these times?No. When did you receive the letter from Maha Rajab?-It is eight, ten, or fifteen days since 1 got Maha Rajah's letter. [Here the Evidence closed.] Lord Chief Justice Impey : The prisoner stands indicted for forging a Persian bond, with an intent to defraud Bollakey Doss; and also for publishing the same, knowing it to be forged. This offence is laid in several manners, by different counts in the indictment, sometimes calling it a writing obligatory, and sometimes a promissory note;' and it is laid to be with an intent to defraud different people, differently interested. ther it was in the life of Bollakey Doss, and consequently whether to defraud him, or such persons as had interest in his estate after his decease. The publication was clearly after his decease; and therefore, if you should think the prisoner guilty of that, you would not have the same difficulty as to whom it was to defraud, as it must be his executors, or other persons who took benefit by his will. As the estate was distributed according to the division of the rupee, which is a custom in this country similar to that of the Romans dividing the as; there is no doubt it must have been to the prejudice of his nephews Gungabissen and Hingoo Loll. I will however, after I have gone through the whole evidence, point out that part of it which applies to the actual forgery, and then what applies to the publication, knowing it to be forged. As the trial has now taken so many days, and the evidence is so long, notwithstanding you have given an attention that I have never before seen in a jury through so long a trial; it will be necessary, for the purpose of bringing it together, and to refresh your memories as to those parts which passed early in the trial, to recapitulate the whole of the evidence. of the evidence, and then proceeded.] By the laws of England, the counsel for prisoners charged with felony are not allowed to observe on the evidence to the jury, but are to confine themselves to matters of law: but I told them, that, if they would deliver to me any I shall lay out of the case all those counts observations they wished to be made to the to which I think no evidence can be applied; jury, I would submit them to you, and give and shall only mention those to which it may, them their full force; by which means they and shall point out those to which it most par-will have the same advantage as they would ticularly applies. I lay out of the case the have had in a civil case. counts where the publications is said to be to defraud Bollakey Doss, as the publication which is proved was after his death as also those which charge it to be to defraud Pudmohun Doss and Gungabissen as joint executors, there being no proof that Pudrohun Doss ever was an executor. Mr. Farrer has delivered me the following observations, which I read to you in his own words, and desire you to give them the full weight, which, on consideration, you may think they deserve. It is no forgery on Bollakey Doss, because it is not proved to have been forged in his life He is certainly right in the observation, that there is no proof adduced of the time of the actual forgery. The only counts to which any evidence, intime.' my opinion, can be applied, are the first, fifth, ninth, and thirteenth, which charge this instrument to be forged with intent to defraud Bolakey Doss: the eighteenth, which charges it to be forged with latent to defraud Gungabissen and ingoo Loll, nephews and trustees No forgery on the executors, because the prosecutor's evidence prove that they were previously informed of the forgery, and volun tarily paid the bond. pressly knew it.' Pudmohun Doss exThis will depend on the evidence, which I shall observe upon hereafter, whether Gungabissen was so informed. I think there is great reason to suspect that Pudmohun Doss was privy to the fraud, if any fraud has been. But I have laid those counts out of the case, which❘ charge either the forgery, or the publication, knowing of the forgery, with an intent to defraud Pudmohun Doss and Gangabissen as joint executors, because the prosecutors have failed in this proof of Pudmohun Doss's being an executor. They produced no probate to Pudmohun Doss, and would have proved it by his having signed an account delivered into the Mayor's Court. This we did not think sufficient to prove him executor: Mohun Persaud by that means might likewise have been proved an executor; for he has signed an account which was delivered in to that court. served on the recency of the writing. You thought them an imposition; but, as they were not given in evidence, I desired you would not suffer it to make any impression on you, I have no apprehensions the laws of any country would permit them to be given in evidence. They were letters, enclosed in a cover, sealed with the seal of Bollakey Doss; but were separated from the covers, which had been opened. Any writings might have been put into those covers. There was no signature to the letters. There was no attempt to prove that the direction of the covers were of the same hand-writing with the letters themselves, or that they were the hand-writing of Bollakey Doss, or of any of his writers. If this was allowed, any evidence might be fabricated, to serve all purposes. Letters in England have the signature of the writer, and his handwriting may be proved: it is impossible these could be given in evidence. The witnesses are dead, the transaction is stale, and long since known to the prose'cutor.' These are objections of weight, which you, gentlemen, ought carefully to attend to, when you take the whole of the evidence into consideration, for the purpose of forming the verdict; and I have no doubt you will attend to them. No evidence of defendant's having forged 'Bollakey Doss's seal, for which he alone This is a point of law, and I cannot help differing from Mr. Farrer in it; for in my opi-stands indicted.' nion, and in all our opinions, the interests of the nephews and residuary legatees is a vested interest, and would, whenever the money due to Bollakey Doss from the Company should be paid, go to the representatives. The receipt of that money is, I suppose, what is understood by Mr. Farrer to be the contingency. There is clearly no direct evidence of his having actually forged the seal. But Mr. Farrer is mistaken, when he says the prisoner stands only indicted of forging the seal: he is inaccurate in saying he stands indicted of forging the seal; it is for forging the bond. he does not stand indicted of that only he is indicted for publishing it knowing it to be forged; and, as I shall hereafter shew, it is to that the evidence chiefly applies, and to which I must require your more immediate attention. But The absurdity of the defendant's confessing a circumstance, which would endanger his life, to people with whom he was not in terms of confidence-bis refusing, three months after, to become security for Comaul O'Deen in his farm; a thing trifling in its nature, This objection seems to be made from misstating an observation made early in the cause by my brother Chambers, and which I was at first struck with; which was, That neither the appointment of executors, or any part of the will, was to take place till after the payment of the debt from the Company; that is, that Bollakey Doss considered himself worth nothing but that debt, and meant only to make a will in case that money should be recovered. But, on looking into the will, I pointed out to my bro-when contrasted with the consequences which ther Chambers that there were dispositions of other monies; and we are both satisfied that the appointment of executors would have taken place, and the will had sufficient to operate upon, though that money had not been paid; and that, if it was not, Bollakey Doss did not mean to die intestate. But, however, there is evidence that it has been satisfied by Company's bonds. Mr. Farrer has likewise given me these further observations: Persian letters, sealed in the usual mode of the country, not allowed to be given in evidence: by our laws, letters sealed in the ⚫ usual mode in England would.' You cast your eyes on those letters, and ob might naturally be expected from a refusalthe small degree of credit due to a confession 'made only once, and nobody present but the party and the witness, which are the words of Comaul's evidence.' It is highly proper you should take these circumstances into consideration; you will consider on what terms they were at the time of these conversations. Confessions of this nature are undoubtedly suspicious; and to which, except there are matters to corroborate them, you should be very cautious in giving too much credit. Nothing any ways extraordinary in Comaul's mentioning the circumstance of the defendant's confession; as it is well known that, in the most common occurrences, the natives of this country form the most iniquit'ous scheines, which are not brought to matu'rity, or disclosed to the public, for a much 'greater period of time than the present; and that their truth and falsehood are so artfully interwoven, that it is almost impossible to 'come at the truth.' My residence in the country has been so short, and my experience so little, that I can form no judgment of the truth of this observation: it is an appeal to the notoriety of the dispositions of the natives. You have been resident long in the country: some I see who were born here; you know how far it is true, therefore I leave it entirely to you. Mr. Brix has communicated to me the following observations: Improbability of the bond's being forged, from its being conditional only; for which there could be no necessity if it was forged, 'as it rendered the obligation less strong, with out any apparent reason.' It certainly would have been as easy to have forged an absolute bond. But there is no evidence when the bond was forged, if it was forged it might have been after the payment of the debt due to Bollakey Doss: it might be to give an air of probability to it. But this is matter proper for you to judge upon. From the circumstance mentioned therein of the jewels being robbed, as that very cir'cumstance lessens the value of the obligation, it might entitle the deceased or his represen'tatives to relief in equity.' This circumstance of mentioning the jewels is undoubtedly one that makes the transaction very suspicious, as there is no evidence given of any loss of jewels; and indeed the evidence that has been produced on that head goes a great way to prove that no such jewels had ever been lost. It is ingenious to turn this to the advantage of the prisoner. You will determine whether it can be so applied. These are the observations made by the prisoner's counsel: you will consider them, together with the observations I have submitted to you upon them. be wrote, drawing or causing to be drawn, it may mean, that he caused Bollakey Doss to draw or prepare the bond, and therefore I think the first would be a hard and rather a forced construction of his words; and indeed he did not actually specify this bond. Comaul O Deen also gives evidence that will apply to the forgery. Maha Rajah Nundocomar told him, That he bad himself fixed Comaul O Deen's seal to the bond; and he proves a requisition from Maha Rajah Nundocomar, to give evidence, That he was a witness to the bond, and makes him promises if he will. This is the evidence of the forgery; but I think it will be more necessary to attend to the evidence in support of those counts which I have said the evidence may be applied to, and which charge the publication with an intent to defraud. The evidence which applies to the actual forgery, applies likewise to the knowledge of its being forged. Mohun Persaud proves the bond produced by Maha Rajah Nundocomar. A receipt of Maha Rajah Nundocomar for the Company's bonds, paid in satisfaction of the bond in question, and the actual satisfaction received by Maha Rajah Nundocomar. Two witnesses depose, That the name purporting to be in the hand-writing of Sillabut, is not of his hand-writing. Sabboot Pottack swears positively to this: he says, He was well acquainted with his writing; and speaks as to the usual manner of his attesting which he says, is different to that on this paper. Rajah Nobkissen, on the paper being shown him, swore positively, that it was not the handwriting of Sillabut; but afterwards retracted the positiveness of his opinion: but the circumstance of his immediate fixing on the three papers, which were before proved to be of Sillabut's writing, is a stronger proof of the knowledge of his hand-writing, than any positive oath. I must again caution you against receiving any impression unfavourable to the prisoner, from the hesitation and doubts or exclamations of this witness, or from any other circumstances except what he actually deposed to. Both these last witnesses agree, that the hand to this bond is better than Seellabut's hand. I shall now make some few observations on the evidence, both on the part of the crown Other circumstances are adduced to draw and the prisoner; desiring, as I have frequent- an imputation on this business. An account ly during the course of the trial, that you will subsequent to the date of the bond, which is in not suffer your judgments to be biassed, or the 1772, is produced to show, that Bollakey Doss prisoner to be any way prejudiced, from any was at that time indebted to Maba Rajab Nunthing that has past, nor by any matter what-docomar only in the sum of 10,000 rupees; soever, which has not been given in evidence. The evidence on the part of the crown to support the actual forgery, is that of Mohun Persaud, who says, that Maba Rajah Nundocomar declared, that he had prepared, or drawn out three papers, the amount of one of which was 48,021 rupees, which is the amount of the present bond, and is applied as a confession of the actual forging; but as the confession may bear a different interpretation, there being no distinction in general made in the interpretation of the evidence, between writing or causing to but I think no great stress can be laid on that, as it contains a reference to such other debts as may appear by his books. The Counsel for the Crown have proved, that a draught for a large sum of money was paid at Benares, about the time of the bond given, on the credit of Bollakey Doss, in favor of lord Clive. This was adduced for the purpose of showing Bollakey Doss to be at that time in good circumstances, and to infer from thence an improbability of his entering into this bond: but I think it proves no such thing; a much larger sum would no doubt have been | paid on lord Clive's credit alone; and it is certain, that Bollakey Doss was at that time a debtor to Maha Rajah Nundocomnar. There is another circumstance; that Bollakey Doss had never mentioned either the deposit of the jewels, or the loss of them; and that there is no entry of it in his books. Roys, and two Matheb Roys, in two different families: however, there is no doubt of the existence of two Bungoo Lolls and two Saheb Roys; the improbability then decreases, and both Tage Roy and Roopnerain swear to the existence of the other Matheb Roy. It is extraordinary, however, that this man, who is described by his brother to be a poor man, and servant to a prisoner in the gaol, and was not known to Cossinaut or Huzree Mull, should be Comaul O Deen produced a paper with the impression of his own seal, which he swears to be in the possession of Maha Rajah Nundoco-described by the counsel for the prisoner as a mar: you before said, you thought it to be the same with that to the bond; you will accurately examine it; I have not; I am told, there is a flaw in both the impressions. Comaul O Deen accounts for his seal being in the possession of Matra Rajah Nundocomar, and swears he has not received it back: his evi dence is supported by Coja Petruse, whose character you all know, and Moonsby Sudder O Deen, to whom he repeated the conversations with Maha Rajah Nundocomar, when they bad recently past; you know the prac tices of the natives, and whether it is probable, as the counsel for the prisoner has suggested, that this is a deep-laid scene of villainy. The character of Comaul O Deen was enquired into from Coja Petruse, and you have beard his answer. Subornation of perjury was endeavoured to be fixed on him by the evidence of Hussein Alli; but as to Cawda Newas, nothing was proved as to the seal-cutter, his conversation with him seems rather to strengthen than impeach his credit. This bond was found. cancelled among the papers delivered into the Mayor's court, as belonging to the estate of Bollakey Doss; but the papers of Pudmohun Doss and Bollakey Doss were mixed. This is the substance of the evidence for the crown; and no doubt, if the witnesses are believed, whatsoever you may think of the forgery, there is evidence of publication, with knowledge of forgery. On the other hand, if you believe the witnesses for the prisoner, a most complete answer is given to the charge. There are no less than four witnesses present at the execution of the bond by Bollakey Doss, three of whom had been privy to a conversation at Maha Rajah Nundocomar's, when the consideration of the bond was acknowledged by Bollakey Doss the same persous prove the attestation of the bond by the three witnesses thereto, who are all dead." The brother of Matheb Roy is produced, who says, that Matheb Roy was well known to Huzree Mull and Cossinaut: Huzree Mull and Cossinaut did know a Matheb Roy; but it is clear, from their description of the person, that it is not the brother of the witness at the bar. However, Cossinaut gave an account of the family of the man he knew, whose father was Bungoo Loll; but said, there was another Bungoo Loll. It seems extraordinary that there should be two Bungoo Lolls, two Saheb man of note and family, and as being acquainted with Cossinaut and Huzree Mull. In contradiction to what Commaul O Deen had said, the defence introduces another Comaul; and all the four witnesses swear positively to his attesting the bond. He is proved by two witnesses to be dead; one Joydeb Chowbee saw a man going to be buried, and was told it was Comaul. The other, Sheekear Mahomed, actually attended his funeral. Comaul O Deen swears positively it is his seal, and these witnesses swear to the attestation by another Comau!. Joydeb Chowbee mentions a circumstance by which he knew it to be the funeral of Comaul: he asked, Whether it was a funeral of a Bramin or a Mussulman? It seems, the mode of carrying out Mussulmen and Bramins differ. You must judge from his evidence, whether he must not have known whether it was a Mussulman or Bramin, without enquiry; indeed he has said, that he did; and the observation was so strong, that be after positively denies he ever said he made such enquiry. As Comaul is said to have died in the house of Maha Rajah Nundocomar, it seems extraordinary, that no one but Sheekear Mahomed is brought to prove his actual death; it must have been easy to bave brought many persons of Maba Rajah Nundocomar's family, especially as he mentions five persons by name that attended his funeral, besides cooleys; three indeed he has buried since, but there are two still alive. This must have been known to be very material, for this is not the first time that Comaul O Deen has given evidence concerning his seal. It is admitted on both sides, that Seelabut is dead. It is remarkable, that no account whatsoever is given of the Mour who wrote the bond: he would have been a material witness: there is no proof whose writing it is: it is proved, that Bollakey Doss had at that time a writer whose name was Balkissen, who is dead: there is no evidence that it was of his hand; he was, I think, known to one of the witnesses to the execution of the bond. A witness says, that Seelabut was a Persian writer as well as Vakeel to Bollakey Doss, and Kissen Juan Doss seems to confirm it; being asked, What Persian writer Bollakey Doss had at that time? he answers, " He had one named Balkissen, and Seelabut also understood Persian." It is not said to be of his writing; aud if Seelabut acted in that capacity, what occa |