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 Nundocoinar. 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. Comaul O Deen produced a paper with the impression of his own seal, which he swears to be in the possession of Maha Rajah Nundocomar: 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 Maha Rajah Nundocomar, and swears he has not received it back: his evidence is supported by Coja Petruse, whose character you all know, and Moonshy Sudder O Deen, to whom he repeated the conversations with Maha Rajah Nundocomar, when they had recently past; you know the practices 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 persons 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 Sabeb 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 described by the counsel for the prisoner as a 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 Comaul. Joydeb Chowbee mentions a circumstance by which be knew it to be the funeral of Comaul: he asked, Whether it was a funeral of 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 he 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 have brought many persons of Maha Rajah Nundocomar's family, especially as he mentions five persons by name that attended his funeral, besides cooleys; three inIdeed 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; and if Seelabut acted in that capacity, what occa There is no evidence of any particulars being mentioned to the writer who made out the bond, though it contains very special matter, except by one witness: all agree that no directions were given in the room before the people came from Maha Rajah Nundocomar to Bollakey Doss's; and all the witnesses, except one, deny any specific directions being given after. It is possible, he might have spoken to the Mour before his coming into the room, which the other witnesses at this distance of time might have forgot. Though there are some variations in their evidence at the time of the execution, that is not at all extraordinary; what is most striking is, the very accurate memories which they preserve as to some circumstances, and their total forgetfulness as to others. The most remarkable instance of their memory is the knowledge of the seals, which some of them swear to positively, only from having seen them three or four times on the fingers of the owners, from which (though the seals must be reversed when applied to paper, and though some of them do not understand Persian, and consequently not the characters engraved on the seal) they swear positively to their being able to know the impressions; and it is true, for they do point out to whom the impression of each particular seal on the bond does belong. Kissen Juan Doss, who must have seen Bollakey Doss's seal oftener than any of the witnesses, does not take upon him to remember the impression; and on being told the other witnesses did, he said, they had excellent memo. ries; he was not blessed with such. They are likewise uniformly accurate in describing the order in which the witnesses sealed and signed. I shall make no observation on the variances of the witnesses to the execution; for, except in two instances, one of the witnesses, who remembered the sum in the bond, from its being explained in a language he did not understand, the other, Sheekear Mahomed, is the only witness that spoke with precision as to the sum. You heard him deliver his evidence, and will form your own judgment on that and on his whole evidence, in which he affirms and denies the same thing in the same breath. As to the other, it was suggested, that the same words expressed the same sums in Moors and Persian, which drew on an enquiry; and we had the Persian and Moor words for the sums mentioned delivered in evidence; you will see how far you think they agree or disagree. Nor shall I observe on the manner in which the witnesses on either side gave their testimony. You saw and remarked them. The jury having the opportunity to make their observations on the conduct of the witnesses, and of hearing the questions put as circumstances arise, is the great part of the benefit of a vivá voce examination. The defence does not attempt to prove either the deposit or the loss of jewels. And, indeed, Kissen Juan Doss, on whose evidence I shall hereafter observe, says, That he never heard of such a loss; had it happened, he must have heard it; and a thousand people must 'bave known it.' He speaks of the loss of jewels to a trifling amount, but those belonged to another person. This, as I said before, is a suspicious circumstance. But if the jewels were actually deposited, of which there is no evidence, except what I am going to take notice of, the Kursa Nama: though they were not lost, Bollakey Doss might have told Maha Rajah Nundocomar that they were; and the Maha Rajah might give credit to Bollakey Doss; or might chuse rather to take a bond than enquire further into the matter. It might possibly have been a fraud on Maha Rajah Nundocomar. Meer Assud's evidence may be very material. He produces a paper, purporting to be a receipt given by Bollakey Doss to him, for valuable effects of Cossim Alli, delivered by the witness to Bollakey Doss, which had the seal of Bollakey Doss to it. The impression you will examine; you will find it to be the same as is on the bond. This was for the purpose of proving the correspondence of the impression of the seal on this receipt, with the seal on the bond; and by that means to prove, that the seal to the bond was the identical seal of Bollakey Doss, not one that was forged. This transaction was said by the witness to be when Bollakey Doss was with the army at Durghotty. It seems clear beyond doubt, from the date of the receipt, from the place the army was then in, and from the circumstances that both Cossim Alli and Bollakey Doss were in at the time the receipt bears date, that the receipt could not have been given by Bollakey Doss, and that the whole is a fiction. A very striking observation arises from this: it may account for the witnesses remembering the seals so accurately. Tage Roy says, He is in possession of Matheb Roy's seal. The seal of Comaul O Deen is proved to have been in the possession of Maha Rajah Nundocomar; and the person who fabricated this receipt must have had that seal which made the impression on the bond and the receipt. If the witnesses by any means have seen those seals, it is no longer surprising that they should be well acquainted with the impressions. This is a strong observation; but it is but an observation; I would have you consider it deliberately and maturely before you adopt it. Kissen Juan Doss delivered all his evidence, till this morning, with such simplicity, and with such an air of candour and truth, that I gave full assent to every thing he said; and I am extremely chagrined that there has arisen any cause to suspect any part of his evidence. He mentioned a paper, which he calls a Kursa Nama, in which the whole of this transaction was wrote, and which was acknowledged and signed by Bollakey Doss. Though the entry made in the book after the death of Bollakey Doss, by order of Pudmohun Doss, and purporting to be in the lifetime of Bollakey Doss, carried marks of suspicion with it; yet, I own, Kissen Juan Doss had so completely gained my confidence, that I gave implicit credit to him. Many attempts were made to establish it in evidence, which failed of legal proof; but as I thought so well of Kissen Juan Doss, and as it would have been extremely hard, if such a paper had existed, that the prisoner should be deprived of the benefit of it, I said (having | first asked the consent of my brethren,) that, though it was not strictly evidence, I would leave it to you to give such weight to it as you thought it deserved. I still leave it to you; and if you believe that such a paper ever existed, it would be the highest injustice not to acquit the prisoner. Attempts were made to bring this to the knowledge of Mohun Persaud; and if it did exist, and was in the knowledge of Mohun Persaud, this prosecution is most horrid and diabolical. Mohun Persaud is guilty of a crime, in my apprehension, of a nature more horrid than murder. It is for you to determine how far he really stands in awe of Mohun Persaud, and what the effects of that intimidation was when he delivered bis evidence. It is strange, as the witness was so often examined, and so particularly to this Kursa Nama, that Maira Rajah Nundocomar never before suggested this matter to his couusel. If this latter part of Kissen Juan's evidence is true, he must be either guilty of perjury or very strong prevarication in his former evidence. Being asked as to Mohun Persaud and Gungabissen's knowledge of the entry made from the Kursa Nama? He says, I cannot say that Mobun Persaud and Gungabissen knew of it at the time of the entry; they 'knew of it afterwards. How can I tell when they knew of it first? They must have known it from the papers in the Dewanny Audaulet; 'they were all called for there. I should tell, 'if I knew Gungabissen or Mohun Persaud 'knew of the entry.' He must have known it was more material to prove that they knew of the Kursa Nama itself, in which the particulars of the account which formed the sum in the entry were wrote, and which Bollakey Doɛs had signed. But he presently afterwards positively says, That Mohun Persand and Gungabissen were not acquainted with the accounts. ་ In another part of his evidence, he says to Pudmobun Doss, Make my mind easy about 'the bond we are now paying,' or (for there was a doubt in the interpretation) which we ' have paid.' But, I own, what passed after the counsel for the prisoner bad closed his evidence, has very much weakened the confidence I had in Kissen Juan Doss. The counsel did not desire that he should be called, assigning as is usual for their reason, that they had forgot to examine to any particular point which was contained in their instructions; but we are informed that the Maha Rajah had something to say. All that he says is, That he desires Kis- The time that this explanation was made at sen Juan Doss may be further interrogated Maha Rajah Nundocomar's is not ascertained; as to the Kursa Nama. The question then is but it must have been before the payment of immediately put to him, Whether he ever ex- the bond; for afterwards it could be of no use, plained the Kursa Nama to Mohun Persaud? If then Kissen Juan Doss had before seen this and then he gives the account of Mohun Per- Kursa Nama, and explained it to Mohun Per saud's having seen it at Maha Rajah Nundo-saud, why did he demand that his mind should comar's. When he is examined to the reason of his not having told it before, all that simplicity, all that air of truth and candour, which we had remarked in him, instantly vanished; his looks were cast down, his tongue faultered, he prevaricates, he contradicts himself, he did not seem the same man. He did not tell, because ⚫ he was not asked.' He did not mention it to Maha Rajah Nuudocomar in his letter, because he was afraid of Mohun Persaud.' < He did not mention, because he did not recol'lect it.' 'He did not deliver it in evidence, ⚫ because afraid of Mohun Persaud.' Mohun Persaud is a great man. He was not afraid to write the letter. He did not shew the letter to Mohun Persaud: why should he be afraid to insert this circumstance? If he now stands in so much fear of Mohun Persaud as not to mention this in his evidence, was he so much afraid of him when he voluntarily and directly confronted him as to the army books? All this fear arises from no recent threat: it is in consequence of a conversation at the distance of some years, VOL. XX. be made easy about the bond? and how was it made easy, only by the production of a paper that he had seen before. I am much hurt, to be obliged to make these observations on the evidence of a man that I entertained so good an opinion of. I must desire you to recollect, with regard to this observation, and every one that 1 submit to you, that you are to make no farther use of them, than as they coincide with your opinions and observations; and when they do not, you should reject them; for it is you, not I, that are to decide upon the evidence. Attempts were made, by means of Monohun and other witnesses, to impeach Mohun Persaud, by particular facts, of attempts to suborn, and by general character. You must judge how far they have succeeded. They totally failed in the same attempts, as to Commaul O'Dien. It is to be observed, likewise, that no person has been called to impeach the witnesses brought by the defendant. There are many observations to be made in favour of the prisoner; and I am sure your 3 Z humanity will prompt you to enforce them, as far as they will bear. I before said, that the defence, if believed, was a full refutation of the charge; it is not only so, but it must fix an indelible mark of infamy on the prosecutor. There are four positive witnesses of the actual execution of the bond by Bollakey Doss. In opposition to Commaul's evidence, there are as many to prove, that the witness attesting was another Commaul. Matheb Roy was not mentioned by the evidence for the crown. Four witnesses saw him attest it; and two other witnesses, one of them his brother, likewise prove that there was such a person. In opposition to Rajah Nobkissen and Pattock, who swear the name Sillabut to the bond, is not of Sillabut's hand-writing; four witnesses swear positively to the having seen him write it. Much depends in this prosecution on the evidence of Mohun Persaud: you must judge how far his credit has been shaken: most of you know him: you must determine how far he deserves credit; and how probable it is, that he would, through malice, or any other corrupt motive, accuse an innocent person of a capital crime. If you think him capable of it, you should not give the least attention to bis evidence. He swore positively to the bond produced by Maha Rajah Nundocomar, and for which the Company's bonds were given, being the same bond that was produced in evidence; he said, he knew it from circumstances, but did not explain what those circumstances were; this I mention as going to his credit only; for the whole defence proceeds on identifying this bond, and proving it a true one. You will judge how far he is contradicted by Kissen Juan Doss, as to the army books; and which of the two are to be believed. An imputation was attempted to be thrown on Mohun Persaud, for preventing Gunga Visier from attending, who was said to be able and willing to appear as a witness: but that has been cleared up, to the full satisfaction of us; and, I do not doubt, to your satisfaction likewise. He could not be called by the prosecutor, on account of his interest; and no prejudice should accrue to the prisoner, for not calling him, for the same reason. The counsel for the prisoner have urged the hardship of this prosecution being brought at this distance of time. You have heard when Mohun Persaud first suspected the forgery; and when, by Commaul's declaration, he had reason to be confirmed in the suspicion. You have heard, when the papers were delivered out of the court; if there has been any designed delay, and you think Mobun Persaud had it in his power to carry on an effectual prosecution before he has; it is a great hardship to Maha Rajah Nundocomar, especially as the witnesses to the bond are all dead; and you ought to consider this among the other ciroumstances which are in his favour. Though, to be sure, this hardship is much diminished, as there were so many witnesses still alive, who were present at the execution of it, There are two pieces of written evidence relied on by the prisoner one, the entry in the book from the Kurra Nama, on account of the agreement of the sums; and you will find that the sums said by Kissen Juan Doss to be contained in the Kurra Nama; viz. Durbar expences Bond Batta and premium 6,000 R* 69,630 7 do amount to the sum of 75,630 7 which is the sum in the entry. The other is the account delivered by Mohun Persaud and Pudmohun Doss, subsequent to the account delivered in by Pudmohun Doss, in which Pudmohun Doss had taken credit for this sum; and the subsequent account likewise contains it. I do not think much can be drawn from this, for the sums had, as Mohun Persaud says, been paid, and therefore they certainly would take credit for them, to prevent their being charged with them; this they would do, were the monies properly or improperly paid. There is certainly great improbability that a man of Maha Rajah Nundocomar's rank and fortune should be guilty of so mean an offence for so small a sum of money. It is more improbable, as he is proved to have patronized and behaved with great kindness to Bollakey Doss in his life-time, that he should immediately after his decease plunder the widow and relations of his friend. There does likewise appear to have been a suit in the Audaulet, which must have been a civil suit; but it does not indeed appear that Mohun Persaud was a party; and, indeed, for what reason I know not, neither side have thought fit to produce the proceedings. I have made such observations on the evidence as the bulk of it, and the few minutes I had to recollect myself, would allow me to make. You will consider the whole with that can dour, impartiality, and attention, which has been so visible in every one of you during the many days you have sat on this cause. You will consider on which side the weight of evidence lies; always remembering, that in criminal, and more especially in capital cases, you must not weigh the evidence in golden scales; there ought to be a great difference of weight in the opposite scale before you find the prisoner guilty. In cases of pro perty, the stake on each side is equal, and the least preponderance of evidence ought to turn the scale; but in a capital case, as there can be nothing of equal value to life, you should be thoroughly convinced, that there does not remain a possibility of innocence before you give your verdict against the prisoner. The nature of the defence in this case is such, that, if it is not believed, it must prove fatal to the party; for if you do not believe it you determine, that it is supported by perjury, and that of an aggravated kind, as it attempts to fix perjury and subornation of perjury on the prosecutor and his witnesses. You will again and again consider the character of the prosecutor and his witnesses, the distance of the prosecution from the time the offence is supposed to be committed, the proof and nature of the confessions said to be made by the prisoner, his rank and fortune. These are all reasons to prevent your giving a hasty and precipitate belief to the charge brought against him; but, if you believe the facts sworn against him to be true, they cannot alter the nature of the facts themselves. Your sense of justice, and your own feelings, will not allow you to convict the prisoner, unless your consciences are fully satisfied beyond all doubt of his guilt. If they are not, you will bring in that verdict, which, from the dictates of humanity, you will be inclined to give; but, should your consciences be thoroughly convinced of his being guilty, no consideration, I am sure, will prevail on you not to give a verdict according to your oaths. The Jury retired for about an hour; and brought in their verdict, Guilty. * 557. The Trial of JOSEPH FOWKE, FRANCIS FOWKE, Maha Rajah NUNDOCOMAR, and ROY RADA CHURN, for a Conspiracy against Warren Hastings, esq. Governor General of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal. At Calcutta or Fort William, in Bengal aforesaid: 15 GEORGE III. A. D. 1775. [Subjoined to the Trial of Nundocomar, for Forgery. Published by Authority of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Bengal. London: Printed for T. Cadell in the Strand, 1776.] By way of Introduction to the Report of the Trials of Joseph Fowke and others, was published the following Account of certain Preliminary Measures. It is in itself not uninteresting. DEPOSITIONS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST WARREN Calcutta, April 20, 1775. ON the 19th instant, about nine in the morning, Comaul O Deen Alli Cawn, the farmer of Hedgelee, came to Mr. Hastings, with a complaint against Mr. Joseph Fowke, for having extorted from him, by violence, accusations against Mr. Hastings and other persons. The particulars of his story will be related at large in his deposition. He said, he had that instant made his escape from the hands of Fowke and Nundocomar. His jamma was torn, his face pale, and he was, or appeared to be, out of breath. Mr. Hastings told him, he could afford him no redress; and referred him to the Chief Justice. He went. The Chief Justice having heard the complaint, summoned the other judges to meet him in the evening; and * See the preceding Case. late that night Mr. Hastings received the following Letter from them: "The Hon. Warren Hastings, esq. "Sir; a charge having been exhibited, upon oath, before us, against Joseph and Francis Fowke, Maha Rajah Nundocomar, and Rada Churn, for a conspiracy against you and others; we have summoned the parties to appear tomorrow, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, at the house of sir Elijah Impey, where we must require your attendance.-We are, Sir, your most obedient humble servants, E. IMPEY, ROBERT CHAMBERS, S. C. LEMAISTRE, JOHN HYDE." “ Calcutta, April 19, 1775.” The same intimation was sent, in the same form, to Mr. Barwell, Mr. Vansittart, Maha Rajah, Rajebullub, and Cantoo Baboo. The next morning Mr. Hastings attended, as did the other persons named in the letter. The persons examined as evidence on the charge, were Comaul O Dien, his Moonshy, Mathew Miranda and Timothy Pereira, two writers of Mr. Fowke, Akermannu a Gentoo, and a Moonshy, both servants of Mr. Fowke, and Yar Mahomed, a well-known servant of Nundocomar. The examination lasted till eleven at night. It will be necessary, before we proceed, to remind the reader of a representation which was made to Mr. Hastings by Comaul O Deep, of the like attempt made by Mr. Fowke in December last, to extort accusations from him; and which was laid before the board on the 13th of that month. In the course of the late |