Mr. Kelly. I am quite prepared to produce any document in the handwriting of the prisoner at the bar, which is in his possession; but as to any document that may bear the signature, or be in the handwriting of any other member of the firm, that I shall not produce unless that member of the firm is made a witness to show the circumstances accompanying the document; unless it passed through the hands of the prisoner. If you prove any cheque in the handwriting of the prisoner, I will produce it if I have it, and if not, I shall not object to secondary evidence of it.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. You say that that is in your writing, have you any book by which you can ascertain whether it was paid through a cheque or bill?—No, certainly not.
None whatever?—No; I could not tell whether it was a cheque or a bill. I cannot tell which; there is no book in our house that will tell us that.
On whose account was it paid?—
Mr. Kelly. I object to that: I do not want all the payments made by this witness; we are upon the question if you can give secondary evidence of the cheque.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I am going to see on whose account it was paid.
Mr. Kelly. I object to any evidence of bankers paying a sum of money on account of the firm, or on account of any other person, unless the document is in the handwriting of the prisoner at the bar, or the payment proved to have been made to his orders. What is to prevent, by the order of the partner in Spain, of which he never heard, this person being charged with felony?
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I submit that the evidence is sufficient; here is an express statement in the printed evidence.
Mr. Justice Maule. It is not in evidence yet.
Mr. Kelly. I consider it in evidence; my learned friend may refer to any part of that book; I consider that that is in evidence now.