Zwingli Sargent, a solicitor practising with his father in Birmingham during the late nineteenth century, was a son of Esther Beuzeville Hewlett, the youngest daughter of Esther Hewlett Copley.
His career ended in public disgrace after a conviction for fraud at the Warwick Assizes in 1885.
The Will of Susannah Field
The case centred on the estate of a woman named Susannah Field, who died at King’s Norton on 29 April 1880. Sargent had drawn up her will and was appointed one of the executors and trustees, together with Sarah Newman and a man named Thomas Locker.
Under the will, Miss Newman—Field’s niece—was entitled to a sum of money that remained deposited in the Birmingham Joint-Stock Bank. The arrangement allowed her to receive interest from the fund during her lifetime.
In December 1880 Sargent suggested that the money, which still stood in the name of the deceased, should be transferred into Miss Newman’s own name. This appeared a reasonable proposal. Acting on his advice, Miss Newman and the co-trustee accompanied him to his office, where he produced the late Mrs Field’s bank book and prepared a cheque reflecting the amount standing to her credit.
The cheque, however, was unusual in one important respect. While it bore the amount of the deposit, the space for the name of the payee was left blank. Miss Newman and the co-trustee signed it, trusting Sargent’s explanation that he would take the cheque to the bank and complete the necessary arrangements to transfer the funds.
They then entrusted the document to him.
The Cheque Altered
Instead of transferring the money into Miss Newman’s name, Sargent filled in the cheque so that it read “Pay to the order of Zwingli Sargent.” He also added the accumulated interest that had accrued on the account. On 31 December 1880 he presented the cheque at the Birmingham Joint-Stock Bank and withdrew the entire sum in cash—£423 7s 9d.
The money was never transferred to Miss Newman, nor was it returned to the trust.
For some time the deception remained hidden. When Miss Newman inquired about the state of her affairs, Sargent reassured her that the transfer had been made. At one point he even paid her interest on the money and recorded a note suggesting that the principal sum remained invested at five percent.
This arrangement continued until early 1884, when Miss Newman sought further interest payments. By that time Sargent admitted he was in financial trouble and declared himself bankrupt. She was told she would have to appear as a creditor.
Only then did it become clear that the original funds had disappeared years earlier.
The Trial at Warwick
The case came before the Warwick Assizes in April 1885 before Mr Justice Lopes. The indictment contained several counts, including obtaining money by false pretences, forgery of a cheque, and forgery of a deed connected with property in Chiswick. However, the prosecution focused primarily on the cheque transaction involving Miss Newman’s inheritance.
The prosecution argued that although the signatures on the cheque were genuine, the document had been fundamentally altered when Sargent inserted his own name as payee. What had been a blank instrument became a negotiable cheque only after this insertion, and the prosecution maintained that this alteration constituted forgery.
The defence contended that the document had always been a cheque and therefore had not been forged. Counsel argued that persuading someone to sign a document under a mistaken belief about its purpose did not legally constitute forgery.
The question before the jury therefore became a technical one: whether the insertion of the payee’s name after the signatures had been added amounted to the creation of a forged instrument.
Evidence of Deception
Miss Newman gave detailed evidence describing the events surrounding the signing of the cheque. She stated that she had never previously seen a cheque and believed she was simply authorising the transfer of funds from her aunt’s name into her own.
Thomas Locker confirmed her account, testifying that neither he nor Miss Newman had authorised Sargent to withdraw the money.
A bank cashier further testified that the cheque had indeed been presented and paid to Sargent, and that the funds had never been transferred into Miss Newman’s name.
These testimonies formed the core of the prosecution’s case.
The Verdict
After hearing the evidence and legal arguments, the jury initially returned a verdict of guilty, though one juror expressed uncertainty about whether Sargent had intended to defraud. The judge instructed the jury to reconsider the matter, and after further deliberation they returned with a unanimous verdict of guilty.
Sargent’s counsel requested that a point of law concerning the definition of forgery be referred to a higher court, but the judge declined.
Sentencing
In passing sentence, Justice Lopes emphasised the gravity of the offence. A solicitor, he observed, occupied a position of exceptional responsibility. Clients entrusted their property, their reputations, and sometimes even their liberty to such professionals. The legal system depended on their honesty.
While such breaches of trust were fortunately rare, when they occurred the court was obliged to make an example of the offender.
Sargent was therefore sentenced to five years’ penal servitude.
Reports suggested that the cheque transaction might have been only one of several questionable dealings in which he had been involved, amounting altogether to thousands of pounds. However, the court chose not to pursue those additional matters during the trial.
Aftermath
The case left a strong impression on the Birmingham press, which saw it as a striking example of the danger posed when professional trust was abused. For Miss Newman, the loss was both financial and personal. She had relied on the solicitor appointed to administer her aunt’s estate and had instead become the victim of deception.
For the Sargent family, the conviction marked a tragic episode in the family’s later history. The grandson of a woman remembered for moral conviction and religious writing now appeared in the public record under very different circumstances.
