the *'good- Crossley poured fortli a strain of gratitude uess that shall only be forgotteo when life itseit anaii cease, and my futui*e uniformity of conduct «hall be such on all occasions as to merit your future approbation." As the man had been subjected to no constraint before the condi- tional pardon, his cretlitors thought of no more important result than that of rendering him liable. But he taught them otherwise. His fraudulent bills were sent back, protested, from London, and l)y every device of law and of roguery Crossley fought against his dupes. He had bought farms; he had lent money; he pressed the widow for payment. From Mr, Campbell, the merchant, he had obtained sundries to the extent of £1691. Campbell, before the goods arrived, became suspicious, and (1800) petitioned King to cause the goods to be indented, so as to prevent Crossley and his wife from embezzling. Canipbelh having sent the bills to England, could not produce his proofs, and King declined to interfere inider the circumstances. D'Arcy Went worth, as agent for English traders, had taken bills from Crossley I and his wife for £1B86. They were dishonoured. Went- ^worth took legal measures successfully.*^ Crossley sent in a lengthy memorial/' and appealed to the Privy Council. King demanded security that he would prosecute the appeal
- within twelve months after his term of transportation*'
might expire, and pay such costs and damages as might be awarded if the sentence should he contirmed. Crossley retorted that *'to exact such security Avas con- trary to the law of the land.'" King had no lawyer to advise him, but declared (March 1H04) that refusal to give security was sufficient reason for giving full eifect to the award.
- Yet as I deem it expedient to suspend that part of the
award respecting paymen'^ to the respondents . . . '* I . . . [order the Provost-Marshal to pay to the hands of the Commissary-General all money *'now or that may ^ Amonjjijst other ileviQes, Crasslcj^ in pjiying €4110 to tho I'rovost-MarsUal teiideresl it in copppn On Sniytli'a rt^fuHal U> nect^pt ho much oop{>er in one sunj» Crob&ley paid the tltibt in eighty iufttalmenla oi £5 uaeb, whiuh were iieceptecl ai$ lawful. "On another petitirni from Croa»ley (Dec. 1SU*2) uontiiininx doztsna of page«, King wrote: "I hurt; ruad this caat-^ and am well jkitiafied of Jtn total urant of truth iu every material respiict.' I
