The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-17 00:00:00

EXTENgIVE FORGERY.

James kickoff 497 vPres indicted upon a charge of
forging an endorsement trirorr three cheques at Man-
chester. Mr. Leresche appeared for the prosecution,
and the prisoner was defended lig Mr. Ambrose. It
appeared that the prisoner was employed by Mr. Samuel
Cheetham, a commission agent, in Manchester". He was
a porter, but was sometimes employed to collect aceotruts.
On Friday, the 19th of October, the prisoner called upon
Messrs. Ellenger and nd presented an account for
Mr. Cheetham for £923 C0.,125., stating that that gentleman
would be obliged if they paid the account on the following
Monday. On the Monday the prisoner again called, and
received the amount in three cheques, payable to order,
giving in return the usual receipt. After receiving the
cheques, he asked leave from Mr. Cheetham for a few
days promising to return before the following Monday,
which was the day for collecting accounts. Not re-
turning on the Monday, Mr. Cheetham went to collect
the accounts himself ; but, on visiting. Messrs. Ellenger
and Co., was surprised to hear that the prisoner had ob-
tained cheques to the amount of £923 12s. He subse-
quently learnt that the prisoner had forged his name
upon three cheques, and got them cashed at the Bank
of England in London. The prisoner, after getting the
cheques cashed, came to Liverpool under the name of
Sylvester Sound, and deposited his money with the land-
lady of the Liverpool Arms, where it was found when
the prisoner was apprehended. It was also ascertained
that the prisoner had made preparations for his depar-
ture to Australia. The counsel for the defence, in a
lengthy address, argued that at the time the prisoner
committed the offence he did so innocently supposing
that the name was only a matter of routine. The jury
found a verdict of guilty. The learned judge, in sen-
tencing the prisoner, commented upon the heniousness
of the offence, and upon the deliberate manner in which
the prisoner had carried out his plans. Had not the
officers been aroused, it is probable that he would have
escaped to Melbourne with nearly £l,OOO. He then
sentenced the prisoner to ten years' penal servitude.

BIGAMY.
Mary Ellison (30) was charged with bigamy. She
was defended by Mr. Pope, who showed that the first
husband (the present prosecutor) had been for a long
time living with another woman. The judge sentenced
the prisoner to 48 hours' imprisonment.
MANSLAUGHTER IN LIVERPOOL.
In this case Mr. Aspinall prosecuted, and Mr. Scott
defended. The prisoner was a boy of 12 or 13 years of
age, and he was charged with the manslaughter of
another boy. named David Southwell. It appeared
that the two boys lived in the neighbourhood of Brick-
street. They had a quarrel, and fought; deceased was
'struck over the eye, and died shortly afterwards. The
evidence did not justify the conclusion that it was the
prisoner's blow which caused death, and the jury found
a verdict of not guilty.
The court then adjourned until ten o'clock this
morning.

SECOND COURT.
UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN AT CHORLEY,
John Lingard (21), who was described in'the calendar
as not being able either to read or write, was charged
with having at Chorley, on the 29th of September last,
feloniously uttered and put off a certain bank note for
the payment of £5, with intent to defraud one Mary
Litherland, and was also further charged with having,
at Chorley, on the same day, feloniously uttered and
put off a certain bank note for the payment of £5, with
intent to defraud one William Walker, well knowing
the same to be forged. Mr. Kay, assisted by a junior
counsel, appeared to prosecute, and the prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Torr. Mr. Kay stated the circumstances
of the case. The prisoner was indicted under an act of
Parliament, passed in the first year of William IV., ,
chapter 6, which enacted that if any person was found
offering, uttering. disposing, and putting off a certain
forged Bank of England note, with intention to defraud,
and well knowing the same to be spurious, should be
guilty of felony. It appeared that there was a Mr.
Daniel Elias, who is a rate collector at Chorley, residing
in Chapel-street in that town, and there is also a Mr.
Livsay, a plumber and glazier, who occupies premises in
the same street. Mr. Elias had a son named Thomas
Atkinson Elias, about 13 years of age, who on the night
in question was returning along Chapel-street about
nine, o'clock from an errand he had been for 'his
father, when he was stopped by the prisoner, who asked
him if he was going any way particular, and if he would
go to the Gillybrand Arms and bring a pint of French
brandy, for Mr. Livsay, as there was no one in the house.
The lad, who had a parcel under his arm, replied that
he had been on an errand for his father, but as soon as
he took the parcel home he would come back and do so.
The boy then went away, and returned in about five
minutes, when the prisoner took him near to Mr.
Linsay's shop steps, and told him to go to Mrs. Walker's
public-house, and bring a pint of the best French
brandy for Mr. Linsey, plumber and glazier, at the
same time giving him a forged Bank of England note,
and telling him to bring him the change. The boy went
to the Gillybrand Arms, obtained the brandy, and then
returned with a portion of it in a bottle and the re-
mainder in a jug. The prisoner took it from him, put
it to his nose, and then threw the contents upon the
ground and gave the boy the jug back. He took the
change, which consisted of three sovereigns, two half-
sovereigns, five half-crowns, three shillings, and six-
pence, and afterwards gave the boy threepence for his
trouble. The prisoner had also a short time before sent
another boy named Ashton, the son of a brewer, residing
in Water-street, in Chorley, to the Royal Oak, kept by
Mary Litherland, to get a pint of brandy for Mr. Livsay,
and gave him what seemed to be a £5 note to pay for it.
The boy went and obtained the brandy from Miss Simon,
the barmaid, and on returning the prisoner gave him 2 id.
formight
ci his
eguhrtr e
hdt raovtuoeb e
bh ei
se n T
father,mh eadlae d
theww who,
on h
,tt
suspecting
efe
c,
tainngd
some
ttttoldthat
te what
f thehad
b oy
imme-
diately proceeded to the Royal Oak and requested to
look at the note they had received. The barmaid had
given the note to a neighbour, to whose house they
went, and on obtainining it from her discovered that it
was a forgery. Mr. Ashton returned to Chapel-street,
where he saw the prisoner. He watched him for some
time, and the prisoner, seeing this, decamped towards
the Market place, where he was seen standing talking
to another man who was evidently an accomplice. He
soon afterwards again made off when Mr. Livsev,
accompanied by the police, approached. A cry of
" Stop thief " was raised, and after a sharp chase
he was eventually secured, and conveyed to the
police station, where was searched, and the exact coins,
he had received from the bf,y Elias was found in hii
possession, and also £1 4s. The superintendent charged
the prisoner with the offence, and he replied, " Who
says so ? who can prove it ? I know nothing about it."
He was also asked where he came from, and what his
occupation was ; and he said he waited at billiard-tables,
and had been employed in London-road, Liverpool,
some fortnight previous. Evidence was then called to
prove the above facts, after which Mr. Torr addressed
the jury for the defence. His lordship summed up, and
the jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty. A
previous offence was proved against the prisoner, who
was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.