The Express.
London, England, 1855-05-09 00:00:00

THE POLICE CO URT&

WESTMINSTER.

Mr. Philip Willie;rier7Sel, described u so author and
public lecturer, residing at 20, Hemingford•terrace,
ton, appeared to a summons charging him, ender the 611
and 7th of William IV., cap 86, with making a Ulu repre-
sentation upon the occasion of registering a child.
Mr. Buchennen conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Parry the defence.
The circumstances, as detailed in support of the dame,
are briefly these. Du the 6th of December, 1854, the
seemed presented himself at the dike of Mr. Smith, eagle-
trar for the north•east division of Chelsea, for the purpose of
registering a child, of which he represented himself to be
the father. The statement he gave for the purple of its
being inserted in the register wu that the child was born on
the 3rd of November, was named William Henry, and that
the motlet's name was Elisabeth Perfitt, formerly
Phillips, which was false, as, in fact, the mother
was a single woman. This portion of the entry
was the offence complained of, and in support of it a
witness was called to show that the accused was married on

the 6th of October, 1864, to Frances Powell, who is still
alive. The present proceedings bad been institutad by
Mr. Powell, the brother of defendant's wife, who stated
that Elisabeth Phillips was his (Powell's) wife's sister.
The examination and croia-examination of Mr. Smith
occupied a very considerable time, and was very peculiar.
He could not remember this particular registration, and his
answers, therefore, had only refetence to his usual mode of
doing business. He could not swear that defendant ever
gave the name of Perlitt," se the mother of the child,
and he would not swear that he ever told him the maiden
name was Phillips, but he must have assented to it. If he
did not put the questions, they were always put in his pre-
winos.

Mr. Parry submitted that there was nothing in either the
law or the feet to sustain the present charge. The act of
parliament did not contemplate any information whether
the mother was married or not, neither information of
legitim icy ; nor would it be inconsistent wit► the circum-
stances of the case for the defendant to have given the name
of Perfltt, because that wee a reputed name; although, so
far from there being any evidence of his having done so,
the registrar had stated that it was his practice to assume
that the mother and father were married, and that he had
inserted it as a matter of usage. Defendant had
&dried or shown in any way that Elisabeth Phillips was
his wife. Supposing the case to have been proved, " the
name and maiden surname" had been fairly given, if the
surname were the name of repute.
Mr. Arnold observed that the case was one of importance,
and he would postpone his decision till Friday.
Defendant entered into his own recognisinces to appear
on that day.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
AIMS Betagate was brought before Mr. Bingham charged
with having committed a forgery, in order to defraud the
trustees of the National Provident Institution, St. Martin's-
place.
John Marshall Olive, clerk at the institution, said—On
the 6th of January, the prisoner opened an account by de-
positing a shilling, for which he received a pass book in
which to register (attire payments. On Saturday evening,
about three months afterwards, the prisoner brought the
deposit book, and said he wanted to give notice of bis inten-
tion to withdraw M. Witness looked at the book, and found
that several fictitious entries had been ma le in the book,
and these entries purported to bear the signatures of Wills
and Jones, and of the clerk who took the original and only
deposit of one shilling. The forgery was immediately de-
tected, and witness asked the prisoner if the book had ever
been out of his pogession. The prisoner said his mother-
in-law had kept it for some time. There were no clerks of
the name of Willem Jones in the bank.

Edward Boodle, secretary, said the prisoner was brought
to him by last witness. He asked the prisoner how much
he claimed of the bank. The prisoner replied " Four
pounds." He asked the prisoner if he had empined any '
one to pay in the money. The prisoner replied, he had paid
it in himself. He told the prisoner the affair was a serious
one. The prisoner then said, his father had brought the
money to the bank for him. The book was detained, and
the prisoner allowed to go away, in order to fetch his father.
The prisoner di 1 not return, and he was subsequently
given into custody.
The prisoner declined to mike any defence and was re-
manded for a week.
Matthew' Cooper, described as • gentleman, was charged
with stealing a gold chain, the property of Mr. Packer,
jeweller, Regent-street.
The prisoner went into the shop and asked to see some
chains. He selected one, and while the shopman's atten-
tion was engaged, he secreted another. 'rho ehopmsn missed
the chain and taxed the prisoner with the theft. The pri-
soner put the chain on the counter with his arm, and
wanted to mrke out that the abstraction was an accident.
Remanded.