The Express.
London, England, 1862-10-10 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION .HOUSE.
William Gibson, described as a surgeon, was brongbt up
on remand before the Lord Mayor, to "demo a further ex.

amioation upon a charge of forging and uttering a cheque
for 7501. tic, purporting to be signed by Mr. Seymour,
stockbrokwr, Throstmortou-street, with intent to defraud the
London and County Bank.
The facie of the cue base been already detailed in the
accounta of the previous examinations, and it will be re-
membered that on the lut occasion the case was almost

completed against the prisoner.
Yesterday Mr. Mullins, the solicitor to the Bankers
Protection Association, again attended to prosecute ; and
Mr. Lewis, jun., to defend the prisoner.
Fred. Ford. a clerk in the London and County Bank,
proved that the prisoner had formerly kept an account at
that bank, and that the cheque for 7511. had been taken out
of a book which he himself delivered to the prisoner's order,
on the 22nd of January of the same year.
Mr. Mullion said that completed that case against the
prisoner ; and he was committed for trial upon that charge.
Mr. Mullins said he should proceed against the prisoner
upon another charge of forging and uttering a cheque for
4451. purporting to have been signed by Mr. Butler,
solicitor, id Furnival's•inn, with intend to defraud Mean.
Coutts and Co. _ .

—.—
Mr. Allan, clerk to Messrs. Coutts and Co., said Mr.
Butler, of Enrolees-inn, kept en account at that bank.
On the 4th December list an order, which be produced, for
a cheqae book was presented to him. It purported to be
signed by Mr. Butler, and be delivered a cheque hook on
that order. The cheque produced for 4451., purporting to
be aigoed by Mr. Butler, was one from that book.
Edward William Stanley, cashier at Messrs. Coutts', said
the cheque produced for 4451. was presented to him on the
4th December by • female. It purported to be signed "E.
It. Butler." He paid the cheque in Bank notes to the amount
of x 251, and 1201. in gold. The cheque was presented by •
female.
On being erms-examioed he said he had seen the pri-
soner's wife, and it was not she who presented it.
Mr. Edward Robert Butler, solicitor, Purified's-inn, laid
the order and cheque produced were not signed by him,
neither were they written by his authority. He knew the
prisoner, and had acted for him and his family for some years.
On the 21st February. 1861, be had mama to pay the
prisoner a cheque for 101. He had not a printed cheque at
the time, so he wrote it on a plain piece of paper. He
wrote an order for a cheque book at the same time, and be
might have given it to the prisoner to get it for him, as at
that time be thought he was an honourable man.
On being cross-examined he said be could not swear that
he gave the prisoner the order. He might have does so, but
he had no recollection. He was acquainted with the pri-
soner's writing, but be could not say whether the order
sod the cheque were written by him.
Mr. Bailey, from the accountant's office, Bank of Eng.
lind, produced all the notes with the exception of four,
which were paid by the witness Stanley for the cheque,
those four not having been yet paid into the Bank.
The prisoner was identified by • Mr. &Hirano, a jeweller,
is Greenwich, and his daughter, as having passed one of the
101. notes in payment for a pair of earrings which he pur-
chased at their shop.
A Mr. Stepheos, • licensed victualler, in Holborn. proved
having changed a 5/. note for a person whom be believed to
be the prisoner ; and Mr. Dean. the postmaster at Shore-
ham, in Sussex, identified the prisoner as having given him
• 101. note in payment for a post-office order.
Three notes produced by Mr. Bailey, and which were
jeep in payment for the cheque, were identified by the
witnesses as those tendered by the prisoner.
Mr. Manias said he was not prepared to proceed fur-
ther with the ease, and the prisoner was again remanded.