The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

Rain intelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-YESTERDAY.
SITTINGS AT Nua PRINS AT OTILDIIIIL.L.7BOOSZ ML JUATICII EYJA

AND • COMMON ,Ireor.
THE QUEEN V. CECIL AND STEGOIE.

This was an indictment against the defendant Cecil, u
treasurer, and Steggie, as secretary, of the City Good In-
tent Society, charging them with conspiring together to
defraud the society of certain moneys, the property of
Barnett and another.

Mr. Charnock and Mr. Woollett appeared for the prose-
cution; Mr. E. James, Q.O and Mr. Budillestone defended
Cecil; and Mr. Ball defended Stcggie.
It appeared that the society was one constituted for
making loans of money advanced by the members, of whom
there were about 12, to persons who made applications, and
of whose respectability they were satisfied. The meetings
used to be held at the defendant Cecil's house, the Star
Tavern, until he gave up that house, and also his office of
treasurer. tipon his doing this, he gave in a list of certain
numbers, which designated certain persons, to whom it ap-
peared by the books that loans had been made, and directed
the attention of the society to those persons. Upon this, in-
quiries were made, and it was discovered that some of these
persons were altogether fictitious, and some of the others had
never had any loans at all, and the rest not to the amount which
appeared in the books. The secretary wu then charged
with the fraud, and admitted that the persons referred to
had not received the money, and that the entries were fic-
titious, and accounted for it by saying that Cecil had in-
duced him to commit the fraud in order that he might be
able to pay hint (Cecil) a sum of money which ho owed
him ; that he had accordingly done so, and Cecil had the
money. The defalcation amounted to 571. 10s., and Steg-
gie had undertaken to repay it at the rate of 15s. per week,
:mil had paid some instalments of that amount. It ap-
peared also that about the time of the discovery Cecil had
come into considerable property, and an application had
been made to him through his solicitor to repay the money,
which he refused, and said he was quite willing to go into
the account and repay every farthing that they could show
he had ever had, and claimed a share of 201. then due to
him from the funds of the society. It appeared, more-
over, that since the defalcations the trustees had been
changed, and the intent in the indictment was
laid to be to defraud Barnett and another, those
being thu trustees when the indictment was pre-
ferred, but not when the fraud was committed.
It was contended that the indictment 113,4 had upon that
ground, and the point was reserved by the learned 4udge.
►t was then contended for Cecil that there was no evidence
against him, except the statements of tlu other defendant,
made in his absence ; and the indictment was an attempt to
extort from him payment of the defalcations, in conse-
quence of his having come into some property. And it was
contended for Stcargie that, as there was no evidence
against Cecil, and lie was entitled to be acquitted, he
(Steggie) must also be acquitted, as one person could not
conspire.
The jury acquitted both the defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER v .-.ESTERDAY.

sift Y. POLLOCK. C.U., am, 1.4V1.... 0.310 N

JVIIII.A.

BOOKER O. TUE ROYAL BRITISH DANK.-PLLESEXTATION

or CHEQUES.

This was an action to recover 921. Ti. 6d., the amount of
a cheque drawn by one Bolding upon iiteS-1113. Glyn and
Co.'s Bank. The cheque was paid into the defendant's
about one o'clock in the afternoon of the 13th of March, but
I they did not present it for payment at Messrs. Glyn and
Co. s until next day, when it was dishonoured. If it had
been presented on the 13th it would have been paid ; but
the ib.feneo set up was that the defendant's course of
business was to present cheques paid to them after half-
past twelve o'clock on the day after, and that they
had received the cheque in question after one o'clock.
The plaintiff called persons employed in various
hanks in London, Glyn's, Banbury's, the London County,
the Bank of England, the Commercial Bank, the Loudon
and Westminster, the Union Bank, the London Joint Stock
Bank, &c., to prove that cheques on City bankers were in-
variably presented fur payment upon the day they were paid
in, up to half-past 3 o'clock daily.
Mr. Bramwell, for the defendant., submitted that the
plaintiff was fully aware of the terms upon which they did
business ; and that their practice was to present cheques
until the neat day, if not presented before half-past twelve
o'clock. There was no evidence whatever of Mr. Bolding's
circumstances, or whether the plaintiff had lost anything by
the nun-presentation of the cheque until the 14th of 31arcli.
The question was not what was a reasonable practice, but
what the parties had agreed upon.
After a brief summing up by the Lord Chief Baron, the
jury at once found a verdict fur the plaintiff, with 921.76. 6d.
damages.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.—YmTERDAY.
%rasa me thellatblUt.
110•11/ ILT OF ♦ FAWN UttOKEtt.
- .

Solomon Hyoms, 40, described as a dealer, and Santis
Ilya nit, 27, his wife, were indicted for stealing a quantity
of silk and other articles, the property of Richard Atten-
borough.
It appeared that the prosecutor is a pawnbroker, and on
the night of the 31st of March one of his shops was entered
and a considerable quantity of valuable property stolen
from it. There was no evidence whatever to show who the
parties were by whom the robbery was effected, but it ap-
peared that shortly afterwards a police constable of the City
force went, in consequence of information he received, to
the house of a Jew named Lyons, where he found
the greater part of the stolen property, and it
turned out that it had been brought there by the female
prisoner, who stated at the time that she had quarrelled
with her husband, and did not intend to live with him
again, and she represented that the bundle she had with her
contained her bed. Tho prisoners were then taken into
custody, and upon the inspector at the police station 'Rifting
some questions to the male prisoner, he said that the pro-
perty all belonged to him, and that he had purchased it ;
but when he was asked for the invoices of the goods, he
declined to give any further information.
The jury found the man Guiltyof receiving, and acquitted
the female prisoner.
The prisoners were then charged upon a second indict-
ment with a similar offence.
The jury again found the man Guilty of receiving, and
acquitted the woman.
The Recorder sentenced him to be transported for seven
years.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-HODSS.

A labouring mansrl---brOught beforethe Lord Mayor
charged with having obstructed the °Seen of police at the
spot occupied by the fallen premises in Gracechurch-strect.
It appeared that the defendant, although it had become
necessary for his own safety, as well as the general conve-
nience, to remove him from the ground, had been merely
induced by compassion for the poor fellows who were sup-
posed to be still buried under the rubbish to work in the
und.-t of the utmost danger, and
The Lord Mayor told hint that as his intentions were un-
questionably good, although his disobedience to the autho-
rity of the police was calculated to do mischief, he should
be discharged upon the promise not to go to the ground
until properly sanctioned.

SOUTHWARK.
Henry Jarris, a solicitor, was charged with stealing a bill
of exchange, the property of Mr. Thomas Wenham.
Prosecutor stated that he formerly carried on business as a
stock broker, and had employed the prisoner as his solici-
tor. In 1841, requiring a little ready money, he handed
the prisoner his acceptance for Zit Gd., at a long date,
to get discounted, at the same time placing in his bands a
number of deeds relative to property, as a collateral security
for the payment of the money. lie repeatedly applied to
the prisoner for the money afterwards, but was put off
from time to time, and could not get any satisfaction. He,
however, obtained the deeds from him, and after the bill
became due witness was actually sued by the prisoner for
the amount, in the name of a female whom he had since
ascertained was in the queen's prison ; but he believed no
other person was concerned in the affair but the prisoner,
consequently be gave him into custody.
A solicitor for the prosecution prayed for a remand, to
enable him to bring terward further evidence.
The prisoner's solicitor objected, inasmuch as the prose-
cutor had had plenty of time to ascertain whether the pri-
soner had brought his action Lora fide. The fact was, the
prosecutor had allowed the action to proceed, and judgment
had gone by default.
Mr. A'Beekett said there was not sualcient evidence
for him to detain the prisoner, consequently be smut be
discharged.
As soon as he left the dock a constable from the City ap-
prehended him ou another charge, and took him before the
Lord Mayor, at the Mansion-house. In fact, there was
quite a scramble for him, no kr than three obatifs cam
Nag &Mauna to sem his.