The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-24 00:00:00

proeccutrin and her frien Is, the sours felt boa• d
to increase by two months the sentence he would
otherwim have received. The sencenc3 was, three months'
imprisonment in the House of Correc•ion ; at the espiratb•n
of that term he must had security or his future good be
baviour.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-HOUSE.
FOROIBT.—J. W. Robert. w.s brought before Alderman
Lawrence upon four separate charges of forgery.
Mr. Walter Long, of Lawrence Pountney-hill, solicitor,
stated that the prisoner, who was his clerk, had been in the
habit of going to the Commercial Bank of London, in
Lothtury,, with cheques from the house, and that the seve-
ral cheques of the following dates and amounts were not in
his handwriting, viz., for 31., dated 28th April, 1849; for
21., May 14; for 21., May 17 ; for 31., May 19. He believed
the cheques to be in the hand eriting of the prisoner, who
had no authority from him to sign them, and he knew that
they must have been torn from his cheque-book. He dis-
covered the forgeries upon his return to town on the pre
eking day.
Mr. H. J. Hall, clerk and cashier in the Commercial
Bank of London, said he paid the four cheques over the
counter, and plated them to Mr. Long's account in the
natal manner.
The prisoner, upon being asked whether he wished to ray
anything, replied in the negative, and he was committed for
GUILDHALL.
RAILWAY SPICULATION UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.—
COlkerifte Stu/c, of 225, Blackftiars road, was charged
with commissioning Mr. W. Barton, a stock-broker, to pur-
elms for her 1,0001. worth of London and North-Westera
stock, and afterwards refusing to ply for it, or for the loss
occasioned thereon amounting to 371. 18s.
Mr. Willie= Barton stated : on the 23rd of April last,
Mrs. Steil: brought me the card of a friend of mine, named
Stone, with whom I have doze business for some years, and
stid she wished me to purchase 1,0001 worth of stock in the
Loudon and North-Western Railway. From the recom-
mendation she offered, I purchased at 133 per cent., and she
gave me her name and address, Catherine Stulz, of Edensor,
Bakewell, Derbyshire, and said she would call in the coarse
of two or three days and pay for the stock. She ought to
have called on the 29th of April, but I received a note dated
the 27th of April, in consequence of which I kept the con-
tract open until the 2nd of May, when I went to Mr. Stone.
He said whet he did not know the prisoner, and had not re-
commended her to me. On the same day I received a letter
from her, without any address, and two others on subsequent
occasions. Since then I have not seen the prisoner until
today, when she called and laid that she had not got the
money, but would make it up in commissions, by recom-
mending her friends. I told her I could not let her leave
the office, when she struggled to get away, and I afterwards
gave her into custody.
Alderman Carden: Have any other brokers been served
in a similar way ?—Mr.. Barton; There are a number of
stockbrokers who and suffererslike myself, and it was only •
few days since that a notice was put up in the Stock En-
change cautioning all brokers to beware of the prisoner.
Alderman Carden asked the prisoner what defence she
had to make.—Mrs. Stutz, who is about 36 or 37 years of
age, said she had expected to receive a large sum of money, in
common with other parties, under a will, but was disap-
pointed.
Mr. Stephen Callon, of the Stock Exchange, said that he
knew the prisoner well. She was accustomed to deal in
shares, and speculated constantly, and at the present time
owed him money.
Another gentleman produced some letters, which he said
would show that the prisoner had been carrying on the same
system amongst the brokers at Manchester.
Alderman Carden said he could not call the transactions
by any other term than that of wholesale swindling. There
was sufficient evidence to remand her for a week, under the
false pretence that she had money to lay out, and in the
meantime he had no doubt there would be other parties
coming forward.—She was then removed.
SOUTHWARK.
DOOS AND CIGARS IN RAILWAY CARRIADEB.—Mr.
C. Colville was charged with assaulting Thomas Ben-
net, one of the "nerds in the employ of the South
Eastern Railway Company in the execution of his
duty, and Mr. Walter Gilmore, Mr. Wyndham Barclay
Portman, Mr. Henry Lumley, and Mr. Richard King, were
charged with having been concerned in the alleged assault.
The complainant stated that on the previous night, when
the quarter before 10 o'clock train was about starting from
the Greenwich terminus, the defendants came on the plat-
form, and entered a first-Class =visite. Observing that one
of them, Mr. Colville, was followed by a dog, he told that
gentleman that he could not be allowed to take the animal,
as it was againstthe regulations, but he paid no regard to the
intimation, and pushed him on one side. Witness, however,
opened the carriage door, and insisted that the animal
should not remain there, and was proceeding to take it out,
when Mr. Colville pushed him with such force, as
to throw him down on the platform, and in the
fall his lentern was smashed to pieces. Witness
then celled for help, and one of his fellow-servants
came up, when both of them made an effort to remove the
doe, but their exertions were fruitless, and as the time for
the starting of the train arrived, he (witness) locked the ear-
riage door in which ell the defendants were seated in order
that none of them should esmthe until they arrived at the end
of their journey. Witness also 'teethed that one of the de.
fondants was smoking a cigar, and when he informed him
that it was prohibited he paid no regard to the intimation,
hut continued to smoke. When the train arrived at the
London.bri.?ge terminus, he unlocked the carriage in which
the defeetants were seated, and having explained to the in-
spector what bad occurred, that officer proceeded to take Mr.
Colville into custody, whereupon be was struck on the eye,
which was blackened from the effects of the blow.
William Widdows said that he was porter in the service of
the company, and that he saw Mr. Colville throw the
complainant down and break his lent, n. He (witness) at-
tempted to remove the defendant from the carriage, but
failed in it, and received a thrust in the breast from the
point of an umbrella.
The clerk to the Solicitors of the Railway Company pro-
duced their bye laws, and pointed out the clauses applicable
to the alleged offences, and stated that there were boards
stuck up at the terminus prohibiting smoking in the car-
riages, as well as a notice that dogs were not allowed in
them.
Mr. Seeker, in examining the clauses referred to, how-
ever, was of opinion that the interference of the guard in
attempting to take one of the defendants into custody, on
seeing the dog follow him into the carriage, was net sanc-
tioned by the act; that it wes the complainant's duty to
have summoned him for the offence; and that with respect
to the smoking of the cigar in a carriage, that was also en
offence which gave the company the power of summoning a
party for it, and, on its being proved, a defendant rendered
himself liable to a penalty of 40i. All that subsequently
took place at the London-bridge terminus mess out of the
manner in which the guard conducted himself by adopting a
summary mode of proceeding.
A Mr. Cunningham stepped forward and said that he
was in the carriage with the defendant., and from his so-
count it you'd appear the guard was not assaulted by Mr.
Colville, but by another gentleman, who was not present is
court, and whose name be refused to disclose. The witness
said tkat the behaviour of the guard, and other authorities
Winging to the railway company, was violent in the ex-
treme, and he added that the inspector was intoxicated, a
charge which that officer denied.
A gentleman, not conne:ted with either party. stated
that he was present during the whole of the transaction, and
that he considered the complainant and the other persons be-
longing to the railway company had been excessively
used oa the occasion.
Mr. Seeker said that there was so much enntlietiag testi-
mony in the case, that instead of deciding it he should ad-
judge the defendants to enter into their recegnisances of
401. each to appear there on a future day in order to give the
complainant an opportunity of indicting them at the see-
sione—The required sureties were immediately entered into,
and the parties left the court.