The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-14 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 14, '853.

estates. There was n'r pretence for inch an allegation.
l`roceeelings were taken against the insolvent to compel
ban to giv rup the collieries, and he offered to quit if he
was paid 6.000:. for certain improvements he said he had
made. The action was re reseed to arbitration, and an
award made fur 9461., which with the costs exceeded 1,0314
The insolvent WAS got out of the collieries, and was now in
prison at the suit of Lord Cardigan. The debts on the
schedule were 3,9701., and the credits 831. The insolvency
was attributed to losses sustained on the collieries he had
possessed.
Mr. Commissioner Law gave judgment. The point was
between the insolvent and Lord Cardigan, as the Hon. Mr.
Norton had complained of •wanton trespass, but disclaimed
being a creditor. As to the case between Lord Cardigan
and the insolvent, he (Mr. Commissioner Law) could not
help saying that ke bad never seen a ease so strongly
marked by effrontery and impudence in falsehood as this
case ; he had never seen one who had been equalled by the
insolvent in that respect. In the impudence of falsehood Le
stood pre-eminent. It would seem that the insolvent had
had a colliery in Seotlsnd, and in 1851, when he qot into
possession of Lord Cardigan's place, he had no capital, or
at least only a little he hod borrowed and obtained as •
trustee. His answers to the circular from the
Bank showed the boldness with which he made
his falsehoods. In reply to one of their questions
as to his capital, and whether borrowed, he wrote
20,0001. or 25,0001., none borrowed." If the insolvent had
as many pence of his own, it was as much as he had. Ad-
vances were obtained and ultimately paid out of as execu-
tion levied on Lord Cardigan's property in the possession
of the insolvent. His Honour referred to some statements
made by the insolvent to the agents of Lord Cardigan of
holding mortgages on his lordship's estates. There was a
boldness in such statements that astounded him. It was a
most audacious attempt of one man to rob another of his
property. His Honour pronounced • judgment at the suit
of Lord Cardigan of nineteen calendar months from
the resting order for the manner in which he had con-
tracted this debt.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
YESTERDAY.

Henry Taylor, 28, a very respectable-looking young
man, was eherged upon three indictments with the offences
of embezzling money helloing to his employers, Messrs.
Bishop and Co., distillers.
Mr. Ballantine, who appeared for the prisoner, said that
upon looking at the facts disclosed in the depositions, he
felt that it would be hopeless for him to attempt to struggle
against a conviction, and the prisoner would therefore, with
lus sanction, plead guilty to the whole of the indictments
against him. He, at the same time, begged to be allowed
to state to the Court, that up to the time of the transactions
in question there had been no imputation upon the cha-
racter of the prisoner, and he bad not falsified the books
or in any way aggravated his offence.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, who appeared for the prosecution,
said he was instructed to admit that the prisoner had
borne an irreproachable character until these offences were
discovered, and also to recommend the prisoner to the mer
ciful consideration of the court. He said he likewise

thought it right to inform his lordship that there was no
doubt that the prisoner had bees led into the commission of
the acts of dishonesty to which he had now pleaded guilty
by the temptation afforded by those abominable places, the
betting-houses in the metropolis. It appeared that the
prisoner had betted to a small amount in the first instance,
and having lost, be increased hie stake, when, being again
unsuccessful, be was induced to make use of the money
belonging to his employers to cover his losses.
The Recorder said, on passing sentence, that it was a
very lamentable thing to see a respectable young man stand-
ing in the position of the prisoner, and his experience in
that court induced him to believe that what had been
stated by the learned counsel with regard to his having
been connected with betting shops was yew likely to have
been the cause of his disgrace. Ile trusted that either by
some act of the legislature, or by the force of public opinion,
places of this description would be done away with, as they
were most undoubtedly a very fruitful source of crime.
The offence to which the prisoner had pleaded guilty was
one of a very serious character ; but taking into considera-
tion that he had been already a considerable time in prison,
and that he had been recommended to mercy by the pro-
secutors, he would refrain from passing a sentence of trans-
portation, although his duty to the public would still com-
pel him to inflict a punishment of considerable severity.
He then ordered the prisoner to be kept to hard labour for
twelve months.

John Rwhaeds, 22, was indicted for feloniously breaking
and entering the dwelling-house of John Crateley, with in-
tent to steal his goods.
The evidence went to show that the prosecutor was a
tradesman residing in Bentinek-street, Manchester-square,
and that on the night named in the indictment, the prisoner
was observed to be lurking about the house, and at
length he opened the private door with a latch key, and
went in. Au alarm was raised, and upon a policeman
going into the house, the prisoner was found in the
bed-room of a highly respectable lady, the widow of an
officer in the army, who was lodging there, and on his
being asked to meant for his being there in the house, he
said that he expected to meet a gentleman. The alarm was
given so instantaneously upon the prisoner making his way
into the house, that he had no opportunity to remove any
property, although his object evidently was plunder.
Mr. Sleigh in his address to the jury for the prisoner,
insinuated that he had gone into the room by appointment
with the lady who was the occupier of it, and upon that
ground be called upon them to acquit him.
The Recorder, when he summed up, told the jury that
he was certainly somewhat surprised that the learned
counsel for the prisoner should have cut se serious an im-
putation upon the character of a lady in her absence, end
especially when, as it appeared to him, there did not seem
to be the slightest foundation afforded for it by the evi-
dence. The jury would, however, take all the circum-
stances of the case into their consideration, and say by their
veroict whether they thought the charge had been estab-
*shed against the prisoner or not.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of
Guilty, and a certificate was then put in showing that the
prisoner had been before convicted of felony.
Mr. Sleigh intimated that if he had been aware of the
existence of a previous conviction he should not have sug-
gested the defence he did to the jury.
The Recorder expressed his opinion that the defence was
quite an unjustifiable one, end that there was not the least
foundation for it.
The prisoner said it was not suggested in his brief.
Mr. Sleigh admitted that the defence was not suggested
to him in his brief, but said that it occurred to him as a
legitimate one to offer to the jury upon the facts of the case.
The jury expressed their opinion that the learned counsel
was not justified in casting such imputation upon the cha-
racter of the lady, as there did not appear to be the slightest
ground for the insinuation.
The Recorder repeated his opinion that such a defence
ought not to have been set up.
The prisoner, who appeared to have a very bad charac-
ter, independent of the formal proof of a previous convic-
tion, was sentenced to be transported torten years.
The Retarder on passing a sentence of transportation upon
several prisoners in the course of the day, took occasion to
observe, that although the important question of secondary
punishment was still under consideration by the govern-
ment, and there was some doubt whether persons who were
sentenced to transportation, would in point of fact be sent
out of this country, yet he felt it his duty in all the cases
that seemed to him to require the infliction of that punish-
ment to pus a sentence of transportation, and then place
the parties in the hands of the government. He thought it
right, however, to let be known that in every instance where
a sentence of transportation was passed upon a prisoner, that
under all circumstances it would entail upon him a very
lengthened period of most severe imprisonment, and that if
a prisoner should eventually be sent out of this country, he
would most certainly not be sent to any portioa of the colo-
nies where gold was to be obtained.