The Express.
London, England, 1853-09-02 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

Win. Stream Sturges, clerk and Lubin to Mr. C. J.
Stewart„theological bookseller, of 11 Kiog William•street,
Strand, was brought up before Mr. Hall for re-suntination
on several charges of embeulement and forgery.
Mr. Dunn (Dunn and Swum) conducted the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Mullen, of the firm of Bush and Mullen*,
attended to watch the case on behalf of the bankers.

It was stated at the previous examination that the pri-
soner had admitted having appropriated upwards of 6001.,
and some additional evidence being now taken to complete
a third cue of embezzlement, the forgery charges were I
proceeded with.
Richard Basbouy, clerk to Messrs. Barnard, Hoare, and
Co., brokers, proved that, as agents of the Lougbborougk
Bank, the firm received a hank order in April, 1862, to pay
the sum of 101.75. to Mr. C. J. Stewart, en behalf of the
Rev. Dr. Adam& As usual in such cues, a blank cheque
was supplied to the person demanding payment to Resigned
by the party in whose favour the order is made, and en the
16th of the month the cheque was brought back, signed
" Charles J. Stewart," upon which the money was paid to
the bearer. _ _ _ _ .

Witness produed the cheque, and Mr. Stewart said the
signature was a forgery.
Isaac Knight, clerk to Messrs. Olyn, Mills, and Co.,
bankers, deposed to a similar order received from the Old
Leeds Bank in July last, and directing the payment of '
61. 7s. to Mr. Stewart on behalf of the Rev. R. Wilson.
The usual blank cheque wu supplied to the applicant, and
subsequently returned, signed Charles J. Stewart," upon
which the amount was duly paid.
The prosecutor stated that this was also a forgery, and
that he received either of the sums in question.
Mr. Mullen—llid you ever authorise the prisoner to re-
ceive moneys in your name ?
Mr. Stewart—Certainly, as my servant be had a general
authority to do so ; but not to sign my name.
Mr. Mathias—But if one of these cheques had been
handed to you by the prisoner, and the money duly paid to
you, aWuld you have said anything about it ?
Mr. Stewart—lf I had seen an attempt to imitate my
signature I should have complained of it, of course. The
was only authorised to sign hie own name, on my
Cis r
behalf, is the ordinary way of business—just as he has
signed some of the receipts now before you—" For J. C.
Stewart."

--
Mr. Mullein—l wish to know, should you not have taken
the 10i. 7s. in the ordinary way, if it bad been paid to you ?
Mr. Hall—Pray answer the question ; it is a very impor-
tant one. - _ -- - .

Mr. Stewart—Undoubtedly I should have received the
money without knowing that he had imitated my signature.
I knew nothing about it. He was authorised to open my
letters and to collect moneys. I could not have complained
of the signature to the cheque if I saw it.
Mr. Mullein—The question is, did you not give the pri-
soner a general authority to receive moneys in your name ?
11 Mr. Stewart—Yes, in the ordinary way of bees.
Mr. Mullane—Then the case falls to the ground. There
is no forgery at all.
Mr. Hall—l quite concur with Mr. Mullen, who is a
gentleman of great experience, having bad more experience
in these cases than any man in London.
Mr. Stewart—There must be some misunderstanding.
Surely there is a distinction between allowing a servant
to sign his own name on my behalf (which is the
common practice in business), and allowing him to imitate
my signature—to sign my own name ? T one is usual,
the other is a forgery.
Mr. Hall—There is no use in arguing the point. There
is the "general authoeity," which, as Mr. Mullein has
shown, is fatal to the case. It could stand.
Mr. Dunn, publicly, and in private argument subse-
quently, endeavoured to contest this punt, but without
effect, and the prisoner was committed on the embezzle-
ment charge only.
---------- -

Shortly before the closing of the court, Richard 'Par-
dingtoss, aged 93, of Peterborough, engine driver, and
JosrpA Woods, of Peterborough, fireman, were brought up
in the custody of Win. Fisher, a detective officer, and
Sergeant Wilkes, 13 division, and charged before Mr. Conic
with negligently driving an engine on the Great Northern
Railway, and endangering the lives of passengers in the
parish of Hornsei.
Mr. Thomas Williams, superintendent of police of the
Great Northern Railway, attended, and said that the pri-
soners were charged with negligence in disregarding the
signals, and had caused considerable damage and injury to
the property, and the lives of passengers were endangered,
whilst others had their legs broken, and sustained other
injuries.
After hearing some evidence,
Mr. Conic said he would accept bail, two sureties is the
amount of 801. for the fireman, and two in 201. each for
the other prisoner, to appear on a future day to answer the
charge. He added that be considered there ought to have
been three men to conduct the signals.
Mr. Owen and Thomas Hicks, the driver of the pilot
engine, became bail in the required amounts, and the pri-
soners were liberated.

Just before Mr. Come left the bench, Dr. Mader (as OUT
reporter understood), the Roman catholic priest, emotive.
nied by another gentleman, applied to the bench with re-
ference to the ease of Pierre Paulsennette, who described
himself as a Roman catholic priest, the particulars of which
appeared in yesterday's paper, and requested to obtain an
inspection of the documents found in his possession, as they
knew nothing of him, and they had no doubt he was an
Impostor. The Rev. Dr., now present, was connected with
the intended erection of an Italian Roman catholic church
in Rattan-garden, but knew nothing of such • person as
the prisoner wu described to be.
Kr. Cowie said the papers were in possession of the Nice
M the station.house ma referred them there, and recom-
nseddeo them to attend on the day of remand.
The applicants then left the court.
WORSHIP-STREET.

A powerful cunt named Andrew Smith, described w a
tripe drawer, in Union Buildings, Shoreditch, was charged
with having violently assaulted and cruelly maltreated his
wife.

The oomplainent, whale face was shockingly contused and
swollen, and both her eyes blackened, stated that she bad
been untried %towards of ten years to the prisoner, by
whom she had a family of eight children, and that he had
been in the habit, during the greater pert of that period,
of subjecting her to constant and systematic ill-treatment.
On the previous afteraoon he commenced quarrelling with
her, without the slightest provocation, and after wailing
her with the most opprobrious end threatening epithets,
declared that he had made up his mind to turn her out of
doors' end leave her to seek her living up= the Meets. floe
used her best efforts to appease him to no purpose, and
feeling greatly exasperated at his offensive expressions, she
at length told him that he had better addrees sack
language to a woman living in the neighbourhood, aid
with whom she had every reason to believe that he carried
on an improper correspondence. The instant she had
uttered the observation, the defendant commenced an un-
merciful attack upon her, and after striking her repeated
blows about the head and face, ultimately knocked her
down and kicked her in a brutal manner in the lower put
of her person. the was at length rescued from further ill-
treatment by some of her neighbours, who sent for a torice-
, man, end gave the defendant into custody. Thu com-
plainant added that only • short time since she was dor-
fined for some weeks in the London Hospital from the
effects of the savage violence of the defendant, who, on that
occasion, fractured several of her ribs, and that in addition
to the severe bruises which she now exhibited about her
face and head, she had sustained such serious injuris on
different parte of her person that she was scarcely able to
stand upright.
Mr. Mr. D'Eyncourt immediately ordered the eomplainut to
be conveyed into a private room, when she was carefully
examined by Mrs. Olibbery, the win of the *Alm-keeper,
who stated, on her return into court, that her legs, arms,
and ether parts of her body exhibited contu'ions which
wen evidently occasioned by kicks or heavy blows.
In answer to the charge, the defendant admitted the
I assault, but sail that his wife was a person of very violent
and drunken habits, and that he had acted under feelings
of strong provocatio...
A woman, named Anne Ward, was called on behalf of
the defendant, whose recriminatory statement was to some
extent borne out by her evidence.
Mr. D'Eyncourt said, that however culpable the com-
plainant might be in her general conduct, nothing whatever
could justify sneh a brutal and cowardly attack upon her,
and he should order the defendant to pay a penalty of 10/.,
or be committed in default for three months to the House
of Correction, in addition to which he must enter into sub-
stantial sureties for his good behaviour for the farther term
of six months,
LAMBETH.

Robert Hawke., the driver of a Ransom eab, 2,640, and
the owner of the badge 11,404, appeared to answer the can-
plaint of Mr. Edward Frances, for demanding and receiv-
ing more than his legal fare.
Mr. Frans% who fri we to gas of the Surrey magistrates,
deposed thee Maid lledeakcia the aidht of Sunday la" h.
hired the abasmarnhairmi la es Rs heir 42d ~„..a••
sired him le delve bislitheW accom_...,--
Yauhalltddise. Os rift as so is Math bowmen

b. went to sleep, and when awoke he found that the de-
fendant had driven him to the far end of Wandsworth
town. He then told him that he did not want to go near
so far as that, and desired him to drive bins back to his

home at Lavender -bill,
• • •

The defendant did

---
so. end oa patting hisidown demanded 6s. In making out
thh amount, the defendant made the distance 8 miter,
whirl!' was 44. and a Is. back carriage. Me, Mr. Frances,
told him he was not entitled to any back carriage, but the
defendant, who was anything but civil, insisted on the pay-
ment of Is.
. . _ .

The defendant in reply said, that when the complainant
had paid the turnpike at South Lambeth, he told ham he
should tell him where to stop, and presuming he would do
so he continued to go on and on until he came to a cross- .
road, and then on looking through the top found his fare
fast asleep. He awoke him to take hie order as to which of
the roads he wished to proceed by, upon which he said he
did not want to go to Wandsworth at all, and ordered him
to drive back to his residence on Battetseserise. For this
distance his worship would find that Instead of charging
too much, he had actually charged too little by at least a
shilling, as the act of parliament allowed him a shilling a
mile for every mile he travelled beyond the radius of four
miles from Charing-cross.
Mr. Elliott, referring to the act, obeerved that the addi-
tional charge of sixpence for each mile could only be muds
where the cabman was discharged beyond the ra&us of four
miles, and the meson the legislature allowed the additional
charge was this—that the supposition was that they should
return without a fare. In the present instance, though
taken beyond the radius he was taken back again and
therefore could not charge more than sixpence per mite.
The defendant here remarked that it was impression that
the house of Mr. Frances, if the distance was measured,
would be found to be more than four miles from Charing-
cross, and therefore his fare was not excessive.
Mr. Frances admitted that if measured by a wheel his
house would be found to Wipers than four miles, but that if
measured on the map, or as the crow flies, agreeable to the
Hackney Cab Act, it would be found to be within the
prescribed circle by three-quarters of a mile. Mr. Frances
added that he should not 11111111 thought of taking the pre-
sent proceedings against the defendant if he had spologised
to him on the night in question.
The defendant denied that his conduct was improper or
uncivil, and said the reading of the act by the cab pro-
prietors was very different from that of his worship. If he
(Mr. Elliott) was correct portions might take a cab and ride
to Richmond and back again within the radius, discharge
them, and do the whole journey for 6d. a mile.
Mr. Elliott replied that this was the fact. He then con-
victed the defendant in the mitigated penalty of five
shillings and costs.

VALE OF NEATH RAILWAY.

The half-yearly meeting of this company was held
on Wednesday afternoon at the Castle Hotel, in NeathEMr.
H. A. Blume, M.P., presiding, in the absence of Lord
. .

WILLIAMS, the secretary, read the report, which
M showed en clean in the traffic of 173 per cent. in goods
and minerals, and 29 per cent on passengers, on the corre-
sponding half-year of 1852. With respect to the appropria-
tion of debenture interest, the directors recommended the
adoption of the same principle as that which received the
sanction of the proprietors at the last meeting. After this
deduction there would remain an available surplus for e
dividend of 2 per cent.per annum upon the operations of the
past half-year. The arrears of calls had been further re-
duced by 38,6191., and the board proposed a forfeiture of a
further number of shares on which the calls had not been
paid up.
The CHAIRMAN, moved the adoption of the directors'
report.
Mr.ALLITItI seconded the resolutims,which, after a short
discussion, was adopted.
The usual formal resolution, declaring the dividend, was
then put, the chairman expressing his confident belief that
this would be the last time they would have to declare so
small a dividend ; and also a resolution declaring 1,036
shares forfeited, were then carried ; and the usual votes of
thanks closed the processclinga of the meeting.