The Express.
London, England, 1867-10-30 00:00:00

TEE POLICE COURTS.

Edwin Francis Eilf, 36, solicitor, of 4S, Camden-mad.
Camden-town, was brought up on remand before the Lord '
Mayor, charged with forging and uttering a transfer for
100/. Consoli lated Three per Cent. stock, standing in the
names of John Gethen Bartlett and Matthew Thomas
Bartlett, with intent to defraud the governor and company
of the Bank of England.
The preliminary investigation took place last week, and
it then appeared that the Messrs. Bartlett held upwards
of 6001. in Bank of England stock as trustees for their
sister, Mary Ann Hill, the defendant's wife. Application
had been madeto Mr. Matthew T. Bartlett to sell part of the
stock in order that the defendant, who had been a solicitor
in Victor* might be enabled to bring home his wife. Mr.
Bartlett Mused to secede to this request, and the rime
tore of his name to a power of attorney dated 10th Octo-
ber, for the transfer of 1001. of the stock, the proceeds of
which lied been obtained by the defendant, was a forgery,
he not having signed his Dalne to any such document, nor
authorised any one to do so in his behalf.
Mr. Freshfield, solicitor, who appeared for the
cution on the part of the,Bank of England, now stated
that he should require another remand, as Mr. John
Gethen Bartlett had broken his leg, and could not yet
leave his bed.

The following additional evidence was then called:
Henry Webb, detective officer, said he apprehended the
prisoner on Tuesday, 22nd October, on • warrant issued
from this court. He went to the prisoner's address in
Camden-road on the afternoon of that day, and pro-
duced his warrant. Defendant said he was the person it
referred to. Witness then charged him with forging the
power of attorney, and defendant asked, " Who says it is
• forgery ?" Witness replied, " Mr. Matthew
Bartlett ; ' and added that the signature of
Henry Smith, Station-road, Reda, one of the
attesting witnesses, was likewise • forgery. De-
fendant said it was nothing what Mr. Matthew Bartlett
said, and asked, "Have you seen Mr. John Bartlett ?"
Witness said be had, and that he also said it was a forgery.
Defendant said, " It's • lie ; and even supposing it was a
forgery, they lose nothing by it. It is my wife's property."
Witness searched the room and found several drafts of
the settlement of the wife's property ; and he saw a young
woman, who occupied the same room and the same bed as
the defendant. She said her name was Miss Hill, and that
she was the sister of the defendant.

The Lord Mayor—ls she his sister?
Witness—l have made inquiries. and from what I can
learn it appears she is his sister. They took the lodgings
as man and wife.
Defendant—Have I admitted or stated to you that she
was my wife!
The Lord Mayor—He says you stated that she was your
Mater.

Defendant—Did I ever state that we occupied the same
bed

; ■he did.

is true we occupied the came room on ac-
count of extreme poverty, but we certainly did not occupy
the lame bed. _ _ _

Richard Warner, a clerk at Messrs. Glyn•s, the bankers,
proved the payment to the defendant of the amount of the
cheque which he had received from the firm of brokers as
the proceeds of the sale of the stock. The cheque was
cashed on 12th October, and the greater part of the amount
was paid in 5/. bank notes.
William Green, clerk to Messrs. Lloyd and Cbevallier,
solicitors, 30.John-streetMedford-row,esid—Subsequent to
the 12th of October the defendant called on his employers
with whom he bad previously been a clerk. He saw Mr.
Lloyd, and immediately after leaving Mr. Lloyd gave wit-
ness two 5!. bank notes, which he got changed. Defendant
had been indebted to Messrs. Lloyd for money which be
had received as their clerk and not accounted for. Witness
supposed that he would have been liable to a criminal pro-
secution for retaining his employer's money. Defendant
Game in the beginning of the year—January or February—
and left on the nth of August. His calling to pay the
money was after a letter bad been written to him.
Emma Pink said the defendant lodged at her house, and
generally owed her a good deal, but always paid her. The
last thno was on the 13th of October, when he gave her
three 5!. notes, which she had paid over to her landlord.
The case was then remanded for a week.