The Express.
London, England, 1866-09-22 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

lIANSION:HOU§E.

A respectable-looking middle-aged man, who gave the
name of Francis PairOurn, and who was described in the
charge sheet as of 42, Pigott-street, Limehouse, commercial
traveller, was charged before Alderman Lusk, M.P., with
obtaining by false pretences from William Underwood a
coat, value 21. 25., with intent to cheat and defraud Tho-
mas ReTnolds.
Mr. L nderwood deposed that he was manager at the
establishment of Mr. Reynolds, tailor and outfitter, 56,
Fenchurch-street, and that on the 31st August the prisoner
entered the shop and stated that he required to be supplied
with an overcoat. Several were shown and fitted on, and
at last the prisoner selected the one he was now wearing,
the price of which was 21. 2s. He said that his name was
James Hadley, and he was one of the firm of thatname car-
rying on business at the City Flour Mills, Upper Thames-
street. He directed the bill to be sent there that evening,
any time before seven o'clock, or the following day
between ten in the morning and six o'clock in the
evening, as he should be there all that time.
Believing his statements, and knowing the respectability
of Mr. Hadley, the witness permitted the prisoner to walk
away wearing the coat, and the same evening, when the
bill was presented, the fraud was discover. Nothing
was heard or seen of the prisoner until the previous after-
noon, when he saw the prisoner crossing Fenchurch-street,
still wearing the overcoat. The witness accosted him,
and told him that he should give him in custody for ob-
taining the coat by false pretences, on which the prisoner
said, " Oh, pray do not do that ; I will pay you for it."
He was, however, given into custody, and at the police
station he gave the witness a note to a gentleman having
offices in Crosby-ball-chambers, stating that he was in a
dilemma and locked up, and requesting him to pay the
witness 21. 2s. The witness went with the note, but the
prisoner's request was refused.
In reply to Mr. Oke, the chief clerk, the witness said
that if he had got the money he should not have "booked"
the charge at the police station. He left the prisoner in
custody there while he went to Crosby-hall-chambers with
the note.
Mr. Burnam Charles Hadley proved that he was sole
proprietor of the City Flour Mills, Upper Thames-street,
and that there was not, nor ever had been, any one of the
name of James Hadley connected in any way with his firm.
He had known the pnsoner about two years ago as being
a traveller, or salesman, to some of the millers attending
Mark-lane. The prisoner has never been employed by him,
and of course he had not given him his authority to get
the coat.
The prisoner said now that if be had not been inebriated
at the time he shonld not have committed himself as he
bad done. There was however now • gentleman in court
who would pay for the coat.
The Chief Clerk remarked that it was now too late to
settle the matter in that way.
The gentleman alluded to said he had known the pri-
soner for 20 years, and he bad always borne • most
respectable character.
Mr. Alderman Ludic said that the prbsoner's character
would be spoken to before the tribunal to which he would
be sent.