The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 1, 1867.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before the Recorder.)

Adam (Mir, tailor, and Philibert Kochmann, printer,
were charged with unlawfully obtaining, by means of false
pretences, from Conrad Hammill and another, eight casks
of wine, value 27M, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Houston prosecuted ; and Mr. Straight defended.
The prosecutors, Messrs. Hummill and Schmidt, were
wine merchants in Bavaria, and had been induced by the
prisoner Oster to consign eight casks of Rhenish wino to
Bochmann and Co. 3 and 4, Bohn-street, Stepney, but no
such firm ever existld, and the wine was sold by the pri-
aoner at prices far below its real value. A curious part of
the case was that immediately after the wine was landed
Oster wrote to the prosecutors that the " great firm of
Beckmann and Co." bad failed, to the astonishment of
the mercantile community of the Cityof London, and he ad-
vised them not to send any more wine to the bankrupt firm.
It appeared that Kochmann occupied a room in Bohn-street
where the business was professed to be carried on, and his
defence was that he really intended to pay for the
wine at the expiry of six months, credit being granted
for that length of time. In behalf of Oster, who resided
at 1, Elfin-villas, Forest-hill, it was suggested that he had
been deceived by the other prisoner who, he alleged, repre.
sented that he intended to carry on a bona fide wine
business.
. . . . _

The jury, after consulting a few minutes, returned a
verdict of Guilty against both prisoners.
The Recorder ..aid they had been convicted on perfectly
clear evidence of a grata fraud, and the sentence of the
court therefore was, that they be kept to hard labour for
eighteen calendar months.

Rearm Brook, ironranger, was placed at the bar on a
charge substantially of forging a trade mark with intent to
defraud.

Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. F. H. Lewis prosecuted, and Mr.
Poland and Mr. Straight were for the defence.
The prosecutor was Mr. R. Hodges, of Southampton-
row, who manufactured an article called an " accumula-
tor," or door spring. For this article Mr. Brook acted as
an agent for eleven years, but in 1866, Mr. Hodges, not
being satisfied with his conduct, refused any longer to
supply him. The defendant then made use of the ex-
pression that he would be left to his own resources, and he
accordingly got a similar article made, and sold them in
printed wrappers similar to those used by the prosecutor.
The patent having expired in 180, anybody was at liberty
to manufacture the ' accumulator," but the charge was
that be deposed of those of his own make under the re-
presentation that they were the prosecutor's.
Evidence having been given as to the facts of the case,
Mr. Poland remarked•that if the defendant had called
the articles Brook's accumulators he would thereby have
been robbing Mr. Hodges of the credit of the invention.
The Recorder, in summing up, said the question was
whether the labels were so constructed as to endeavour
to make people believe that they were manufactured by
Mr. Hodges, whereas they were manufactured by Mr.
Brook.

The jury returned a verdict of Not Gail! y, and the
defendant wu accordingly discharged.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)

John Borrington, James Dyer, William Dyer and
George Sham, were indicted for entering the warehouse
of William Henry Quint, and stealing divers quantities of
chintz and ribbon. The Dyers and Shaw were also charged
with breaking into the dwelling•house of Letitia Webb ;
and the Dyers alone were further charged with stealing a
number of umbrellas and other articles, the property of
John Allen.

Mr. Poland and Mr. Bailey conducted the prosecution ;
Mr. George Griffiths appeared for the two Dyers ; Mr.
M. Williams and! Mr. Richard Harris for Shaw ; and Mr.
W. P. MacDonald for Norrington. The counsel for the
prosecution were instructed by Mr. Nelson, the City Soli-
citor ; and those for the defence by Mr. Bing, Basinghall-
street.

The circumstances will he fresh in the recollection of the
public. It appeared that the premises, 1 and 2, Portland-
street, Portland-square, were occupied by William Henry
Quint, and, as was customary, they were locked up about
four o'clock on the afternoon of Saturday, 14th September.
On the following Monday morning it was found that the
premisas had been broken open, the warehouse ransacked,
and a large quantity of chintz and ribbon carried away.
Information was at once given to the police, and every
effort was made to trace the perpetrators of the mt. On
the 21st September a number of officers of the City police
force who had been making diligent inquiry, were on the
watch in the neighbourhood of Tottenham-court-road.
While there, they saw Herrington, James Dyer, and Shaw,
whom they took into custody, and in the possession of Her-
rington was a parcel containing some of the property
stolen from the premises of Mr. Quint. There were also
found on him some sketches on paper of skeleton keys.
The officers then went to 4, Stephemstreet, at which place,
in a room on the fourth floor, lived James and William
Dyer, and there they recovered another portion of the
stolen property. This was claimed by William Dyer, who
said he bought it on the previous day from a man whom he
did not know. A further search was made which resulted
in the finding of a small crowbar, a vice, and 10 skeleton
keys, and in a loft between the ceiling and the roof of the
house there was another quantity of skeleton keys, one of
which fitted the door of the premises where the robbery
had occurred. A search was also made at the house of a
sister of the Dyers, at No. 7, Stephen-street, and in the
cellar the officers recovered a further portion of Mr. is
property, while, at the place where Shaw lived in Berry.
street, they found some of the stolen ribbons, and
also maw his wife and another woman wearing
aprons made of the chintz abstracted from the
prosecutor's warehouse. Another material fact against
the prisoners was that some of them were observed loiter.
ing in the neighbourhood of Portland-street about the
time the robbery must have been committed. They were
also charged with two other burglaries, some further stolen
property which was subsequently identified having been
found at the house of the Dyers while search was being
made in connection with the robbery at Mr. Quint's. It
appeared that the dwelling-house, 122, Gower-street, was
occupied by Letitia Webb and her mother. On the Ist of
August the house was locked up and the family went to
the seaside. Returning on the 29th of the same month,
they found that the house had been broken into and robbed
in a most scientific manner. Tire cellar had been opened,
a hole cut through the wall, and en iron-lined door having
been cut open, an entrance had been thus effected to the
upper part of the house, from which the thieves
had taken away property valued at from 1501.
to 2001. Part of it was found at the house
of the two Dyers, another part in the cellar of the sister's
house, and the remainder had been disposed of at various
pawnbrokers. The third offence was committed on the 4th
of August at the warehouse of Mr. Allen, umbrella manu-
facturer, Regent-street, and the circumstances of the case
were somewhat similar to those of the two previous ones.
The evidence on the first charge occuping the greater
part of the day, the others were not gone into.
The jury found the prisoners Guilty, and it was stated
that all of them had previous convictions recorded against
them. Shaw had been known as a notorious burglar for
thirteen years, and on one occasion, while in gaol, sent
for a police sergeant and gave information as to a robbery
of some of the Queen's plate.
The Common Serjeant said he would make no difference
between the prisoners, and sentenced each of them to ten
yetis' penal servitude.

Ira. Geraldine Afeuriec was brought up on several
charges of swindling a number of tho principal West-end
tradesmen.

Mr. Poland and Mr. Collins conducted the prosecution ;
and Mr. Ribton was for the defence.

On the case being called on for trial,
Mr. Ribton made an application to the learned Common
Scrjeant to postpone the trial to next session, on the
ground that there was evidence forthcoming to show that
the prisoner was a woman of means.
The counsel for the prosecution opposed the application,
hut after some discussion the case was allowed to stand
over.

The whole of the OOP P. hating been disposed of, the
court then adjourned till the next session.