The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-05 00:00:00

Mr. Lewis—Wei not Ptt'linger in the habit of carrying
large sem hi gold to the Book of England ?
Whom—Yin} bet when the num woe large he had a
porter to carry the 'newly.
Mr. Lewis—And Po linger went with the porter!
Witnene—Yes.
Ir. Lewia—litst did not the porter sometimes carry it by
himself ?

Mr. Lewis—Bona as high as 3,0001. or even 10,0001!
Wilma—Weil, I can't myth. amend.
Mr. Humphreys—l may my my lord, that lam
here in a peculiar capacity. I attend by Pullinger's desire,
not to screen him in say way from the rein quenote el the
that may be brought spina him, but bemuse he
slehlaterlincumbent upon him to state that the chary
his 00-prisoner, Mr. Lyttleton, is unfair, and
not warranted in any way by the facto of the ease.
(4nitti bunt of sympathy from the audience.) Mr.
r authoress me to state that Mr. Lyt-
azz: conduct has always been correct with re-
gard to the bank, that Mr. Lyttleton's entries are
all entirely clear, and that he has never put into I;.,i,an=t
oar single " of the bank's money, to Mr.a
knourkdge. ' was his superior officer • he wan
bound to act by ' directions • and Mr. officer;
thinks it his duty to make this etaterOent, which I submit
to your lordship, and it is for your lordship to receive it,
and act upon it as you may think proper.
Mr. Giffard— I have no reason to complain of Mr.
Humphreys' statement ; but I must my that the director
are not to place implicit rename on the Matement of a man
who has been robbing them for years, m to whether he had
any confederates or not.
The witness re-examined by Mr. Giffard—lt was no part
of Pullinger's duty to take gold to the bank clerks at the
counter to be exchanged. The bank notes are regularly
distributed to the clerks to the morning, and they have to
show by their hooka what they have done with those notes.
I can't m that Pullinger carrying such a sum as 3,0001. to
Lyttieton's counter would have attractedlittention, but he
might ask a porter or a cmhier to cern it.
By Mr. Lewis-1 believe he had 30 shares in the bank.
Be was 'mown ae a shareholder.
Mr. Lewis—Weire Mr. Lyttleton'e account, examined at
Masud cif 1859, and certified aa correct!
Whams—Yea
Mr. Lewis—And also Pullinger'e !
Witmer—Yea.

Kr. Lewis—By whom were they certified!
Wits sse—By two directors.
Mr. Lewis—Yea
Yr. Giffard—But would that be upon the supposition
that all the trusses-time contained in the book were genuine
trensectioss,
Witmer—Yes.

onsteve Bitters, chief clerk to Messrs. Samuel and Mon-
tagu, Cornhill, bullion dealers, deposed that they did not
make the exchange of gold for notes referred to by the
witness on the 25th and 27th April, 1859, and pro-
need evidecee in support of that assertion.
By Mr. Lewis—When I have made each exchanges
I went to a clerk, who went to Pullinger, and sometimes
Pullinger came back with him ; but the general practice was
for the cashier to take it without referring to Pulliuger.
Mr. 11. Sprowle, cashier to the Eastern Counties Railway
Company, Shoreditch, deposed that on the 27th ApriL
1869, be sent to the Union Bank a sum of 3,7001., but that
he exchanged no sum of 1,5001. in gold for notes on that
dal. The messenger brought back the book initialed
44

Mr. Barton—To the beet of my belief those inidah are in
Lyttleton's handwriting.
James Sheldoq stockbroker, deposed that on the 25th of
April, 1859, Pullinger owed him 500/. and paid him in one
note, which he (Sheldon) paid into his bankers ; and that
on the 27th of April he received of Pullinger 1,0001. in the
morning, and 1,500 f. in the afternoon. The I,ooof. he
paid to a member of the Stock Exchange, who west=
shout his account, and the 1,5001. he paid into hia
After some further evidence tracing the notes paid in
exchange for the 3,0001. in gold,
Mr. Gifford said his evidence was complete.
Mr. Lewis—Then I ask your lordship whether there is
any evidence at all to affect Lyttleton ?
The Lord Mayor —I am bound to lay, to the best of my
judgment, there is nothing in the evidence at all calculated
to prove collusion or complicity on the part of Lyttleton ;
but he wee perhaps guilty of some indiscretion in paying se
large a stun of mosey to the other prisoner without incitury.
Hai indiscretion is so crime, and I cannot therefore com-
mit him. (Load applause, which was cut off by the officers
of the court.)
Mr. Lewis—l thank your lordship.
Mr. Goodman (chief clerk)—But you are aware, Mr.
Lewis, that there is another charge against him.
Mr. Lewis—Yes, but I don't know whether they will
proceed with that or not.
The Lord Mayor—We will dispose of the first. Have you
anything to say, Pullinger?
kullinger—Only that I plead guilty to this charge.
The Lord Mayor—Then it is my duty to commit you for
trial.

Giffard—With reference to the other charge against
Lyttleton some evidence has already been given ;
but after taking all the circumstances into careful con-
sideration, I do not think we shall be able to add
any strength to that evidence, and therefore that
will not be proceeded with. It is to be regretted
fcoh:rtri sake of the young man and his friends that the
explanation now brought out through the instrumentality
of Lyttleton's solicitor was not given at first ; but no such
explanation was offered, and all the directors had to guide
them in their peroeedings was that they round three entries
in LitUeton's handwriting which turned out to be false.
Now, however, that the explanation is given, and as
lordship has intimated that you do not think the evidence
strong enough, the directors feel that it would be an un-
graceful act to persevere ; and therefore I have the satis-
faction to say on their behalf that no further proceedings
will be taken against Lyttleton.
Mr. Lewis--The explanation was not given because Mr.
Lyttleton and his friends were not aware of any charge of
3,0004 being in existence until this morning, when it took
them completely by surprise. If they had known of it they
would have given the explanation. That Lyttleton is an
honest and honourable young man is apparent from the ad-
mission made to-day, that although he has been 15 years in
the beak no single misappropriation or mis-entry has been
discovered on his part, and I hope your lordship will say
that be leaves this court without a stain or a stigma on his
character. (Applause.)
The Lord Mayor—He will leave this court as free fro=
stain as he entered it, but at the same time the directors of
the Union Bank had a duty to perform to their constituents,
which duty they have very properly endeavoured to dis-
charge ; and I do not see that they are to be blamed in airy
yak. Lewis—Decidedly not.
The Lord Mayor--And I must express my pleasure at the
course taken by Pullinger in completely exonerating Lyttle-
ton from blame. It is a bright oasis in the desert of his
guilty career that he exhibits so much sensibility, and
evinces so strong a desire to shield an innocent man-(here
Pullinger was observed to be weeping)—end I have only to
repeat that Lyttleton leaves the bar without the slightest
stain clinging to his character.
Lyttleton was then discharged, and immediately after
Pullinger had affectionately shaken him by the hand quitted
the court with his friends, while Pullinger was taken below.
We may add that before he was conveyed to Newgate he
sent up a message to our reporter, requesting a public state-
ment that he has done his utmost to atone for his crime by
assigning everything he had in the world to the Union
Bank, leaving his wife without a bed of her own to lie upon,
and without an' other clothes than those in which she was
dressed at the tune.
. . _

It is understood that no other charges will be brought
against him, his plea of guilty being amply sufficient for the
purposes of justice.

Rain *Meow.

EQlJrri COURTS.-MAY 4.
(Before the Lorde Justices of Appeal.)
FISHIR r. BILIERLEV.

Their lordships this nuirit.i;2
of delivered their judgment in
this case, which was an • from • decision the Master
of the Rolls on the law mortniain, as it relates to grants
of laud for building churches. The Mortmain Act, 9 Ge 0.11.,
c. In, provides that grants by deed of land for charitable
purposes shall be void unless executed twelve months before
the death of the grantor, and enrolled within six months,
and "unless the same shall be made to take effect in pos.
session for the charitable time intended immediately after
the making thereof, and without any power of revocation,
reservation, trust, condition, limitation, clause, or agree-
ment whatsoever for the benefit of the donors or the
grantors, or of any person or persons claiming
under them." The later statute, 43 George IIL,
c. 108, which was pissed for the encouragement
of the building of churches and chapels in connexion with
the church of England, gives power to pant or devise lands
not exceeding five acme for that purpose by deed or will
executed more than three months betore the death of the
donor, but makes no exoeption of instruments containing •
reservation of an interest to the donors. The present ease
turned upon the construction of these two statutes. A lady
wishing to loild and endow a church, granted in her life-
time two acres to trustees fur that purpose, the grant being
absolute, and the deed being executed and enrolled in man-
ner provided by the Mortmain Act. But although the deed
contained no reservation of interest to the grantor, it was
alleged that she remained in possession of the land and also
of the deed, and that no attempt was made to
build • church upon it till after her death. By
her will she left 11.,50W. towards building and endowing •
ahur.S.l3l.Ptruottege-house, and school-room. The Master of
the Rolls bad decided, first, that although the conveyance
was absolute, yet the grant was void under the Mortmain
Act, he considering it established by the evidence that there
had been an understanding between the parties that the
grantor should retain the actual enjoyment of the property
during her We ; and, secondly, that the defect in the grant
was not cored by the Meer statute of 43 (leo. 111., c. 108,
but that the same restrictions as to the reservation of in-
terest to the grantor remained in force with respect to con-
veyances for building churches under that act as existed
previously.
Their Lordahips, however, took • different view of
the effect of the evidence in the cause, and held
that the acts of apparent 011nership shown thereby were not
sufficient w establish an understanding between the parties
fur the reservation of an interest to the grantor; and that