The Express.
London, England, 1867-10-17 00:00:00

TEE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man named Collier, wearing a military dress,
was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged under rather
peculiar circumstances with forgery and embezzlement.
Mr. Warner Sleigh said be appeared to prosecute the
prisoner upon a charge of forgery sod embezzling divers
sums the moneys of Mr. Henry Cooper, tailor and habit
maker, of Princes-street, Hanover-square, and Fenchurch.
street, in the City. The defendant entered Mr. Cooper's
service in March of the present year, and took the manage-
ment of the branch establishment in Fenchurchatreet.
His duties while there consisted in delivering accounts
to customers and receiving payment. Upon the
•-Md of September Collier absconded from the ser-
vice of Mr. Cooper, and was not seen or heard
of for two or three weeks, when an individual who gave
the name of Norman was charged at Marylebone or
Marlborough-street Police-court—he forgot which—with
stealing a ruby cross from an " unfortunate " lady,
in the neighbourhood of St. John's-wood. Norman being
there identified as the young man who had absconded
from the service of Mr. Cooper, it was asked that he should
be charged with the offence for which he was now
brought before his lordship, Jervis's Act giving the neces-
sary power to do so, but the magistrate did not seem to
think that he had the authority, and the prosecutor had
consequently been put to the expense of habeas corpus.
It appeared that on the 10th of August last the pri-
soner Collier went to a gentleman of the name
of Rees, carrying on business at 43, Lime-street,
who owed Mr. Cooper a sum of 41. odd,
and requested payment of the account. Mr. Rees there-
upon gave him a cheque for 4/., which the prisoner took to
a gentleman named Pritchard, in the lower part of the
house, and requested him to crash it. Mr. Pritchard,
noticing that it was payable to Mr. Cooper's order, said he
could not do so, but the prisoner said he would sign it.
He accordingly wrote Mr. Cooper's name on the cheque,
and received the 41. That was the charge of forgery
against the defendant, and it was brought under the 24th
section of the Forgery Act of 1861, the prisoner having no
authority by procuration or otherwise to sign Mr. Cooper's
name. The money was never paid over to Mr. Cooper,
and until communications pawed between him and Mr.
Rees he was unaware that the account had been paid.
In addition to this, there were two or three other
charges on which no forgery was alleged, but
in which money had been received and not accounted
for to Mr. Cooper. He ought to mention that after the other
charge at Marlborough-street or Marylebone the prisoner
was admitted to bail, which he broke, and he then went
down to some place in the country and enlisted in a
dragoon regiment.
Mr. Rees proved paying the prisoner the cheque for 41.,
and Mr. Benjamin Pritchard deposed to the prisoner
coming to his counting-house and requesting him to cash
it, which he did on the prisoner signing Mr. Cooper's
name, witness thinking he had authority to do so.

Mr. Cooper said the prisoner's salary waa 501. for the first
six months and 5:/. for the second. Witness was at Paris
at the time Collier obtained the cheque from Mr. Itees,
and he had no authority to sign witness's signature.

In crou•examination it was elicited that the prisoner
had instructions to pay the wages at the Fenchurch•streot
branch during Mr. Cooper's absence, but that he drew a
sufficient amount for that purpose from Mr. Horne, a
relative of Mr. Cooper.

Payment of the following rums, which the prisoner had
not accounted for, were also deposed to: -47. 10.. from
William Killian), reporter, 1, Mincing-lane, on June 26 ;
4/. 16s. 6d. from Charles S. Eastland, on August 14 ;
and 61. 64. ld. from Mr. William Smith, farmer, Farn-
borough, on September 2.
Mr. Banyard, detective officer, produced the warrant
for the apprehension of the prisoner, and said be did not
see him till be appeared to answer another charge under
the name of Norman. He attended when the case wee to
oome on on remand, bat the prisoner did not answer to
his bail.

Mi. B. Smith, solicitor, who conducted the defence, sub.
mitted, as to the alleged forgery, that it was clearly •
procuration signature, and that it had not been signed
with intent to defraud.

The Lord Mayor committed the prisoner for trial.
James Glynn, of 3, Wellesley-terrace, Plumstead, sp.
peered to answer a summons, which charged him with tra-
velling on the South Eastern Railway from London-bridge
to Cannon-street without having paid his fare.
Mr. Albert Lewis conducted the prosecution.
On being asked whether he was guilty or not guilty the
defendant indignantly denied the charge.
The evidence was to the effect that on the sth of Sep-
!ember the defendant arrived at Cannon-street station by
the 8.45 a.m. train from Woolwich Arsenal, and that he
gave up to the collector the half of • third-class return
ticket to London-bridge. On being stopped and told that
his ticket was only for London-bridge, be said, " Im-
possible, I have the other half here," and produced the half
of • return ticket to Cannon-street, on which there was no
date.

The defendant asserted that he had given up a proper
ticket, and that there being a rash of pen he had gone
on a short distance before he was stop .
The collector, on the other hand, affirmed that there was
no rush, that the defendant passed out by himself, and
that he was positive he received the half ticket to London-
bridge from the defendant.
Corroborative testimony was given by a ticket inspector,
whose attention had been called to the matter by the
collector.

The defendant then addressed his lordship at some
length, insisting that he had given up a proper ticket, and
at the same time remarking that be had travelled daily on
the line for a number of years. and that the booking clerk
at Woolwich Arsenal frequently gave London-bridge
instead of Cannon-street tickets when there vru a hurry.
The Lord Mayor said it was quite clear he had given
up a ticket which was not a legitimate one, and that he
bad travelled to Cannon-street without paying his fare.
The company said they had no reason to @aspect any pre-
vious irregularities on the part of the defendant, but there
was no doubt that the present case had been made out.
The penalty would be lc
Mr. Olts-4e. altogether.
The Defendant—l bow to your decision, my lord, but
my oath is as good as their'.
He then paid the money and left the court, asserting
that it was a gross piece of injustice.

John Baxter, aged 20, a greengrocer, residing at Back-
road, Kingeland, was charged with committing a ►iolent
assault on Eliza Boult, at Prospect-place, Stoke New-
ington.
The defendant went to the house in which the com-
plainant resided, and borrowed a hammer from the land-
lady. He was making use of disgusting language, and
when the complainant told him he ought to be ashamed of
himself, he said that if she spoke again he would give her
"one for herself." She told him that he had better not,
and then he hit her on the cheek bone with the hammer,
and inflicted a severe wound.

The defendant said that the complainant pushed him,
and then he pushed her, and she cat her face.
Mr. Barker said it was idle to suppose that such •
severe wound as the complainant had on her face could be
donewith a push, and sentenced the defendant to he im-
prisoned ►nd kept to hard labour in the House of Correc-
tion for two calendar months.

Two young men, named Wilson and Parker, were
charged with deatroying clothing in St. Luke's Workhouse,
Chelsea.

Charles Coombes, porter at the canal ward, said that
the defendants were admitted there on Tuesday night, and
received supper and lodging. Next morning, at a quarter
before six, be went to the ward, and found them both in
bed. He had heard they bed torn up the whole of their
clothes, and asked them why they had done so, when they
replied that they did not like them, they were dirty. Wit-
ness afterwards saw the fragments of their clothing, and
went and informed the master, who sent thew two
new pair of canvas trousers, and they tore them up.
Mr. Arnold—When was that
Witness—While I had gone to get their shirts.
Mr. Arnold—Did they assign any reason for tearing
them up
Witness—They said they did not fit. They were too
entalL

Mr. Arnold—What have you to say to this, Wilson
Wilson—My things were filthy.
Mr. Arnold—What have you to say, Parker?
Parker—l've nothing to say.
Mr. Arnold—Not content with destroying your own
clothing you wilfully tear up that belonging to the pariah.
Why tear up the trousers
Wilson—They did not fit—they were too short.
Mr. Arnold—That is no reason why they should be torn
up. You are committed for one month for destroying your
own clothing, and a second month for wilful damage to the
parish clothing.