The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-06 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURT&

11ANSION•HOUSE.

W ill ion Thompam, 29, cashier to Messrs. Barnett,
Hoare, and Co., Minkel*, 60, Lombard-street, City, was
charged with stealing 2401. odd belonging to his employers.

Mr. Muliens, solicitor to the Bankers' Protection Associa-
tion, conducted the prosecution.
The prisoner had been earlier to Messrs. Harnett, Hoare,
end Co., for some years, and it appeared that 3leseni.
Hewitt and Co., fish salesmen, Tower-hill, had an account
at the bank, and on Saturday, tOlth October, sent their
clerk with two sums of money to be entered to their credit.
The amounts were respectively 291 i/. !pa. and 433/. 125., and
the latter consisted of five cheques and 247 d. 1:1.. 4d. in cash.
These were paid to the defendant, who initialed Hewett
and Co.'s duplicates of the credit slips.
Mr. Grey, chief clerk to Messrs. Barnett, Hoare, and Co.,
deposed that the initials to tLe credit slips for 296/. and
433/. 12s. were in the defendant's handwriting, and that it
.was the defendant's duty to enter into a book kept for the
all monies received from customers the
purpose On the Saturday in question the prisoner credited
Messrs. Hewitt and Co. with 296/. sm.' but there was no
entry for 43.1/. 125., or any part of it. On the following
Sunday evening he examined the defendant's till, in pre-
sence of Mr. Barnett, and found the five cheques, forming
part of the sum of 433/. 123.' hut no portion of the cash.
Since the Saturday on which the transaction occurred the
prisoner had not returned to the office.
The case was then remanded.

Edo.tn Francis Hill, solicitor, of 4R, Camden-road,
Camden-town, underwent a final examination before
Alderman }lnnis, on the charge of forging and uttering a
transfer for 100/. Consolidated Three per Cent. Stock,
standing in the names of John Gethen Bartlett and Mat-
thew Thomas Bartlett, with intent to defraud the Gover-
nor and Company of the Bank of England.
Mr. Friehheld again appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. George Lewis conducted the defence.
From the evidence taken on the former examinations
it appeared that • sum of upwards of GOOF. in Bank of
England stock was held in trust by Messrs. Bartlett for
their eider Mary Ann Hill, the defendant's wife. The
defendant had been a solicitor in Victoria, Australia, and
had expressed himself anxious that a portion of the stock
should be sold out in order that he might be enabled to
bring his wife home to England, but Mr. Matthew T.
Bartlett refused his consent to the necessary power of
attorney. Subsequently, however, the defendant presented
a transfer for 1001. of the stock to a firm of stock brokers
and obtained the proceeds of the aide but Mr. M. T.
Bartlett declared that the writing purporting to be his
signature to the document, was a forgery, and it was like-
wise shown that the defendant had applied the money to
the payment of some debts.
Mr. John Gethen Bartlett now deposed that he kept the
Hare and Hounds public-house, North Woolwich-road,
and that the defendant called on him in the middle of
September, and asked him if he had any objections to join
his brother in a power of attorney for a transfer of 1001.
of the stock which they held in trust for their sister.
Witness said be had no objection, provided his brother
agreed. Ten days afterwards he called again, and said
he bad seen Mr. M. T. Bartlett, and that he gave his con-
sent to the witness acting for him. Witness said if that
was the case he had no objection. Afterwards be signed
the power of attorney, and on the following day defendant
told him that he had gone to Mr. Matthew Bartlett, and
it was properly signed. On the 11th of October witness
accompanied the defendant to London, and defendant
obtained a cheque for 921., the proceeds of the sale of the
stock. When they got home defendant gave him 101. in
part payment of an old debt.
Cross-examined—l was not aware my brother would not
sign. I wrote him once, and I also wrote Mr. Tucker, his
solicitor, to know if it would be right in doing without
my brother's assistance. I was not aware my brother
refused. Three or four months ago I knew he
refused to sign. I did not tell defendant that my brother
signed my name to the dividends, and that I would sign
his to the power of attorney. Hill told me that my
brother bad signed my name to the dividends. The name
of the witness attesting my aignature, William Tummy,
grocer, 24, Custom-house-terrace, North Woolwich-read,
was written by my wife. He authorised my wife to sign for
him. The signature of my brother is not in my handwriting.
Defendant asked me to sign my brother'sname, but I refused.
I did not tell him that I had as much authority to sign his
name as he had to sign mine. I don't know who wrote the
signature Henry Smith, gardener, Reibill ; it is not in my
handwriting. I received 101. of the money in payment of
a debt of nineteen years' standing. I saw the letter from
defendant's wife authorising the sale of the stock.
Detective Webb said that since the last examination he
had made inquiries at Redbill respecting Henry Smith,
gardener, and found that there was no person of that
name.

The defendant was then committed for trial.
He reserved hie defence and also his right to cell wit.
nesses, and asserted that he was perfectly innocent of the
charge of forgery.
GUILDHALL.

William Bart/rman, of 7, Ydoman'srow, Brompton, a
clicker in the employ of Messrs. Hickson and Co., boot
and shoe manufacturer,, carrying on business at 90, West
Smithfield, was placed at the bar before Alderman Hale
and Alderman Copeland, charged with stealing four pieces
of elastic and four pieces of lining, the property of his
masters.

bli.iiicktion said the prisoner had been in his employ-
ment since the 12th of August last. Forborne time they had
suspicion that they were being robbed, and on the 30th of
October last he called the prisoner into the counting house,
as he was leaving the premises. He told hint that be was
aware that he had been robbing them for some time, and
asked hint if he had anything about him then, to which he
replied" No." He asked him if he had any objection to be
searched, and he said " No." He then sent for au officer,
and when he come the prisoner opened his waistcoat and
took out the web produced. He then said he hoped they
would look over it, but he gave him into custody. The
property belonged to them, and bad been taken from their
stook without their commit.

The prisoner pleaded guilty, and requested to be dealt
with under the Criminal Justioe Act.

The court sentenced him to four months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

William Grover, a waiter at the Sun coffee-shop, kept
by Miss Howe, at No. 1, Poppin's-court, Fleet-street, was
placed at the bar on remand, before Alderman Hale,
charged with embezzling various sums of money belonging
to his mistress, to the amount of between .5/. and fit.

Mime Howe ;toted that the prisoner bad been in her
employ for about six weeks, and it wu his duty to take
out refreshments to offices in the neighbourhood, and to
receive the amounts from the customers periodically. He
had received several amounts which came in the aggregate
to nearly 61, of which he had given no account.

W. Feut, 430, took the prisoner into custody, and found
on him a draft letter to Mies Howe, containing a list of
the sums he had received? and promising to work them out
if his mistress would forgave him.
Proof was given of the payment of the money, and the
prisoner was fully committed for trial.