The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-31 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 31, 1866.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

Mr. Sleigh called the attention of the court to the am
of Chorp Cole, a prisoner who pleaded guilty at the last
ccietoa to a charge of forgery, and which involved a quer.
tion of considerable importance with regard to the restitu•
um of stolen property, respecting which there is occasion-
ally very considerable difficulty.
Mr. Sleigh reminded the court that when the prisoner
was apprehended a considerable amount of money in 10/.
and 51. Bank of England notes was taken from him, which
notes were undoubtedly the produce of the forged cheque,
and, indeed, were admitted to be so. His application was
that this money should be given up to the bankers, but the
statute only gave theeourt, specifically, the power to order
the restitution of the property that was actually stolen ; and
inasmuch as in this instanos the offence was the uttering of
a forged cheque, and the money in question was merely
the produce of that cheque, some doubt might possibly
exist whether the court had the power to order the money
to be restored. He should submit, however, supposing
the statute did not give the power of ordering restitution,
that a common law right was vested in the court to make
such en order, and be therefore asked that the money
should be given op.
The Common Serjernt said he was aware that the diffi.
catty referred to by the learned counsel had frequently
arisen, as the statute certainly only appeared to give the
court the power to order restitution of the property
actually stolen. It was undoubtedly a hardship, and he
should certainly consider the question, in a ease like the
present, whether the court had not the common law right
suggeeted by the learned counsel. The money was found
in the possession of the prisoner, and by his conviction it
was forfeited, and there was no other claimant
Mr. Sleigh said that the prisoner admitted that the
mooey found upon him was a portion of the notes be re-
ceived in payment of the forged cheque, and this being the
ease, it would be a great hardship if it was not given up.
The Common Serjeaot said that, as at present advised,
be should make the order, but he would consider the ques-
tion, and give a final answer in the course of the session.
Henry Napier, a very respectable looking young man,
surrendered to take his trial for embezzling different sums
of mousy belonging to his employers, Me•srs. Coleman and
Co., mustard mord acturers, of Garlic-hill.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
Mr. Lewis, who appeared for the prosecution, said that
the prisoner had for several years been in the service of
Messrs. Coleman, having entered it when young, and it was
with very great regret that they felt themeless compelled
to come forward to prosecute him ' • but as they had a great
number of persons in their service they had no alternative.
They were, however, very anxious that the prisoner ahoold
be dealt with leniently.
Mr. Metcalfe, who was instruoted to defend the prisoner,
informed the court that he was most respectably connected,
and there was every reason to believe that this was hie first
offence, and a most respectable person was ready to take
the prisoner into his service when be obtained his liberty.
The Common Serjeant respited the judgment to the next
session.

Rthatind Rink, a well-dressed young man, surrendered to
take his trial for stealing a watch, the property of Fittus
Sheldaker.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended
by Mr. Sleigh.
The prosecutor in this case is a German, who carries on
the business of a watchmaker in the City-road, and it ap-
peared that on the evening of the lbth of December • man,
whom be represented to be the prisoner, came into his shop
and asked to look at some watches and chains, and several
were shown to him. He appeared to have examined them
for some time, when all of a sudden he darted
out of the shop with one of the watches in
his possession. He was pursued by the prosecutor
and one of his assistants, and after running for some
distance the man, whoever he was, ran up a court called
Union-court, to which there was no outlet, and he was lost
sight of. A search was made, and in the water-closet of
one of the houses the prisoner was discovered, one of his
hands being covered with soil. The prisoner wee at once
secured and given into custody, but be denied all knowledge
of the robbery, and accounted foe being in the place where
he was found by saying that he was suddenly taken ill, and
had gone to the closet for • natural purpose. It was sug-
gested on the part of the prosecution that the prisoner's
hand had got into the oondttion in which it appeared when
he was taken into custody by his thrust'ne the watch into
the soil, but although an examination was made, the watch
was not found. The prosecutor, however, and two other
witness,, swore in the moat positive meaner to the fact of
the prisoner being the man who ran off with the watch, end
it appeared that he was in the shop for nearly half an hour,
so that they had ample opportunity to observe his features
and his general appearance.
The defence that was set up for the prisoner was that the
witnesses were mistakes with regard to his identity. In
order to establish that fact the mother of the prisoner was
called as a witness, and she swore that he was in her house
at Mile-end at half-past five o'clock, and that he remained
there until twenty minutes past six, when he left for the
purpose of taking • stick which he gad ornamented for the
son of the Rev. Mr. Cohen, the rector of Whitechepel, to
the residence of that gentleman. Mr. Cohen stated that
the stick was brought to him by his servant at half-past six
o'clock, and as the robbery was reprearentel to have been
committed about • quarter to seven, and the thief
was in the shop for half an hour previous to that time, it
was manifest, supposing the witnesses to be speaking cor-
rectly as to the tame, that the robbery could not have
been committed by the prisoner. The mother of the pri-
soner also stated that at this time, and for some
weeks previously, he had been suffering from diarrhies,
and she likewise said that, in consequence of hearing that
a man who was chsrged with watch stealing was in custody
in Coldbath.fields prison, she obtained an order from
the visiting justices, and was shown a number of prisoners,
and she immediately recognised the person referred to, and
said that he bore a strong resemblance to her son. Besides
the person residing in the house where the prisoner
was found was celled as a witness, and he said that the pri-
soeer knocked at the door and intimated that he was
pressed for some place of accommodation, and he allowed
him to go to the closet, where he was found.
The prisoner received • moat excellent character, not
only from the Rev. Mr. Cohen. but from a number of other
respectable witnesses. He had, it appeared, been employed
as • Scripture reader, and his character hitherto was uo-
impeachabla
The Common-Serjeant, in summing up the case, sa;il that
under ordinary cir.unistaDoes the evidence that had been
adduced for the prosecution would be perfectly ooncluaive,
but the jury would have to consider whether the evidence
that bad been adduced for the prisoner was calculated to
raise any reasonable doubt in their minds. He then went
very carefully through the evidence that bad been adduced
on both sides, and observed thatit was certainly rather • re-
markable circumstance, if the prisoner was the thief, that
the watch was not found in the closet when the search
was made for it.

The jury, after deliberating about • quarter of an hour,
retuned • verdict of Noe chatty.
. .

There was a slight attempt at applause upon the ver-
dict being give; but it was repressed by the officers of the
court.

The grand jury returned a true bill for manslaughter
only against George Ringwood for killing his wife, and
they were shortly afterwards discharged, the Common-
Serjeaut oongratulating them upon having concluded their
blows so speedily.