The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-10 00:00:00

THE EXYRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING JANUARY 10, 1866.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Moro the Common Serjeesh)

George Ward, 25, was charged with stealing a bank sots
for 201., the property of MaryTurrell, and William Yeatetas
who sorroodered to take hie trial, was charged with filo•
piously receiving the Imo now knowing it to have boon
dam.

Mr. Montagu Williams prosecuted; Mr. Ribton was
counsel for Ward ; and Mr. Daly appeared for the prisoner
Yastmeo.

_
The prossontrix in this case was the landlady of a public-
house at nihilism, in Middlesex, and the prisoner Ward
had been employe! by her in his business as a glazier. Tire
note in question was kept in her bedroom, in a box under
her bed, and Ward had been engaged io putting in a window
in the same room, and there was no doubt that be had
taken advantage of the opportunity thus afforded him to
open the box and obtain possession of the note. The other
prisoner, who was his brother-in-law, very shortly afterwards
changed the note at • clothier's shop, where he was known ;
and when be was taken into custody be said that the othee
prisoner had given it to bim to get changed, but be did not
know that there was anything wrong. When Ward was
apprehended, it appeared that he admitted having taken
the note out of the box, and said he could mot account for
bow he came to do so, and he was very sorry for what had
happened.
Mr. Ribtoo, after the case had been opened, said that it
appeared to him that it would be hopeless to struggle
against a conviction so far as the prisoner Ward was oon.
°erne!, and he would plead guilty. He was instructed,
however, to state that he was a man of very good character,
and that he bad yielded to the temptation offered bim by
finding the property in inch a position, and was anxious to
make toll reparation to the proseeutrix for her loss.
Mr. Daly urged, on behalf of his client Yeatmao, that
there was nothing to show that he bad any knowledge of the
sobs being stolen. He had merely changed it at the request
of his brother-in-law, and he was well known to the trades-
man to whom he offered it.

The Common Serjeant expressed his opinion that the evi-
dence was hardly sufficient to justify the conviction of
Yestman for receiving the note feloniously, and the jury
therefore Acquitted that prisoner.
The sentence upon Ward was deferred to the next session.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Herr.)

John Gilbert, a middle-aged men of respectable exterior,
and described as being an engineer, was indicted for forg-
ing and uttering the acceptance of a bill of exchange for the
payment of 201., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Collins prosecuted, and Mr. Warner Sleigh defended

The case presented by the evidence adduced was this—The
prosecutor of this indictment was Mr. Richard Dalime •
timber merchant, carrying on business in Dalston. The
Owner, who was an engineer, and an old acquaintance of
the prosecutor's, was seemed by the latter to construct for
him certain portions of • steam engine at • contract for 73/.
The castings were found by the prosecutor, who from time
to time assisted the prisoner with mosey to carry on the
work, but finding it diknof progreas as he could desire, he
declined to grant him Ely further monetary assistance, and
failing in this the prisoner brought to the prosecutor the
bill of exchange for 201., which was drawn by the prisoner,
and which purported to be accepted by Mr. John
Wm, another timber merchant in Southwark, end
asked the prosecutor to give bins cash for it,
to enable him to go on with the work. The prosecutor
advanced him 151. on the bill, which on arriving at
maturity was dishonoured on the Ist of October, and on
the prosecutor making inquiries he discovered that the
prisoner was gone away and had removed the unfinished
engine for miles from his premises. The acceptance of Mr.
John Rados was proved by that gentleman to be a forgery.
A warrant was obtained by the prosecutor against the
prisoner, and be was apprehended on the 14th December,
when he attempted to make his escape from • coffee-shop
into which, with permission, he had gone to obtain some
breakfast, but was followed and secured. At the police.
station he at first denied but subsequently admitted that
the acceptance purporting to be that of Mr. Endes was in
his (prisoner's) handwriting.
Mr. Warner Sleigh (after cruse-examining the witnesses)
said that he could not carry the case for the defence any
farther.
Mr. Commissioner Ken remarked that the learned coun-
sel had done all that was possible for the prisoner. It was,
however, for the jury to say if they were satisfied.
The jury at ono, returned • verdict of Guilty, and a
former conviction for forgery in this court in February,
1852, was proved.
Mr. Collins intimated that there were other indictments
for forgery.
Mr. Commissioner Kerr said it would be nnnecesary to
proceed with them, bzt he would consider what sentence
ought to be passed.
At a later penod of the day the prisoner was brought up
for judgment, when
Mr. W. Sleigh made' an earnest appeal to the merciful
noesideration of the court, alleging that since his former
eon 'nation the prisoner, who had • wife and five children,
had endeavoured to procure an honest livelihood.

Mr. Commissioner Kerr said that in a commercial country
the crime of forgery wee a serious offence. sod must be
severely nuniolied. After conferring with his learned col-
league, the sentence of the court wu that the prisoner be
kept in penal servitude for the term of seven years.