The Express.
London, England, 1859-06-21 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

GUILDHALL.

Botert afarkx • slir;44,l:teliTgent:-looking, middle-aged
man, of gentlemanly: exterior, described oaths police-sheet as
a publieber, residing at Brighton, was charged with obtaining
large sums of money by means of feriae pretences.
Mr. Aldermen &amnesia presided. Mr. Alderman Mechi
was also present, but as his name had bean made use of by
the prisoner, the worthy alderman abstained from taking any
part magisterially In the proceedings.
Mr. Joseph Thorley, the proprietor and patentee cf
Thorle)'s Food for Cattle," raid—l carry on Widnes.
at 70, Newgate-street. On the lird of January last the
prisoner, who was a perfect onager to me, called
at my office, and said be tame from the Royal
Agrieultural Society, who were going to present
Mc. Alderman Mechi with a testimonial in the shape of
• piece of plate, and he asked me for my &Waltrip-
den. Believing his representation, I directed my clerk to
pay the prisoner one guinea. He had • parchment with him
containing many hundred names., but I do not remember
any of 'hem. I was in a great hurry, and did not notice the
names. lie asked me to alga the parchment and 1 did
so, and he said it would be in print in a few days. I hors
never seen it in print. lie had a cab at the dcor, and I sup-
pond Its was going elsewbere to get some one eise's guinea.
I never saw Loy eutocripti.,u advertised in the newspaper's.
Cross-examined by the prisoner, who interrogatvd the wil-
-1 messes with great adeoiliess—You did nut ark ma If I was
• member of the Royal Agricultural Society. lam not •
member of that society or any other' I believe, although I
do subscribe to others. You did not ask melt I hat received
any communication or circular respecting the presentation or
• complimentary pertrelt to Mr. Alterman Mechi. You did
no tell me there hot been a testimonial to Mr. Alderman
Judd. I did not reed the heading of the subscription list, as I
had not tints, but I caught sight of the word Testimonial,"
' sad the name of Mr. Alderman Mechi. I never heard the
word portrait " mei throughout the Interview. Yon said
that the names would be in pelt, but jou did not say that
I should have a print in • few dare.
John Higgate, clerk to Mr. Thorley, said the prisoner
tilled an toe 9rd of January last, between 10 end 11 o'clock
in ihe mooring. Hs ask, d for Mr. Thorley, and I said he
had not then arrived, and told him to call in the afternoon,
I inquired of him the nature of hit business, and he raid he
came from the Agricultural 8 ,ciety, who were about to pre-
srnt Mr. Alderman Mectu with • testimonial for hie very
valuable services to the agricultural community at largo.
informed kb. Thorky of the object of the prisoner's visit,
and when he came again in the afternoon I gave Lin a
galena, and Mr. Thorley signed the auleniption list.
Croes-examlsed by the prisoner—l do not recollect your
Mr. Thorley was • mailer of the Royal or any
other agrkultural ocuely. Ido not remember your saying
there had been a piece of plate pre oared or presented to Mr.
Alderman Mi.cLi. Not one word war said about a portrait
directly or indirectly,
•

Joh.; Mark Bug; an t facer attached ti the City de-
tective force, said—l apprehentl•l the primier on Bator-
dsy last upon a warrant signed by Sir J. Musgrove on
the 4 h of Febramy of the prtsent year. I toot the prisoner
with his son in St. James's-square, having previously Ken
him c4lllll out of oi.e of the boosts inch* square, and I accosted
hits, saying, "Good orior..ng, Mr. Marks, sets." Here-
" How do you know that I am Mr. Meeks, een. 1.-
1.7p0n whit I told him I held a warr.nt for his opprehen-
*ion for obtaining gooney of Mr. Thorley, ot Newgate-street,
ou the Std of January last, reyneerting that be tame from
the Roy al Agricultural Bmiety of Engiaud, to mike: sub-
seriptient fur the purpose of presenting Mr. Aldermen
• Nuclei with a testimonial, consisting of a service of plate, for
the services rendered to that sici.ty. he prisoner mid,
They bare made a great mistake ; I made use of no Lase
pretence." I then took him to Mr. Alderman !decide pre-
, Mies In Regent-Mimi, when Mr. Basin, the alderman's
partner, idostilled the Wooster as the sums person named in
the warrant. I teak him to Moor-lase statla, and searched
him, and took from him a roll of ppm, which he wi.bed to
band to his son, containlog the named of smoy noblemen.
(This document was ban& d iv, and proved to be a eubecr.p-
lion list for presenting a testimonial to L• rd Bemire, the
President of the It tyalAgricultural Society of England ; and
in the list of donor the nstuss of the following distinguished
personages mrartd the Duk: ref Marlborough, the Marquis
of Bath. Eon of R. den, Lord Suillel l. Earl ot Shrewsbury
and Talbot. Earl of Sefton, Duke of Mato h-ster, Lord Com-
bermere, Duke of Clavelu.d, Lord Heimann', Bishop of
Ripon, Earl of Warwick, Marquis of Lothian Earl of
Coventry, Earl Spencer, Bail Cowper, Lord Southampton,
Earl ot 8 milked and Warrington, Lord Bohol, Duke of ltut-
land, Lord John Minima, Earl Crave*, Lord Fecershatn, Lord
Caernarvon. L .rd Wortley. Earl of E,von, Lad Soo! a. Lord
Begot, Rea of Sutton, Viscount Canoe, Earl of Wilton,
Lord Tiedegar, Sir 8. M. Pet', Sir Palmer, Mr A. Morel-
rigg, Sir H. Belford, Sir H. Btacey, Bir W. Watkins' Wynn,
Sir Nook Dewlges, Sr E. AntroLue, litsr W. Farquhar,
besides easy °mutters of parliament.)
Primmer—l have n t objection to y- ur looking a' that
paper, sir. but It is totally irrelevant to this charge.
give hie address 31, Btmeez-gardene, Brighton,
ac.l I told him I kcew he Lad not been there te stony
month', although hie wife sad family lived there. I asked
him if be had any ejection to ha me where ho slept last, and
be vicl be should no: answer that question. He said if be
had kaisers there bad been a warrant out against Mm be
should have gone to Mr. Basin sod ezplained the matter, and
set it all right. I have teen to 'ha ottkv of the Royal Agri-
cultural Sodety, and from information I received there I
believe the pros nee had no au homy from the society to
Mho solisertptioas far thus.
loopsPAr Youlist—Then is a ituilrosa present ot the

name of Cart, .Lo wishes to speak to yon, air, in reference to
this case, respecting numerous frauds committed under simi-
lar circumstances upon numerous fronmsattrs in London, and
in all - -Ns of the kingdom.

it part --
Mr. Richard Cort, of Barnabary•ark, Islington, the son
of Henry Cort, the great inventor of puddling end rolling of
bar iron, wee then sworn and examined. Be said—l am not
in any business now. I know the iefaunert I 00204 W
him to collect subscriptions to a testimonial fund which was
being raised in acknowledgment of the ear Aces of my father
to the British nation. That was in August, 1856, and
agreed to give hire 60 per cent. on all he collected, and that
was to cover all the expenses, and to repay him for devoting
the whole of his time to the object ; but within a few was
sifter I had some suspicion of him, and discharged hiss. Its '
discharge was in writing, and I seat it through the post. I
know he ree,ived it. During the time be was collecting
under my authority I only received two subscriptions hoes
him, and to my knowledge he has collected hundreds of
pounds which I have not received. I discharged him on the
22nd of Weber, 1866.
Mr. John Boyne, a merchant, of 2, East India-chambers,
Lesdenhall-street, said—ln December, 1866, I wrote a letter
to the prisoner, making to whom I ehoald pay a sum of
301. 4s. which I had received on behalf of the "Coot's Testi-
monial Fund," in consequence of which he called on me on
the loth of December, 1866, and I handed him a cheque kw
301. 45., which has since bean paid at the bank. I may here
suite conversationally that Mr. Richard Cort is the son of the
man who first introduced the principle of rollinef
iron in this country, and these subscription were
collected for his family, who wen almost in a state of e.7-Z1
itarvstion. 1 took no receipt, because his appearance was so
highly reepectable that It quits deceived me, and it is not
customary to ask for a receipt for charitable contributions.
Mr. R. Cort, recalled—l have not received one farthing of
this sum of 301. 45., nor of any other sum, since the prisoner's
dismissal.

Prisoner—This is merely a question of account between
Mr. Cort and me, and 1 shell be able to show that it is a
char cue of disputed accounts.
At this stage of the inquiry the prisoner was remanded
till Friday next, when it Ls expected that very important
disclosures will be made with ►yard to the system pursued
by the prisoner ae a promoter of testimonial presentations.