The Express.
London, England, 1850-01-08 00:00:00

Ibe samaseted with the trassairion was, by show-
ing that when the prosecutor had made his affidavit,
they each also made one to the effect that they would not
believe hiss upon his oath, and upon these facts the whole of
the para., were indicted (or • conspiracy to cause the pro-
seeutor to be wrongfully imprisoned.
Simnel Lazarus Lswrencii, the prosecutor, was examined,
and be detelied the above facts, and atso declared positively
that he n had any intention to leave England to avoid
his creditors, and that the affidavit made by Manning to that
effect was entirely false. Ile also said that after he was in
custody, Allen came to him and offend to settle It if he would
give him 61. There were accounts between them at
the time, and he subsequently gave a bill for 101. sa the
balance due from him to Allen, but this bill had
never been presented for payment. He also said that he
asked Allen how it was possible for Manning to go and
make such an affidavit ss he had, and he replied that he
could not tell, but he had given him a pound or a guinea to
do so, and he added, that he was very sorry for it, and he
should not have acted as he had done, if it bad not bees for
the instigation of Alexander. Alexander and himself, the
prosecutor said, had been on bad terms, and when he met
him in the street he was in the habit of abusing him, and
stating that he had robbed him, and after this occurrence,
he said to him on several occasions, that he had got him
locked up, and the next time he would transport him.
The prosecutor was subjected to a most severe cross-exami-
nation by Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Prendergast. In the
course of it he admitted that his real name was Samuel
Lewis Lazarus, but he said he changed his surname to Law.
rence when he set up in business in Brussels some years ago,
and tines then he had " traded" under that name. lie was
at present living at No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road, and
he believed he had been there two or three or it might be
five or six mouths, he could not say which. He said he did
not recollect when the 101. bill to which he had referred
became due, nor where he was living at the time. He
might have been at Brighton or at London, but it was
all the same, as be was always to be found or heard of
at Hamilton place. The 2.51. bill was accepted by Allen
for his accommodation, and he had to pay the *mount.
He said that ne was born in Portsmouth, but removed
'from that town to Bath, where he carried on the business
of a pawnbroker and silversmith. He gave up this business
to his brother and then took a share in a coach which ran
between Bath and Bristol. Alter that he was a soap boiler
and became a bankrupt. Hs paid no dividend, but most of
his creditors were paid in full, and about a month alter his
bankruptcy he went to Brussels, but the only reason for
changing his name was th Jews ware no favourites in that
city, and be abandoned his Jewish name. He got into diffi-
culties at Brussels and returned to England, and he was soon
afterwards again made a bankrupt. He bad been three times
altogether a bankrupt. Upon one occasion he bad applied fur
his discharge to the insolvent Court, whin Mr. Commissioner
Harris expressed his intention to remand him for twelve
months for fraudulently contracting a debt with one of his
creditors, named Markham. Markham was one of the per-
sons included in this indictment. Proceedings were then
taken in the Bankruptcy Court, and Mr. Commissioner
Pane suspended his certificate for six months, without pro-
tection. He believed that Mr. Commissioner Fens conat-
dered he was a very honest man, and that he would not
have given this decision bat that he did not like to fly in the
face of his brother commissioners. (A laugh.) The prose-
cutor was then questioned with regard to his steement that
he was biro at Portsmouth, and whether he had not is the
course ei the trial of an action against the defendant Ali x-
ander, a few days before, sworn that he was born at Batb,
and he declined to swear whether he had dune so or not,
but persisted in asserting that he was born at Portsmouth.
Mr. Robins, the attorney for the defendant Allen, was
called to produce the writ, and to identify some of the d
mints that were necessary for the purposes of the prose-
cution.

In answer to questions put by Mr. Ballantine, he said that
when he had instructions to proceed against Lawrence to
recover the amount of the 251. bill, he saw him upon the
subject, and he made no objection to the amount, but told
him he had better not go to law with him, (or if he did he
should be sure to get the best of them, and such was his
opini ,n of the transaction that he advised Mr. Allen to take
whatever he could get, and he accepted the 101. bill from the
prosecutor with that view. The reason this bill had not b• en
presented for payment wee tha'Lawrence could not be found.
Two WitnetOWS were then called to prove that upon one or
two cccuions the defendant Alexander had charged Law-
rence with robbing him, and raid that h i would get him
traneporteil, add this closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Prendergast then severally ad.
dressed the jury for their respective clients, the line of de-
fence adopted by each of the learned gentlemen being nearly
the same. They urged upon the jury that the prosecution
had been got up solely from vindictive motives, and that the
prosecutor was unworthy of belief, and they particularly
remarked upon the tact of his having included in the in-
dictment every person who could have given the jury any
information upon the case, and said that as regarded
Allen, it appeared pretty clear that after he had kindly
accepted • bill for his accommodation, he had refused to pay
him, and instead of doing so he had treated him with
this criminal indictment. The learned counsel also com-
mented at considerable length upon the character of the
prosecutor u given by himself, and submitted to the jury
that it was not at all improbable that such • man as he evi.
dently wu would be just as likely to run away from his
creditors in England to • foreign country, as to leave his
foreign creditors in the lurch, as he had admitted he had
done, and that the probability was that the contents of the
affidavit made by the defendant Manairg were strictly true,
although tire prosecutor, for his own vindictive purpose DOW
chose to deny the fact.
The Reccrder having bridle summed up, the: jury iOII6D
diately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

POLICE.-YESTEILDAT.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
ROBBERY BY A BOY.— ll' 'llia's Jones, a boy about 14
years of age, was charged with stealing a valuable diamond
mg, the property of Mr. John George French, surgeon, 41,
Great Marlborough-street.
The prisoner had ben in the service of the prosecutor as
l age, and was discharged on Wednesday lost. Previous to
the prisoner quitting toe house, one of the female servants
missed a valuable diamond ring from the prosecutor's dress-
ing.ease. Su-pecting the prisoner had taken it, she searched
him, but did not find it. It was, however, subsequently
found at a pawnbroker's shop in the neighbourhood.
Godfrey, one of the detective pciiice, said he took the pri-
soner into custody on Saturday night. On their way to the
station he admitted to witness that he had stolen the flog,
and gave it to a woman who sold it to Mr. Neat, the pawn-
broker. Witness went there and found that to be the fact.
The prisoner was remanded.
BILL DI3COUNTINU.— Louis Joel, bill discounter and
jeweUer, Little Argyll-street, was brought up for final exa-
mination on two charges of forgery and fraud.
The forgery, which consisted of an allrged forging of the
name of John Marcus Clements to a bill of 1,0001., has al-
ready been disposed of, and the depositions signed. The
case of fraud, which rested on the evidence brought forward
to show that three bills, value together 7101., had been
fraudulently obtained from Lieut. 6 viand, was also so tar
advanced as to require only that the evidence of the wit-
nesses be read over and signed.
This having been done,
Mr. Clarkson wished an important point in the evidence
to be made perfectly clear, and he would therefore ask
Lieut. Garland a question or two.
Lieut. Garland having been placed in the witness boa,
stated, in reply to questions, that had he known the first
set of bills were still in Joel's possession be should not have
suffered them to remain there. lie thought &sus Joel's
statement that the bills were destroyed, and this induced
him to get the second set of bills accepted. With respect
to certain letters written to Joseph Joel, those letters had
been written at Joseph Joel's dictation. Witness had them
in his posseesion, they having been returned by Joseph Joel.
The prisoner was then fully committed on both charges.
Arrangements were made for two lac similista to ►ave a
sight of the alleged forgery, for the purrose of ascertaining
by the rules of their craft whether the signature is a forger,
or not, the prosecutor having asserted that the signature is
a forgery, and the prisoner that the signature is genuine.