The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-15 00:00:00

MANCHESTER.

CHARGE OF FORGERY.-At the City Police Court, Man-
chester, yesterday, an elderly person named William Jack-
son was placed in the dock upon a charge of forging a bill
for £26. The prosecutor, Mr. Thomas Wilson, stated that
he was a woollen manufacturer at New High-street, Man-
chester. The prisoner had been his traveller and representa-
tive. The prisoner recently went to Sandbach, in Cheshire,
and received two accounts. He got a banker's bill for £26,
payable at seven days, on the Union Bank of Sheffield, from
Mrs. Leah of Sandbach. Fortunately (said the prosecutor)
Mrs. Leah happened not to put her name to the back of the
bill, and the prisoner after leaving town signed the name of
the prosecutor at the back of the bill. The prisoner then
went to the Bank to get the bill cashed, but the Bank refused
to give the money unless the name of the lady was endorsed
upon it. The prisoner was missing from the warehouse of
the prosecutor some days after he ought to have been there,
and prosecutor was from home at the time suspicious against
the prisoner were excited. When he got home, he wrote
to the customers from whom it was likely the prisoner might
have received money, and amongst others he addressed a
letter to Mrs. Leah, who keeps a shop at Sandbach. The
prisoner finding he could not get the bill cashed at the
Bank without the signature of Mrs. Leah, brought back to
Sandbach the bill with a request that she would endorse it.
Having in the meantime received an advice from Mr.
Wilson; she refused to part with the note to the prisoner,
but endorsed it and sent it to Mr. Wilson, who cashed the
bill. The bench held that as the prosecutor, knowing that
his name was forged to the bill as an endorsement, adopted
the bill as his own by asking for the endorsement of Mrs. Leah
and then getting the bill cashed, under these circum-
stances the magistrates could make no order on the matter,
inasmuch, at all events, as no offence had been committed in
Manchester. Of course it would be for the prosecutor to
consider whether he should prefer any complaint before the
Sandbach magistrates.—The prosecutor then stated that the
prisoner had gone to several of his customers, and that he
had got money and goods from them on his account, after
he had been dismissed from his service. This had taken
place at Leicester, Burton, Stone, and other places. The
Bench expressed an opinion that they had no jurisdiction in
the cases referred to, and that if they were to be further
prosecuted, steps must be taken in the places where it was
alleged the obtaining of goods by false pretences took place.
—Mr. Maude, the presiding magistrate, said, this was a
case in which it would have been much better if there had
been an examination previous to the prisoner being brought
there, and then it might have been considered whether the
prisoner should have been brought up in Manchester, or
elsewhere. From the evidence which had been adduced, he
could not conceive that the prisoner had committed any
offence in the city of Manchester, and he (Mr. Maude) did
not think that he had any jurisdiction that would justify
him in interfering in the case. As to the forgery, if it
should be held to be a forgery, that was not an offence com-
mitted in Manchester. And if any additional credit were to
be got by the signature, the prosecutor got it himself by hav-
ing:the bill cashed when he knew that his signature was
forged to it. The case against-the prisoner, so far as Man-
chester was concerned, was discharged, although he still
remained in. custody; to afford the prosecutor time to con-
sider whether he should take Jackson before the magistrates
at Sandbach, Leicester, Burton, Stone, &c.

REMOVABLE POOR.—It appears from a Parliamen-
tary return, printed on Monday, that the number of paubers,
who had becomo -chargeable under the Poor Removal Act
of 1846 and subsequent acts, was—England and Wales, in
1850, 678,359 ; in 1851, 638,618; and in 1852, 643,861.
The amount expended in the out-relief and in maintenance
of such remevable poor was-1850, 5604,792 255.5 d, ; 1851.
£601,678- 18s. ; and in 1852, £623,96G 13s. 7d.
GENUINE RUSSIAN BEARS GREECE.—As we know
that the Russians require oleaginous food, is it not possible
that, after devouring Turkey, the Czar may take a fancy to
" Greece ?" Should he po so, is it not probable that
" Genuine Russian Bear's Greece" will no longer be a fiction?
—Punch.