The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-15 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—June 14.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
THE CASE OF C. W. BEVAN.
( Continued from, our impression of yesterday. )

The first witness called was Mr. Stephen Cracknell,
one of the directors, who, in addition to confirming the
particulars entered into by the learned counsel, stated
that when he called upon the prisoner to produce the
vouchers from the Home Counties, prisoner said be had
them, and sent the messenger down to fetch the book,
but ultimately admitted that he had not got them, as
there was a question of account between him and the
company.

Mr. Mills, a gentleman acting as secretary to the
Home Counties office, was called, to prove the transac-
tion relative to the re-assurance of the policies, and said
that when the prisoner paid him for the four, he asked
him to let, him Nave the other two without paying the
premiums upon them. Witness did so, and had much
trouble to get them back. Prisoner owed him a private
debt of some amount, which he piid with the cheque for
2011.1.75. 6d., and it was only by threatening to keep the
balance that prisoner returned the vouchers. Prisoner
came and paid the premium upon the remaining vouchers
upon the day the directors had written to the Home
Counties office about them. This witness admitted, in
cro9s-examination, that there had been‘money transac-
tions between him and the prisoner, but not in any way
connected with the present case. Witness was fond of
sporting, and had sold prisoner two hones. Witness had
written some works upon sporting, but was not a racing
prophet ; neither was he the "Joe Muggins's Dog," of
one of the sporting Sunday papers.

The remainder of the evide 7ce, which was of a very
lengthy and complicated character, went to prove that
the manager of the Birmingham branch, having paid
ever to the prisoner, upon the 16th of June, the sum of
1001. from a person naned Danks, the pisoner, instead
of paying that over to the company, had used that
money to pay for the offices at Birmingham, and had
given to the person from whom he received it a receipt
dated a month in advance. The prisoner had, it ap-
peared, after giving his word that he would not do any-
thing to cast any discredit upon the Deposit and General
Life Assurance Company, put an advertisement into the
Times reflecting upon it, and the result was that one of
the directors had requested him to• put in a counter ad-
vertisement; but this he had not done, being, when re-
quested so to do, the secretary of the new company.
From the general tenor of the answers given in the cross-
examination it appeared that the board directors bad
been negligent in inspecting the affairs of the company,
and seemed to have trusted nearly all to the prisoner
without over:ooking him.

Some statements having been made by prisoner rela-
tive to Lord Drumlanrig, the chairman of the company,
his lordship was examined, and said—l once had from
prisoner a cheque for 751., either in August or July,
1853, as director's fees. Ido not recollect sending from
Limmer's Hotel for a cheque for 801. I have lent the
company 300/. ; that was, I think, when I was in Scot-
land.

Mr. Parry then addressed the jury for the defence,
and in a most forcible and pointed manner argued that
the prisoner's defalcations were not of a criminal cha-
racter, an implied authority having been given him to
deal with the moneys of the company as his own. That
it had not been shown that he had not paid the accounts
required, although not at the actual time; again, the
directors had, by their subsequent conduct, treated the
defalcations in a way that showed they did not view
them as criminal ; and but that the prisoner had become
a rival to them, and made a claim upon them, this most
malicious prosecution would not have been thought of.
The Recorder, in summing up, pointed out to the jury
the law of the case.
The jury having been absent a short time returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. Sleigh applied that prisoner might be let out on
bail to surrender to meet the other charges when pre-
ferred.

The Recorder said he saw nothing in the case to cause
him to depart from the general rule. The charge was a
very proper one to be brought forward, and prisoner
mu,t be kept in custody until the prosecutors had time
to consider if they should proceed with the other charges.
The case lasted from the sitting of the court until past
8 o'clock.