The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-01 00:00:00

He did not pay the first. When bankers apply for divi-
dends they leave a list. (He produced the list left by
Strahan in March.) He did not know in whose hand-
writing it was, but he supposed it was written by one of
Strahan's clerks. In the March of this year the dividends
were paid to Smith, Payne, and Co. for the same party.
Mr. Edward Nixon Binney, a clerk in the house of Dal-
glass and Co., Great St. Helen's, Australian merchant,
said in March, 1854, he was a clerk to Messrs. Hambro,
of Broad-street. He paid the dividends due in March,
1854, on the four bonds 657, 659, 660, 661, 662,663, to
Messrs. Strahan, bankeri in the Strand. The amount
paid was 141. lls. 3d. on six bonds.
Mr. Bodkin said this would close the case, as far as
regards the dates of the bonds, hut he had further evi-
dence with respect to one. He therefore proposed to
call another witness.
Mr. C. Peppercorn said he was one of the parties who
purchased the Dutch bond, numbered 3,348. The
bought note produced was in his band-writing, and
amounted to 9631. in September, 1853, this firm was
employed to raise money on Dutch bends for Messrs.
Strahan, to the amount of 10,0001. The bonds sent
were Dutch, for one thousand dorms each. He raised
the money at two houses. One was Levy and Co. They
advanced 5,0001., Mr. Soady advanced the other 5,0001..
and the money was handed over to Messrs. Strahan.
Amongst these bonds was one numbered 3,348.
Mr. Bodkin said this was as far as he proposed to go
to-day.
Mr. Ballantine said as it was impossible to close the
unfortunate affair earlier than the let of September, be
begged to apply either that bail be taken or to commit
the prisoners to Newgate, in order to put him in a posi-
tion to apply to a judge, should that course be adopted.
Mr. Parry, on the part of Bates, said there did not
appear to him to be one scintilla of evidence against
him. With all due respect, he thought chat, according
to Jarvis's Act, the magistrate was compelled to take
bail. The act was 11 and 12 Vic., c. 42, s. 23, and in
his opinion there was no alternative for the magistrate
but to admit them to bail. He thought it exceedingly
hard that the parties should be kept in prison until one
of the witnesses arrived in this country from abroad.
He did not think that because this case had excited a
great deal of interest these parties should be kept in pri-
son a long a time.
Mr. Bodkin said, by the magistrate committing the
prisoners for trial, the ends of justice would be utterly
defeated, as the prosecution would thereby be prevented
from calling further witnesses, and would in fact close
the case. He did not think that the prisoners at the bar
had anything to complain of, as the delay was in a great
measure caused by the inaccuracy of the state-
ments they had themselves made. With respect to the
expediency of accepting bail, he left that entirely in the
hands of the magistrates.
Mr. Jardine said he most certainly should not com-
mit the prisoner for trial, as the prosecutor had in-
formedlim fresh evidence was in the course of being
obtained. He thought that if he admitted the prisoners
to bail, it would be such as would hardly be worth the
accepting. The case itself was involved in such
difficulty that it became imperative on him
to act with the greatest caution. However, as there
had been no objection on the part of the prosecution, he
would admit the prisoners to bail, on their giving tbe
following surities, namely, themselves to the amount of
6,0001. each, and also two sureties for each prisoner, for
the sum of 3,0001. each, making, in the whole, bail to
the amount of 36,000/. The prisoners are to appear at
this court every week for a renewal of their sureties,
and to give twenty-four hours notice previous to in-
quiry into the substantiality of the proposed sureties.
The prisoners then left the bar.