The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-09 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—CARLISLE, AUG. 6.
(Before Mr. Baron Platt.)
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF FORGERY.
Edward Stuart Wilson, described in the calendar as a
"clerk, aged :34, reads and writes well," was cliar.:,,ed
with having, on the 3d of February last, forged the sig-
nature of Messrs. Hodgson, solicitors, of Carlisle, to a
cheque upon the Carlisle and Cumberland Bank for
5391. 12s. 6d. The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Overend, Q.C., with whom was Mr. W. H.
Hodgson, appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that on Monday, the
sth of Feb., a letter was received by Mr. Ward, manager
of the Carlisle and Cumberland Bank. It was dated Car-
lisle, Feb. 3, and bad enclosed a cheque upon the bank in
question for 5391. 12s. 6d., payable to the Rev. Thos.
Sanderson, and drawn in the names of Messrs. T. and C.
Hodgson, solicitors, Carlisle. The writer of the lett er,who
signed himself as the Rev. Thos. Sanderson, of Langford
Vicarage, near Lancaster, stated that on arriving in
Carlisle that afternoon from the country, he found he was
too late to get a draft for the cheque enclosed, and being
obliged to leave by the next train to be in time for his
duties the following day, he would be very much obliged
if Mr. Ward would forward an order on the London
agents of the bank for the amount, payable at sight, by
the next post. A statement of account between Messrs.
Hodgson and the Rev. T. Sanderson was enclosed with
the cheque, which latter appeared to have been part of
the sheet on which the statement was written, and to
have been cut off it. Mr. Ward having no suspicions in
the matter, the cheque being apparently in the hand-
writing of one of the Messrs. Hodgson, at once draw a
draft on Messre. Hankey and Co., the bankers' agents,
for the amount named, less commission, and transmitted
it to Lancaster, as directed. In the course of post he
received an acknowledgment dated Feb. 6, from Lang-
ford Vicarage, near Lancaster. The draft on Hankey's
was subsequently returned as paid, and no more was
thought of the matter till the 14th April, when the Messrs.
Hodgson's pass-book was made up, and the cheque was
found to he a forgery. To fix the guilt upon the prisoner
it was shown that as a clerk in one of the leading solici-
tor's offices in Carlisle, doing frequent business with the
Messrs. Hodgson, he would have ample opportunities of
knowing their handwriting ; that the prisoner went up
to London on February 7th by the night train, and that
a person answering his appearance, a passenger by the
train, gave a letter to the Lancaster station-master, re-
questing him to get it posted, and to be particular with
it, as it was important ; that the letter was directed to
Mr. Ward, and was no doubt the acknowledgment of the
receipt of the draft ; that the Lancaster p3stmaster had
previously received a letter dated from Carlisle, stating
that a letter had been by mistake directed to the writer
(Mr. Sanderson) at Langford Vicarage, and requesting
that it might be re-directed to him at the Carlisle post-
office ; that the prisoner arrived at an hotel in Drum-
mond-street, London, on the morning of the 7th Feb-
ruary, and went out about 8 o'clock ; and the draft on
Messrs. Hankey's was cashed about an hour after ; that
the prisoner subsequently at the Hungerford Hotel was
seen counting out five hundred pounds in gold, and told
a gentleman staying at the hotel that he had just come
from Carlisle ; and that three of the Si. notes paid by
Messrs. Hankey's clerk in cashing the draft were dis-
tinctly traced to his possession. Witnesses, well ac-
quainted w;:cla his handwriting, also spoke to the hand-
writing oi the body of the cheque and the indorsement,
and o,:ner documents produced in connection with the
as being in the prisoner's usual style.
Serjeant Wilkins made an able and energetic defence,
contending that some of the witnesses were mistaken,
and others unworthy of credit, and that in several things
which he pointed out the conduct of his client had been
such as showed that he was not the guilty party.
The jury, after an how's consultation, returned a ver-
pict of guilty, and
His lordship sentenced the prisoner to 20 years' trans-
portation.