The Sun.
London, England, 1852-09-13 00:00:00

MON DAY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Sept.. al.
(Before Mr. Coiriznisioner FAKE.)
IN RE CROSS.

The bankrupt, Richard Cross, jeweller, of South-
ampton, was broiight up to-day from Newgate for
examination. The particulars of his flight and cap-
ture have been made public. It is stated that pro-
perty worth about 1,3001. has been recovered. His
debts are estimated at about 2,1001.
Mr. Taylor appeared for the assignees.
Mr. HumrinuFs, for the bankrupt, said ha should
take a preliminary objection to his signing the usual
declaration to the effect that he would truly answer
all questions respecting his property, on the ground
that the answers might criminate himself. Bills had
been already preferred before the grand jury.
The CONTMDISIONER said he could not recognise the
right of not answering o❑ that ground in bankruptcy.
If the bankrupt refused to sign the declaration, tie
would be committed at once.
Mr. IIumPHRIEB (to the bankrupt)--You must
not sign it.
Mr, TAYLOR (presenting the declaration)—Do you
refuge to sign this ? The bankrupt--I do, by the
advice of my solicitor.

The COMMISSIONER—Then he is committed to
custody. Of course, as he is in custody already, it
makes him no worse.

Mr. HUMPHRIES asked that the money found on the
bankrupt might be given up.
The COMMISSIONER said he could only sanction such
amount being given up as would be sufficient for the
support of the bankrupt's family.
The order for his re-committal was then made out,
and the bankrupt was removed in custody.

ILFOAD PETTY SESSIONS, Sept. 11.
Before Mr. W. DAVIS, Chairman, Mr. G. FRY, Mr.

0. MASHITER, and Mr. M'NAUGUTEN.)
Mr. Simpson, the lessee of Cremorne-gardens, 31.
Poitevin, the aeronaut, and Madame Poitevin, at-
tended on Saturday before the bench to answer an in-
formation laid against them by Mr. Thomas, of the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
charging Al• and Madame Poitevin with cruelty to
a heifer, which they took from Cremorne-gardens at-
tached to a balloon, and Mr. Simpson with conniving
at the act, thus rendering himself a party to it.
Mr. THOMAS, who conducted his own case, stated
thatih. Peaarprpy appeared for the defendants.
eared on behalf of the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to prosecute in
this matter. A course had been suggested by the
Learned Counsel for the defence, viz., that Mr. Simp-
son and the other defendants should plead guilty to
the complaint, and consent to pay the full penalty of
51, each, giving, at the same time, an undertaking
that such exhibitions should not in future be per-
mitted at Cremorne-gardens, and to this he agreed.
Ile would consent to take the opinion of the magis-
trates with respect to a point raised in favour of
Madame Poitevin—whether she, as a married woman,
and acting under the direction of her husband, was
liable to any penalty at all. He did not feel justified
in adopting any
other course with respect to the lady
than that of merely mentioning the point, and leaving
it to the magistrates to consider it.
The CHAIRMAN said, that the undertaking, as he
understood it, was that no such ascent should, in
future, be permitted from Cremorne-gardens ; but
they were not the only gardens from which such
ascents might be made.
Mr. PARRY said that the undertaking would be
personal, not to make any such ascents in future.
The CHAIRMAN—If I understand the Learned
Counsel rightly, the promise is not confined to ere-
morne-gardens, but it is a promise that the parties
themselves will not do this in future. The Bench
will retire to consider.
Mr. PARRY was anxious to say that it was by his
advice, and by Mr. Simpsoa's own desire, that he
pleaded guilty to this information, and, therefore,
probably the bench would permit him to say one or
two words in mitigation of the conduct of that gentle-
man. Mr. Simpson and M. Poitevin acknowledged
themselves guilty of this act under very peculiar cir-
cumstances, such as had not before occurred since M.
Poitevin had followed his profession as an aeronaut ;
and he might be permitted to say, on behalf of Al.
Poitevin, in the first instance, that he had made alto-
gether 550 ascents in France and in this country, and
350 of these had been made with three horses, the
whole of which were now living, and in a satisfactory
condition, as the Bench could see by personal inspec-
tion, if they so desired.
The CHAIRMAN—We have nothing to do with the
horses.

Mr. PARRY—M. Poitevin had also made a great
many ascents with a bull in France, and none of his
ascents with this or any other animal had been at-
tended with any injurious consequences. The ascents
were not made until a commission, appointed by the
magistrates of Paris and the Prefect of Police, had
satisfied themselves by experiment that no danger was
likely to arise to those who ascended or injury to the
animals themselves. Of course the dc cision which
was arrived at in Paris could not guide them upon
that occasion, as in this particular instance M.
Poitevin acknowledged that he had done what was
wrong. Although he would n.ot have pleaded guilty
in the case of any of the ponies, it was beyond all
doubt that the animal taken up on this occasion had
suffered considerably—whether it was in the act of
coming down, or in the subsequent excitement of the
pople who assembled to render assistance, it was im-
possible to say. M. Poitevin felt that it was impos-
sible to resist this information, and, therefore, he
threw himself on their consideration, as a foreigner
ignorant of the laws of this country, and as one who
bad only exercised too great an anxiety for the amuse-
ment of the public. With regard to Mr. Simpson, that
gentleman was well known to the Middlesex
fboerncyhearos whose license he had had
largest hotels in London. He
fformosogeis
oftr magistrates,
was, as they knew, the licensee of Cremorne•gardens
place of amusement which had always been most
respectably conducted, and against which no com-
plaint had been made until, unfortunately, Mr.
Simpson was induced to enter into an agreement to
allow balloons with animals attached to them to
ascend from the premises. Over these ascents Mr.
Simpson at present had not the slightest control;
and, with the exception of his having at first given his
permission, he had nothing to do with them. Mr.
Thomas, however, argued, and perhaps with reason,
that as Mr. Simpson had lent himself to these exhibi-
tions, he was liable in point of law. He (Mr. Parry)
was not anxious to dispute that fact. All he had to
say was, that Mr. Simpson was not the master of the
place from which the ascents were made, nor was his
engagement with M. Poitevin, but with M. Soullier,
who was the present proprietor of the circus at Cre-
morne. Mr. Simpson, however, felt it his duty to
conform to the slightest reasonable wish of a bench
of magistrates, and had any intimation of disap-
probation been made from the Middlesex
Bench he would at once have complied with any
course pointed out, even at the sacrifice of a consi-
derable sum of money. He trusted that the bench
would see the difference between this charge of
cruelty, when the greater part of the injuries re-
ceived by the animal were inflicted by the populace,
over whom M• Poitevin had no control, and a case of
deliberate and wanton barbarity where there was a
manifest intention to torture the animal. With re-
gard to Madame Poitevin, he urged on her behalf the
well-known principle of law which said that when-
ever a woman did an act of this kind conjointly with
her husband, she was supposed in doing it to act
under her husbands directions. Now, whatever
Madame Poitevin had done, she had done under the
control of AI. Poitevin, who appeared before them to
answer the consequences of his own act; and he
hoped that the Bench would be satisfied without in-
flicting a fine upon the wife, who, perhaps as a wo-
man, would feel the implied censure more deeply
than the other two defendants. They had received
the pledge made by all the parties, that these ascents
should not be made again ; and he trusted the Bench
would take into their consideration not only this pro •
mise but at the other mitigating circumstances of the

mbring
e lnconclusion
of
case.
The CHAIRMAN said that he, and he was sure that
all his colleagues, hadisrn
pit w
doert
teaer
nrmet ngjudg t ende, s beforandejury,n
nenetrer nn gg
upon the case, that
andwould y of it
the to a
this
p
people
kingdom. lie had no doubt whatever that the atten-
tion of the English public, and, perhaps, the attention
of Europe, might be fixed upon this case, as the deci-
sion they were to give would set the question at rest
at once and for ever. lie should, on retiring with
his brother magistrates, urge the two points which
seemed to call for their adjudication—Viz., whether
they should enter into the details of this accusation or
information ; and, 2dly, whether Madame Poitevin
could be supposed to have acted entirely under the
control and direction of her husband.
Mr. PARRY said he presuthed that Mr. Thomas
would concede the last point.
Mr. THOMAS said that he would concede the fact
that Madame Poitevin had ascended with her husband,
but he was not prepared to admit that she wits coerced
to do so by him.
The Magiatrates then retired, and after an absence
of some minutes they returned.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Bench had taken the
matter into their serious consideration, and they could
not but feel in some degree pleased at the feeling
which had been exhibited by air. Simpson and the
gentleman who was with him, and they were also
pleased and satisfied with the conduct of the prosecu-
tor on this occasion, as he had prevented by his con-
cessions an exposure of details vslieh could not have
failed to gratify a morbid feeling in the minds of
many persons in this country—details which they all
felt were most happily avoided. They were gratified
that they had been enabled upon this occasion to avoid
those details, and they thought that the confession of

Quilt which had been made by the parties who were
broug'at forward, together with the expressions which
1:33 been used, and the prk-ani,,e which had been given,
would deter others from promoting similar exhibitions.
With respect to the point of law which had been raised,
the Bench had given it a good deal of consideration,
but their feeling was that the exhibition which had
occurred was of such a nature as made it absolutely
necessary to extend the fine to all the parties impli-
cated in the business. They would have been most
happy to surmise that no woman would have ven-
tured on such an experiment as this without in some
degree being urged on by her husband ; but, under
all the circumstances, they could not conscien-
tiously exclude Madame Poitevin from the fine
which had been incurred under the Act of Parlia-
ment. The Bench was placed, as he had said before,
i❑ a very peculiar position, and under circumstances
of much responsibility to the public. They would
be very sorry to do anything which might prevent
persons from contributing to the public amusement,
, but they must at the same time hear in mind the
, circumstances of this case, and the fact that the pro•
secutor in this business had had a very unpleasant
duty to perform. They had also to bear in mind
that the public had for a very considerable time sanc-
tioned his performance of those duties, which would
otherwise necessarily fall upon private individuals. It
would also be remembered that the law to prevent
cruelty to animals was established in the first in-
stance in the early part of the reign of George IV.,
and was afterwards confirmed and amended in the
reign of William IV., and recently sanctioned by
her present Majesty. All these Acts, he was
happy to say, proved a continual intention on
the part of the Legislature to humanise the people
and a determination that they should no longer be
affronted as they were formerly with horrible exhibi-
tions. It was within his own recollection that cock-
fighting and bull-baiting were the common amuse-
ment of the lower classes, and he remembered well
that these amusements were constantly the scene of
disorder and riot. He need not mention that a good
deal had been effected towards the civilization of man-
kind during the last 50 years, and everything which
they could do to uphold the progress of that civiliza-
tion it was their duty to do. They would not pander
to the lowest tastes of the people by bringing forward
detailed instances of barbarity in this case, and he
was happy to say that the conduct of Mr. Simpson
had enabled them to avoid doing so on the present
occasion, and he hoped that Cremorne would no longer
be celebrated for barbarous exhibitions, like many
other places of amusement for the people. They had
had a difficult case to consider, in deciding how far
they could interfere in this matter without unreason-
ably curtailing the amusement of the people, but they
hoped that their decision would serve the cause of
humanity, without injuring any one. The parties
would each be fined 51. and the costs. He wished it,
however, to be understood that in any future case the
Bench could exercise its discretion as to the infliction
of a fine or three months' imprisonment.
The parties, after a few observations from Mr.
Simpson, paid the fines and retired.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HO USE. _

Lewin Yates Coleman, Joseph Gurney, and Henry
Birch, who have been several times examined upon
the charge of having forged and uttered a bill, pur-
porting to be for the acceptance of Coleman and But-
tin, of Nicaragua, for 1871. 188. 9d., were brought
before Sir R. Carden for final examination.
The case having excited a great deal of interest the
justice-room was crowded during the investigation,
which occupied a considerable portion of the day.
Mr. Dearsley, instructed by Mr. Hobler, appeared
for the prosecution ; Mr. Bickley appeared for Cole-
man and Gurney, and Mr. Wontner for Birch.
Mr. Dearsley intimated that the prosecutor, having
cause to believe that Birch was not conscious of having
committed any offence, was desirous that a discharge
should take place with respect to that prisoner, whose
evidence might be of importance in the case.
Sir R. CARDEN could not see the conduct of Birch
in that light, and would not listen to the application
put to him in a new character, under existing cir-
cums" ances
Mr Dearsley at once submitted to the decision of
the Alderman, and proceeded to state the substance
of the additional evidence which he had to produce,
and which was as follows :
Mr. James Allen, clerk in the Royal British Bank,
said—l know Coleman. In June, 1851, he kept an
account at our bank. On the 30th of June, 1851, that
account was overdrawn 6s. Bd. On the 30th of June,
1852, he opened another account in the names of
Coleman and Bottin. Upon that occasion I showed
him the signature-book, and the account was opened
with the sum of 71. I asked him for his signature, and
I also told him it was usual to put the names of part-
ners in firms in the book. He told me that he was
the only person who had to draw cheques on the ac-
count of Coleman and Bottin. In this bill (the alleged
forged bill) I believe the writing of the signature of
Coleman and Bottin to be the writing of the prisoner
Coleman. I have paid cheques of his. [Here Mr.
Dearsley handed a bill for 487/. 103., purporting
to be the acceptance of Coleman and Bottin, of Ni-
caragua, to the witness, who continued his evidence.]
I b2lieve the acceptance to be in the writing of
Coleman.

Mr. Bickley—Did not Mr. Coleman say to you
that his partner was abroad ? Witness—He did not.

Mr. Bickley—Did he not say, when he caine to
you, that he was in partnership with a gentleman
who was abroad ? Witness—No.
Mr. Dearsley—What is the balance to the credit of
the account of the firm at your bank now ? Witness
—Two shillings and fourpence.
Mr. Joseph Nethercliff, of St. Martin's-street,
lithographic printer, having looked at the bill for 1871.
18s. 9d. said—l have examined this bill before, and I
have seen writing which I have been told is the pri-
soner Coleman's. Looking at the acceptance, " Cole-
man and 1-, Jain," I say that the writing, " Francis
Bottin and C 0.," as drawers of the bill, is the same
handwriting as that in which " Coleman and Bottin,"
as the acceptors of the bill, is. I look at the bill for
4871. 10s. The signatures are precisely the same as
those in the bill for 1871. 18s. 91, and the bodies of
both bills are in my judgment in one and the same
handwriting.—(Here the witness stated that there
were other similarities between the two bills.)
Mr. BICHLEY submitted that in all that bad been
stated by the witnesses there was nothing to sustain
the charge of forgery, whatever suspicion might be
excited that there were grounds for preferring a
charge of conspiracy to defraud against the prisoners.
But the whole case would, upon the trial, be found to
have been got up to prevent a prosecution in another
quarter.
Mr. Wontner, for Birch, declared that his client
was an innocent agent in the case, supposing that
fraud had been intended. It was true be had uttered
the bill, but to whom did he first apply for discount ?
To a money-broker of unquestionable sagacity and
caution, who would be most difficult to be deceived;
and the second person to whom he offered it was a
solicitor of still sharper intellect, who was the decided
foe of the person principally interested in the nego-
tiation. It was not probable that, with the know-
ledge that the instrument was fabricated, he would
have rushed into the lion's mouth.
Sir R. W. CARDEN said he would not hesitate to
say that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain,
under existing circumstances, the charge of forgery,
but he considered that the evidence of the conspiracy
to defraud was undeniable against the whole three,
and it would be in the option of the counsel for the
prosecution to shape the accusation according to the
additional evidence which he might receive in the in-
terval between the committal and the trial at the
Central Criminal Court. He should therefore com-
mit the three prisoners for having conspired, by means
of a fabricated bill of exchange, to obtain money from
the prosecutor, Elias Isaacs.
The ALDERMAN then read to the prisoners the
usual prefatory words to committal.
Coleman said that he wished merely to state that
he would have upon his trial an opportunity of
proving the grossest case of conspiracy and the
grossest case of villany that had ever been practised.
The other prisoners said they would reserve their
defence for their trial.
It was again stated upon the part of the prosecu-
tion that there was no disposition at all to proceed
against Birch ; but
Sir R. CARDEN said he certainly considered, look-
ing to the whole evidence, he was bound to commit
Birch with the other two prisoners, and, whatever
arrangements might be made at the trial, he would
act upon that judgment.
The prisoners were then committed for trial, but
the Alderman said he would accept bail.
MARY LEB ONE.
John Williams and Edward Harding, a cab-
driver, were charged before Mr. Broughton with
attempting to rob Mr. Joseph Griffiths, a chemist,
residing at 113, Park-street, Regent's-park. It
appeared in evidence that about three o'clock
that morning Mr. Griffiths was on his way home
after spending the evening at the house of a friend
in Torrington-square, and went into a public •house
at the corner of Munster- street, where he saw
Williams, who, after putting a few questions to him,
asked him to partake of some gin and water with
him, which be did, and paid for himself. When about
to lease the house Williams advised Mr. Griffiths to
have a cab, but he replied he preferred walking home,
and left the house, but had no sooner reached the
bridge at the top of Albany•street than he received a
tremendous blow on the left side of the head, and
something was pressed round his throat by some one
behind him, which almost choked him. On looking
round he distinctly saw two persons, whom he fully
believed to be the prisoners. An attempt was then
made to pull his watch out of his waistcoat pocket,
but he resisted, and called out loudly for the police,
on which they ran off. A. constable coming up he
pointed out the road they had taken. The constable