The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-08 00:00:00

CtArge of Fraud.

Nathaniel Forrester Edwards, described as a lieutenant-
colonel, of Canonbury-place, Canonbury-square, Islington,
was charged before Mr Ellison, at Worship-street, with
having unlawfully, t y certain false and fradulent pretences,
obtained of and from a Mr Robert Court Cullen the sum of
£5, with intent to cheat and defrand him thereof.
The case has been before the Court at intervals of ad-
journment since the beginning of last month,
Mr Chipperfield appeared for the complainant; the de-
fendant conducted his own defence.
Mr Robert Court Cullen said that he resided in De
Beauvoir square. He was acquainted with the defendant,
but had not seen him for many years until in the middle of
July last he met him accidentally. The defendant then told
him he was going to India with his two eons, having an ap-
pointment under a public company, and that he was looking
out for a respectable house for his wife and daughters to re-
side in while he was away. He asked witness if he knew of
such a house, and witness told him that he thought he did,
as a lady had died in the next house to his, and her brother
would most probably like to get rid of it. On the 2d of August
the defendant called at his house and saw witness's wife,
with whom he had some convosation about, two appointments
he said he had. He then saw the witness, to whom he pro-
duced the prospectuses of two or three of the associations
called the London and Madras Bnak and Madras Cotton
Company, asked him if he would like to undertake the office
of assistant-secretary, of which he had the appointment.
He said Mr. Mandrill, the late secretary, had been dis-
missed, and that the salary would be £3OO a year. The
witness told him that he was much obliged to him, that ho
would like to take the office, and the defendant said he
should see the directors in a day or two, as they were going
to have a meeting on the 4th or sth at the offices of Messrs
Lawford and Waterhouse, the solicitors to the company,
and that anything he might wish to ascertain he could learn
from them. He next saw him on the sth, when the de-
fendant called on him in the morning, and told him he was
going to dine with Sir Fredk. Smith and others, and to be
present at a meeting of the directors. He said if he would
walk towards the city with him he would tell him the terms
of his appointment. The witness did walk with him, and
while doing so the defendant said, " I suppose you would
not mind a £lO note down if I get the appointment for
you ?" The witness said it would not be convenient to pay
£lO just then, but he would give him £5 down and the
other £5 when he received the first quarter's salary. That
morning defendant had told him he could get him a quar-
ter's salary in advance if he allowed him £lO off. The wit-
ness said, " Very well," and they parted. The witness saw
hiw again in the evening at half-past 9, when he called at
appointment." Witness the docr he said,
~ witness's
is
all
right,house, y andou en
have witnessga t t
he oappepnoi
told him he should not pay him until he had satisfied him
and his wife and family it was correct, to which the defen-
dant replied, "Oh, I will soon do that," and went into the
beck parlour, where Mrs Cullen and a lady, a visitor, were
at supper. He said, " Well, Mrs Cullen, I have been dining
with Sir Fredk. Smith; the directors have given your hus-
band the appointment, and if you will give me pen and ink
I will give it you directly." Witness's daughter got him
pen, ink, and paper, and the defendant wrote and signed
the following letter :
" London and Madras Bank, Madraa Cotton
Company, Limited, 22, Canonbury-place,
Canonbury-square, Aug. 5.
"My dear Sir,—l am happy to say that lam empowered
by Lieut.-Gen. Sir F. Smith, Col. Elsey, Mr Henry Dun-
lop, and Mr A. R. Shaw, the majority of the committee of
these companies, to appoint you to be the assistant secre-
tary, vice Mundrill, dismissed. You will take your orders
from me, and be prepared for duty on Wednesday, the 10th
August inst,—l am, my dear Sir, faithfully yours,
"N. FORRESTER EDWARDS, Promoter."
He then sat for an hour or mere before he left, when, while
going down the steps, he reminded him of the agreement as
to the money in the morning, and said "You will pay me
that ? lam going to Walton-on-the-Naze, where I have
got a yacht, and the money will do to pay for a few cigars."
To this the witness assented, and he paid him four spvereigns
and two halves. This was on the Friday evening, and on
Saturday he called again, and said the checks would be ready
at the bank on the Monday—one for £l,OOO for his son and
himself, and the check for witness for the quarter's salary,
and that it was likely he would want him to walk down to
the city with him. On the Monday he called again, and
said he wished witness to go with him to the London Bank
in Threadneedle-street, where he was to be, he said, at half-
past 3, and the checks would be ready. He waited half an
hour, while witness shaved, and they walked there together,
but when they got to the bank the defendant told him to
wait outside while he went in about the checks, and he did
wait five minutes. The defendant then came out and said
" Well, the checks are all right, but Col. Elsey only has
signed them ; the other two directors, who must sign them,
will be in during the afternoon, when they will sign the
checks and send them to my house, and I will send them
down to yours in the morning." Witness waited at home
all day, but defendant never came near him, and at 7 in the
evening the witness's son suggested that he should look
after the defendant, and they both went to the house in
Canonbury-place. The witness's suspicions afterwards
became excited, and on calling at the bank and on the
Messrs Lawford and Waterhouse, the firm represented as
solicitors to the companies,
the answer to his inquiries as
regarded the defendant was so unsatisfactory that he deter-
mined to adopt these proceedings.
Cross-examined—The witness had property to live upon ;
he had an allowance from his friends. His unole was re-
gistrar of the Diocesan Court of Canterbury, in which also
his brother was chief clerk. He had himself been in the
registrar's office for 16 years', and left it before the new act
came into operation, though he could not fix the date ex-
actly. He had the care of the marriage licenses, and used
one for himself, but it was already signed, and he filed the
proper affidavit about it. He knew the defendant in 1848 or
1849, and met him in Whitecross-street prison. A man
named Tyson had stolen £lOO odd of witness, who took the
benefit of the act, but had paid the money since. He also
met the defendant at Edmonton about six or eight months
ago, but he did not then speak of these companies or give
him a prospectus of them. The defendant did not propose
to give him the above letter. It was given only to gratify
Mrs Cullen, and witness's family did not know he had paid
the £5 till the Thursday morning.
Mr Jas. Waterhouse, of the firm of Lawford and Water-
house, solicitors, Drapers'-hall, Austiafriars, said that in
July last they were not solicitors to the London and Madras
Bank (limited). nor the Madras Cotton Company (limited).
He never heard of such companies, had never been applied
to about them, and was not aware of the existence of either
nor had any meeting of the directors of those companies
ever been held at their offices. Thera was no arrangement
for a meeting of directors of any company at their offices on
the day this money was alleged to have been obtained from
the complainant. He knew the defendant, who about two
years ago applied to their firm to become solicitors to an-
other company, named the Indian Cotton Company (the
prospectus of which was put into witness's hand), but the
company was never formed. The defendant mentioned the
names of a number of influential persons as interested in it,
s
and he wanted them to undertake the solicitorship of it;
that was in July, 1862 ; but they never authorised their
hfielninsiself had never held out that Messrs
ion as.
secretary names to be printed in the prospectus as solicyitotors,thanedßwohyeanl
he saw that it was so he objected most strongly to it. The
ChancerydeTf e
hn ed an
Evidence
defendantt introduced
co
said
Lawford and Waterhouse were the solicitors to these
companies, for, as 'it happened, Messrs. Howard, Doll-
man, and Howard, a highly respectable firm in Fen-
church-street, were the solicitors. He was secretary to the
Royal Chancery Evidence Commission, and the magistrate
would see his appointment at the end of each of two com-
missions printed in a Parliamentary Blue-book, which he
handed up.
Lieut.-Colonel William Elsey, of the Indian Army, said
he resided at Ealing. On the sth of August last defendant
wcuasiienno.t
assistantauthori sedbar him to appoint the complainant, Mr
secretary
to the London and Madras Bank
or the Madras Cotton Company (limited). There was not
a word of truth in the letter now handed to him,so far as he
was concerned. He knew nothing of defendant, and never
saw him but twice iu his life. The defendant introduced
himself to him with a card now produced, purporting that
he was requested to call on him by Sir Frederick Smith,
and when he saw him handed him a few prospectuses, which
witness looked at, but did not assent to anything.
wtihfee' remembered
beginning of
isand made an appoint-
he had visited them
August.tmh oel intrssv Ei
defendant
hl
i Hzhaeebrl Elizabeth
hl
sCi
nsuaglcnl
card,
at
tcashonhemdi
rpsthought
h'
e
three times. He called and signed the letter produced, and
about a week before that he spoke to her about het husband's
appointment. Ho said he had the appointment of four
gentlemen to an Indian Cotton Company, and she replied
that it was very nice for gentlemen to have something to do,
and she would like Mr Cullen to have employment. He
signed the letter in her presence, and when he called in the
evening he said to her, "Allow me to introduce you to the
under-secretary," and he pointed to Mr Cullen. She
thought he called some days before about the check.
Cross-examined—Defendant never said anything to her
about giving any commission for the appointment, nor did
he say he would advance the complainant £75. The check
was for the first quarter's salary, and defendant said he had
got it cashed ready for her husband.
the defendant said that, as far as he could see, there was