The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-24 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

HOME CIRCUIL—LEwEs, Dec. 23.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr Baron Channell.)

The businoss of the Assizes here was concluded to-day.
In the case of manslaughter arising out of a blow struck
in a casual encounter, the medical evidence leaving it
doubtful whether the blow was the cause of death, the
grand jury threw out the bill.
Two young women, servants, were convicted of stealing
a pair of bobts, and one George Henry Hutchins with re-
ceiving the same, well knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr A. L. Smith prosecuted.
They were sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
It has already been mentioned that most of the cases
in the calendar were cases either of burglary or forgery.
None of the cases of burglary,towever, were bad cases, or
attended with any circumstances of violence or nocturnal
terror to the inmates. The cases of forgery came from
Brighton.
In the course of the day the learned Judge took occasion
to observe that in cases of forgery it was very desirable that
the written instruments should be annexed to the deposi-
tions, or at all events copies or facsimiles of them, for other-
wise it was often difficult to understand the cases. He
had found great difficulty in charging the grand jury in
some of the cases of forgery in the calendar in consequence
of the omission to annex the documents.
A youth named Cooper was convicted on his own con.
fession of forging several orders for the payment of small
sums of money.
Mr Hurst was for the prosecution; Mr Roupell and Mr
Begley appeared for the prisoner.
The prisoner had been a clerk in the service of the Lon-
don and Brighten Railway Company, who have a sick fund
for their servants formed out of their contributions, and on
which they have a right to draw in case of sickness or acct.
dent. , The prisoner, who had previously borne a good cha-
racter, had forged several orders purporting to be signedllay
persons thus entitled to draw upon the fund.
The learned Judge sentenced him to 18 months' imprison-
ment with hard labour.

A man named Fuggle, described as a carpenter, was in•
dieted for forgery and uttering a cheque for X2O, with intent
to defraud.

Mr Merrifield conducted the case for the prosecution—the
prisoner was not defended by counsel.

The case was rather peculiar. The prosecutor, one Se-
lines, was in business at Hastings some years ago, and in
the year 1857 had an account at the Hastings branch of the
London and County Bank, and the prisoner was in his ser•
vice. Since then the prosecutor had left llastings. On the
sth of November last the prisoner presented to a clothier at
Brighton a cheque on the bank for £2O, dated 26th October,
1864, and purporting to be signed by Selines. At the back
of the cheque was the indorsement, " Paid 16th October,
1857," and the date and signature bore traces of erasure and
rewriting. The prisoner gave a false address, and when the
cheque was stopped at the bank he denied having presented
it. It was found to be an old cheque of the year 1864,which
had been cashed and cancelled, and it was supposed that
having been mislaid or left about, the prisoner had found it
and altered the date, and had erased the erasure on the sig-
nature, and had then re-written it over the erasure. The
prisoner himself stated that he had picked up the cheque,"
but he denied having altered it.
Mr Selines proved that 1857 he had an account at the
Hastings branch of the bank, and he received his cancelled
cheques as is usual, and sometimes left them about. The
signature to this cheque, he said, had been his, but it had
been altered, apparently by erasure and then rewriting it,
and as it stood it was not, he said, his signature—and the
date also had been altered. He had mislaid the counterpart
books, and he could not say when the cheque was drawn.
The learned Judge—Do you put a number on the cheques
and counterpart ?

Witness said he did not.
The learned Judge—Then let me Advise you to do so.
it is a very good precaution.

The manager of the Hastings branch of the bank in 1857
was called as a witness, but had left his books behiad, and
so could not positively say, except upon reference to a
memorandum made therefrom the other day, that he had
paid the check,

The learned Judge observed that he was sorry bankers'
clerks should so often forget to bring their books. The
books of the Bunk of England were considered so far public
that copies of entries were admissible ; but that was not so
as to private books or the books of private bankers.
The witness said he had no doubt he paid the check.
The original debt he believed to have been the 16th of
October, 1864. The check had been paid and cancelled in
the usual way by erasing the signature, and he believed
the erasure had been erased and then the signature re-
written over the traces of the former signature.
The prisoner, a poor, ignorant fellow, whom no one could
suppose capable of so crafty a device, repeated his former
statement that he had picked up the check and presented
it as he found it, and had never altered it.

The learned Judge, in summing up the case to the jury,
pointed out to them that there was a count, for uttering the
check, knowing it to be forged, as well as a cow.: for
forging it, and they might convict him upon either or both.
There could be no doubt upon the evidence, that the check
was originally drawn in 1857. The suggestion was that the
cancellation had been erased. and the signature being re-
written or retraced. Of this they could judge from inspec •
tion of the instrument—and if they believed that the pri
soner had found the check and thus dealt with the date
and signature so as to give the appearance of a recent
check of the date of the 26th of October, 1861, he would
be guilty of forgery. Or, if finding it so altered by any-
body else, and knowing it to bs torged he presented it,
he would be guilty of the uttering. Looking
at the prisoner's appearance and his apparent want of in-
telligence, they might doubt whether he made the altera-
tions. Then came the question whether he knew the check
to be false or forged. Beyond all doubt he uttered it. And
then there were the facts of his giving a false address, and
falsely denying his presentation of it, and it was for the
jury whether these facts showed guilty knowledge on his
part.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty of uttering the check
with intent to defraud, and they recommended him to
mercy on account of his poverty and infirmity.
The learned judge, in passing sentence, said he thought
that they had rightly found him guilty only of uttering the
check. But, knowing Mr Setines as he did, his own story
convicted him of great dishonesty in not taking the check
back to him, even assuming that he had, as he said, found
it. His real offence probably was that he had been guilty
of a false pretence in presenting the check as if it were a
genuine one, and obtaining goods by means of it. Under all
the circumstances, the sentence would be imprisonment for
nine months, and, on account of his weak state of health,
without hard labour.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LEEDS, Dec. 23.
(Before Mr Justice Keating.)
His lordship sentenced James Thompson, who was tried
yesterday for stabbing his wife, to penal servitude for life;
and the prisoner Ackroyd, who was found guilty of various
offences under the bankruptcy laws, to one year's imprison-
ment.

Thos. Drake was indicted for feloniously attempting to
drown Elizabeth Wilson, with intent to murder her, at
Halifax on Dec. 6 last.

Mr Thornber conducted the prosecution; Mr Wheelhouse
•
defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the prosecutrix and
prisoner are only 17 years old, and that they had been liv-
ing together for some weeks; but the prosecutrix had left
the prisoner about a month before the unhappy occurrence
took place. The prosecutrix then lived in a furnished room
and used to go to work every day in Halifex. On the Gth
December she arrived too late at her work, and had to re-
turn home again. As she was returning she met the prisoner
by the canal. He accompanied her;towards her home. When
they had got under the canal bridge he caught hold of her
with one hand and put his other hand over her eyes and
pushed her into the water. She went under the water three
or four times, while the prisoner stood looking on without
offering her any assistance, and then walked away. John
Farness, a man who happened to be passing, bravely jumped
into the water, and saved the prosecutrix at great peril to
his life. The prosecutrix was then laid on the grass, and
while the people on the spot were attending to her the pri-
soner threw himself into the water and attempted to drown
himself.

Mr 'Wheelhouse contended, on behalf of the prisoner, that
he was not in his right mind at the time, and called several
witnesses to prove the fact.

His Lordship, in summing up, said that the witness Fur-
ness had conducted himself in a most gallant and humane
manner, which reflected the greatest credit on him, and he
regretted that he was unable to grant him a public reward.
The learned judge then said that it was for the jury to con-
sider if the prisoner at the time was in a state of mind to
form any intention at all, for it appeared that the prisoner
at the bar, from an accident he had three or four years ago,
was subject to fits, and that he never was himself for some
days after, and that he had a fit the night before; but still
the jury must look at his conduct at the time to arrive at a
right conclusion as to his state of mind.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and told his lordship
hat they had made a subscription for the witness Furness
,o show their appreciation of his services.

',Lis Lordship said they had bolter give the money to the
officer of the Court, as probably there might be other per-
sons in court who might be desirous of adding to it. (His
lordship himself added a handsome donation.) His lordship
said that under the circumstances he should only sentence
the prisoner to 15 years' penal servitude.

George Wrigh'son, Thomas Bourne, George 'Walker, and
Isaac Askham were indicted for night poaching,
Mr Maule said that Robert Wright, the head game-
keeper of Mr George Fox, with five other keepers, went
cut to watch on the 16th Nov. last at one o'clock in the
morning. At half-past one they were in Bramham-park,
close by the Thatched House, Whincozer, in the township
of Barwick in Millet. They saw the prisoners standing
about, and went towards them. They noticed that there
were nets about for catching game, and a bag was subse-
quently found with game in it. The prisoners cried out
"Hiss, hiss," and advanced to meet the keepers, whom
they attacked. The keepers, however, got the best of the
fight, and several of the poachers were wounded. The fight