The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-02 00:00:00

SURREY SESSIONS---Feb, 1.

The adjourned general Quarter Sessions for the county of
Surrey commenced yesterday morning:at the:Sessions-house,
Newington-causeway, before Mr. J. E, Johnson, chairman ;
Mr. Thomas Tilson, deputy-chairman; Colonel M'Donald,
Captain M'Dougal, Mr. R. Baggallay, Mr. J. Mew, Mr. A.
Boyson, Mr. J. R. Phillips, &c. The calendar contained
the names of 42 prisoners for trial-35 for felony and 7 for
misdemeanour.

William Henry Manners, 20, was indicted for embezzling
£2O and upwards, the moneys of the churchwardens and
overseers of Lambeth, his masters.

Mr. Robinson, with Mr. Patchett, prosecuted ; and Mr.
Oppenheim appeared for the prisoner.
The Rev, Charlton Lane, incumbent of St. Mark's, Ken-
nington, proved paying th:: prisoner £7 6s 101 d for rates by
check, which had been returned as paid.
Mr. Davis, landlord of the Horns, Kennington, proved
paying the prisoner £2O 16s 6d for rates due to the parish,
and the prisoner gave him the receipt prodcced.
Mr. George Archbutt, clerk in the office of Mr. Clark, the
assistant-overseer of Lambeth, said the prisoner was one of
their collectors. It was his duty to collect money from the
ratepayers and pay the same into the banker's. He was sup-
plied with a rate-book and receipt-book. By the receipt-
book the amount received by Mr. Snell was 193 6d, the
counterfoil No. 139, name of Clay, 16s 3d and 8s 9d, mak-
ing altogether £1 53, instead of £9 6s 101 d. He only ac-
counted for SI ss. With regard to the counterfoil No. 143,
purporting to have been received on the 11th of November,
instead of £2O 16s 6d from Mr. Davis, was Mr. Belton 101 d,
which he only accounted for. Neither Mr. Lane, Mr
Davis, nor Mr. Prickett's name appeared as having paid.
They were considered defaulters. When the prisoner paid
into the banker's it was his duty to return to the office, and
hand in the banker's receipt for the amounts so paid in.
These sums did not appear as paid in by him.
On cross-examination by Mr. Oppenheim, the witness
said that the prisoner received his instructions from Mr.
Clark, the clerk to the churchwardens, and the books were
then given him from the office. His duty was to return
those books periodically. Ho had not returned the books
in which the names of the witnesses were entered. He never
returned those names as having paid the amounts due. The
rate books ought to be checked every week. Sometimes
they were not, owing perhaps to illness or something of the
sort. Four months after those rates were made a meeting
was held to issue summonses, They had not the prisoner's
books, but went according to a list sent in by the prisoner
to the officer. He did not know whether those lists were
examined. He did not examine them.

By Mr. Robinson—lt was the prisoner's duty to present
every week a list of money received by him with the coun-
terfoils. According to his list the defaulters were summoned.

Mr. Restall, another clerk in the office of Mr, Clark, said
that he generally examined the lists and counterfoils.
By Mr. Oppenheim—They examined as often as was
necessary according to the business of the office. The books
were not examined by the churchwardens or other officials.
Inquiries were made regarding the defaulters nearly every
six months. The collector furnished information from the
first, and entirely from his books they were summoned.
The banker's receipts were produced by the collectors every
Friday.
By Mr Robinson—lt was entirely through the prisoner's
books that the summonses were granted. No examination
of the books would have shown the amounts of the wit-
nesses who had given their evidence.

Mr. William Henry Anderson, also a clerk in the office,
said he examined the banker's receipts. The sums paid by
the witness had not been entered by the prisoner.
Mr. Oppenheim contended that owing to the laxity of
business doing by the parochial officers the prisoner was
placed in that perilous position. It seems clear, from the
evidence of the clerks, that the accounts were not
properly gone through, and that there had been no
regular arrangement as to the time the prisoner
had to pay what moneys he may have collected to the
bankers. Counterfoils had been produced corresponding in
numbers with the receipts of the prisoner, but that did not
prove that the prisoner intended to have plundered the pa-
rish of these accounts. Under these circumstances ho did
not think the prisoner ought to be convicted of embezzle•
ment. He had a number of witnesses to call who could give
the prisoner an excellent character, and, in conclusion, ho
trusted the jury would return an honest verdict.
Mr. Thomas White, of the Manor-house, Stamford-street,
and a vestryman, Mr. Phillips, also a vestryman, and seve-
ral others, gave the prisoner an excellent character, as far
as they had known him for several years.
The Chairman then eummed up the whole of the evidence
in a very careful manner, showing that the evidence of Mr.
Archbutt had proved that it was the duty of the prisoner
to account for all moneys he received weekly to the office,
and pay the same into the bankers. It was quite clear that