The Sun.
London, England, 1852-09-22 00:00:00

THE TRIAL OP' CORNELIUS JULIUS TRIPE AND HENRY

GRAHAM MONTAGUE,

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The Learned RECORDER summed up the case in a
clear and concise manner. He said, that although the
trial had occupied a very long time, he felt certain
that no one would begrudge that time, for it had un-
doubtedly been a most wholesome inquiry. The dis-
closures that had taken place would no doubt operate
as a caution to persons who were inclined to lend
their capital to establish public companies of this or
any other description to be careful who the parties
were with whom they associated themselves, and it
would also be a caution to their poorer countrymen,
such great numbers of whom were at this moment
anxious to leave our shores in the hope of bettering
their condition in another country, not to be led
away by the inducements of disreputable persons to
part with their money, but to take care to place
themselves in communication either with some agent
of the Government for emigration purposes or
else apply to some responsible party, and that these
were the only modes in which they could carry out
their intention without risk of being defrauded. Some
strong observations had been made by the defendant's
counsel upon the absence of some of the gentlemen
whose names had appeared as directors of this com-
pany, and he must say that, with regard to two of
them, Major Hawkes and Captain Smith, who ap-
peared to have taken an active part in the proceed-
ings, and the former of whom appeared to have
been the first to direct the attention of Mr. Dawson
to the subject of the company, it would have been sa-
tisfactory if they had been called as witnesses on the
present occasion. There was no evidence whatever
to show whether the company was originally projec-
ted by these gentlemen, or whether, in point of
fact, the defendant had originally suggested its for-
mation, and endeavoured to induce them to join
them in carrying it out; and if either Major Hawkes
or Captain Smith had been examined, that point
would, at all event', have been cleared up.
He must remark, however, that it did not
appear to him to be the duty of the prosecution to
call those gentlemen; and, if their evidence had
been considered really material for the defendants,
it was their duty to have taken the proper
steps to procure their attendance. The Learned Re-
corder then said, that it was not customary to make
observations upon the conduct of a magistrate, but in
the present instance, as a good many remarks had
been made upon the course that was taken by Sir
Robert Carden in connexion with the inquiry at the
Mansion-house, he thought it right to say that it ap-
peared to him that the proceeding of summoning all
the gentlemen who seemed to be connected with the
transaction, with a view to make the necessary inqui-
ries of them, was the best that could be adopted, and
the most likely to enable a magistrate to arrive at the
truth of the matter.
The jury, after deliberating nearly an hour, re-
turned a verdict of Guilty against both the defendants.
There were other indictments of a similar nature
against them that were not proceeded with.
Judgment was postponed.
Matthew Hayes, 28, was indicted for
.the man-
slaughter of John Evans.
Mr. RYLAND, who held the depositions by direction
of the Court, said it appeared to him the evidence was
utterly insufficient to support the charge, and he
should therefore, with the sanction of the Court, de-
cline to call the witnesses. _ _

A verdict of Not Guilty was consequently taken.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Sept: 21.

Before Mr. WITHAM and a Bench of l‘lgistrates, al
the Guildhall, Westminster.)
THE BRIGHTON CARD CHEATING CASE.

in the course of the day ;;;;;TOf the grand jury
came into Court, and the foreman, addressing the
Learned Chairman, said that they had just had a bill
presented which they felt some difficulty in dealing
with, and they therefore requested that the Court
would give them the assistance of a solicitor, or some
person qualified to explain the nature of it.
Mr. WITHAM inquired what the bill was about ?
The foreman replied that it was about Broome's
affair.

Mr. METCALFE said that this course was frequently
adopted at the Central Criminal Court, where an
officer of the court always gave such information of
this nature as the grand jury required. The indict-
ment in question charged the defendant with a con-
spiracy to defeat the ends of justice, by keeping out
of the way of the prosecutor and other persons in
connexion with the late triel. He was perfectly clear
from the decision arrived at in the case of Sill the
other day that the prosecutor was victimised, and a
man was not to be ci ushed because he happened to be
a prizefighter. There had ben no bill preferred for
this offence, or against these persons before, either at
this court or the Central Criminal Court.

Mr. WerraAai said that the grand jury must do the
best they could, for he could make no order for as-
sistance to be given. There had been three or four
bills found here before in this case, all of which had
been removed to the Central Criminal Court, or else-
where, and they might have taken this one there
es well.
The Foreman said they could not help that ; they
had the bill before them, and really did not under-
stand it. What were they to do ?
Mr. WITHAM said they might do the best they
could. The prosecutor bad had four bills already,
and be might have taken the present one to the Cen-
tral Criminal Court.
Mr. METCALFE must say this appeared to him a
strange proceeding on the part of the Chairman. A
man had a right to go to whatever court he pleased.
A jury had already decided that the prosecutor was
an injured man, and he (Mr. Metcalfe) felt bound to
say that he thought it most improper for the Chairman
to refuse the request of the grand jury, and to cast
relections on the prosecutor.
The Foreman explained that they only requested
the attendance of a solicitor at the investigation to
know what they were to do. All they wanted was
an explanation of the indictment, which they did not
understand. When a bill was presented to them
which was founded on a committal by a magistrate,
they had the advantage of his judgment in forming
their opinion ; but in this case they had nothing of
the sort, and they therefore asked for the assistance of
a competent person to explain.
Mr. WITHAM said the bill might have been pre-
ferred at the Central Criminel. Court, and he could
not comply with their request.
Mr. METCALFE said he should formally apply to
the Court that the solicitor for the prosecution might
attend the grand jury merely to explain the indict-
ment. The grand jury did not require him to remain
or submit the evidence or further guide their opinion.
Mr. WITHAM repeated his decision.
Mr. METCALFE considered that it was very extra-
ordinary conduct on the part of a judge, when a
grand jury brought a bill into court and said they
did not understand the nature of the offence charged,
and asked for assistance from the Court, that they
should be refused the assistance of the officer of the
court or any other parson to give the required infor-
mation ; and the prosecutor be told that he might
have gone to another court. It was throwing an
imputation on the conduct of the prosecutor, who was
a very respectable man. There were days when
judges have told grand juries that they must find a
bill, but those times were now passed by, and should
never be revived.
Mr. WITHAM would not alter his decision.
The Foreman having said that they should not have
made the request had they not known that such as-
sistance was afforded at the Central Criminal Court,
retired with his brother jurors.
About an hour later they returned into court with
some bills ; among them was one against William
Hamp, William Watkins, and Charles Proberts for
misdemeanour, which was returned ignored.
SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. TURNER.)
Caulfield Percy, aged 26, was indicted for having
stolen a letter and a post-office order for 51,, the pro-
perty of John Ayliff.
The prosecutor was a gentleman's servant out of
place, and lived at a coffee-shop in Dean street,
Soho, where the prisoner also lodged. According to
the prisoner's statement, he was the prosecutor's ad-
viser, amanuensis, and confidential man, and it ap-
peared that he was aware that the prosecutor wes ex-
pecting a remittance of 51. from his brother-in-law,
who lived near Richmond in Yorkshire, and conse-

quently he kept a bright look out for the postman.
One morning the expected letter was delivered, and
the prisoner, who was waiting to receive it, took it
and feigned to carry it upstairs to the prosecutor.
The prosecutor never received it, bat on the same day
the order was presented at the office in Broad-street,
Bloomsbury, signed " John Ayliff," and as that was
the name contained in the letter of advice, it was
paid to the person presenting it. The clerk could
not say that the prisoner was the individual who re-
ceived the money, but the inference was that he had
stolen the letter and forged the prosecutor's name to
the order.
The prisoner about whom there seemed a g:eat
deal of plausibility and cunning, made a long defence,
in the course of which he said that the prosecutor
was concerned in racing matters with a " sporting
prophet" who was in the service of the Marquis of
Salisbury. He denied having had the letter.
At the request of the jury, the witness who proved
that the prisoner took up the letter was recalled.—He
swore that the postman called out, " A letter for
letterA yli f f
have
enb
een
which
waiting t hci
for;' prisoner
and a
slid, " That is the
t once
went out
as if to go upstairs.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and
Mr. TURNER sentenced him to nine months' impri-
sonment with hard labour.
Francis Isaacs was convicted of having unlawfully
of Maria Andrews, a entered the dwelling-house