The Sun.
London, England, 1852-10-29 00:00:00

FORGERY.

Lewis James Coleman, who was brought to this court
by habeas from the Queen's Bench prison, Joseph Gur-
ney, 60, described as a merchant, and .Henry Birch, who
surrendered to take his trial, three respectable looking
persons, were indicted for feloniously forging and utter-
ing a bill of exchange for 1871. 18s. 9d., with intent to
defraud.
Mr. Clarkson, in opening the case, said that the pri-
soners were charged with forging a foreign bill of ex-
change, purporting to have been drawn by a firm passing
under the name of Francis Bottin and Co., at Nicaragua,
in South America, and accepted by the firm of Coleman
and Bottin, of Mark-lane. Upon looking at the depo-
sitions, however, he and his learned friend were of
opinion that the charge could not be made out against
Birch, but that he appeared merely to have been made a
tool of by the other prisoners. Under these circum-
stances, he should offer no evidence against Birch, but
would at once consent to a verdict of not guilty as re-
garded him, and he should then call him as a witness
for the prosecution.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not Guilty
with respect to Birch, and he was then removed from
the dock. .

Mr. Elias Isaacs, an attorney, residing in Jeffrey-
square, St. Mary-axe, deposed that on the 26th of July
Birch brought him the bill in question, and asked him to
discount it. The bill purported to be endorsed by
Gurney and Co,, of St. Mary-at-Hill, and he requested
Birch to get a written communication from Gurney and
Co: respecting the bill, and he brought him a letter
written by the prisoner Gurney, offering to take 1001.
for the bill. He had his suspicions respecting the in-
strument, and while he was making inquiries respecting
it he pat Birch off from time to time, and made different
excuses for not discounting the bill. He at length
received a letter from Gurney, in which he stated that
the bill had been fraudulently obtained, and demanded
its restitution ; and he then said he would not give it
up unless Mr. Gurney came to his office, and gave him a
receipt for the bill. On the 80th of July, accordingly,
Gurney and Birch came to his office, and after the
former had written a receipt and acknowledged his con-
nexion with the transaction, an officer was called in and
he gave them both into custody, and at the same time
gave instructions for the apprehension of the other pri-
Boner, Coleman. The witness added that his daughter
had unfortunately married the brother of Coleman, and
this was all the connexion between them.
Mr. Parry cross-examined the witness with a good
deal of severity, and endeavoured to show
.that he had
been connected with some transaction of a disreputable
character.
Mr. Isaacs, however, denied most positively that there
was the slightest foundation for any of the insinuations
that were made against his character. He also denied
that he was a bill discounter, or that he had ever had
ipar his pion Prince
sesueisas
Na
peen].
eye
ebills
Ht hea tsa
da d ben
he ewe
ens
awarestole n f
thatrmo
some years ago a charge of bill stealing was preferred
in
that court by Louis Napoleon, but he was not
way in any
t e prosecution,
concerned
and
n i
he wasexcept paid for so doing. byassisting
H
tePr Prince in
hdid
on one occasion, he said, discount a bill for 5001. for
Prince Louis Napoleon, and it was paid in due course.
Mr. Shotter, clerk to Messrs. Nissen and Parker, en-
gravers, in Mark-lane, proved that the prisoner Gurney
ordered the plate to be engraved from which the printed
portion of the forged instrument had been taken. He
also said that Coleman called for a proof from the plate,
and he was represented to be Mr. Coleman, of the firm
of Coleman and Bottin, of Mark-lane.
Evidence was then given that Coleman had himself
hired the counting-house, and that no such person as
Bottin was ever seen there ; and a Spanish merchant.
well acquainted with the state of Nicaragua, named
Antonio Mettle, was called to prove that ,here was no
such Arm as Francis Bottin and Co., carrying on busi-
ness in that state.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Parry addressed the jury on behalf of his client.
Coleman, and he contended that there was not a tittle of
evidence in the case to show any intention to defraud on
his part.
Mr. Dearsley also addressed the jury for the other
prisoner, and,
Mr. Justice Cresswell having summed up, the jury
retired to deliberate, and, after being absent nearly an
hour, they returned into court and gave a verdict of
Guilty against both prisoners.
,Sentence was deferred.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
William Martin 19, clerk, and Edward Graves, 20,
turner, was indicted, Martin for forging an order or re-
quest tor the delivery of seven pairs of bracelets, valued
at 81., with intent to defraud Charles Wild, and Graves
with uttering the same order.
The circumstances, the investigation of which occupied
the Court nearly all the day, were these :—The prose-
cutor is a jeweller in Hatton-garden, and the prisoner,
Martin, had been a clerk in his employ, but had for
some time previously left his service. On the 28th of
September a man brought an order, purporting to be
from a :Nlr. Troup, a jeweller, also living in Hatton-
garden, requesting that the bracelets might be sant on
afproval, which was done. Within a few minutes of
the same time, the same man went to another jeweller
in Hatton-garden with a similar order, who did not give
him the goods, and ho went away. The gentleman to
whom the second order was given, going out shortly
afterwards, called ott Mr. Troup, and then found that be
had not sent the order in question. He then made a
cull on the prosecutors, and he found that he had been
imposed upon, and upon looking at the handwriting he
recognised it as the handwriting of the prisoner Martin.
Information seas then given to the police, and they
knowing him to be the associate of Graves, took him in
custody, anal, being seen incompany with other prisoners,
was at once identified as the came man who had pre-
s'inted the order, and received the bracelets. The hand-
writing of Martin and the identity of Groves were
clearly proved by a number of witnesses.
The jury found them Guilty. Martin was ordered to
be imprisoned for 12 months, and Graves, being well
known to the police, was transported for seven years.
The Court sat considerably beyond the usual time of
rising.

THIRD COURT.
(b'efore the Common Sergeant.)

George Holyhead, 39, firework maker, was indicted
upon the Coroner's warrant for feloniously slaying and
killing John Howes and Cornelius Crowley, on the 4th
of October.
Mr. Carleen having stated the case, called
Solomon Pigott, a toy dealer, of Little Norris-street,
Whitmore-road, Hoxton, who stated that being himself
a dealer in fireworks, he went on Sunday, the 3d of
October, to the prisoner's house, 30, Ruse and Crown-
c,iurt, Eldon•street, Little Moortields, to purchase some
fireworks. Ile got there a little before eight in the
evening. Holyhead was then in the back parlour.
When witness went in he left the room two or three
times. Witness heard a noise in the room overhead.
When Holyhead came back, witness made some remark
about the lads being at work, knowing that he had one
at work there wl-ow they called Jack. Mrs. Holyhead
said they had not left off yet. Witness said that no
good ever came of Sunday work. Holyhead made no
reply, but went upstairs, and when he came
down, he said the boys might as well leave off for
the night. His wife said it would be as well, for it
was thou half-past eight. She then went up stairs, and,
coming down again, said they had only a few to finish,
' and Jack would stop to finish them. In about ten
mieutea atter that they heard a terrific explosion in the
room overhead. Prisoner, his wife, and two young girls
all ran out into the court, and witness was so alarmed
that he ran round into the back street. In about five
minutes he came back, and, looking through the win-
dows into the shop, saw something on the floor burning,
and Holyhead standing by the side of it. Mrs. Holyhead
then came out with some burning but exploded fire-
, works in her apron, and witness helped to get the rest of
the fireworks out of the shop. They thou got the two
deceased boys, who wore dreadfully burned, on to a
shutter, and conveyedthorn to St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
When they got back they examined the room, and
found the window frames entirely blown out, and the
partition of the walls blown down and burnt. There
were a quantity of empty cases lying about the room.
The prisoner was dreadfully agitated, and said the hop
was lighted with a flat candlestick and a glass globe
over the light. Holyhead said this matter would be his
ruin. The boys were too much hurt to give any account
of how it took place.
George William Callender, house surgeon at St.
Bartholomew's Hospital, said the two boys were brought
in about nine o'clock on the Sunday evening ; their in-
juries were such as to preclude the chance of recovery,
and both died the next day. Their bodies were burnt
all over in a most fearful manner.
Mr. Sleigh, in a most able address, contended that
there was no evidence to show that the p;isoner had
been guilty of wilful neglect.
The Common Serjeant having simmed up, explaining
the law to the jury,
They, after a short deliberation, returned a vcidict of
Not Guilty,

A BURST OF TALENT !—A Yankee, being asked
to describe his wife, said, " Why, sir, she'd make a re-
gular fast, go a-head steamer, my wife would—shu has
such a wonderful talent for blowing up."—.Punch,