The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-08 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice TALFOURD, Mr. Baron MARTIN,
and Mr. Justice CROMPTON).
Thomas Robert _Mellish, 46, and James Douglas,
26 (the latter pleaded guilty), were jointly indicted
for forgery and uttering a receipt for the payment of
U. 15s. 4d., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Ballantine were Counsel for
the prosecution ; Mr. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin,
and Mr. Huddlestone defended the prisoner Mellish;
Mr. Parry was also instructed to watch the case on
behalf of Douglas.
At the commencement of the case all the witnesses
were ordered out of court, and upon Mr. CLARKSON
observing that, from the nature of the proceedings,
Douglas, who had pleaded guilty, might possibly be
called as a witness for the defence, it would be better
that he should not hear the evidence for the prosecu-
tion, he was removed from the bar.
This trial occupied the attention of the Court for a
considerable time, but from the nature of the case,
and the circumstances under which the present charge
was preferred, it will only be necessary to give a nar-
rative of the facts upon which accusation was sought
to be established against the prisoner. It will be re-
membered that in October, 1851, both the prisoners
were tried in this Court upon a charge of the same
kind—namely, forging a receipt, and after a very
long inquiry they were both found guilty, and Mr.
Baron Parke, who tried the case, sentenced Mellish
to be transported for ten year, and Douglas for seven
years. In pursuance of the sentence the prisoners
were removed to the Penitentiary, and it appeared
that soon afterwards certain representations were made
to the Secretary of State on behalf of Mellish, which
induced him to communicate with the Learned Judge
who tried him, and after considering the matters that
were submitted to him, Mr. Baron Parke expressed an
opinion that it would be more satisfactory if another
case were to be tried, several distinct indictments hav-
ing been preferred on the former occasion against the
prisoners but not proceeded with, and accordingly the
prisoners were remitted to this Court under the war-
rant of the Secretary of State, in order that another
charge might be inquired into. The evidence now
adduced was precisely of the same character as that
which was presented on the former occasion. It ap-
peared that the prosecutor of the indictment was a
gentleman named Thompson, who formerly was in
extensive practice as a surgeon, but who in the
autumn of 1849 gave up that profession in order to
carry out, in partnership with two gentlemen named
Varnish and Cookley, a patent which he had pur-
chased for a new process of silvering glass. Pre-
mises were taken by the firm in Berners-street, and
as the prosecutor was ignorant of the nature of the
business of cutting and preparing the glass, he ob-
tained the services of the prisoner Mellish, who was
recommended to him as a very experienced person
in such matters, to superintend this branch of the
business. It appeared that an agreement was entered
into between him and the prosecutor, by which Mellish
was allowed to have the entire management of the
works, the payment of wages, the power to engage
and discharge workmen, and, in fact, M r. Thompson
would appear to have had very little more to do
with the concern but to provide the money which
was necessary to carry it on, and he was to
receive a salary of six guineas per week. When the
prisoner Mellish had been a short time engaged in
this manner he took the other man Douglas into the
establishment, and he sat in his private office with
him and acted as his clerk, and it appeared that it was
his duty to examine the bills of the different work-
men for the work they performed, and after the exa-
mination Mellish put his initials to them and they
were then paid by the cashier. The offence imputed
to the prisoners was that they had altered the amount
of the bills that were sent in, and had thus defrauded
the prosecutor of the difference; and on the particular
instance it appeared that on the 22d January, 1851, a
workman named Suttie had taken in a bill for 15s. 44.
and received that amount, and it was proved that the
amount had been altered afterwards to 11. 1.55. 44., and
that the larger amount was paid by the cashier. In
order to show that this could not have been the result
of any mistake, and to prove the guilty knowledge on
the part of the prisoners, evidence. was given that a
great number of other bills had been treated in a similar
manner. In one instance a bill for 1/. is. had been
altered to 1/. 173., in another 133. 84. had been al-
tered to 21. 13s. 84., in two instances a bill for 1/. had
been altered to 4/. 10a, a bill for 93. had been altered
to 11.195., another for 1/. 25. 84. had been altered to
1/. 12s. 84., and several other similar frauds were
distinctly proved to have been committed, and nearly
the whole of the forged bills bore the initials of the
prisoner Mellish. It was elicited on cross-examina-
tion that the whole of these bills went in the first
instance into the hands of the prisoner Douglas, and
it appeared that upon some occasions he had told the
workmen that he had lost their original bill, and
asked them to receipt fresh ones, which turned out to
be of the larger amount, and it was explained that
after Douglas came into the establishment the work-
men were required to bring two bills, in one of which
they stated at length all the items of work which
they claimed to be paid for, and in the other merely
a general account for the whole, and it appeared that
the latter was the instrument in which the alteration
was made. It appeared to be quite clearly esta-
blished that a very extensive and deliberate system of
fraud had been carried on against the prosecutor, and
the only question in the case was whether the evi-
dence made out that the prisoner Mellish was a party
concerned in it.
Mr. CHAMBERS made a very earnest and eloquent
appeal to the jury on behalf of the prispner. He said
he had no hesitation in stating that he felt vary great
interest in the inquiry, because he was instructed that
he was appearing for an entirely innocent man, who
had had the horror and misery of hearing a jury of
his countrymen pronounce the fatal verdict of guilty
against him, which had subjected him to a most
dreadful and degrading sentence, but who he hoped,
as a result of the present inquiry, would be released
from that dreadful position, and would be restored to
the one he formerly held, and was entitled, by his
character and conduct, to hold in society. It would
be useless for him to endeavour to conceal from the
jury the fact that the prisoner and the man Douglas,
who had pleaded guilty, were convicted at a former
session, after a very long trial, of an offence of the same
description as the present ; and he would also state that
upon that occasion Douglas was defended, and a strenu-
ous attempt was made by his counsel to fix the guilt of
the transaction upon Mr. Mellish. The jury, no doubt
nost conscientiously, upon these facts returned a ver-
dict of guilty against both prisoners ; but the moment
Douglas went back to his cell, he felt the injustice
he had committed against his unfortunate companion,
and he sent for the ordinary of the prison, and to that
gentleman he distinctly admitted that he alone was
the guilty party, and that Mr. Mellish was entirely
innocent. The facts were made known to the higher
authorities, and the result was that the present in-
quiry was directed to be instituted, and when the jury
had heard the evidence he should lay before them, and
had heard from the lips of Douglas himself, upon his
oath, that he alone was guilty, it would be for them
to say whether there wag any doubt of the innocence
of his unfortunate client, and whether it would not be
their pleasing duty to return a verdict the effect of
which would be to restore him to his afilicted family.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to call the
attention of the jury to the facts of the case as
they appeared on behalf of the prosecution,
and he urged that there was nothing whatever
to show that the whole of the frauds were not
committed by Douglas alone, or that the prisoner
had any share in them. It was true that it had been
stated that it was the duty of the prisoner to have
examined the accounts to see if they were correct,
but he submitted that it had not been positively shown
that this was his duty, and although his initials no
doubt appeared upon the greater portion of the forged
documents, still there was no evidence whatever to
show at what period those initials were placed there,
and for all that appeared to the contrary, the initials
were placed upon the bills at a time when they bore
the genuine amount of the bill, and that the figures
were altered afterwards by Douglas. lie then con-
tended that all the facts of the case showed that the
prisoner had
dn
placedeceb
ad b
entire
ebeen
abused.
that this confidence
was
r tthatun atthee
position,priso n e
bhadlit beenhe. saidplaced
h.
ein
entertainedh i his present
that day would
error that had been committed, and
the unfortunate
confidentunfo hope thauthtihheavveerttect
effthecetjuorfy
remedying would de-
liverfriends and all those who a
the
carryingPa
course with him.
of reinstating the prisoner inb dtheegvoerodhoadpinainony
inter-
course
:
Mr. Edward Varnish deposed
of Thetb pfroililoonweirn evidence was thenth a t givenhewag
on
formerly
on the glass-silvering process. .
ntity of partnership last year. The great TO
rtner of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Cnoeokielfetythine
busi-
nesstiht r
p suggestiontrsi In prisoner etrh
ahadt
he to
shouldperform
and Douglas was engaged for that purpose, and his
bills on which the gross hafvoer thesom
some
rt.imssi
assistance,
teo,
the habitof retaining the course of the business hepa'scertained that the pri-
soner of paying the wages,
aftedr thishe
the Douglasvi aligaeds
was in book.
?. a r
Ig
ne
oss amounts
.sloes.
Some of the other bills his possession.
the firm notice
ivtellish left th • were also
In
of his intentionu to (Ju !
air service of his own accord. lle gave
possesswioenreofsttahtoesde.
re-
mained in the service. e was unable
any frauds of a similar discovered after
Mellish left the set • ar kind were
vice.
James Douglas was
thats
quai
nhteethee examined—He deposed
wasw
th .Mellish years d 1 fiart,st. ote bp'
andle becameae hawasce
d
acquainted with his
Birmingham at the request of thewprisoner, and en-
tered the service of the prosecutor. Mellish hired him,
and he was to receive thirty shilling t
5 a wee 4first,
I.4lllll37''ela‘l:3.+l,re; came from