The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-23 00:00:00

THE CHARGE AGAINST MRS. GRANT.

Mr Grantham applied to the court to allow the trial of
Mrs Grant, the widow of Major Grant, of the Indian army,
who is accused of wilfully and feloniously setting fire to her
dwelling-house, at Brighton, to be postponed to the spring
assizes.

Baron Ch fund! said that the matter was mentioned to
him at 'Maidstone, but at the time he had not the power to
aot judicially in reference to an offence alleged to have been
committed in another county. He had originally understood
that Mr Baron Martin, by whom the case was postponed
at the summer assizes, intended it to come on at the
present gaol delivery, but from inquiries he had made, both
of the learned judges and the counsel retained in the cause,
he had reason to believe that there was some doubt upon
the point, and he therefore thought he should not be justi-
fied in refusing the application.

The trial consequently stands over to the spring assizes.
George Mattey, 18, a respectable-looking youth, described
as a pupil teacher, was charged with feloniously forging and
uttering on order for the payment of £l5O.
Mr Roupell prosecuted—and the prisoner was defended
by Mr Bexley.

The prosecutor in this case is the Rev. Mr Roper, who
resides at Hove, near Brighton. Mr Roper is a very aged
man, suffering a great deal from different bodily infirmities,
among which was that of being nearly blind. The pri-
soner was employed by Mr Roper as an amanuensis, and
it was his duty to attend him every morning and to read to
him in the library, and to write from his dictation, Occa-
sionally, it appeared that he employed the prisoner to fill
up the bodies of cheques for him, but, although his sight
was defective, he invariably put his own signature to the
cheque as well as he could. The prisoner seemed to have
left this employment on the 16th of July, having been en-
gaged in the manner above stated fur about nine months,
and it appeared that on the 13th of the same month the
cheque in question was presented at Messrs Glyn's, who
were the prosecutor's London bankers, and paid to a stranger
who could not be identifiA, over the counter. The case
against the prisoner rested entirely upon evidence with re-
gard to his handwriting, several witnesses expressing a
positive opinion that the body of the cheque and signature
were written by the prisoner. It appeared in the course of
the case that during the last 12 months the prosecutor was
very feeble, and that he was almost entirely blind, and
could with great difficulty recognise any one who was close
to him, and it was likewise proved that a great number of
pers ,ns might have had access to his cheque. books, and that
occasionally the bodies of his cheques were filled up by
dill: rent members of his own family.
A witness named Haynes, who described himself as a
town missionary at Brighton, who had been in the habit of
frequently visiting the prosecutor upon matters of business,
and also to ask him for pecuniary as sistance to relieve some
of the sick poor he was in the habit of visiting, was cross-
examined at considerable length with reference to his means
of knowing the prisoner's handwriting and ()les matters,
and he professed to speak positively to certain letters and
figures in the cheque as being those of the prisoner; and he
caused some amusement in the court by stating that he
(witness) made his letters diff:rently.
Mr Mitchell, the clerk at Glyn's, proved that when the
forged ch que was presented he showed it to another clerk,
and he expressed his opinion that the signature was genuine
and it was paid in two £do notes. four £lO notes, and £lO
in gold. He was unable to say by whom the cheque was
presented, and he could not tell whether he had ever seen
the prisoner until he was in custody upon the present
charge.

The Rev. Mr Roper, the prosecutor, who was examined
from the bench, proved that the cheque was a forgery,
and that he had never authorised the prisoner to draw a
cht qua for (50 for him, or received such an amount
from him. The prisoner, it appeared, was a pupil
teacher in a school in which the reverend gentleman took
an interest, and by this means their acquaia tance commenced,
and the prisoner went into his service in the capacity above
stated.

In answer to questions put in cross-examination the pro-
secutor said that the prisoner was irregular in his attend-
ance, and did not give him satisfaction, and he gave him
notice to quit his service at the end of the quarter. At the
solicitation of his mother he consented to allow the prisoner
to remain in his service, but only under a weekly engage-
ment, and upon the prisoner telling him that he had got an
engagement as a clerk in a brewery in London he allowed
him to go at the end of the week which terminated on the
16th July.

In reply to questions put by the learned judge the rev,
gentleman stated that at present he signed his cheques en-
tirety mechanically, and was unable to read the signature
after it was written. He alsJ said that he never authorised
he prisoner to draw up the body of any cheque for so large
an amount as £l5O.

Wm. Marsh, police-sergeant at Hove, proved that he
apprehended the prisoner at Shorne, Kent, in August last,
and when he told him that he was eharged with forging a
cheque for £l5O, he said it was false, he knew nothing
about it. When they were going through London the pri-
soner asked him where he was going to take him to, and he
told him to Messrs Glyn's bank, to see if they could identify
him as the person who had passed the forged cheque, and
the prisoner said, " I did not do that ; I was not employed
to do that." There was no evidence that any portion of the
proceeds of the forgery came into the possession of the pri-
soner.

Mr Bosley, in the course of an able address to the jury
on behalf of the prisoner, commented upon the very extra-
ordinary nature of trie case, and the evidence that had been
adduced as to hand writing, upon, which, he said, the charge
against the prisoner entirely rested. He then remarked
upon the fact that thc alleged offence was committed so far
back as July of last year, and that the prisoner made no
attempt to abscond ; and he submitted that it was to
the highest degree improbable that a young man of
good ctiarac er, as the prisoner was proved to have been,
should have been guilty of such a serious offence as the
one imputed to him by the present indictment. The learned
counsel then proceeded to comment at considerable length
upon the evidence that had been given with regard to the
forged cheque being in the handwriting of the prisoner, and
in conclusion he urged that there was at all events suffi
cient doubt in the case to justify tue jury in acquitting the
prisoner.

The learned judge, in summing up the case to the jury,
told them that it they should think that the prosecutor had
oeen induced by any device to sign this cheque, ana that the
signature was genuine, he Was of opinion they would not
be justified in convicting the prisoner upon the present in-
dictment, although he might possibly be amenable to some
other charge. The firs, question, therefore, for their consi-
deration was whether a forgery had in point of fact bee❑
committed, and if so, whether the evidence made out to
their satisfaction that the prisoner was the person guilty of
that offence.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict o f
Not Guilty,

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—AYLESZURI, Dec. 21.
In the case of Joseph Biker, charged with arson, which
was proceeding when our parcel was despatched, Mr New-
ton, for the prosecution, addressed the jury in reply, and
his lordship summed up, observing that the question was
if Hubbs' story was true ; and if it was not he must have
committed wilful and malicious perjury. Spies and informers
were pe :ple who were not looked upon a very favourable
eye, but this man was only acting in accordance with the
orders of his superior. His story was confirmed by the fact
that the policeman had gone by a short time before the fire
broke out, and if Hubbs did not hear this from the pri-
soner he would hardly have guessed if. Then there were
marks in the hedge, and a part of which the prisoner spoke
of was broken, and several other circumstances. His lord-
ship having gone through the facts of the case, the jury
returned a verdict of Not a silty.
James Ross, 29, glassblower, Eli Abbott, and John Draper,
30, shoemakers, pleaded not guilty to a charge of unlawfully
entering, together with other persons unknown, to the num-
ber of three or more, a certain close of land at Broughton
on the night of the 2nd October last, armed with bludgeons,
for the purpose of taking and destroying game.
Mr Markby appeared for the prosecution ; Mr Graham
defended the prisoner Draper; the other prisoners wero un-
&fend od.

It appears that on the night in question Mr Tyi ingham's
two gamekeepers were aroused about two o'clock, and hav-
ing procured the assistance of four men, went to a neigh-
bouring cover, where they found some nets set, and shortly
after came up to five or six men, who rushed upon them and
attacked them with large sticks, and having inflicted consi-
derable injury on the keepers, made their escape. The
keepers afterwards found a quantity of nets ani some bags
containing 18 rabbits and a hare. Two days after this the
prisoners were seen in Bedford
,by police constable Stennett,
who having heard of a reward of £25 being offered for the
apprehension of the poachers took. Abbott and Ross into
custody. Draper got off by the train, and was taken into
custody in London, Stennett having telegraphed to the au-
thorities there. Witnesses were called, who proved that the
prisoners were seen together in Bedford shortly before the
2d October, and that they had in their possession the bags
and nets which were found by the keepers,and the keepers
swore to all the men as having assaulted them on the night
in question. A witness was also called who proved that he
saw the prisoners Ross and Abbott at his public house,
which is about five miles from the scene of the affray, at 6
o'clock on the morning in question.
Mr Graham addressed the jury for the prisoner Draper,
contending that the evidence of identity was unsatisfactory,
and commenting on the fact that Draper was not seen at the
pablic-house with the others.
The other prisoners having addressed the jury,
His Lordship summed up, and while doing so recalled

the publican, who then said that Draper was outside his
house when the ocher prisoners came in,

1 he jury fouud ail the prisoners guilty.
A great number of convictions wet e then read out agains.
Ross, who had been on one occasi )n sentenced to four years'
penal servitude for night poaching and assaulting keepers.
His lordship sentenced Koss to 15 years' penal aervitude,
and the other two to 18 months' imprisonment with hard
labour.

This case, which was not over till nine o'clock, concluded
the bu-iness of the assizes, and there are no more winter
assizes on this circuit.

OXFORD CIRCUIT —READING, Dec. 22.

The commission for the winter assize for the county of
Berks was opened in the new assize courts yesterday after-
noon by Mr Justice By les. 11 is lordship afterwards attended
Divine service at St. Mary's parish church.
The calendar contained the names of 21 prisoners for
trial.

George Parkinson, aged 27, was indicted for having
wil-
ful y and maliciously set fire to a stack of clover hay, the
property of Henry Smith, at DAworth, near Windsor, on
the Nth of Oczober last,

Mr It. Sawyer prosecuted. •
The evidence went to show that the prisoner was seen
leaning over a gate near the rickyard about 10 minutes be-
fore the fire broke out, and on the following day he went to
Police-constable Field, and spoke to him about the fire,
concluding by saying, " Well, I did it." The officer told
him he should be careful not to say anything to criminate
htmself, but this had no effect upon him, and he said
" That he had laid out of doors for six nights, and that
being in a state of starvation, he did not care what became
of him. The man was then taken to the police-station at
Clewsr, and was asked whether he set the rick wilfully on
fire, or accidentally. He said he did it, but there• was
more burnt than ought to have been; he did not intend that
the large rick should be burnt, but only the small one, and,
after setting the rick on fire he threw the matches over a
hedge into a field on the opposite s de. The police-con-
stable afterwards went to a field, and found the box of
matches, which the prisoner admitted to have belonged to
him.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the learned
judge intimated that he would defer passing sentence.
Joseph Haines, aged 25, and Sarah Bartlett, aged 24,
were indicted for violently assaulting and stealing 145., a
tablet, and a soldier's discharge, from Benjamin Wheeler,
at Newbury, on the 4th of November last, Both prisoners
pleaded guilty.
Mr Justice Bytes sentenced Haines to five years' penal
servitude, and the women to 18 months' imprisonment. On
leaving the dock, the latter said, " I ought to have as much
as he, for I helped to rob the man,"