The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-20 00:00:00

ALLEGED FRAUD 'CIF £2, 000,

At the Guildhall yesterday, John Lumley Wragg, who
was described as an agent, residing at Raglan-cottage,
Shacklewell-green, was placed at the bar before Alderman
J. Clarke Lawrence, charged with the following frauds upon

his employers :
Mr. Lewis, for the prosecution, said hie client was Mr.
George nawksley, who carried on an extensive business as
a silversmith and manufacturer of plated goods at Sheffield,
and the prisoner was his agent and managed his London
business for him at his (prosecutor's) premises in Thav,es-
inn. The case was somewhat complicated, arising from the
Variety of frauds, but he only proposed to go into one class
of frauds on the precont occasion. The prisoner had been in
the prosecutor's employ from the age of 17, and on the esta-
blishment of the business in London the prisoner was ap-
pointed agent, and was paid by commission alone, but the
business expenses were paid by the prosecutor. The pri-
soner's duties were to obtain orders in London and send
them down to Sheffield to be executed, and remit all money
within a week after receiving them. It was also his duty to
send down once a month a sale account of all goods sold,
and of the orders obtained. This was the ordinary course of

business, but in the early part of the present month the pro.
secutor discovered certain irregularities which induced him
to discharge the prisoner, and it was subsequent to that date
that the fallowing circumstances came to his knowledge.
On the 11th November last, and while still in the employ of
Mr. Hawksley, the prisoner took some premises in Hatton-
garden, and putting up the name of " John Lumley and
C 0.," carried on business there on his own account, selling
to himself the prosecutor's goods, and in one instance re-
mitting to the prosecutor a bill of exchange for £22 old,
which the prisoner had accepted in the name of "Lumley
and Co." That bill would be the subject of a charge of
forgery, as there was evidence to show that it was drawn
and accepted for the purposes of fraud , and notwithstand-
ing, he had since admitted that he was " Lumley and C 0.,"
he told the prisoner in December last, in answer to ques-
tions as to the stability of the firm, that Lumley was a
highly respectable man, carrying on a good business in Hat
ton-garden. In the books kept by the prisoner those goods
were entered as sold to the firm of " Lumley and Co." in
December, and on the 19th of January last there was another
entry of goods sold to the same firm, to the amount of £l9,
but the prisoner did not enter the sale of those goods in the
monthly account sales. There was another entry on the
Bth of May of a silver tea and coffee service and silver
salver, sold to C. Bean for £53, but that sale was not ac-
counted for in the following monthly return, but, on the
contrary, those goods were represented by the prisoner as
being in stock at the stock-taking in the following December.
A similar transaction to the amount of £34 was entered
under the date of August 4, but oa November 4 it ap-
peared that he sold to Bean, of Brixton, 70 oases of dessert
knives and forks for £9O. He made no return whatever of
the sale of those goods, but it had since been ascertained
that he received from Bean a silver soup tureen and stand,
which he immediately afterwards pledged with Mr. Atten-
borough for £6O. There were other sales to Bean from
May to August to the amount of £4OO, none of which had
been accounted for by the prisoner in the monthly returns
required of him. Another feature in the case was, that the
prisoner had entered into partnership with Bean in a busi-
ness at Portsmouth, for carrying on which the prisoner had
advanced a sum of £2OO, and sent prosecutor's goods from
time to time to Bean at Portsmouth without accounting
either for the goods or the cob, and in order to destroy the
evidence of all these transactions, he had cut out leaves and
otherwise mutilated the books, but h'om the books and docu-
ments which had come into the prosecutor's possession
since the prisoner's dismissal there was evidence he (Mr.
Lewis) believed to make out a very strong case, and to show
that by the frauds complained of the prosecutor Was a suf-
ferer to the extent of more than £2,000.
Mr. Beard, who was retained for the defendant, said as a
remand would be applied for on the other side, he wished
to state that ho was also anxious for a remand to enable him
to adduce such evidence as would give a most complete and
satisfactory answer to the charges preferred against him.
Alderman J. C. Lawrence said he must have some evi•
deuce in support of the very strong case opened by Mr.
Lewis before he could entertain the question of remand.
Mr. George Hawksley said—l am a silversmith and elec-
tro-plate manufacturer, and carry on business at the Char-
lotte street Works, Sheffield, and at 6, Thavies Inn, Lon-
don. The prisoner first came into my service when he was
between 17 and 18 years of age, and has continued with
me, with the exception of a short interval, when he went
into business on his own account and failed. About two
years ago I took premises in London, and arranged with
the prisoner to become my agent, and agreed to pay him by
a commission of 71 per cent. for trade in London, and 10
per cent. in the country, and to pay his expenses. He
oaght to have made £5OO a-year by his commission. It
was his duty to send the orders to me, and sometimes I
sent up goods to him, and sometimes direct to the customer
according to his order. He had also to receive cash on my
account, and to remit it to me from time to time as he re-
ceived it, or in the course of a week or a fortnight. He fur-
nished me with a sale account every month by which I was
enabled to ascertain what stock be had in London. When
he came down to Sheffield to take stock in December last, I
asked him who "Jno. Lumley" was, and he said he was a
very respectable man, that,he was a householder,and had a
shop in Hatton-garden. I made the inquiry because it was
a new name in my books. I received a bill of exchange for
£22 45., with Jno. Lumley and Co.'s acceptance, for goods
which the prisoner had represented he had sold to that
firm. In the day-book kept by the prisoner there was an
entry dated May the Bth, 1863, of a silver tea and coffee ser-
vice and salver as sold to Mr. Bean for £53 9s. There is
also an entry under the date of the 4th of August, sold to
Charles Bean, of Portsmouth, for £ A 9s. 6d. The prisoner
never accounted to we for either of those sales ; but in his
dead stock account he represents those goods as being still
in stock. I have, however, examined the stock and do not
find any of those things in it. I never authorised the pri-
soner to send the goods for approbation, as I never do it.
The prisoner's deficiency in cash, goods, &0.. amount to
upwards of £2,000.
Cross•examined by Mr. Beard—l found, by his books,
that the prisoner has been in the habit of sending goods out
on approbation ; but I knew nothing of it until the other
day, I discharged the prisoner on the Bth of the present
month, and it was not until then that I discovered he had an
office in Hatton-garden, I have always known him as
John Wragg. I did not know that the goods had been sent
to Bean on approbation, for I would not have trusted him
with a penny. Bean has not paid for the goods I believe. I
expect the invoices sent up with the goods were made out to
the prisoner. The letter produced requiring the prisoner to
return certain goods,and threatening legal proceedings to re-
cover the amount of them, was written by my authority.
Mr. Beard said it was now evident from that letter, that
the goods were regularly sold and invoiced to the prisoner,
,„ho was not a servant, but merely an ordinary trade

Alderman J. C. Lawrelice said the fetter was dated a week
after the prisonerte discharge, and it did not therefore affect
the charges against the prisoner. Had it been written
before the irregularities were discovered, it would then have
been evidence of an allowed practice of sending goods out on
approbation.
Witness re-examined—My own name b:nd that of the
prisoner beneath it, as my agent, are painted 0z the door of
the premises in Thavies-inn.
Mr. Beard addressed the bench on the question ,of bail,
which was opposed by Mr. Lewis.
Alderman J. C. Lawrence said the evidence did not go ti.e
full length of the opening statement, and under all the cir-
cumstances he was inclined to accept bail ; but lie did not
think it a case in which any indulgence should be shown to
' the prisoner. He therefore fixed a high rate of bail, his
own recognisances in £l,OOO, and two sureties of £5OO each,
with 24 hours' notice.
The prisoner was then remanded.

WILLS AND BEQUESTS.

(From the Illustrated London News.)

The will of the Most Hon. Charles Gordon, Marquis of
Huntly, of Aboyne Castle, Aberdeen, and Orton Longue-
yille, Hunts, was proved in her Majesty's Cburt of Probate
on the 12th inst., by the Most Ho'. Mary Antoinette,
Marchioness of Huntly, the relict, the solo trustee and exe-
cutrix appointed during life, as well as guardian to the chil-
dren. The personal property in the United Kingdom was
sworn under £14,000. His lordship was premier Marquis
of Scotland and head of the clan Gordon, and succeeded to
the title in 1853 ; was twice married, and has left issue six
sons and five daughters, and attained the age of seventy-one.
His lordship executed his will in April, 1863, and a codicil
the July following. To the marchioness his lordship has
bequeathed the residue of his real and personal estate. The
furniture and other effects at Orton Hall and Aboyne Castle
to be heirlooms with the inheritor of the title. Provision is
made under marriage settlement for younger children.

The will of Admiral Sir William Hall Gage, G.C.8.,
G.C.H., Admiral of the British Fleet, late of Thurston, near
Bury St. Edmonds, Suffolk, was proved in London on the
28th ult. The executors nominated are his'three nephews,
Sir Henry Charles Blake, Bart. ; and Patrick John Blake,
and James Bunbury Blake, Esqs. The pet sonalty was sworn
under £30,000. Sir William was the son of the late Hon,
General T. Gage, and brother of the third Viscount Gage ;
and served en the Mediterranean and other stations ; was
Lord of the Admiralty 1841-6 ; Commander-in-Chief at
Plymouth 1848-51. The gallant admiral died at the ago of
eighty •seven, having executed his will since 1862. The will
contains numerous legacies to relatives and friends, and
leaves the residue of his property, real and personal, equally
between his three nieces, Fxances Blake, Sophia Blake, and
Louisa Henrietta Baroness do Bertouche.
The will ct William Crake, Esq., of Stanhope-street, Hyde
Park, was proved in the London Court, on the 26th ult.,
under £140,000, the executors appointed being his three
sons, Vandeleur Benjamin Crake, Esq ; William Hamilton
Crake, Esq. ; and the Very Rev Ed ward Neville Crake, 13. A
The will bears date 1860. To his wife he has bequeathed an
annuity of £l,OOO and a residence, dividing the rest of his
property, real and personal, equally among his children.
The will of Mr. John Willis Goodwin, of Leicester, brewer,
was proved in London, under £20,000 personalty ; and the
will of Mr. John George Waite, of High Holborn, seedsman,
under £50,000.