The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-15 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.—Dec. 14.

Richard Parnham Ridley, 33, a gentlemanly-looking man,
described as a soldier, and who, it appeared, formerly held
commission in one of her Majesty's dragoon regiments, was
charged with having unlawfully:obtained, by false pretences,
the sum of £3OO from a society called the British Mutual
Loan and Investment Company, with intent to defraud them
of that amount.
There was a second charge against the defendant of hav-
ing unlawfully and wilfully made a false declaration.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges, and
and the learned counsel for the prosecution elected to pro-
ceed upon the last-mentioned one.
Mr. Giffard and Mr. M. Williams prosecuted, and Mr.
Sleigh defended the prisoner.
The learned counsel for the prosecution, in opening the
case to the jury, explained to them that the charge was pre-
ferred under one of the sections of an act of Parliament
passed in the reign of his late Majesty William IV., the ob-
ject of which was to abolish the system of making voluntary
oaths, and authorising, in lieu thereof, the making of decla-
rations, when such instruments were required fur the pur-
pose of perfecting or explaining the title to property ; and
which at the same time enacted that any false statement
upon a material matter made wilfully in such a declaration
rendered the party making such false statement amenable
to a charge of misdemeanor. It appeared that in the month
of April of the present year the prisoner made an applica •
ton through his solicitor, Mr. John Strutt, to the prose-
cutors for a loan of £3OO, and the security he proposed to
give was his interest in one-fourth part of the sum of
£3,000, to which he was entitled under the will of an
uncle, and which would come into his possession upon the
death of his mother, who Was seventy years of age; and
he stated in his proposal that the money was vested in Go-
vernment stock in the names of two trustees, his uncles, one
of whom was dead. The proposal was entertained by the
company, and in the course of the negotiations that took
place the defendant appeared to have expressed a wish that
his uncle, the surviving trustee, might not be made ac-
quainted with the fact of his endeavouring to obtain money
upon his reversion, as it might offend him, and damage his
future prospects. The company having ascertained that the
defendant was a person of respectability, consented to forego
the usual proceeding of giving notice to the trustee, and
one n
of the Ma
re-
gaited, in lieu thereof, that the defendant should make a
declaration that he had not previously encumbered the pro-
perty
t in
n y
manner,
and he accordingly made a declaration
beforesters in Chancery appointed far this and
he
in which he declared in the most positive
manner that he had never encumbered the reversionary in-
terest r
purposes,a
way. Upon this being done the
Prosecutorsad ivil any
yd
the money, the arrangement for
11in
question
the repayment being that a certain sum should be paid by
the defendant every month. No payments, it appeared,
were made by the defendant, and this of course led to in-
quiries being made, which resulted in the discovery that on
Nov. 6, 1860, the defendant had made an absolute sale of
his reversion to the share of the funds in question for the
sum of £l2O, and that the gentleman who purchased the
reversion made a re-sale of his interest in it two years after-
wards by public auction for the sum of £125. A warrant
for the apprehension of the defendant was then obtained at
Guildball, which was placed in the hands of Foulger, the
City detective, but he was unable to execute it until a con-
siderable time afterwards, and it appeared that upon his
meeting the defendant in the neighbourhood of Kilburn he
ran off, and was not apprehended until after a long chase,
and when the warrant was read to him he declared that his
name was not Ridley, and that he was entirely ignorant of
the transaction.

Some evidence having been given,
The Recorder summed up, and the jury almost immedi-
ately returned a verdict of guilty.
His Lordship, in passing sentence, said that it was im•
possible for the jury to have come to any other conclusion
than the one they had arrived at. There could be no doubt
that at the time he made the declaration he was fully entitled
to the reversion to this money, that he must have known
perfectly well that he had disposed of it, and had no right
to make such a declaration ; and under the circumstances
he felt it his duty to sentence him to be imprisoned for eight
months.

money by
George Green, a respectable-looking elderly man, surren-
deredfalse pretences.
to take his trial upon the charge of having obtained
Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Codd conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Sleigh was counsel for the defendant.

The piosecutorsOlthis indictment were the trustees of
a friendly society called the Journeymen Millwrights' Trade
and Friendly Society, which holds its meetings at the Swan
Tavern, Fish-street-hill. By one of the rules of this society
it appeared that any member who has paid up his subscrip-
tions was entitled, when out of work, to be paid 10s. per
week ; and the case on the part of the prosecution was, that
the prisoner, during the months of February and March of
the present year, had claimed and received several payments
of 10s. weekly from the society, upon the representation
that he was out of work, the fact being that he was in re-
gular employment at the time and in the receipt of two
guineas per week wages. The evidence completely esta-
blished these facts against the prisoner.
Mr. Sleigh said that, after the evidence that had been ad-
duced for the prosecution, he did not feel himself justified in
occupying the time of the jury by addressing them; but he
called some witnesses to speak to the character of the pri-
soner.

The Jury having, without any hesitation, returned a ver-
dict of guilty,

The Recorder addressed the prisoner, and said that he had
been convicted of a most gross fraud. As a member of this
society, it was his duty to have protected their funds, 2)21
prevented the society being imposed upon ; but instead of
doing this, it had been clearly proved that he had obtained
several sums of money to which he had no claim whatever,

and without the least temptation, as to the time the act was
committed he was in the receipt of wages to the amount of
two guineas per week. He then sentenced him to be im-
prisoned and kept to hard labour for 12 months.
John Double, 63, was charged with bigamy.
Mr. Laly prosecuted; and the prisoner was defended by
Mr. Collins.

This was a very remarkable case. It appeared that the
prisoner was married to his first wife at Ipswich in 1842, and
that they lived together for 16 years, when they separated.
The pridoner was married a second time in March, 1859,
and it appeared that the brother of the first wife was pre
sent at both the marriages, and gave both the brides away,
and he said that he explained to the second wife that the
prisoner had been married before, and that his wife was
living, but notwithstandiag this she persisted in having
the ceremony performed.
The second wife said she had no complaint to make
against the prisoner, and that he had been a good husband
to her; and it appeared that she and the prisoner had co-
habited together for 12 months previous to the second mar-
riage.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The prisoner was sentenced to a month's imprisonment,

THE MURDER IN THE WATERLOO-ROAD.

At the close of the business, the Grand Jury brought in,
amongst others, a true bill against Samuel Wright, for
wilful murder. This is the melancholy case which took
place on Sunday morning last, the prisoner having been
examined and committed at once upon that charge.
The Recorder informed the Grand Jury that as there was
no more business for them, he would release them from
'further attendance, which he had great pleasure in doing at
so early a period.
One of the gentlemen of the Grand Jury thanked his
lordship, and asked permission to mention a matter which
might perhaps be deemed rather absurd, but nevertheless
he could not help mentioning it. He, with his brother
jurymen, were glad at being released so soon, and they
thought with him, that when they came to serve their coun-
try, it was rather hard that they should be charged such
enormous prices for refreshments. They had been called
upon to pay the sum of Is. for a sandwich, for which, any
where else, they ought only to have paid 21d. It was a
paltry sum in itself, and it was not the money that they
looked at; but it appeared to them to be a principle which
ought not to pass without observation.
The Recorder said it certainly was a large amount for a
sandwich, and it was very desirable that the subject should
have been mentioned, as the witnesses were, no doubt, liable
to the same overcharge.