The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-05 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
Charles Wiltshire, a rather respectable looking young man, was in-
dicted for having feloniously appropriated two sums of 51. 145. and 21.,
the property of Mr. Rutherford, a medical gentleman, in whose service
he lived, at Ratcliffe Highway.
Mr. PRENDERGAST was for the prosecution ; Mr. CLARKSON defended-
From the evidence it appeared that a person who had employed the
prosecutor bad in February last year paid to the prisoner the suns of
5/. 14s. due to prosecutor.
Another patient of the prosecutor's also proved that he had paid to
prisoner the sum of 21., which was owing to Mr. Rutherford.
The prosecutor deposed that, towards the close of 1838, he inquired
of the prisoner if the accounts above mentioned had been paid, and the
prisoner replied that they had not; and had neither given him the
money, nor had disclosed that he had received it.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I offered, in a letter to the pri-
soner's sister, to give up the prosecution if he would give me the money.
Before the accounts in question, prisoner had acknowledged the receipt
of 201. for me ; and he gave me a Portuguese Bond for 401, which has
since been returned to its right owner.
A Mr. Home, who had heard the prisoner tell prosecutor that he had
not received the accounts in question, gave evidence to that effect.
Cross-examined—l proposed on prisoner's suggestion that tile 401.
bond should be retained by prosecutor to satisfy the 20/. which prisoner
acknowledged to have received, and any other sums in which he might
be deficient.
By the RECORDER—Prosecutor then knew of none other than the two
sums alluded to.
The officer who took prisoner into custody stated that prisoner said he
had received money belonging to the prosecutor, but with no intention
to defraud.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the defence, submitting that'l
the receipt of the Portuguese Bond the prosecutor had in fact consented
to view the question as a mere civil transaction, and had taken the bond
as an indemnity for all deficiencies.
The Recounen said he was bound to tell the Jury that if they be-
hewed the evidence this was a very plain and straightforward rase.
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of Guilty—at the
same time strongly recommending the prisoner to mercy on account Of
the conduct of the prosecutor.
The Recommit said lie could see nothing in the conduct of the prose-
cu' or, but that which was charitable. And to show that the Court did
not at all coincide in the insinuation conveyed by the Jury, the e%
pences of the prosecution would be allowed in full, though (in conse
quence of some delay that had occurred through the absence of some of
the witnesses) at first the Court had intended to allow no expences for
this day.
The RECORDER then sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour in the House of Correction, for twelve calendar months;
at the same time observing that offences of this kind had lately be-
come very numerous, and had rather been encouraged by too lenient
sentences ; and the Court had been influenced in inflicting that which
they were not quite sure was not a too merciful one—from a consideration
of those who were dependent on the prisoner (who has a wife and family)•