The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 19, 1565.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—This Day.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
ROBBERY.

Richard Waller, aged 27, an agent for a jeweller, was
indicted for stealing, on the 15th of September, a bracelet
and one pair of earrings, value £7O, the property of Samuel
Lewis Nathan, his master. A. second count charged him
with robbing his master, on the 16th of September, of a
bracelet, brooch, and earrings, and on the 4th November
of a bracelet and two shirt pins.
Mr. Lewis prosecuted.
Mr. Nathan said he carried on business in John-street,
Bedford-row. The prisoner sold goods for him from
April, 1864, to August, 1865. Another arrangement was
then made that the prisoner should return the goods
which were unsold, but he did not do so, but gave
him up some deposit notes, stating that the goods
were in pledge to Mr. Harrison. The goods unaccounted
for amounted to £136, independently of property to the
amount of £1,128, for which witness held the prisoner's
bills. Another arrangement was then made, namely,
that the prisoner was to hive goods to sell for witness in
his invoices and entries in books kept on the witness's
premises. It was arranged that the prisoner was to con-
sider himself witness's servant, that he should enter all
sales, and that he should take stock in the morning, and
return what was unsold at once, but prisoner told witness
that he had pledgeda bracelet at Crauford's, and that if he
redeemed it he thought he could yet sell it, and witness did
redeem it. Prisoner said he had taken the bracelet with
two pins to Mr. Johnson, of Threadneedle-street, and sold
them for £7O. That was on the 4th of November.
Mr. Johnson was entered in the ledger as a debtor for £7O.
Mr. Johnson had not previously been a customer. Wit-
ness saw Mr. Johnson about the 16th of the same
month, and, in consequence of what he heard, he saw the
prisoner in the presence of his solicitor and witness's soli-
citor. Witness admitted that he had not sold the articles
to Mr. Johnson, but that he had sold them to some one
else, and had appropriated the money to his own use. He
added, " Now you may do what you please." He used
those words despairingly, rather than defiantly. On the
15th of September there was an entry of £2O for articles
sold to Mr. Morris Moses, of Oxford-street, and on the 16th
of September £l2 12s. .for articles supplied to Mr. Bennett,
of Blackheath. He had ascertained that those articles had
not been so supplied.
Coss-examined by Mr. Sleigh for the defence—Witness
had known the prisoner for some years, and believed he
had borne an irreproachable character. The prisoner
might have told him that he had a bill from Mr. Benson, of
Ludgate-hill, but he never offered it to witness. The pri-
soner did ask him once whether he would take an accept-
ance of Mr. Benson, but witness said he would rather not,
as he wished to have the money. The prisoner had made
himself a bankrupt before witness gave him into custody.
Witness happened to be at Mr. Lewis's office when the pri-
soner came there to mention his bankruptcy. It was then
that he was given in charge.
Mr. G. H. Lewis, solicitor, spoke of the arrangement
made between the prisoner and Mr. Nathan, which were
made in his presence. Witness asked Mr. Nathan not to
take any proceedings against him in reference to previous
transactions, and it was then understood that he was to act
as Mr. Nathan's servant. Witness explained to him that
if, in that capacity, he misappropriated Mr. Nathan'
goods it would be stealing, and he would be prosecuted.
The prisoner said Mr. Nathan might rely upon him, and
he would do all in his power to reduce the large debt ho
had ineurrred.

Mr. Johnson, a jeweller, carrying on business in Thread-
needle-street, said he had had no dealings with the pri-
soner, although he did call upon him with some articles.
Mr. W. H. Hughes said he was in the service of Mr.
Benson, Ludgate-hill, and on the 4th of November pur-
chased the two pins (produced) from the prisoner for £4O.
The invoice was made out in the name of R. Waller and
Co., manufacturing jewellers, 9, Hatton-garden.
By Mr. Sleigh—He gave prisoner a bill of exchange for
the amount. Mr. Benson had been a customer of Waller's,
but not of Nathan's.

Mr. Morris Moses, jeweller, Oxford-street, said he never
purchased articles from the prisoner, and• never gave him
orders. An assistant from Mr. Bennett's establishment at
Blackheath also proved that the firm had had no dealings
with the prisoner.
This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Sleigh made an earnest appeal to the jury on behalf
of the prisoner, and a former employer gave him a good
character.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended
him to mercy.

Judgment was respited until next session.

POST-OFFICE ROBBERY.

Thomas Hopping, clerk, aged 17, pleaded guilty to
feloniously forging and uttering two receipts to Post-offico
orders for the payment of £3 18s. and 14s. with intent to
defraud. He was sentenced to imprisonment with hard
labour for 12 months.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)

John Duncan, a youth aged 15, was charged with forgery,
and Henry Garrett and John Buckley, the former a born-
badier and the other a driver in the Royal Artillery, were
indicted with concealing, harbouring, and comforting the
said Duncan with a view to defeat the ends of justice.

The lad was in the employ of a gentleman named Conte,
and it appeared from Mr. Sleigh, the learned counsel, who
prosecuted, that the younger prisoner had been tempted
by a person not in custody, to abstract some blank cheques
from the book of his employer, which were filled up, pre-
sented, and paid at the London and Westminster
Bank. The prisoner suddenly left his employment
when the forgery was discovered, and eventually
was taken into custody, in company with the two
soldiers at an East-end theatre. It also appeared that he
had bought watches and articles of jewellery and gave
them to the soldiers, to one of whom he had given £3O to
purchase his discharge, and had promised a like amount to
the other.

The Common Sergeant thought the two soldiers could
not be included in the present charge, as it could not be
proved they had harboured the younger prisoner with in-
tent to defeat the ends of justice.

Mr. Daly made a strong appeal to the jury on behalf of
the lad Duncan, and said it was to be regretted that the
law, after a prisoner had made a full confession of an
offence, still held the crime in the same estimation as if it
had been fully proved by evidence. The lad, by his ad-
vice, was quite ready to plead guilty to the uttering.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the boy
and acquitted the soldiers.
His lordship said he should defer passing sentence until
an indictment against the soldiers for conspiracy had
been disposed of.

THIRD COURT.

(Before Mr. Comthissioner Kerr.)

Margaret Brown was indicted for stealing a watch the
property of Peter Sungreen, from his person. The jury
returned a verdict of not guilty.
George Betts, Henry Butler, and Henry Paterson, were
indicted for stealing 24 woollen shirts, and other goods,
the property of George Hooper. They were also indicted
for feloniously receiving the property knowing it to have
been stolen.

Betts pleaded guilty, and was admitted as evidence
against the other two.

Tho jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Sentence deferred.

Dec. 18.
THE ASSAULT UPON DR. HUNTER.

T. B. Jones and Samuel Merrick were charged with an
assault upon Dr. Hunter, who, it will be remembered, was
charged with a criminal assault.
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. M. Williams appeared for the prose-
cution, and Mr. Rigby for the defence.
Mr. Sleigh opened the case. He said the prosecutor wag
a physcian qualified by an American diploma to practise.
His custom was to charge patients who came to his house
a fee of ss. ; if they were attended out of doors they were
charged more. A Mrs. Merrick, the wife of one and the
sister of the other defendant, was one of his patients, who
was visited at her home by Dr. Melville, one of prosecu-
tor's assistants or associates. A dispute arose about the
fees, which led to a most violent assault by Jones and Mer-
rick upon Dr. Hunter, which would be detaile(by the
witnesses. They were given in charge and committed for
trial. On the Saturday before the trial was to come on a
charge of criminal assault was made against Dr. Hunter by
Merrick's wife, and he was locked up so that he could not go
before the grand jury ; and the trial, therefore, had to be
postponed until to-day. Dr. Hunter was tried and acquitted;
and now he would be placed in the witness-box, and men-
tion the real facts of the case.

William Davis, Dr. Hunter's door porter, stated that the
prisoners came to the house, and after waiting some time
rushed upstairs and assaulted Dr. Hunter. Witness went
for the police, and the defendants were taken into custody.
Dr. H. Melville—l am a graduate of the University of
Edinburgh, and am associated with Dr. Hunter. I know
a patient named Mrs. Merrick, and visited her at her house.
I told Merrick to see Dr. Hunter about the fees then in
arrears. On the 2d of November ho called at the house,
and after waiting some time became very much excited,
upon which I went and told him Dr. Hunter was engaged
upstairs. He then rushed upstairs, followed by Jones. Wit-
ness also followed, and on reaching the landing found Dr.
Hunter with his head thrust back against the wall with
Merrick's hand on his throat, and Jones holding Dr. Hun-
ter's ear between his teeth. Witness pulled off Merrick and
others got Jones away. Witness remonstrated with Merrick,
upon which Jones said, " You don't suppose we came here"
without knowing the consequences. I came to give him a
licking."

Cross-examined—l have known Dr. Hunter 11 years. I
knew him in Now York, and was then intimate with him.
He left in 1858. I never heard there of his not being pro—
perly qualified, or of any charge against him. When Jon'es
said he came to give him a licking he said it was bee:Ause
Dr. Hunter had grossly insulted his sister. I knew a Mr.
Rawlins in New York. Did not know a person in court
(who stood up for identification, and who was said to be
Mr. Rawlins).