The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-07 00:00:00

7HE ROBBERY OF BANK-NOIE PAPER.

Yesterday, a well-dressed man named Henry
Williams, an engraver, was placed at the bar of the
Justice-room of the Mansion House before the Lord
Mayor and Alderman Hale, in the custody of Henry
Webb, a detective police-officer, charged with
forging and engraving a copper-plate, representing
part of a Bank of England note.
Mr. Freshfield, solicitor to the Bank, said it
would be in the recollection of the Court that one
of the five prisoners who were under examination
on the previous day on the charge of being con-
cerned in the forgery of Bank of England notes,
and in the robbery of Bank paper, was a man taken
in the very act of printing Bank-notes at his house
in Birmingham from engraved copper plates in his
possession. It would be shown that the prisoner
Williams, who had only been apprehended that
morning, was the engraver of one of those plates.
As, however, the prisoner had been arrested so
recently, and as police-officers were then engaged
searching his house, he (Mr. Freshfield) was as yet
imperfectly acquainted with the circumstances, and
he proposed, therefore, with the sanction of the
Court, that the meaner elicruld be remanded until
Friday, and then brought up with the rest. The
prisoner himself would probably acquiesce in that
course, seeing that he might wish to prepare his
defence.

The Lord Mayor suggested that some evidence
should be adduced on which to justify the prisoner's
remand. ,
Henry Webb, detective officer, deposed that in
company with Sergeant Tillcock, he apprehended
the prisoner that morning at his house in St. Paul's-
road, Kennington, on a charge of engraving the
forged plate produced, representing a Bank of Eng-
land note. He arrested him on information he had
received, and he believed he should be able on a
future day to produce witnesses who could establish
his guilt.
The prisoner was remanded accordingly.

THE MANCHESTER CITY BANE FRAUDS.

Yesterday morning Jonah Andrew, the manager
of the City Bank, was again brought up, charged
with having, as a banker, received certain money,
which he appropriated to his own use. The magis-
trates on the bench were Messrs. W. Ross, C. J. S.
Walker, F. Smith, Alderman Nicholls, T. Shuttle-
worth, and B. St. J. B. Joule.

Mr. John Richardson, solicitor, who appeared for
the prosecution, said he proposed to lay before the
Court some additional facts to prove the charge
against the prisoner of having appropriated and
fraudulently applied money with which he was en-
trusted as a banker, after having received explicit
directions in writing to apply it in a particular way.
At the previous hearing he bad proved that the pri-
soner was the manager of the bank; that on Tues-
day, 21st October last, the sum of £37 16s. was left
by Mr. Lyon with him as a banker, with written
instructions to apply it to retiring a bill due at the
Union Bank, London, on the following day ; that
the money was duly entered, in the bank books; that
the prisoner was managing the bank during the
whole of the day ; and that before leaving he gave
express directions to Coulson, his clerk, not to write
to London with any advices. The consequence was
that Mr. Lyon's bill was not advised. The great
difficulty on the part of the prosecution on the last
occasion was to establish the fact that the prisoner
had auy knowledge of the money so deposited by
Mr. Lyon, and he proposed now to establish this.
In the first place, Mr. Lyon would tell them that
when he first saw the prisoner, after receiving the
telegram about the bill not having been advised,
the prisoner said he had advised the bill. This was
not only stated by the prisoner, but also by Mr.
Coulson, and Mr. Lyon consequently telegraphed to
London to the following effect—" F. Lyon to John
Williams, Hatton-garden, London. The bill was
advisad:through the City Bank, payable at the
Union Bank, Moorgate-street. The bankers here say
it is unaccountable. Manchester, October 23,
1862." He should prove that on the very next day,
on Wednesday, October 22, the prisoner appro-
priated to his own use £3O 16e. 6d., which, on the
part of the prosecution, he said was part of the
moue to he
payme
one y s paid by Mr. Lyon. On the Sunday pre-
bank was in ver being made by Mr. Lyon the
y
cfiorrcutmhestances,saenodf tmheakpiorig-
arrangements as to his remittanpceusr.po The whole of
the affairs of the bank
W
amounest
these ere
then evidently going to
ruin. The week before
eofozccurrences the pri-
soner sent bills to the
ham, for the purpose of being disc
oe
1 ,onoteodt,othßuisrsmhionwg--
ing that bankruptcy Was inevitable and that at all
ggrweaitthany
events the position of the bank required
cau-
tion on the part of the prisoner indealin
funds which might come into his hands. He (111-
Richardson) proposed further to prove the misap—
propriation of other moneys on the same day 13;
the prisoner. If, upon all these circumstances, the
Bench should be of opinion that he had made out a
prima facie case, calling upon the prisoner to answer
before a jury, it would be the duty of the magis-
trate to send the prisoner for trial before another
tribunal.
Mr. Richardson called
Mr. Lyon, who said that the paper now produced
was the one that he signed when he paid the money
a me
He a
rne dn
ethatul b e
ro
ef d
hJ
ao
tn
oa
nh
And"int into r tehwe bhaandk
been
t e
Ihti so
ffn.
Athe
dpr ae pwe. wHeer es
et
wh e w
Coulson
r ds, pw.oseidtnweeidtheyJ,oennadh,
o"nithdee
in consequence of what he said, telegraphed toLotno-
don. On the Thursday witness took the prisoner
the police-office, and the prisoner there said, I
have advised the bill in due form."
Joseph Wadsworth, the cashier, stated that on the
14.nclay preceding the 21st he received a letter from
the prisoner. That letter was in his drawer at home.
From that letter he should suppose that the prisoner
Went to London on the Sunday evening. As the