The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-21 00:00:00

POLICE INTFLLIGENCE.—Nov. 20.

MARYLEBONE.—THE ALLEGED FRAUDS ON
VIE MEDICAL PROFESSION.—AIfred John Davis,
of lg, Grenville-street, St. Pancras, described as
a collector, surrendered to his recognisances, on
the charge of having obtained, at 5, Henrietta-
street, Cavendish-square, on or about the sth inst.,
from Mr. William Adams, the sum of £1 is., under
false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Metcalfe appeared to prosecute, and Mr.
Sleigh, instructed by Mr. Vaugnan, appeared for
the defence.

The case seemed to create a great degree of ex-
citement, and the court was crowded by gentlemen
connected with the medical profession.
From the evidence formerly adduced it appeared
that the prisoner went to the residence of Mr.
Adams to solicit subscriptions on behalf of the
widow of the late Mr. Brent, who acted as deputy
coroner to the late Mr. Wakley. He stated he was
clerk in the Lancet office and had been clerk to the
lath Mr. Brent, and that Mrs. Brent was now in
great distress, and that Mr. Wakley had given
him authority to make use of his name.
A number of gentlemen, he said, had given
their subscriptions and their naines for the pur-
pose of raising a fund for getting Mrs. Brent
an annuity, or else get her into the Bop.; Medi-
cal Benevolent College, In case of the amount of
subscriptions falling short Dr. Wakley had pro-
mised £5O towards purchasing the annuity. A list
was produced containing about 100 names of medi-
cal gentlemen, with subscriptions affixed of from ss.
up to three guineas. On the faith of these repre-
sentations Mr. Adams paid a guinea. Dr. Wakley
denied having given any authority to use his name,
or that he had promised £5O.
The evidence taken upon the last occasion having
been read over by Mr, Tate (clerk),
Mr. Adams was recalled, and, in reply .to Mr.
Sleigh, said he (prisoner) said he had been a clerk
in the Lancet office. lie understood he was then.
By Mr. Metcalfe—l am quite sure he said he
called by the authority of Dr. Wakley, and he gave
him money in that belief.
It was here proved that notice had been served at
prisoner's address for the subscription list to be
produced in court to day, and on Mr. Metcalfe now
asking for its production it was not forthcoming.
Dr. Wakley was recalled, and said, in reply to
,Mr. Metcalfe, that he was known as Dr. Wakley,
and had a brother a surgeon. He (himself) was a
physician. He gave neither the prisoner nor Mrs.
Brent authority to use his name in any way what-
ever. He knew nothing of Mrs. Brent.
Mr. Thos. Henry Wakley stated he was a sur-
geon, residing at 7, Arlington-street, Piccadilly. He
gave no authority to Mrs. Brent or the prisoner to
make use of his name. Neither had any member of
the family given authority for the name to be used.
Mr. George John Vine, physician, 3, Henrietta-
,street, Covent-garden, said the prisoner called on
him one evening at the latter end of October, and
said he had come with a petition on behalf of Mrs.
Brent, the widow of the late Mr. Brent, the deputy-
coroner. He (witness) said at first he knew nothing
about it. This was in reply to what he said when he
first came in. The name of Dr. Wakley was used,
and he (prisoner) said he was one of his clerks, and
he had authority to receive subscriptions. Witness
then gave him 108., upon which the prisoner said
he might go to Mr. Wakley's office and make in-
quiries. He would not tax his memory as to which
Mr. Wakley it was he spoke of. On the represen-
tation that he said he had come from Mr. Wakley
and by his authority, he gave him the money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sleigh—lt is perfectly
true that he gave it for Mrs. Brent. Without pri-
soner saying that be bad come from Mr. Wakley
he should not have given the money to him.
Dr. Thomas Hawke Tanner, physician, of No. 9,
Henrietta-street, Cavendish-square, deposed, the
young man at the bar either on the 3d or sth of
November inst. called upon him. He said he was
sent by Dr. Wakley to collect subscriptions on be-
half of Mrs. Brent, and showed a list of subscrip-
tions, and added further that Dr. Wakley had pro-
mised £5O, if a certa:n amount could be made up
to purchase an annuity. Prisoner said- it was a
pity that the £5O should be lost, and on that repre-
sentation he gave him a guinea. Witness asked
him if he paid it in at once to the widow, and on
his (Mr. Tanner's) signing his name, he said he
should have to account to Dr. Wakley for the
guinea. He did not know anything of Mrs. Brent,
but knew the name of Dr. Wakley. It was on the
faith of Dr. Wakley's giving £5O if the profession
would give £l5O that he gave his money.
By Mr. Sleigh—Prisoner gave him no receipt for
his money.
John Nicholls Huddleston, surgeon, 35, Comp-
ton-terrace, Islington, said—Prisoner called on him
on the 14th of October, and said he came on behalf
of Mrs. Brent, producing a list of subscriptions.
He said some money was wanted, as she was left in
very bad circumstances. That some money was re-
quired for her support, and he wished to get some
from the profession, and Dr. Wakley had promised
£5O if funds could be raised to get her (Mrs. Brent)
into the college. He said he had been in the Lancet
office, but was not there then. Witness's first im-
pression was to give a guinea, but then he changed
his mind and promised him half-guinea, and asked
when he would be that way again ; when prisoner
replied on Saturday, and was told to call again on
that day, as he (Mr. Huddleston) wanted to see
some one to speak to Mrs. Brent's good character.
He called on the following Saturday and his wife
gave him (prisoner) the money. He thought that
it was some testimonial to her good character when
Dr. Wakley had promised £5O. He knew the late
Mr. Brent.

Mr. Charles John Smith, surgeon, 20, Leicester-
square, stated—One evening about three weeks ago
prisoner called upon him, and produced a list of
subscriptions. No provision, he said, had been
made for Mrs. Brent, and he had the authorisation
of Mr. Thomas Wakley to collect subscriptions for
the widow. It struck him as peculiar that the
Lancet had not noticed the subscription. He handed
the list back, and said it prisoner would call in the
morning he would give him a subscription. Pri-
soner did call again, and as witness had not seen
Dr. Wakley, as le intended, he put him off. Pri-
soner seemed very anxious about getting the sub-
scription, when he (witness) told him he should call
and see Mr. Thomas Wakley, and he (Mr. Wakley)
would tell him (prisoner) when to call again. Pri-
soner said Mr. Wakley was not in the habit of
speaking to his clerks, therefore he should not be
able to call in on him again. Witness refused to
give him the subscription he had promised, and pri-
soner then left and did not call again.
Prisoner—l called twice after that, and saw your
servant.
Witness—Perhaps you did.
Mr. Charles btuart Watkins, surgeon, Chandos-
streer, Strand, said—At the latter end of October
prisoner called upon me fora subscription on behalf
of Mrs. Brent, widow of the late deputy-coroner.
He looked at the list and saw Mr. Wakley's name.
He could not recollect the Christian name to it.
Prisoner said he had called by the authority of
Messrs. Wakley. Witness said he felt surprised
that prisoner had called for such a purpose, after
the situation which the late Mr. Brent had held.
Upon the faith of the prisoner's saying that some
allowance was going to be made by Messrs. Wak-
ley he gave ss.
Prisoner—May I ask the witness a question
Mr. Sleigh (throwing his brief from him)—You
can ask him what you like ; take your brief.
Prisoner—Go on, sir, with it. I will not do it

-Mr. Sleigh (taking up the brief again)—You had
better not, or else you will have to conduct your
Own case.

Sarah Tirley, an elderly female, said she was in
the prisoner's service for about three days, to nurse
the baby, at 13, Grenville-street. Mr. and Mrs.
Davis lived there. Prisoner is Mr. Davis. She
always called the person she saw Mrs. Davis, and
merely knew that Mrs. Davis was there.
_ _

Mr: Metcalfe—Did they live as man and wife
together ?

-Mr. Sleigh objected to the question, and
Mr. Mansfield said, supposing they were living
together in a life of profligacy, it would only esta-
blish the tact that she was poorly off.
The question was not pressed.
Mr. John Frederick Brent, brother to the late
Mr. Brent—Knew very little of the widow of his
brother. She was married to him but a very short
time prior to his death. His brother and prisoner
lived together before his death. He saw Mrs.
Brent there in court. _ _

Mrs. Tirley was recalled, and, on looking at Mrs.
Brent she identified her as the same person whom
she had seen in Grenville-street as Mrs. Davis.
Cross-examined—She would not pledge herself
that they were living together, as she did not see
them sleeping together. It was a lodging-house.
Davis lived there, and Mrs. Brent, as they now
called her, lived there. She did not know her by
the name of Mrs. Brent. It was the sister's baby
that was there.
Re-examined by Mr. Metcalfe—Theytoonkellthheeirr
meals 'together. She waited on them. She was
always called Mrs. Davis.
By Mr. Sleigh—She had heard prisoner
heitgiht
Mrs. Davis, and never by any other
name.
This being the whole of the evidence, Mr.
addressed his worship, observing that he thought
u g
hardly necessary to
setistoosnayidve anything in reply to the
c
e ry
not patent
calling Mrs.defect
in the
aßrent,
who
wasbaystthheereoepn present, into the box. It was quite
ctraue: then
that the young man ha dobtainedsubscriptions
for the reliet of Mrs. Brent, and she was there, it
herthey
oathhad
that
ohe proper to
.call her, to swear on
And received ' every farthing

• which had been collected for h er. The prisoner,
g personally Mrs. Brent and her late hus-
kno7in
band, ba...4 been over zealous, no doubt, in her be-
half, and had ):Lcautiously made use of a name. He
no prima facie cE se, and he
submitted there wak. _
in attempting to make
could not comprehend whj 4 not been called.
ont their case Mrs. Brent
Under the circumstances, he subs
:itte` i that the
prisoner was entitled to his discharge':
Mr. Mansfield said it appeared beyond tk:
vas
that
false-
the statement made by the prisoner as a
hood, to get money from the benevolent for • the
he
widow of the late cleputy.coroner. It would, •
thought, be a very difficult matter to prove a falae
pretence in this case. I( had been brought out int
a singular way that. she was in needy circumstances,
and there could be no doubt that she received the:
money. She was not called, therefore they must
assume that she received the subscriptions. Under
all the circumstances he thought that nojury would.
convict, and even if the prisoner was sent for trial,
and he was convicted on this offence, he felt no
hesitation in saying, that on an appeal to the Court
of Criminal Appeal the conviction would be upset
as to the false pretence. No doubt the prisoner had
acted the part of a rogue ivy going about gathering
subscriptions without proper authority. He must
discharge him, but reluctantly. He had no doubt
that the publicity given to the ease w: uld put an
end to the system which he had been carrying on.
Prisoner was then discharged.