The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-25 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 24.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Robert Lloyd, 14, and
Henry Brew Nesh, two respectably-dressed lads,
who were brought up last week charged with forg-
bei:ar, £2O, and £25 respec-
the signatures of Messrs.
itntvgeityh,repeorephoeryinesg
to for
Plank and Smith, the employers of Lloyd, with in-
tent to defraud Messrs. Hankey and Co., bankers,
were placed at the bar to undergo a final examina-
tion upon that charge.
Mr. Mullens again appeared to prosecute: and
Mr. Wontner, jun., and Mr. Lewis appeared for
the prisoner.
Some additional evidence was given, by which it
appeared that the prisoner Lloyd had spent a con-
siderable sum of money in the purchase of a magic
lantern, for which he paid Xn, and a silver watch,
and that when questioned by his parents he said
that Nash had won the watch at a raffle, and had
given it to him, and that the magic lantern was left
to Nash by his father when he died. Nash was
questioned likewise, and he told a similar stoiy,and
consequently no more notice was -..ken of the matter
until the forgery was discovered.
The prisoners were both committed for trial,being
admitted to bail, each in two sureties of £5O.

GUILDHALL.—Harriet Ross, alias Lovell and
Co., alias Robess, was charged before Alderman
Humphrey with obtaining goods under false pre-
tences.
Mr. Da Jersey appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Beard for the defence.
Mr. Moorhead, manager to Messrs. Bell and Co.,
damask manufacturers, of No, 1, Noble-street, and
of Belfast, deposed—ln September last I received
from my employers the following letter :
"5, Laurence Pountnerlane, Cannon-street,
London, E.C,' Sept. 22, 1862.
" Gentlemen,—We will thank you to forward to us sam-
ples and prices of damask table-cloths &C.
" Your best attention will oblige,
" Gentlemen, yours, &C.,
"Lo vELL, SON, and Co.

Messrs. 11. Bell and Co."
In consequence of that letter I went to No. 5, Lau-
rence Pountney-lane, on the 25th September, and
in an office on the second floor, on the door of. which
I
which
the name of "Lovell, Son, and Co.'' was painted,
saw the prisoner. I inquired for Lovell and Co.,
and was shown into the prisoner's room. I showed
him the letter, and asked him what samples he re-
quired, and he then said he was not aware we had
an office in London, and promised to call in the
course of the day and select what goods he required.
He did call, and selected samples of table-cloths and
napkins to the value of £9 16s. 6d.,
and on the
following day he called again and gave an order for
12 dozen table•cloths and 12 dozen napkins to match.
He said he wanted them for shipment, as he had an
order for them. When he asked for the samples on
the previous day he said he had a customer waiting
to see them. He also selected two pieces of linen,
which were delivered on the 30th September. The
table-cloths and napkins were delivered on the 9th
of October, and within an hour after I called and
asked the prisoner for the cash. I gave him an
invoice, the amount of which was £lO5 17s. 7d. He
asked me what I
Wan led him to do, and on my
saying I wanted the money or a cheque for the
amount, he said he did not understand the ar-
rangement to be so, as they
were not in the habit of
paying under ten days, and that he was not prepared
to pay for the goods then. 1 insisted upon having
either the money or the goods back. He said he
could not get the cash until the goods were shipped.
I declined to wait, and said I would send and fetch
the goods away. I sent a man twice that day for
them, and he returned without them. Icalled on
the following Monday and saw the empty cases,
and have since called several times, but have not
been able either to get the money or see the prisoner.
I have since seen some of our goods at a pawn-
broker's in the borough of Southwark.
Cross-examined—Nothing was said about paying
for the goods at three months. The prisoner gave me
references, but I did not inquire into them because
there was no agreement for credit. I had not ar-
ranged to take the prisoner's acceptance at three
months.

Mary Parsons, the housekeeper at 5, Laurence
Pountney-lane, said the prisoner took the office be
held in that house in the name of Lovell, Son, and
Co., and said his own name was Lovell. There was
a Mr. Clarke with him nearly every day, but I never
knew the prisoner in any other name than that of
Lovell.
Detective Sergt. Huggett said he apprehended
the prisoner at 48, New Guildford-street, Southwark,
and on hearing the charge he said he was merely
the servant of Lovell, Son, and Co.;with regard to
the tablecloths, ho said that most Of them were in
pawn, and gave me the 25 duplicates produced.
A number of pawnbrokers attended, and produced
a portion of the property in question, all of which
appeared to have been pledged by the prisoner.
Mr. Moorhead having identified the goods pro-
duced, the prisoner was remanded for furt4er in-
quiry,
ln\
al. Jarvis, a City detective officer, appeared upon
at
aniae adjourned summons to show cause why he de-
a set of furs, value under £l5, and a dishon-
oured cheque for £3O, the property of the com-
plainant.
Mr. Abrams, from Mr, Atkinson's office, appeared
theuc complainant as before ; and Mr. Robinson,
ted by Mr. Randall, attended for the defence.
instructed
r will be recollected that on the last occasion the
man for whose apprehension for fraud
a warrant has since been issued, and that on the
calling upon her, and representing him-
pbyropaerty in question was given to the complainant
young
him-
self as a detective officershe gave up the cheque and
the furs, and that she did so under the I
fear that he
was about to take her into custody, although no-
thing was said by the defendant to that effect.
Mr. Robinson now argued that the furs having