The Sun.
London, England, 1862-09-05 00:00:00

POLICE IN7ELLIGENCE.—Sept. 4.

GUILDHALL.—Richard Edwards, the son of a
highly respectable country attorney, and James
Ferguson, a printer, were summoned before Alder-
man Carter,' to answer a charge of unlawfully con-
spiring with a man named Cordner to defraud a
youth of the name of Beavis of three sums of £5,
£l5, and £2O, under the following circumstances.
Mr. Lewis, jun., defended the prisoners.
The complainant stated that on the 12th of July
last he saw an advertisement in a newspaper which
induced him to call at 222, Strand, w here he sa w
the defendant Ferguson. Shortly afterwards a man
came in and Ferguson introduced him as Mr.
Cluidrior, the proprietor of o nanPA the
mployes' Advocate. Ferguson represented that
the paper had been in existence for three or four
weeks, and Cordner said the paper was a genuine
affair, and referred witness to the advertise-
ments, which he said brought in £3O per
column. He then explained that he did not
require the clerks he had advertised for, but it
was only a money collector, and it was ultimately
arranged that witness should attend to that de-
partment at a salary of £2 per week, and that he
should pay a sum of £5O for a fourth share in the
profits of the paper. He paid £5 deposit at that
interview, and on the following Monday a further
sum of £2O. It was arranged that he was to pay
the other £25 in a month. He paid the £2O at
31, Whitefriars-street, where he saw the defendant
Edwards. That was the publishing-office, and
on Saturday, the 19th of July, he again
saw Edwards in Whitefriars-street, and he then
represented to witness that they had obtained
another column of advertisements, which witness
believed were genuine, and Cordner, who was also
present, said the concern was prospering, and pro-
posed, as witness had to pay £25 in a month, that
he should pay £l5 on the 21st of July instead, by
which he would save £lO. He agreed to do so, and
paid the amount on the day named to Cordner, to
whom he also paid the £5 deposit. The £2O he
paid to Edwards, and at his request called on a
number of advertisers, but during the whole of the
time he was so occupied he only collected ls. 3d.
The publication of the paper ceased at the end of a
fortnight, and witness then discovered that many of
the advertisements were fictitious. He parted with
his money on the faith that the representations
with regard to the value of the advertisements were
bona fide. After all this money was expended,
Edwards and Cordner went down to Greenwich,
with a person namedi
n g a Brown,
newspaper, wi
two hboem
ntahl ptrhoe-
posed establishbutth
e
mton. g sunptw
absu ikl deipnta,t
BGirrekebnowotic'eh
Bank
in
witness never received a farthing of his money back,
ASno Southampton-buildings,
or a fraction of the salary agreed upon for his ser-
vices. He afterwards saw Ferguson, who said he
knew the advertisements were not genuine, and that
he would come up as a witness if required, as he had
only received £2O for printing out of witness's £4O.
Some of the advertisements were given him, he said,
by Cordner, and others he put in on his own autho-
rity, to fill up the paper. About 3,000 copies of the
paper were printed during witness's fortnight, and
they were afterwards sold for waste paper.
The clerk from the Birkbeck Bank proved that
an account was opened on the 7th of June, in the
names of Edwards and Cordner, when a sum of
£3O was paid in. That account was closed on the
12th of July, and a new account opened in the name
of Edwards and Co. on the 14th, with a sum of
£2O, and on the 24th of the same month a further
sum of £l5 was paid in, and that account was
closed on the 26th of July.
Mr. Walters, an anatomical instrument maker, of
Moor gate-street, said the advertisement of his busi-
ness in the _Employes' Advocate was a copy of one
he had inserted in another newspaper, but he never
authorised its insertion in the newspaper produced.
Mr. Lewis said there was no pretence for charg-
ing the defendants with conspiracy or defraud.
Alderman Carter said it looked very like a cheat,
and he regretted that Cordner was not before the
Court.
Mr. Roe, the summoning officer, said he held a
warrant for the apprehension of Cordner, but had
not been able to find him.
Mr. Lewis said he should like to see Cordner
as Lis clients were as much the victims of
Cordner as the complainant had been. Edwards
here,
was introduced to Cordner through the medium of
an advertisement, and the £3O paid into the Bank
on the 7th of June was the money Edwards brought
into the concern. With regard to the defendant
Ferguson, he had a claim of about £2O against
Cordner for printing.
Several witnesses were called, who gave Edwards
an excellent character, after which
Thomas Blower, a printer, of Black Horse-alley,
Fleet-street, stated he printed the Employes' Ad-
vocate for Ferguson. The early numbers were
called the Exhibition Directory. Some of the ad-
vertisements were good, many were bad, and others
were put in by Ferguson's directions, merely to fill
up. He had known him 16 or 18 years, and had
recently employed him as a zanvasser for advertise-
ments, at 20 per cent. commission. Ferguson was
his customer, and always paid him for the printing.
Mr. Lewis put in an account to show that nearly
the whole of the £4O advanced by Beavis had been
fairly expended, and submitted that his clients were
the dupes of Cordner, who appeared to have victi-
mised every one he could.
Alderman Carter said according to Ethiards's ac-
count he had lost his money, and had afterwards
lent himself to Cordner to inveigle the young man
complaining; but the conduct of Ferguson was

even worse, for he had an office where he heAd him
self forth as a printer, and represented to th,c:, com-
plainant that the paper in question was a ge'.nuine
thing when he knew that the advertisements '419 hick
were represented by Cordner as the profitable !art
of the concern, were not genuine. The evide, nee
did not -justify him in detaining the defendants, & nd
as the complainant had gone into the matter wit, b-
out exercising a proper vigilance before enterink?,
into a partnership with such parties, he could not.
assist him even by adjourning the inquiry.
The defendants were ~herefore discharged.

SOUTHWARK. CAUTION TO RESPECTABLE
FEMALES IN SEARCH OF Emi'LoymENT.—A re-
spectable-looking man, rather fah-
complexion, no
whiskers, and of short stature, who ta ve the name
of James Carter, alias Harding, but reimied to give
his address, was placed at the bar before-
Mr. Bur-
cham, just before the rising of the Court, c.hargecl
with obtaining by false pretences a gol(ft watch
worth £lO 10s., £1 16s. 6d. in money, and be tween
£3 and .C 4 in goods, the property of CarOlin°
Fowkes.
The prosecutrix, a genteel and ladylike Jooking-
female, said that in July last she advertised in the
Times for the situation of companion to a la dy, or
housekeeper to an elderly lady or gentleman. Two
days after that she received a letter signed Ja. mes
Harding, requesting her to meet him in the 1.-)1c1
Kent-road. She went there accordingly, and sa W
the prisoner, who told her that he had answered hey •
advertisement, and from her appearance he had no
doubt she would suit him. He said that he had
just taken a large hotel in the Isle of Wight
( Wooton, she thought), and he wanted a steady and
ladylike female to take charge of the household
duties. She saw him twice afterwards, and it was
arranged that she should enter on her duties in a
fortnight's time and he would pay all expenses
down. At the first interview he borrowed a silk
umbrella, as it rained. He never returned that.
On a second occasion she showed him her Watch,,
and told him she had broken the glass. He took
it up and put it into his pocket, promising to get
it repaired for her. At his request she purchtised
with her own money sundry goods to the
value of about £4 for him, and lent him
£1 16s. 6d. in cash, which he promised to return
to her in two days. He went away, and she never
saw anything more of him until that day, when he
fell into his own trap in the following singular
manner :—About a week ago she put another ad-
vertisement in the Times in a different name, and
on Wednesday she received an answer signed James
Carter. Witness compared the handwriting of that
with the former correspondence from James H a rt.!ing,
and found it to correspond exactly. Being satis-
fied that it was the prisoner, she answered LAIS
letter in a feigned hand, appointing a place of meet.,
ing. In the meantime she communicated with the;
police, and prisoner was given into custody. He'
was struck by surprise when he sound that it was
witness who had inserted the second advertisement,
and said if she came with him he would get her her
watch and money. She, however, refused to have
anything to say to him, and they all went to the
station-house.

The prisoner here said that he was a man of pro-
perty, but be did not like to give his real name and
address, as it might go into the newspapers and in-
jure him, but if the lady would go with him alone
he would restore her her watch and the money.
When he borrowed the latter from her he went to
Birmingham on business, and had only just returned.
Mr. Burcham asked him whether he wished to
give any account of himself, or the lady's watch.
He replied that all he had to say was, he was a
man of property, and would take the lady to where
the property was.
George Holmes, 252 M, a detective officer, said.
that in consequence of information he received from
the prosecutrix, he met her by appointment that
morning, and took the prisoner into custody. He
refused to give his name and address. On search-
ing him he found a worthless watch and chain on
him, and some memorandums, apparently the ad-
dresses of servants.

Mr. Burcham remanded the prisoner until Mon-
day, to enable the police to make further inquiries.

GOUN2.RY IPLARI.L2b.

4,

BIRMINGHAM—SEPT. 4.
At this day's market there was a fair supply of ' English
wheat, which sold readily at the currency of this clay week.
Barley rather dearer. Beans and peas were tending down-
wards.