The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-02 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH STREET, THIS DAY.

VISCOL77T MILTON CHARGED WITH OBTAINING A
PAIR OF EAR-RINGS BY FRAUD.—William Wentworth
Fitzwillian, Viscount Milton, was charged before Mr.
Knox witl obtaining, by means of false pretences, at 74,
New Bond-street, a pair of ear-rings of the value of £lOO,
the propery of Messrs. John Cordy Crouch and William
Henry Wgrre, trustees of Mrs. Sophia' Stephens, pawn-
broker, of 35, Brewer-street, Golden-square.
Mr. Leis, jun., (4. Ely-place, attended for the defence.
_ _

Yiscourt Milton, who had been bailed by Mr. Bishop, of
Bond-stret, was placed at the bar.

Colin rainey, assistant to Mrs. Sophia Stephens, of 35,
Brewer-stnet, said—This gentleman came to the shop yes-
terday betmen five and six, accompanied by a female who
had pledgtl a pair of ear-rings, and requested to see them.
I producee the ear-rings, and the gentleman requested me
to take tlan in the evening to 47, New Bond-street,
Madame lAchel's, and he would redeem them. I went to
Madame tachel's by myself about six o'clock, and
waited sole time. I put them on the table in a room
adjoining he shop, and the gentleman then put them
into his 7aistcoat pocket and produced a cheque for
£2OO on th London and Westminster Bank. I refused to
take it. 'lle ear-rings were pledged for £65. I sent for a
constable nd gave the prisoner in charge. He rave him-
self up to he constable,and the ear-riturs were handed over
to the contable. I wish fora remand,that the trade solici-
tor may atend.

Mr. Leis, jun.—When were they pledged ?
Wiines—On the 21st of April, by Madame Rachel, of
New Bon-street.

Mr. Kux—Produce the duplicate ?

Mr. Leis, jun.—Did you know they were her property ?
Witno3—She took them from her ears, and I was led to
believe tey were her own. She said they were her own.
he hadludged diamonds before.
Mr. 'Avis, jun.—What is Madame Rachel?
Witnet—She deals in scents.

Mr. Iwis, jun.—Don't you know that she enamels
ladies' fa!s,and that she was the other day in the Insolvent
Debtors ()tut ?
Witnes--That is the mother of the one I took them of.
I do not liew the name of Madame Rachel's mother is
Levison. I am not aware that she was committed to New-
gate for Pjury lately. I did not take the trouble to see if
she had Gained the earrings by fraud from a lady—a friend
of the gerleman. I know she lives in New Bond-street,
because Lave been there on business.
Mr. Luis, jun.—Not to have your face enamelled.
(Laughte)

Witn2s—l decline to tell you what for. The gentleman
at the barold me that he would pay me, but did not pro-
duce any ,oney. He did not say the earrings belonged to
a lady from 71orn they had been obtained by fraud, The
gentleman G.-say that he would send for a constable and
hand them to

Mr. Lewis, .—You cannot ray that he has no money
in the Lonol.and Westminster Bank.
Witness-No, I cannot.
Mr. Lew, jun.—Then,what iq the false pretenc?
Witness-Madame Levison showed me the cheque.
?Ir. Lew, jun.—What is the false pretence ?

Witness-His saying that if I took the earrings to New
Bond-strectthat he would pay me, and then taking posses-
sion of the roperty without handing me the money.
Robert Lryd, 84 C, said he was sent for at eight yester-.
day evening to No. 47 New Bond-street, and on arriving
there, he aced the prosecutor what he charged the gentel-
man with,Ead he said the gentleman had been to his shop.
and told bir to bring a pair of earrings to No. 47, New
Bond-strert,and he did so, and then laid them on a table,
and prisontrtook them and put them in his pocket, and
then retusetto give them up. The gentleman said he
wished to Foto the station, and give up the earrings, and
the gentlemi went with him to the police-station.
Mr. Lewis jun.—He was bailed immediately by the in-
spector.

Witness-.''es.
Mr. Lewi—He said he vvivhed to give the earrings up,
and wanted o go to the station ?

Mr. LewisitTn., said it was only right, on behalf of the
gentleman a the bar, that he should say that Madame
Rachel, of wlose history it was unnecessary to speak, had
obtained the erring by gross fraud from a lady, and pledged
th-m for £6s,and although the gentleman might not have
acted quite legally, or as any one a little older would, per-
haps, have dole, he having gone to the place where they
were pledged Ind asked that they should be taken to New
Bond-street, end then, on their being brought there,
put them in hi. pocket, still there was no pretence for say-
ing that he meta to steal them, or make off with them.
A cheque was poduced, but there was no evidence to show
that there was nt money at the bank ; and at the time the
gentleman was ttken into custody, although he had net
been searched, sal he (Mr. Lewis) understood that he had
more money in Lis pocket than enough to pay for the ear-
rings. What evdence was there that the ear-rings were
obtained by false iretences ?—none whatever. If they came
to a question of lqality, the oar-rings were not obtained
through the presentation of the cheque, for they were taken
up before the cheqte was produced.
The case was nut concluded when we went to press.