The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-11 00:00:00

,
z z
.. ~ „0:1, - , -.lit
I 0 -1111.
, - -;,- 1 ,rot
t , „„.... . art • Atte -_,....0 ,A•, f
,% ibkilf,.L.),..4s .4.,,t a ~.-irio.t, •,,kilik dftiii.
'4llk
', • 6..)
' t\ t.:2L,,,)
.17
.
,-3, 0— -. Trift.,,,, ..\ iv... ~..„1%,,,,.
...,.
a, -,.., bi, ma, ..„, „„„ ,„,,,. ~ ~.,.. , . s s • ..., ..,
.. . 4: ‘
_ .. ..,.._ ..
44.4,,..0
ge '4, --- . . 411111jr• ,
~ ..:.,... ....,..
___

PRICE..... -..4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

This was the defendant's case.
Sergeant Shee then said that he was solemnly
assured by the plaintiff that there was no truth in
the statement of the witness Claridge, that he had
gone to the house of Miss Richards last Thursday,
and he was desirous of examining him upon that
point.

Lord Chief Justice Erie said that the plaintiff
had already denied having gone to the place in
question on this evening, or at any other time; but,
if he desired it, he had no objection to his making
any further statement he thought proper upon the
subject

Mr. King was accordingly recalled, and he stated
in the most positive manner that he did not leave
tha Argyll Rooms until 12 o'clock last Thursday
night, and that he then went to a tavern in the
neighbourhood, and from thence to his own home.
He added that he could bring the whole of the band
who were engaged with him to confirm his state-
ment, if it were necessary.
Mr. Bovill, in summing up the defendant's case,
said he would admit, if it was any satisfaction to the
plaintiff, that witness might be mistaken in speak-
ing to his identity, but he thought he was at all
events entitled to say that some person or other had
gone from the Argyll Rooms to Miss Richards's
house, and that some negotiation was going on with
her upon the eve of this action beingtried. He then
referred to the facts that he had proved on behalf
of the defendant, and -contended that they had
clearly established that Lady Forbes had never
employed Miss Richards as her agent; and that;
even supposing any money had been obtained, which
he said, appeared to him was very doubtful, she was
entitled to a verdict ; she was not responsible, as
she was no party to the transaction, and not a single
shilling of the money had come into her possession.
Sergeant Shee then made a most energetic ad-
dress.to the jury in reply, and he particularly com-
mented upon the fact that none of the letters, which
it was admitted had been written to the defendant
by Miss Richards upon the subject of this loan, had
been produced ; and he also observed upon the ab-
sence of Miss Richards, who, he said, was a witness
that the defendant, as it appeared to him, was
bound to have brought forward.
Lord Chief Justice Erie then summed up, and
having called the attention of the jury to all the
points in the case, concluded by stating that if the
jury were of opinion that the money was paid by
Mr. King to Miss Richards, and that Miss Richards
was at the time tha authorised agent of Lady Forbes
to receive the money for her and on her credit, their
verdict ought to be for the plaintiff; but if they
thought either that Miss Richards did not receive
the money, or that if she did she was not the autho-
rised agent of Lady Forbes, then they ought to find
a verdict for the defendant.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict
for the defendant.

she should like to have it furnished in the same
style as my house was. She offered to lend me
money, and told me that she had just come to a very
large fortune through her mother, and she wished
to invest some of it. I told her that I was paying
very large interest upon a mortgage, and that if I
could obtain -P2,000 to redeem the mortgage, at
less interest, I should be glad to do so, and I would
give her a security upon some of my property.
She at first agreed to let me have the £2,000, but
afterwards said she could not do so because she
could not obtain any money from her guardian
until July, but she told me thit if the sum of £5OO
would be of an v use to me, she would lend it me
f.e after this
from her own resources. My
1 a and I eeccuted if and Miss Richards
prepare deed
be lace
sent a cheque for" A:600 to my bankers to p
solicitor
to my account, but it was dishonoured. She made
several excuses, and ultimately said that she could
not obtain the money unless I gave her my ac-
ceptance, and I gave her the bill in ques-
tion, not to be discounted, but in order,
that she might get the money from her friend
Mr. King. I never received oue single farthing
of money, either on account of the proposed loan
or of the bill, and when I found thatthe cheque WAS
dishonoured I became alarmed.- have never seen
Miss Richards since September, 1,859, and I was in
Ireland during the time the transaction was going
on. I never gave Miss Richards any authority to
borrow money for me. After the cheque had been
dishonoured, I made inquiries about Miss Richards
and discovered that she was an impostor.
Cross-examined—She dined at my house once, but
I never went to her residence in Chester-terrace.
My mother first introduced her to me, and she spoke
of her as being the most kind and amiable person
that ever lived. (A laugh.) I received several let-
ters from her prior to January, 1860, upon the sub-
ject of the proposed loan, and she enclosed the ss,
stamp to me in a letter. When I found out what
kind of person she wasel destroyed the greater por-
tion of her letters, and I do not know what has be-
come of the remainder of them unless I have given
them to my solicitor. I stated in one of my letters
to her that I should have to pay the £5OO bill when
it became due, anal of course I should have done so,
if I had received the money. Miss Richards always
alluded to Mr. King as her " dear friend," and said
that he was the person Who was going to let her
have the money that she was to lend me. I did not
know who he was, but thought, of course, that he
was a gentleman. I was not aware that the bill
was upon a wrong stamp until I was informed of it
by my solicitor.
Mr. Stewart, the attorney of Lady Forbes, proved
that he first saw Miss Richards in September, 1859,
when she came to his office accompanied by Lady
Forbes's mother upon the subject of the projected
loan. He afterwards went to her house in Chester-
terrace, and observed that it waa elegantly furnished
and everything presented the appearance of her
being a person of wealth. At first the proposal was
that Miss Richards should advance £2,000, but sbe
said she could rot get that sum from her guardian
until July, but she would lend Lady Forbes £5OO
herself. The Security was arranged, and a deed
was prepared pursuant to the terms that were
agreed upon, and after Lady Forbes had executed
this deed, Miss Richards sent a cheque that was
dishonoured, and no money was ever advanced under
the deed, and the whole affair, so far as she was
concerned, turned out to be a fraud. In February,
1860, in consequence of information he received
from Lady Forbes, he depaanded the restoration of
the bill from Miss Richards, and he saw the plain-
tiff at her house, and he then told him that he had
advanced £3OO upon the bill, and did not say a word
about it having been discounted for Lady Forbes.
Thomas Claridge, a clerk in the service of Messrs.
Stewart, was then called, to prove that he had
watched the plaintiff on Thursday last, and that he
saw him leave the Argyll Rooms in a cab, and fol-
lowed him to Portman-square, where he got out,
and he saw him go to a house in Gloucester-street,
where Miss Richards, as ne was told, resided; and
on the following day he saw a lady come out of the
same house, and this lady was supposed to be Miss
Richards. He said that after the plaintiff had re-
mained some time in the house he came out, and
was then driven to the neighbourhood of So%o.
This witness was cross-examined with regard to
the identity of the plaintiff with the person he had
seen, and the answers he gave were not at all of a
positive character; and in the result, on being
pressed by Sergeant Shee upon the point, he said he
would not swear positively that the plaintiff was
the person he saw, although he added that he be-
lieved be was.
Mrs. Terrett, the mother of the defendant, was
then examined, and she stated that it was not true,
as the plaintiff had represented, that she was pre-
sent when he handed the money to Miss Richards.
General Downing proved that the last witness
introduced Miss Richards to him, and that the lat-
ter, at the time the proposed loan was in contem-
plation, asked him to put his name to a bill for
£5OO, and at the same time told him that she was
going to lend the money to Lady Forbes, and she
could not get it for her unless be put his name to
the bill.