The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-27 00:00:00

BOROUGH OF LAMBETH.

Yesterday Mr. P. H. Le Breton, the barrister
appointed to revise the lists of voters for the borough
of Lambeth, held a court for that purpose at the
Sessions House, Newington.
The revision this year, like that of previous years,
was, in a great measure, of a formal character,
no agents being engaged on either side ; so that the
matter was left entirely in the hands of the officials
of the different parishes comprising the borough.
There were several new claimants in each of the
parishes, but these were chiefly caused by omissions
on the part of the parish officers. In the parish of
Camberwell there were some 30 new claimants, and
7 objections taken to persons already onthe register.
The claims were all sustained, and the persons
claiming placed on the register, while the names of
the persons objected to were struck off. In the
parish of St. Mary, Newington, there were 4 new
claimants, all of whose claims were sustained, the
names having been inadvertently omitted in making
out the list, the overseers at once admitting the
genuineness of them. In the parish of St. Mary,
Lambeth, there were 23 new claimants, and no
objections having been lodged to either of them,
they were all placed on the register. There were
no objections lodged to parties on the register in
either of the two last-named parishes.

The lists of each of the parishes for the present
year show a large increase in the number of voters
over the number in the lists of last year. In the
parish of Camber well there is an increase of 300 to
400 over the previous year ; while there are this
year on the lists of the parish of St. Mary, Newing-
ton, 9,765 voters, being an increase of 400 over the
number on the list of last year. In the parish of
St. Mary, Lambeth, there is also a very large in-
crease in the number.

Middlesex Sessions—Sept. 26.

(Before Mr. Sergeant Dowling, Deputy Assistant Judge.)

EMBEZZLEMENT.

James Fisher Hill, 30, clerk, was indicted for embezzling
the several sums of £l4 2s. 5d., £lO, and £3 lls. Bd., re-
ceived by him for and on account of Francis Mordan and
another, his masters.

Mr. Bosley prosecuted; Mr. Sleigh defended the priso-
nor.

The case occupied several hours, but the main facts, as
detailed by the prosecutor, were as follows : the prosecutor
carries on business with John J. Crosslie, under the style
of F. Mordan, at 386, City-road, as gold pen manufacturers,
and also as sealing-wax manufacturers in Watling-street,
City, under the title of Boatright, Brown, and Co. The
prisoner bad been in the service of the firm for 10 years at
a salary of £2OO a year. He was at ono time in the prose-
cutor's service as traveller only, but up to August last he
served as traveller and collector. InMay last the prosecu-
tor told him he was to be taken as town traveller, but not
to collect money, and that his salary was to be £2OO a
year, to be paid monthly. At that time the prosecutor was
not aware that there was any deficiency in his accounts, as
quarterly accounts were sent in to the customers. There
was a book produced, which was one of the prisoner's col-
lecting books, used by him during the months of April,
May, June, and July, and the prisoner's handwriting was
found on every page. It was the duty of the prisoner to
account for moneys he received on Monday and Thursday,
and no entry was found of an account from Biddell on
August 30, and he did not account for money received from
another customer on that day. There were several other
omissions of sums of money which bad been received from
other customers. On August 31 the prosecutor saw the
prisoner in a private room, when the prisoner produced a
detailed account of sums amounting in the aggregate to
£330, and said that he had appropriated the whole of it to
his own use. The prosecutor, although somewhat
amazed at the announcement, said to him, "Be candid ;
don't trifle with me. Is that an accurate acceunt ?" and
he said it was. He further said that his defalcations at
Watling-street could not exceed £lO6 ; and having ex-
pressed his sorrow for what he had done, said that he would
sell off his furniture, and band over the proceeds of it to
make good some portion of the amount. On this statement
being made, the prosecutor said, " Provided your defalca-
tions do not exceed £420, I won't prosecute you ; but if
they do, I certainly shall." The prisoner then went away,
but he came regularly to the office up to the 31st of Aug.
On that day the prisoner handed the prosecutor an account
for £235 19s. 11d., the amount of defalcations, and he said
he did not think it would be so much by £lOO. At this
time they were talking of the defalcations on the Watling-
street account. The total defalcations of the prisoner
amounted to upwards of £6OO.

Several witnesses were called to make out these facts
and there were frequent references to books and vouchers:
Mr. Sleigh cross-examined the prosecutor at considerable
length, for the purpose of showing that there was a running
account between the prosecutor and the prisoner.
Mr. Sleigh then proceeded to address the Court on behalf
of the prisoner, and urged that he had made a clear and
explicit declaration that he was indebted to the prosecutor ;
that he had sold all his furniture, leaving his wife and
family destitute, in his endeavour to meet the demandmade
upon him ; and would, if time had been allowed, have fully
paid the whole sum that was due to the prose cuter.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The Deputy Assistant-Judge said it was impossible with
the evidence before them for the jury to have come to any
other verdict than one of guilty, and although the learned
counsel had urged that he had maintained a good character
for ten years, on the other hand it must be stated
that there had been great forbearance on the part
of the prosecutor, and the very length of his servitude
had induced the prosecutor to place confidence in him. In
his case there was no excuse whatever, as he was not a
man driven by want to become dishonest for the purpose
of rescuing a wife and children from starvation ; but, on
the contrary, ho had a good situation, with a salary of
£2OO a year, and therefore there was no temptation to
him to deal with the property of other persons. As he had
for ten years had a good character, and in consequence
greater confidence was placed in him, he must receive a
greater amount of punishment. The Court would not go
to the extent of passing a sentence of penal servitude, but
he must have a severe sentence. The offence of embezzle-
ment was increasing to a fearful extent, and the public
must be protected. The sentence of the Court upon him
was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for
eighteen calendar months.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
POCKETPICKING ON A STEAMBOAT.

Mary Brown, 32, was indicted for stealing a purse and
the sum of 17s. 6d., the property and moneys of Myrtille
Bowring, from her person.
Mr. Warner Sleigh prosecuted ; Mr. Pater defended the
prisoner.
The prosecutrix, a single lady, residing at 3, Grange-
court, Carey-street, said, on the 13th of September she was
on board the steamboat Waverley, between the City and
Temple-bar Pier. The prisoner came on board and sat
down close to her on the right-hand side. The prisoner
pressed so close to her that she two or three times pulled
up her dress from her, and when she rose up for the pur-
pose of leaving the boat a boy belonging to the boat spoke
to her. Upon this she put her hand into her pocket and
found that her purse was gone. The purse contained 10s.
in gold and 17s. 6d. in silver, and it was safe in her pocket
when she went on board the boat. When she missed her
purse she believed her dress was in the same state as when
she went on to the boat, but when she got home she found
that a hole had been cut in the bottom of her pocket, and
through which she had no doubt her purse had been taken.
(The pocket was produced)
James Royard, mate of the steamboat Waverley, proved
seeing the purse fall from under the prisoner's shawl.
Sergeant Spittle, detective officer of the City Police,
proved having arrested the prisoner on board, when she
dropped the purse.
The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty.
In answer to Mr. Payne, Sergeant Spittle said he watched
the prisoner because he had seen her charged at the Man-
sion-house before.
Samuel Jeffreys, principal warder at Birmingham
Borough Gaol, said he knew the prisoner, and 15 months
ago she was convicted by the stipendiary magistrates at
Birmingham for picking pockets in an omnibus, and sen-
tenced to six months' imprisonment.
Jeffreys said ho received the prisoner into custody on her
commitment, and during the six months he might have
seen her two or three times a week.

Sergeant Chas. Colo, 23 0, said he knew the prisoner at
the bar, and he saw her in custody at the Lambeth Police-
court with another woman in 1862 for picking pockets ; he
thought it was in an omnibus. She was sentenced to three
mouths' imprisonment, but she appealed against it, and the
conviction was quashed.

John Shore, detective-sergeant of Scotland-yard, said he