The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-18 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco in Easter Term.—(Before the
Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell, Martin,
and Wilde.)
STUKELEY V. BAILEY.

This was an action for a breach of contract with
respect to a yacht called the Czarina, which the
plaintiff, Sir George Stukeley, a gentleman living
in Devonshire, purchased from the defendant, Mr.
Bailey, who resides near Tunbridge, for the sum of
£3,375. It was tried before Mr, Justice Byles at
the last Hants Assizes, when a verdict was given
for the plaintiff on.pne count, and for the defendant
on the other.
Mr. Karslake, on behalf of the defendant, moved
to enter a verdict for the defendant on the first
count, on the ground of misdirection. The plain-
tiff had warranted the yacht sound and taut, and
the alleged breach was that the masts were rotten.
The Court granted a rule.
FLEMING V, FLEMING-CONSTRUCTION OF A WILL.
This was an action of ejectment tried at Exeter
before Mr. Justice Byles, in which the facts were
found for the defendant, but the verdict entered by
the learned judge for the plaintiff.
Mr. Collier now moved, by leave of the learned
judge, for a rule to enter a verdict for defendant.
It was an action of ejectment, and depended entirely
upon the construction of a will, the question being
whether parole evidence could be given to explain
the purpose of the testator. Robert Fleming, of
Barnstaple, bequeathed to his son, Edward Flem-
ing, a dwelling-housed in the occupation of John
Fleming, during his life, and at his death it was to
descend to his grandson, Henry Fleming, and his
heirs for ever. The learned counsel said he proved
there were two grandsons of the testator named
Henry Fleming, one being the plaintiff and the
other the defendant in this action. The learned
judge decided that evidence as to the state of the
circumstances of the family and the expressions of
the testator were inadmissible, but he admitted it
de bene ease, and the jury found that the testator
intended to leave the property to the defendant.
The Lord Chief Baron—Why did Mr. Justice
Byles decide in favour of one grandson rather than
the other?
Mr. Collier said he did not know, except that he
might have done so partly on the word " descend,"
and partly on the fact that the plaintiff was the son
of Edward Fleming, the tenant for life.
The Court granted a rule.

EXTENSIVE .FORGERY ON COUTTS'S

BANK.

Mary Aylmer, alias Gibson, a well-dressed woman
of about 30, was placed at the bar of Bow-street
Police-court, charged with being concerned with
others in forging and uttering a cheque for £445 on
the bank of Messrs. Coutts and Co., Strand.
Mr. Muliens, solicitor to the Bankers' Association,
prosecuted ; and Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for the
prisoner.
Mr. E. W. Stanley examined—l am one of the
cashiers at the bank of Messrs. Coutts and Co.,
Strand. Mr. E. R. Butler, of Furnival's-inn, Hol-
born, keeps an account with us. On Dec. 4 last a
cheque for £445, purporting to, be signed by Mr.
Butler, was presented at the bank by a female.
Not suspecting her, or the cheque, I paid the amount
across the counter—the sum of £335 in bank-notes
and the remainder in gold. The notes included one
of £5O, dated August 9, 1861 ; one of £2O, dated
April 8, 1861 ; ten of £lO each, dated August,
1861 ; and a £5 note, dated August 3, 1861. The
£5 note now produced is the same as the latter.
From circumstances which have since come to my
knowledge, I have reason to believe that the cheque
was a forgery. The prisoner at the bar is not the
woman who presented the checive.
Maurice Sewell, assistant to Messrs. Knight and
Co., of 217, Regent-street, drapers, deposed that in
December last the prisoner came to the shop and
selected several articles of drapery, amounting to
£1 3s. 10d., in payment of which she presented the
£5 note now produced. Witness looked at the note
and hesitated to change it, in consequence of inti-
mation which had been received from the police
authorities that a large number of notes had been
obtained from Coutts's on a forged name. He in-
quired if she had not cash for the amount, and she
said " No." Ho then asked her to give her name
and address, and she did so, witness writing it
down on the back of the note as "Mary Aylmer,
15, Danely-road, Gravesend." In the meantime
witness caused a police-officer to be sent for, after
ascertaining that the note was one of those in question.
Police-constable Tyler, 164 C, stated that he was
called into the shop of Mr. Knight, and found the
prisoner there. She gave him the same name and
address as those given to the last witness.
Matthew Haydon, the City officer, deposed that he
had been engaged since December last in the endea-
vour to trace cut the persons connected with this for-
gery. On being sent for to see the prisoner he asked
her if she had given her right name and address.
After some hesitation, she replied that she had not.
Witness then asked her if she would object to give
her right name and addres. She replied, "I refuse
to give any addresses."
Mr. E. R. Butler, solicitor, of Furnival's-inn, said
—I have kept an account with Callas and Co. for
many years. On looking at the cheque produced,
and also at the order for a blank cheque-book, both
purporting to have been written by me, I am en-
abled to say that both the documents are forgeries.
I never signed either, and never authorised any one
else to sign them. I knew a man named Gibson, a
client of mine about a year ago, and I have paid him
cheques several times, and once or twice sent him
cheques by post. The cheque produced for £lO,
written on plain paper, and not upon the asual
form, was made out for Gibson, I being out of
blank cheques at that time. I remember, on the
same day, writing an order for a cheque book, while
Gibson was in the office, and he may have seen that
order.
Cross-examined—l cannot be certain that Gibson
saw the order, of course. I have sent cheques to
many other persons besides Gibson, but I cannot say
that any other clients were in the office when I wrote
the order for the checiise-beok. I remember Gibson
being there, because I discovered I was out of forms
when I was about -to write the theque for him. I
know nothing of the prisoner.
William Allen, a clerk in Coutts's bank, produced
the order for a cheque-book, which the last wit-
ness pronounced to be a forgery, and said it was
presented on the 4th of December last. A
book containing 45 blank cheques was handed to
the bearer of the order, and it was proved
that the forged cheque in question was written
upon one of these forms.
Mrs. Mary Fergusson, of Euston-road, the wife
of a pianoforte manufacturer, proved that the pri-
soner had been lodging in her house since Septem-
ber last, with a man named Gibson, who passed as
her husband. They lived there until the 9th inst.,
when the prisoner did not return home (having been
apprehended on the present charge), and the next
morning, the 10th, Mr. Gibson packed up all his
things and left the house, and she had never seen
him since. He left only a small trunk behind.
By Mr. Lewis—They Were always very upright
and honourable while in nay house,'and owed nothing
but the current rent, which was not yet due.
Ann Stephens, n, Tabernacle-road, Finsbury-
square, deposed that, in the beginning of January
in the service of Mr. Pitts, linen-
draper,s
of 4, Queen's-buildings, Knightsbridge.
last, l e was
About the first week in the month the note pro-
dnced r £5) Was tendered by a young woman
believed to be the prisoner, in payment
f*othrogmooBlle.
goods
purchased. Witness asked her to give
her name, and witness wrote it on the back as it
now appeared. (This note, as well as the last, was 1

found to be one of those given in exchange for the
forged cheque.)
By Mr. Lewis—Witness could only eta to her
belief that it was the prisoner. She wone'd not
swear it, as the woman kept her face par,tly covered
us if suffering from face-ache.
Lawrence Foster Sisely, foreman tt.l
rest Mr. Cosier,
grocer and post-office keeper, 42, 1,11 ernoad,
Hove, Brighton, proved that he made out a post-
office ora'er for £7 on the instructions ,of a person
who gave the name of B. Tooke in favour of a per-
son Dania\ Mary White, of Highgate, receiving
from the pa yee the £lO note produced, on tile back
of which be wroteTooke." (This was found
to be another of the notes given in exchange for the
forged cheque.)
Joseph Allred Kelly, of the Highgate Post-office,
proved that he paid this order to a woman whom
he believed to b e the prisoner. He selected the pri-
soner out of 30 women at the House of Detention.
cress .exemie e, d—l scarcely saw her face, owing
to her having we )rn a deep thick fall. I judge
lid, I was on duty at the police-
molrnespfreocintorhserilvfoerre: and figure.
station, at Marlbork. 'ugh-mews, on the 9th inst..,
b
when the prisoner -tek. 'llrought in on the present.
charge. I asked her ev.'l at she was, and she at first
declined to say. I told he r she was there on a very
serious matter, having bee.o found in poseessf.on of
a £5 note, proved to be ono of several whjeh had
been obtained from Coutts's bank by mean..' of a.
forged cheque. She then st ated that the note was
given her by a gentleman in Oxford-street. I
asked her, " Are you au unfortunate girl, then ?"
She replied, " Yes. 1_ met the gentleman in ox.-
ford-street last night, .area went with him into Hyde
Park, and when we returned to Oxford-street, he
gave me the note." I said," What sort of man
was he ?" She replied, el, tall, dark man; and I
was to meet him again in Oxford-street the next
or a remand, stating
night."
Mr. Mullens now applied 1
that he had much more evident :0 to offer at a future
stage.
Mr. Lewis, jun., urged that tht're no growl&
whetever for detaining the prisoner ken this charge.
There coield be but two forms of proseoution against
her, either that she forged this cheque, or that she
uttered it. Now it was not pretended for a single
momeht that she did either, but on the contrary, it
,ho presented the cheque at
was shown by thei evidence of Mr. Stanley that she
was not the woman v,
in her possession
the bank. The fact of h'er having
some of the notes obtained by the forged cheque,
even if proved, would go for Dothing, there being
no such crime in law. This had been settled by the
decision of one of the judges. Then what else cotted
she be charged with ?
Mr. Mullens—We charge her with being acces-
sory to the forgery ; conspiring, in 'UM, with an-
other not yet in custody to dispose of nott.le obtained
by means of forgery.
Mr. Hall—l think the evidence of Miss Stephens,
who made her statement very creditably, and that
of Mr. Knighes assistant, are sufficient to justify-
me in granting this remand; besides which, there
are the circumstances of her having refused to state
her address, after .k9ret giving a false one, and en-
deavouring apparen:ly to conceal her face from
observation while deaLing with these notes.
Mr. Lewis—She held her handkerchief to her
face, as the witness stated, to allay the anguish of
an aching tooth. (A laugh.)
Miss Stephens—l said as if suffering pain.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Lewis—Of course, if your workehip thinks
proper to remand the prisoner, we are prepared
fully to meet the charge, whatever it may be,
against her; although, at present, I contenki, there
is no evidence whatever to support the proseoution.
The prisoner was then remanded for a week.