The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-08 00:00:00

ESDAY EVENING, APRIL 8, 1862.

LA TV INTELLIGBNCE.-April 7.

might better understand the nature of the case, he
thought it right to inform them that the prosecu-
tor, Mr. G. England, was the father of the young
lady, and he was a gentleman filling a very respect-
able position in society, and had several other chil-
dren. The defendant paid attentions to the young
lady, and in the course of last year a conversation
took place between him and the prosecutor upon
the subject of the intimacy that existed between
them, and the prosecutor obj ected to his continuing
his attentions to the young lady, on account of the
disparity of their ages and other circumstances ;
but he promised that if he would refrain from press-
ing his suit upon her for two years, at the end of
that time he would permit him to pay his addresses
to her. The defegdant promised solemnly to do as
he was requested; but on Jan. 4, upon the occasion
of the young lady going to the Crystal Palace, the
defendant met her and took her away, and nothing
more was seen of her until some time afterwards
when it was discovered that they were married. It
was under these circumstances that the present
charge was preferred against the defendant, the
allegation on the part of the prosecution being that
this marriage had been procured by means of the
defendant making the false statement that the father
of the young lady had given his consent to the mar-
riage.
Formal proof was then given of the procurement
of the license by the defendant, and that the mar-
riage took place at Lambeth Church on the sth of
January, under that license. One of the witnesses
stated, in cross-examination, that the defendant was
a person of respectability and good position.
Mr. G. England, the father of the young lady,
was then examined. He said—My daughter was
18 years old last July. It is not' true that I ever
consented to her man:age with the defendant, as he
has alleged in his affidavit. He used to visit at my
house, and paid attention to my daughter, and in
January last year I had a conversation with him on
the subject, and wrote down in my diary what took
place between us. The witness read the entry he
referred to, which was to the following effect:—
"Friday, Jan. 25, 1861. Mr. Fairlie.—Had a
long conversation respecting Lizzie. I told him that
if ho takes no steps in that direction for two years
from this day, I will give him the same powers as
Dixon (this referred to a gentleman who was court-
ing another daughter), to use his powers to win the
affections of my daughter, but on no account to
make attempts to pave the way before that time."
I showed the defendant what I had written, and he
promised solemnly that he would fulfil the agree-
ment, on the honour of a man and a Freemason.
Upon the faith of this promise I permitted him to
continue to visit at my house, but I observed that
he was not keeping faith with me, and that he was
still paying attentions to my daughter, and I spoke
to him upon the subject, and observed that he was
not fulfilling the conditions he had promised, and
begged him to cease to continue his attentions, and
told him that if he did not I should request him to
cease to visit at my house. This conversation took
place in September last, and after that time the
defendant did not come to the house. My daughter
went to the Crystal Palace on the 4th of January,
accompanied by her sister and Mr. Dixon, and I did
not see her again, but I beard afterwards that she
was married to the defendant, and that she had
gone away with him from the Crystal Palace. In
January I thought the defendant was in Spain.
The witness was cross-examined at considerable
length by Sergeant Ballantine.—He said that of
course-his object in the present proceeding was to
convict his son-in-law of perjury, and he considered
that, under the circumstances, he was justified in
H, tir

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Roche.)
]N RE GEORGE STIFF.
This bankrupt was a newspaper proprietor of 334,
Strand. This was a meeting for proof of debts and
choice of assignees.
Subjoined is an abstract of the preliminary ac-
counts given by the bankrupt :—Dr—Unsecured
creditors, £31;352 2s 5d ; secured, £20,600 ; total,
£52,252 2s sd. Cr.—London Journal, £52,000 ;
Guide, £5,00) ; TVeekly Times, 4-sth share,
£10,000; buildings, £5,500; ditto, £2,000; ditto,
£2,500 ; machinery, £3,500 ; book debts, £4,000 ;
total, £84,500,
Mr. Linklater appeared for Mr. M'Murray ; Mr.
Lawrance and Mr. Pook for other creditors ; and
Mr. C. E. Lewis for the bankrupt.
The bankrupt was examined at some length by
Mr. Lawrance, with a view to show that his pro-
perty had been sacrificed by Mr. M'Murray. It
appeared from his statement that the London Jour-
nal had been sold in 1857 to Mr. Ingram and Mr.
M'Murray for £31,500, and that it was re-purchased
by the bankrupt in 1859 for £33,000. Mr. M'Mur-
ray was a secured creditor for from £14,000 to
£17,000. Mr. M'Murray held a mortgage of the
copyrights of the Journal, the Guide, and the
Weekly Times. On the Bth of March, 1862, he
took possession under his mortgage, and, as he (the
bankrupt) had been informed, Mr. M'Murray sold
the property within a week from the seizure for
£lB,OOO. He (the bankrupt) estimated the value
of the property thus sold at over £50,000, the pro-
fits being £17,000 a-year, and three years' purchase
was a fair price for such property.
Further examined, the bankrupt stated that no
publicity was given by Mr. M'Murray to his inten-
tion to sell, and he (the bankrupt) did not know that
Mr. M'Murray was negotiating a sale until it was
completed. And this sale (which was a sale to Mr.
Johnson, of St.- Martin'ss-lane) was completed
within a week from Mr. M'Murray's seizure, and
the price paid was only £lB,OOO,
scarcely more
than one year's profit of the property. Mr. Wrigley
had offered '..on the Wednesday after the seizure to
Pay Mr. M'Murray the amount of his mortgage.
The day after he (the bankrupt) was informed that
the property had been sold, without consultation
for £lB,OOO. It was in his opinion worth £60,000,
and if fairly realised would have left him in posses-
sion of a surplus of £20,000.
Re-examined by Mr. Linklater—He had not said
that the London Journal had produced a profit of
£lO,OOO a year, but he would pledge his oath that
the net profit therefrom during the last three years
had been from £6,000 to' £7,000, or upwards of
£2,000 a year. He had similarly made a profit of
£6,000 during the same period from the Weekly
Times. He owed Mr. M'Murray from :X14,000 to
£17,000 on the secured account. He had never said
he owed him £22,000 on that account. According
to Mr. M'Murray, the amount was £28,000 on the
secured and unsecured accounts, but he (bankrupt)
Mr. Lewis, the bankrupt
devniuedrththeartesxtaamteimneeant ltogetherbay.
said Mr. Ingram and Mr. M'Murray agreed to give
£30,00 for the London Journal. Since the repeal
of the paper duty had taken full effect he had de-
rived therefrom an advantage of £7,000 a year. The
London Journal and the Guide required 800 reams
of paper per week. Each ream weighed 331 b, and
the difference in price was 11d. per lb.
A calculation was here made by Mr. Pook that
the advantage thus gained amounted to about
£8,580.

ql b'

Mr. Spencer Johnson, examineL y Mr. Law-
ranee, said he was a printer in St. Martin's-lane, and
claimed an interest in the London Journal, the
Guide, and the Weekly Times. He purchased the
whole of them on the 12th of March from Mr.
*Murray, who came to him and named the price
for which he would sell the property (£18,000).
Prior to this he (Mr. Johnson) had heard all sorts
of reports to the value of the publications, as much
as £30,000 being mentioned. He thought the
sum of £lB,OOO a fair price, and did not (see
Mr. Stiff at all on the matter. The day he made
the purchase the publications were transferred
to his name at Stationers'-hall. He was satis-
fied that Mr. Stiffs estimate of the profits
was a perfect fallacy. He made the purchase on
Mr. M'Murray's statement only, and without exa-
mining the books. He calculated that the London
Journal had a circulation of 300,000 odd, and he
made the estimates of expenses incidental to the
publication himself. Mr. *Murray told him that
he had bought the London Journal in 1857 for
£30,000, which included stock and block, and that
he had afterwards resold the same to Mr. Stiff for
£33,000. He (Mr. Johnson) purchased the copy-
right of the three publications for £lB,OOO, which
he thought a fair price. The copyrights of the
Weekly times and the Guide were valued at no-
thing, and were put in as a makeweight. He
thaught the Guide might be worth £5OO a year.
He (Mr. Johnson) had bought the copyright of the
Illustrated News from Mr. Ingram, and knew the
value of copyrights. He thought three years' pur-
chase a fair value for the bankrupt's publications.
He considered the London Journal was worth £6,000
a year. He paid money and bills for the purchase
—LIO,OOO in cash, the remainder in bills. He was
not prepared to say he would relinquish the pro-
perty on repayment of the £lB,OOO. He had re-
fused an offer of £25,000 for it from the bankrupt.

appealing to the law for protection. _.te sak Lan
he was aware that after the marriage the defen•
dant and his daughter went to Spain, and during
their absence he prepared the present bill of
indictment against the defendant, and he said he
did so by the advice of Mr. Norton, the magistrate.
His daughter had no property in her own right,
and he said he would take care that she should
never have a farthing of his money after what had
occurred. The defendant was perfectly well aware
that his daughter had no property in her own right
and that all her expectations were from him. The
defendant gave him a bracelet last year for his
daughter, and witness gave it to her, but did not
tell her who had sent it to her. That bracelet was
now in his own possession, and he would take good
care that she would never have it. His daughter
left the bracelet behind when she eloped, and this
was how he became possessed of it, and he meant
to keep it. The defendant did not give his daughter
a valuable watch and chain, but he remembered
he told him that he intended to make his daughter
a present of a watch on her 18th birthday, which
was his custom with all his children, and the defen-
dant told him he had a very good watch and chain,
and he gave him £2l for them, and afterwards
made a present of them to hie daughter. He was
on very friendly terms with the defendant, who
used to call him "Father Tom." This was in allu-
sion to the piece of the " Colleen Bawn." The de-
fendant used to be called " Miles," and he called his
daughter "Lily," and witness was "Father Tom,"
(A laugh.) In answer to further questions that
were put by Sergeant Ballantine, the witness said
that he had run away with his present wife, who
was the mother of the young lady in question, and
that he had a wife living at the time. He added
that he lived with this lady for several years, but
could not marry her until his wife died. The
moment, however, that event occurred he married

By Mr. Linklater—He should think that the dif-
ference between £lB,OOO and £30,000 would be
made up by stock, machinery, &c. He relied entirely
on Mr. M'Murray's statement, which, having regard
to his position, he believed he might rely upon as
correct ; otherwise he should not have bought the
pig in the pock. (A laugh.)
Re-examined by Mr. Pook—He paid the £lO,OOO
by a check on the London and Westminster Bank.
It was nothing to him who found the money.
Neither Mr. Levy nor Mr. M'Murray found the
money.
By Mr. Lewis—Before the repeal of the paper
duty the London Tournal was worth £5,000 a year.
The repeal in question made a difference of £5,000
a year extra. At three years' purchase this would
make a difference of £15,000 in the increased value

her.
Sergeant Ballantine submitted that after the fact
that had just been stated there was an end of the
case. The prosecutor was not the lawful father or
guardian of the young lady, and the defendant could
not, therefore, be said to have falsely stated that he
had the consent of such parent or guardian. He
would have been perfectly justified in declaring that
there was no person connected with her who had
the power to give or withhold his consent to the
marriage, and he contended that his statement that
he had the consent of the father was perfectly im-
material.
Mr. Giffard argued at some length that the Act
of Parliament was intended to apply to every per•
son who stood in the relation of natural guardian to
the person who was married under such circum-

of the London journal. Full 48 hours intervened
between the sale and the registration at Stationers'-
hall ; he thought about six days. He never offered
Mr. M'Murray less for the property than the £lB,OOO
asked. He relied upon his statement alone. It was
not in one check that he had paid the £lO,OOO, but
he thought by a check for £5,000 and other checks.
His banker's pass-book was at their service, and
would show how this was. He would swear that
the checks would show an amount of £lO,OOO then
paid, within a faw shillings. Mr. M'Murray had
not found any part of the money. It was a bonafide
transaction. The bills given in purchase were four
or five months' bills and were the bills of himself
and partner (Mr. VV ilson), who had paid him £7,000
for a third share in the business. The sale of the
London Journal was now 313,000, and it had varied

stances.
The Recorder left the court to confer with the
Common Sergeant upon the point, and when he re-
turned he said that as a general rule he was always
unwilling to stop any case upon a point of law, but
in the present instance, where he had no doubt
whatever upon the question that had been raised
by the learned sergeant—and he might say that the
Common Sergeant entirely concurred with him—
he thought that he ought to do so. In his opinion
the charge had not been established; in fact, the
allegation in the indictment that the prosecutor was
the natural and lawful father of the young lady had
been negatived, and he should therefore direct the
jury to acquit the defendant.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly recorded.
There was :a slight attempt at applause in the

- - .
between 200,000 and 400,000. With a circulation court when the verdict was delivered, but it was
of 313,000 and a profit of £6,000 or £7,000 a-year repressed by the officers.
he considered it a first-class paper for sale. Anthony Dutlein, 31, pleaded Guilty to a charge
Mr. Lawrence commented upon the very remark- of embezzling the several sums of £ll and £5,
able manner in which the bankrupt's property had the moneys of Mr. Alderman Wilsen, his employer,
been transferred to Mr. Johnson. It was impossible and likewise feloniously forging and uttering a re-
the case could end where it was. It was a case that ceipt for £3 with intent to defraud Mr. Charles
could not be too fully investigated, and it was de- Turner.
sirable that the name of Mr. Ward should be added Mr. Kemp, who appeared for the prosecution,
as assignee to those of Mr. McMurray, Mr. Hodge, briefly stated that the prisoner was in the employ-
and Mr, Edward Hart Messrs. Hart and Hayles). ment of Mr. Alderman Wilson, at head-quarters in
r, Lewis
and Mr. Pook took the same view. Finsbury, and in that capacity he forged a receipt
said his clients represented three- for rent, and after receiving some sums of money
fourths Alr.:-....2 creditors. They were of to the amount of £l6 he left the country and was
Liinnkvlaati,Z
of
—alit the broth, and ultimately apprehended in Germany.
opinion that too many cooks bv, . _„" would see He was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.
that Mr. Hodge (Spalding and Hoag,
,„ Spal- Herbert Brown, 17, clerk, was charged with hav-
that justice was done to all parties. Messrs.., .
embezzld severa sums of mon belonig to
ding and Hodge were the largest creditors (Z10;Oue mg masters,e Messrs.l Carliles, Pittman, angdn
odd). It had been stated that the bankrupt realised his . _-men, Bow-lane, City. Co.,
£lO,OOO a-year by the London Journal. It now warehoass.rr nrosecuted ; the prisoner was undo-
turned out that the sum was X 2,000 a•year. The Mr. Oidge k
value of a thing was very different )711en subjected fended. •
to the test of the cold climate of a public rezket. It appeared that the prisms_ was in the service
Mr. Hodge and Mr. Hart were then chosei; of the prosecutors as cashier, ant: .it was his duty to
assignees. re,;_ive the money from the warehoub..7men for cash
After some reference to a claim on the machinery parcels, and enter the amount so receivt2sd in his
of the Morning Chronicle, of which the bankrupt petty cashbook, and account to Mr. Carliles al.` the
was also proprietor, end of each day. The custom was that he should
Mr. Linklater said the assignees proposed to take a check,h with the amount marked on it, from
grant an allowance of £5 per week to the bankrupt.
Instead re ouseman ; but it appeared that he had,
Mr. Lewis concurred, of so doing, taken the money himself, had
o;:tered the goods in the rough journal, and marked
o ease against them, but had not carried the
1 amounts received into the cashbook. It was proved
that three separizO sums of £1 Os. lid., £1 18s. 2d.,
and 13s. 7d. were pie' to him by different cus-
tomers, who produced feceipts for those sumts in
the prisoners handwriting, but he had no ac-
counted for them in the cashbook, although they
appeared in the rough journal.
wilt y, and recom-
The jury found the prisoner gm
t.
mended him to mercy on account of his yo
allh
mounts ud ecl to
Mr. Pittman said the three a
There were about 29
were In2t the only ones. .
fi3o
others, amounting in all to about I, ,
that
Aidin
The Recorder, in passing sentence, ss
as usual to p,ass a
such cases cases as the present but
as
a the jury had igcom-
tence of penal servitude,
to me. rey
he should only
sen-
tence him to 18 raoa-1113' imprisonment with hard
labour,

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,-3.larch 7,

ac onnse affidavit
a
Francis Fairlie, a gentlemanly-looking
between 40 and 50 years of age,
surrendered to take his trial for misdemeanour, in
man, Robert
apparently
and corruptly made a certain falso
state Mont at the office of the Vicar-General of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Doctors'-commons, with
a view to Pitena, A
having wilfully
;Gsiffe'argrdeant marriagil licence,
and Mr. "'eland condticted the prose-
cutionßallantine was specially retained
Lewis on behalf of the defendant.l
Mr. Giffard,
wiMthrM. r. F. 1-1.
in opening the case to the jury, said
that the present charge was framed under an act of
Parliament that
Majesty George iv.,
was passed in the reign of his late
and the object of which was
families, and to prevent marriages
g place between young persons without the
he protection cf
olfictehnecire at Doctors'-commons for his
tp,rtitarte parents. .t,
hTeh e4ot
hffeonfc
ye
ainpaurtye imputed
ob-
tainedthe
defendantaB, that on the 4th of Yanuary he ob-
mar-
riageYoung lady named Eliza England,
who was only 18 years of age, and that he made
defendwaintt;:waas,
upon that occasion that the father of
the young lady had consented to the union, which
was not true, and it was for making this false
statement that the present charge was pre-
faored against him, In order that the WV

NEW COURT.

(Before Mr. T. Chambers, Q.C., Common Sergeant.)
Mary Coucher, a respectable-looking woman, sur-
rendered to take her trial for perjury.
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Orridge prosecuted ; Mr.
ltibton and Mr. Poland defended.
The circumstances giving rise to the prosecution
were these •--The defendant is the matron of the
Merchant Seamen's Orphan Asylum at Bow, and

among the women employed upon the establishment
in the laundry was one named Mary Lawton, who
up to the time of the occurrence out of which these
proceedings arose had been so for about seven
months. he woman was allowed to have brogen
victuals given to her to take home, anti upon the
evening of the 16th of January she was quitting the
establishment by the lodge gate, having with her a
basin containing some dripping, and also some cold
meat and a piece of bread, which were wrapped up
in a piece of paper. As Lawton was just quitting,
defendant came up and said, " What have you got
there?" Lawton said, "My supper;" upon which
the defendant added, " That is all I want;" and tak-
ing the parcel from Lawton, went into the house.
Lawton then went back to the kitchen, and waited
there for about three-quarters of an hour, and com-
plained that the defendant did not come back and
give her some reason why she had taken her supper
from her. Defendant, however, did not come to
her, and Lawton went home, and shortly after-
wards the police inspector came and took her into
custody upon a charge of stealing three half-quar-
tern loaves and 21b. of uncooked meat. Lawton
was then taken by the police to the Asylum, aid
there the defendant produced, tied up in an old
apron, not belonging to Lawton, three loaves, 21b.
of uncooked meat, and the cooked meat N7hich had
been given to her, and said that was the trundle
which she had taken from Lawton and was in the
same shape as when she (the defendant) took it from,
her. This Lawton strictly denied at the time, ana
and protested that all the defendant took from her
was the cold meat and the dripping. Upon Law-
ton's trial at the sessions she repeated the same
story and called two witnesses,—one the cook,
whom she had the cold meat from, and the other a
fellow laundrymaid, who swore that she was with
Lawton up to the time of her being stopped by the
defendant, and that she had no bundle then in her
possession. The jury, notwithstanding, found
Lawton guilty, and she was sentenced to 12 months'
imprisonment.
The evidence this day bore out the facts above
given, and the woman Lawton was brought up by
habeas to give evidence, and she most positively
swore that all the defendant took from her was
some cold meat in a piece of paper and some drip-.
ping.
The witnesses were very closely cross-examined,
but nothing was elicited tending to show that the
defendant had any motive for making a false charge.
She had always thought well of the woman Law-
ton, and upon one occasion when she had missed
some trifling article, and suspected one of the
women, and found she was wrong, she at once told
the other servants to let their fellow-servant know
that she was in error.

Mr. Ribton, upon the part of the defendant, said
the charge was a most monstrous one, and, if sue
cessful, no prosecutor would be safe. His client had
only done her duty to the institution she had to
manage. The learned gentleman then most dis-
passionqtely reviewed the whole case, and expressed
his gratification that his client's acquittal could not
be given by the jury as the result of any doubt in
their mind, but as an opinion of her entire innocence
of the charge.
Several clergymen gave the defendant a high
character of many years' standing.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
The Common Sergeant—And with that verdict
I most heartily concur.