The Sun.
London, England, 1865-10-07 00:00:00

His Honour, however, ruled that the defendant was
liable to the plaintiff for the amount of the stakes, the ver-
dict being for the sum claimed.

To-day Mr. Earle moved for leave to set aside this verdict,
on the ground that it was against the law upon lotteries
and gambling. He urged, with some force, that this sweep-
stake was no more than a lottery, and, as a result, quite
_ .

His Honour said that he should bo willing to hear tho
case argued on a future day.

Mr. Earle replied that he should be quite ready to argue
it on any day that the Court might appoint, and would pro-
duce satisfactory proof that the verdict ought not to stand.
His Honour considered f hat the plaintiff ought to have
time to answer the objections taken against the decision
of this Court in the first trial, and appointed a day for the
arguments.
Leave granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCES—This Day,

BOW-STREET.

THE ROBBERY AT PROFESSOR HOLLOWAY'S. This
morning the prisoner Utton, lately a clerk in the employ-of
Mr. Holloway, .Strand, and who already stands committed
for trial, was placed at the bar on a charge of stealing a
number of valuable securities, viz., cheques, the property
of his master ; and Henry Locke, the landlord of the
Holyrood Palace, also appeared in answer to a summons

charging him with receiving the said cheques, knowing
them to have been stolen. There was also a charge of con-
spiring with Utton to obtain the property made against the
defendant.

Mr. Sleigh, who appeared for the prosecution, said the
defendant Locke, it appeared, kept an account at the
Temple-bar branch of the London and Westminster Bank,
and ho should call evidence before the Court to show that
with the knowledge that the persons employed in Mr. Hol-
loway's establishment were paid daily, he cashed no less than
13 cheques, amounting in the gross to about £l3O. He
should also show that Locke and Utton were in the habit
of playing cards after dinner, at blindhookey, for consider-
able sums of money. When the robbery was discovered
Mr. Locke, in answer to Mr. Holloway, the manager of his
brother's business, said he had taken them all in the way
of business, and the defendant produced a book showing
how the various cheques had been cashed for Utton. The
entries in the book showed that a portion of the sum for
which the cheque was drawn was paid in money, the re-
mainder in brandy, cigars, &c.
Mr. Metcalf appeared for the defendant Locke.

Mr. Henry Holloway, brother and manager of the esta-
blishment of Mr. Thomas Holloway, said—On Sept. 12 I
went to Mr. Locke's house in the Strand, and told him that a
number of cheques had been stolen from the house, and
they had passed through his hands. Ho said a great many
had done so, and I asked how many, and he replied from
12 to 20, as near as he could guess, amounting in all be-

:ween £l5O to £2OO, and be then produced a small book

from which he tore a leaf (produced.) I put it in my
pocket. The leaf, he said, would show how he settled
the amount of the cheques with Utton. I then asked
him if he was not aware that Utton had stolen the
cheques, to which he replied that he knew nothing about
that, and it was no business of his. I then left the
house. Locke said he did not know that Utton received
his wages daily, and he said he knew nothing about it,
and how Utton got the cheques was no business of his.
Mr. Locke the next day attended at my brother's house,
and, I showing him the cheques, asked him if he had
taken them of Utton, and he said " Yes, with the ex-
cepttion of two of which he was not certain." The
cheques were those I had previously signed for Utton, to
be paid away by him to customers. All our clerks are paid
daily.

Cross-examined by Mr. Metcalf—The cashier, who was
on probation, received ss. a day. The prisoner Litton re-
ceived ss. a day. I appealed to Mr. Locke, as a friend and
a neighbour, to give me all the information he could. Ho
gave me the leaf out of the book I have referred to. He
also took me to his banker's to ascertain whether certain
cheques had passed through the bank. The next day
Locke came to our house, and I handed him a bundle of
cheques, and he selected from it those which had passed
through his hand. He did so. In the bundle there was a
crossed cheque, upon which there 'yes a direction from the
defendant to his banker to pay the amount. Mr. Bower
May has acted in this matter for us, but we have
changed our solicitor in this matter to Mr. Lewis.
I will not swear a clerk of Mr. Bowen May was not present
when the defendant Locke and Mr. Stafford were with me
in my room. I don't recollect that a person there said to
defendant, " I am Bowen May, and unless you pay the
money before to-morrow morning you shall be placed in
the dock with the other prisoners. I will swear I never
heard the expression used. I did not say on that occasion
to Locke, "I don't want to give you into custody, all I
want is my money." I will swear I did not say so. Ido
not know that it is a common practice for publicans to cash
crossed cheques. I should think they would not.
Mr. Sleigh—ls there any pretence for saying that you
have instituted these proceedings because you could not
get your money back?
Witness—On my oath there is not.

While the deposition was being read over, Mr. Holloway
said—l now perfectly recollect that Mr. Bowen May's
clerk was present on the second occasion that I have re-
ferred to.

Mr. Stafford—l am in the engagement of Mr. Holloway.
From directions 1 received from Mr. Holloway on the 13th
Sept., I went to defendant Locke's house, ani asked him
to come round to Mr. Holloway. I had previously been
to Coutts' to get some cheques. Locke was waiting for
his necktie, and while it was being got for him he said
to me, " This is a bad business." I replied, "It is. How-
ever did you come to take the cheques from those fellows,
knowing their position ?" He said, " What do I care ?
Holloway's name was at the foot, and that is quite enough
for me. I did it in the way of business, and bring me as
many more of the cheques I'll cash them."
Cross-examined.—This conversation took place in the
defendant Locke's bar parlour. I did not go the public
house to get information. I went to the defendant to
come to Mr. Holloway's. Oxford Jonathan, a friend of
Mr. Locke, was present in Mr. Henry Holloway's room when
the conversation took place about the cheques. One of
Mr. Bowen May's clerks was present. That person did no;
say "I am Mr. Bowen May." I will swear I did not hear
Mr. Bowen May's clerk say, " Unless the money is paid by
11 o'clock you will be placed in the dock." The clerk I
believe said to Mr. Locke, " I will give you till 11 o'clock
to think over this matter." I believe that Mr. Holloway
prosecutes this case for the protection of trade, and not
because the defendant Locke did not refund the amount
of the cheques. I believe Mr. Bowen May's clerk said to
defendant, this will be a bad business for you, as you knew
the position of Utton, and, as well as I can recollect, Locke
replied I don't know so much about that. The clerk said
this must be cleared up, and Locke said I don't see what
I've got to with it, and then the clerk said I'll give you
until 11 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. Metcalf—What for?
Witness—l don't know.
Mr. Metcalf—Was anything said about being given into
custody ?
Witness—No. Mr. Locke asked for the address of Mr.
Holloway's solicitor, and it was given. The conversation
about giving Locke into custody took place down stairs
I never heard anything about the repayment of the money
before 11 o'clock. I will swear I heard nothing of the kind
that could lead to such an inference. I cannot recollect
whether Mr. Holloway has said in my hearing that all he
wanted was to get his money back.

Mr. Metcalf —Yes ; and if he did not, he would giyo Mr.
Locke into custody?

Witness—.l never heard him say so.

Mr. Thomas Hutchings said I am in the employ of Mr.
Holloway, and was present at the interview between Mr.
Holloway and Mr. Locke. I heard Locke say he had
received as many as 12 or 20 cheques from the prisoner,
amounting in all to about .£l5O or £2OO. I asked him if
he knew whether one of the cheques was drawn in favour
of Robinson. I asked him if he knew tho names of the
clerks, and he said yes. I asked if ho knew that they were
paid daily. He said he cashed the cheques in the way of
trade. They bore Holloway's signature, and that was
enough for him. The way of business was that he had
furnished Utton -with brandy, champagne and boxes of
cigars.

Mr. Robert Cathpole said, lam dealer in wine and
brandy warrants, Old Swan Wharf, City. I have known
Mr. Locke for years, and within the last twelvemonths I
have seen the prisoner Utten at Mr. Locke's house. I
have also seen Spooner and Sellen there. I used to call
at the house some times at dinner time as Mr. Locke had
an ordinary, and I have seen the prisoners there until after
the ordinary. I have seen them playing cards. They
generally commenced with the game of 100 and finished
with blind hookey. I have seen the three defend-
ants and Mr. Locke play so frequently that I
cannot give the exact number of games played.
I don't know the amount of the stakes. I canuot say
whether they were shillings or pounds. On one occa-
sion after seeing all three prisoners up-stairs playing with
Locke, ho came down stairs and told me he had wog £l7.
I have seen Spooner and Sellen stake money. I recoileo,