The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-10 00:00:00

JANUARY LO, 1.862.

Hurst, the curate of Wokingham. Witness had had
about 90 pupils, who had passed army examina-,
tions. His manners were uniformly gentlemanly.
He acted quite well at meals, and there was never
anything unbecoming in his dress. From first to
last he and Mr. Windham got on very well toge-
ther. Mr. Windham had sufficient ability to pctsa
an army examination well paid. He 1,m414 iisit
to witness in 1860, and stayed to lunch. He be-
haved very well. He belieVed Ur. Windham to be
a person of sound mind.
Cross-examined by I`.l-r. Chambers—Soratimes
he was in a passion, when he had more drink than
was good for him. It was only occasionally when
he had been out. It was not from anything he had
in the house. He was in that state two or three
times while he was in witness's house. He had a
good appetite, and he ate as though he enjoyed him-
self. He got about half through the Ist book of
" Euclid"—not so far as the 47th proposition, pro-
bably not to the 32d. He had a very good know-
ledge of geography and history. Witness was under
the impression that Mr. Windham left him because
he owed money down there. He contracted debts
to the extent of about £7O, some of it for horse-
keep, a new dog-cart, and clothes. The accounts
were collected for Lord Alfred Hervey, and they
were settled, He used to go up and down the
South-Western, and he had heard that he drove the
engine.
Mr. Chambers—What, did he drive the engine
on the South-Western Railway ? .
Witness—What he could do on one line, I sup-
pose he could do on another.

A Juror—l am very sorry to hear it.
Cross-examination continued—He had not heard
from Mr. Windham that he drove the engine, but
he had been told so by other persons. Witness
mentioned the fact to Mr. Windham, who took it
as a matter of course. He laughed, but it was not
an idiotic laugh. (Applause in Court.)
The Master, in very solemn tones, deprecated
such indecency, and ordered the police to take into
custody and bring before him any person so grossly
offending.
Re-examined by Mr. Karslake—All the accounts
ho ran up wore propor, escort ono or two public-
house bills. There was nothing about them in-
volving any immorality.
Mrs. Burr, the wife of the last 'witness, was
asked a few questions relative to Mr. Windham's
conduct in the house. He was cleanly and gentle-
manlike.

The Rev. William Hurst, curate of Wokingham,
said he instructed Mr. Windham in mathematics
while he was at Mr. Burr's. He had average
ability in learning. He never saw anything about
him to lead him to suppose that his intellect was
impaired.

kr. T. W. T. Cooke, a solicitor at Wokingham,
met Mr. Windham there several times. In his judg•
men t Mr. Windham was a man of sound mind.

Elizabeth Crossley, chambermaid and barmaid at
the Duke's Palace Hotel, Norwich—The Cromar
coach stopped there. Mr. Windham used to stay
there occasionally. Captain and General Windham
had been there. Young Windham had slept there
occasionally. His room was the same as that of
other gentlemen after he left. He always con-
ducted himself well.

By a Juryman—Mr. Windham owed the landlord
of the hotel upwards of £lOO.
By the Master—The account commenced in Sep-
tember, 1860.

Mrs. Anne Warner, the landlady of the Bedford
Hotel, Covent-garden, said Mr. Windham had been
in the habit of staying at her house. He went from
her house to Duke-street. He conducted himself
very much like a gentleman.
By the Master—She saw nothing about him to
lead her to think he was of unsound mind. He
asked for the bill, and paid it himself,
Mr. Wm. Seeley, station master of the Victoria
station of the Eastern Union Railway at Norwich,
had occasionally seen Nir. Windham. He used to
take his ticket in the ordinary way, and he had
never seen him do anything which another passenger
would not do.

Mr. Chambers—How much did it cost to bring
you from Norwich ?
Witness—Well, I paid my fare.
Mr. Chambers—The sooner you get back the
better. (Laughter.)
Mr. W. Parker, inspector of the Thorpe station,
near Norwich, said he had known Mr. Windham
two years. He had seen Mr. Windham in his un-
dress militia uniform, which was like that of a rail-
way guard. He never saw him do anything extra-
ordinary on the line.
Mr. C. Chapman, relieving officer of the Upring-
ham Union, including Felhrigge, said he had nego-
tiated with Mr. Windham about taking a farm, and
for which he had made arrangements. He had seen
Mr. Windham frequently since that time, when he
had come to the union house to inspect the books, to
ascertain the charges to which he would be liable.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers—He was at
the dinner on Christmas-day. In the afternoon he
saw Mr. Windham in a loose shirt, without braces,
with pantaloons, with his face blackened. Witness
did not see him with a banjo or singing. When Mr.
Windham walked into the room witness walked out.
He was not so black as a serenader. When he re-
turned to say" Good night" to the party Mr. Wind-
ham had changed his suit, and had got on the same
clothes he had on at dinner.

Mr. J. F. Wroodhall, of 28. Orchard-street, Port-
man-square, coachbuilder, and other persons were
called to speak to Mr. Windham's capacity for
managing business.
The Court then adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 9.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Henry David Lloyd, de-
scribed as a merchant, carrying on business at No.
26, Philpot-lane, was again brought up on remand
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having con-
spired with another, not in custody, to obtain a
quantity of alkali,to the value of £750, with intent
to defraud Mr. Jeifrieson, of the Jarrow-hill Chemi-
cal Works, near Gateshead.

Mr. Mullens again appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. R. S. Miller for the prisoner.
The prisoner was originally brought up on the
29th of November, and it appeared from the evi-
dence that was adduced on that occasion in refer-
ence to the charge, that in the beginning of October
last a letter was received at Mr. Jeffrieson's office,
dated from 26, Philpot-lane, and signed "H. D.
Lloyd and C 0.," requesting Mr. Jeffrieson to send
them a sample of soda ash, together with a quotation
of their prices. A quotation of prices was accord-
ingly sent, and on the 16th of October a letter was
sent by Mr. Jeffrieson to Messrs. Lloyd and Co.,
asking for a reference before doing business with
them; in reply to which a letter was received at Mr.
Jeffrieson's office, giving Messrs. Alexander Bell
and Sons, of 38, Threadneedle street, as a refer-
ence. Mr. Jeffrieson being away from the office
at the time of the receipt of the letter,
his clerk applied to a gentleman named Livingstone,
a friend of Mr. Jeffrieson's, for advice in the matter,
and he, knowing that there was a firm in London,
of the name of Alexander Bell and Sons, of 38,
Threadneedle-street, he wrote to:them and received
a letter in reply, stating that Messrs. Bell had
known Messrs. Lloyd for a considerable period,
had had several business transactions with them
to a considerable amount, and always believed them
to be perfectly trustworthy. Thinking that the
Alexander Bell and Sons, of 38, Threadneedle-
street, was the same firm with which he was con-
nected, Mr. Livingstone thought the reference
satisfactory. Accordingly, under Mr. Livingstone's
directions, in the absence of Mr. Jeffrieson, his
clerk entered into a contract with H. D. Lloyd
and Co. to supply them with about 100 tons of soda
ash, which was to be paid for fourteen days prompt
after the receipt of the bills of lading. The goods
were shipped in two shipments, and the bills of
lading forwarded to Messrs. Lloyd in due course.
At the expiration of fourteen days from the de-
livery of the first bill of lading applicotion was
made to Messrs. Lloyd for the money, and a letter
was sent, signed per procuration, for H. D. Lloyd
and Co, stating that Mr. Lloyd was out of town,
and the subject of the letter from Mr. Jeffrieson
should be attended to upon his return which would
be in the course of a week. A few days after that
Messrs. Lloyd sent another letter to Mr. Jeffrieson,
complaining that he had violated the contract in not
sending a certificate of the test. Enquiries were
afterwards made, and it was discovered that the
firm Alexander Bell and Sons, of 38, Threadneedle-
street, was not the real firm, their name being
Alexander Bell and Son, and their place of busi-
ness at the corner of Finch-lane, in Threadneedle-
street, and so Mr. Jeffrieson was defrauded of his
goods.
The prisoner has since been remanded from time

to time in order to 'enable Mr. Mullens to obtain
evidence of the conspiracy, and for that purpose
he has called several witnesses, whose evidence has
proved that the prisoner was assisted in this trans-
action by a person of the name of Solomons, to whom
the bills of lading were handed as soon as received
from Mr. Jeffrieson, and he forwarded them to
Hamburg, with instructions to parties there to
dispose of them on his account. Letters were put
in containing instructions to that effect, which were
proved to be in Solomon's handwriting. It was also
proved that Solomon took an active part in the
engagement of the offices at 26, Philpot-lane, and
was continually at those offices. Evidence was also
adduced to show that the prisoner and Solomon
were carrying on business at several other places
in the City undeE, different names ; for inaanoe,
they had an office in Aldermanbury, and carried
on business in the name of Leander and Co., the i
prisoner calling himself Mr. Leander ; and in

Broad-street, in tho, name of Wilson, Graham, and
Co., next door to an old standing firm of nearly the
same naro,L.,, viz,, Wilson, Graham, and Rose, and
at 38, Threadneedle-street, in the name of Alex-
ander Bell and Sons—all during the time they
occupied the offices at 26, Philpot-lane ; and that
about the same period, or a little before the trans-
action with Mr. Jeffrieson, Solomon was carrying
on business at Liverpool, under the name of Wilson,
Graham, and Co., in one place, and Jonas Simons
in another place. The same witness who proved
this latter fact, proved also that he was a witness
against Solomon at Liverpool, where he was tried
for forgery, but he was acquitted on account of the
bills, which were alleged to have been forged,being
uttered abroad.

Mr. Mullens now said he was sorry to say he
should be obliged to ask for another remand, as,
from some inexplicable cause, Mr. Jeffrieson and
his clerk had not arrived from Gateshead,
Mr. Miller thought it was very unfair towards
his client, and said ho could not see that there was
the slightest evidence of conspiracy against the pri-
soner. He thought he had good grounds for com-
plaint, as Mr. Mullens had stated on the first
examination that there were lots of witnesses to be
brought from Hamburg, but not one had been
called.

Mr. Mullens said he had produced the correspon-
dence of Solomon from Hamburg, which was proved
to be in his handwriting ; and he thought that wP,a
the best witness he could procure.
Some little discussion took place as to "Flat course
should be taken, and it was ultimatel.p agreed that
the evidence of all the witnesses.
r.ixeept Mr. Jeffrie-
son and his clerk, should be 'read over, after which
Mr. Miller should addr P:;s his lordship,'and, if he
made up his mind
commit, the witnesses should
be bound over., o save their attendance at a future
day, and. flat the prisoner should be formally re-
m Anded for the attendance of Mr. Jeffrieson and
the other witness.
The evidence having been read over, Mr. Mullens
called Henry Webb, a detective officer, who deposed
that he held a warrant for the apprehension of
John Solomon, for conspiring with the prisoner to
defraud Mr. Jeffrieson ; but although he had used
every possible exertion to arrest him on that war-
rant, he had not been able to obtain any certain
information of his whereabouts.

On being cross-examined by Mr. Miller, he said
he was not aware that the prosecutor had taken
legal proceedings to stop the goods at Hamburg,
nor was he aware that Solomon had gone there for
the purpose of defending those proceedings.
Mr. Mullens said that was his case, and as his
lordship was not present at all the examinations, he
briefly reviewed the whole of the facts for his
lordship's guidance, and said no complaint was made
by Messrs. Lloyd about violation of the contract, or
not sending the certificate of the test, until after
payment had been demanded. The contract stipu-
lated that it should be subject to Mr. Patterson's
test, but there was nothing said about the certifi-
cate being sent to Lloyd and Co.
Mr. Miller said he felt considerable difficulty in
addressing his lordship on the prisoner's behalf on
account of the manner in which he had been carry-
ing on business, which he would admit was not at
all honest; but at the same time he contended that
there was no evidence to show that the prisoner
had conspired with anyone to defraud Mr. jeffrieson.
Mr. Mullens had said at first he was about to bring a
lot of witnesses from Hamburg to prove the conspi-
racy, but no such witnesses had appeared. To prove a
conspiracy in law it was necessary to prove a connexion
between the parties concerned. There was no evi-
dence to show that the prisoner conspired with
Solomon, but merely that he and Solomon had been
seen together on several occasions as friends and
nothing more—not in business transactions. He
thought at first from the opening of Mr. Mullens
that the prisoner would be charged with conspiring
with Messrs. Bell and Sons. No evidence had been
given to prove that there was not such a firm as
Alexander Bell and Sons, at No. 38, Threadneedle-
street, and as regards the reference from Messrs.
Bell and Son, they were not to know that Mr.
Livingstone, of Newcastle•on-Tyne, and Mr. Jeffrie-
son, of the Jarrow-hill Chemical Works, were the
same, and argued that the whole case of conspiracy
must fall to the ground. As regarded Mr. Solo-
mon, he had gone to Hamburg to stand to his right
and to defend the legal proceedings taken there.
The contract with Mr. Jeffrieson stated that the
goods should be subject to Mr. Patterson's test,
and the correspondence went to show that Messrs.
Lloyd and Co. expected a certificate of that test.
The prisoner had soki the goods under the same
contract, and had been unable to fulfil it.

The Lord Mayor said the contract certainly sti-
pulated that the goods should be subject to a test,
but it was not incumbent on Mr. Jeffrieson to send
a certificate of the quality. He did not undertake
to send the certificate.

Mr. Miller said that it was the full intention of
his client that he should do so, and the payment had
been delayed on account of that certificate not hay-
ing been received.

The Lord Mayor said he thought it was for
Messrs. Lloyd to obtain the certificate according to
the terms of the contract.

Mr Miller said that if his lordship had made up
his mind to commit the prisoner it was no use his
going on.
The Lord Mayor said that it was his intention,
unless Mr. Miller could show him why he should
not do so.

Mr. Miller said, merely on account of the test not
having been supplied. It was evident the contract
had not been completed.

The Lord Mayor said he thought that must be
for a jury to decide.
Mr. Mullens then produced a letter in which Mr.
Solomon'stated that the alkali was of a very good
colour, and was of a much better quality than that
usually shipped from Liverpool.
Mr. Miller said it was hardly fair for Mr. Mul-
lens to prejudice the prisoner, as that was from a
man who wanted to sell his goods.
The prisoner was then formally remanded for the
attendance of Mr. Jeffrieson and his clerk.