The Sun.
London, England, 1862-10-11 00:00:00

that he (the prisoner) had never been informed of
the policeman's number.
Then prisoner then went into a number cf details
as to the correspondence, all of which Mr. Henry
reminded him he had already stated.
Mr. Henry then said—ln that last letter you
have certainly used language calculated to excite
alarm ; and, as it is the opinion of medical men that
you do understand the difference between right and
wrong—
Prisoner (emphatically)—Certainly I do.
Mr. Henry—Therefore I must hold you to bail,
to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the
next 12 months, in two sureties of £5O each, and
your own recognisance of £lOO.
The Prisoner—That is pretty heavy bail.
Mr. Henry—And let me caution you that if you
write to Sir Richard Mayne, or any one else, any
more letters containing similar threats you will be
committed for trial.
The Prisoner—No jury in England would con-
vict me.
Two gentlemen, neighbours of the prisoner,
offered themselves as bail. Both, however, re-
quested the magistrate to fix a lower amount, sug-
gesting that £25 would be sufficient.
Mr. Henry—l think not. I have considered the
matter carefully, and 1 think fixing that amount
may have the effect of restraining him. You appear
to be his friends, and he would probably be reluc-
tant to subject you to the loss of the money.
One of the sureties admitted that ;he should not
like such language to be written to himself; the
other said, if the prisoner would take his advice lie
would give up letter-writing altogether.
The rccognisances were entered, and the prisoner
liberated.

WESTMINSTER. THE EXTRAORDINARY
CHARGE OF FELONY AT TIE MILITARY STORSE.
—John Morelle, an Italian master-tailor, of the
Grenadier Guards, residing at 9, Cornwall-street,
Pimlico, appeared for fitial examination, charged
with stealing a quantity of cloth belonging to the
Secretary at War.
Mr. Sayers attended to watch the case on behalf
of the• War Office ; and Mr. F. 11. Lewis, barrister,
appeared for the accused.
In reply to an inquiry from Mr. Paynter, it was
stated that the Quartermaster of the 47th Regiment,
spoken of by the prisoner in his defeneZl on the last
examination, was not in England, but could be
brought forward if necessary.
At Mr. Lewis's request, Colonel Daubeney, ii;-
spector of the army clothing, stood in the witness-
box for cross-examination.
Mr. Lewis inquired when he was appointed to
his present post, and followed it up by asking
whether there was not a prescribed allowance for
the clothing, when
Mr. Paynter observed that it was not of the
smallest importance to this inquiry, and called the
barrister's attention to the fact that there was a
piece of cloth of 3 yards produced on the last exa-
mination.

Mr. Lewis urged that, in his line of defence, the
questions he was putting were important ; his client
had recommended certain reductions in the amount
of cloth given out.
Mr. Paynter, as the question was about to be
pressed, pointed out that the defence set up by the
prisoner on the last occasion was that Col. Hudson
had given him leave to appropriate the property.
Mr. Lewis contended it was material to his client
that his cross-examination should be pursued as he
was conducting it. A person who did what the
prisoner had done to effect an enormous saving was
not a likely man to commit a felony.
Mr. Paynter said the prisoner was allowed at his
own earnest request to make his full defence on the
last occasion ; he was not aware of any suggestion
that prisoner had made any saving, nor was it im-
portant to this inquiry.
Mr. Lewis declared that through the prisoner's
instrumentality £13,000 per annum had been saved.
Mr. Lewis put two or three other questions to
Col. Daubeney, who disclaimed any knowledge of
the saving spoken of, and who said there were 200
master tailors in the army, some of whom were
soldiers, some civilians.
Mr. Paynter again said that these inquiries were
irrelevant.
Mr; Lewis persisted that the inquiries he was
about to make were most important. He not only
could show the saving he had mentioned, but that
after the stipulated quantity of cloth was given to a
master tailor, there was no return of the remnants.
The practice of keeping what was left had subsided
into a custom. •

Mr. Paynter remarked that it was not a legal
custom. He thought it useless for Mr. Lewis to
pursue that line of defence, as the defence was that
Col, Hudson had given him permission to keep the
cloth. He thought the time of the court was being
wasted. _

Mr, Lewis suggested that the time of the court
was being more wasted by the magistrate's frequent
interruptions.
In answer to his further inquiries Col. Daubeney
said he did not know of a master tailor returning
remnants of cloth to the War Office ; it was his
duty to return what was left to the quartermaster,
from whom he received it, in order that it might
be left in the regimental stores. Regimental master-
tailors worked in the regimental shop, and could
not lawfully take an ounce of thread out of it with-
out permission.
Mr. Lewis said that while speaking of strict rule
he would inquire of Col. Daubeney whether he had
not himself used the regimental cloth for a table
cover at the War Office.
Colonel Daubeney replied that he had an obsolete
piece of green cloth on his table, but he had had
the War Office authority to place it there.
Mr. Paynter having stated that there was no
necessity for answering that question, which Col.
Daubeney, however, immediately replied to,
Mr. Lewis observed that Mr. Paynter appeared
to take a strong view of the case, and not in accord
ante with that of the public.
Colonel Hudson, superintendent of the manufac-
ture of clothing, was then called.
In cross-examination by Mr. Lewis, he said that
prisoner was so first-rate a master tailor that he
had received his present post in that capacity
through the instrumentality of General Crawford ;
it was at the general's request, and for his ability
and general good conduct in the 47th. The mini-
mum quantity of cloth was served out for the sol-
diers' clothing; as little as was possibly thought
sufficient to make the article. One yard and seven-
teen inches of cloth was given out to make a tunic
before the prisoner became the master tailor, but
the prisoner made calculations and produced pat-
terns to show that a much less quantity of cloth
would be sufficient for the purpose. The patterns
were submitted to Sir Thomas Troubridge, and
being approved of, a great saving was effected.
Could not say that £13,000 per annum had
been saved by prisoner, but there certainly
was a most considerable saving to the public;
witness thought in consequence of prisoner's plans
being brought under the notice of the Government.
None of the remnants were ever returned to the
Government stores. It was the practice to retain
the remnants, witness thought, to repair the sol-
diers' clothing. Prisoner had 700 suits of clothing
to cut out while in the 47th. In 1858 the prisoner
showed him a piece of cloth at Dover, and said he
I had some left after making the clothing. At that
time prisoner spoke and understood English very
imperfectly, and it was difficult to make him un-
derstand. The piece of cloth prisoner showed him
witness told him to keep. He said, "Keep it here."
He meant with the stores of the regiment, as it
would have caused a great deal of trouble had it
been returned to the place whence it had been
issued. Never knew of any cloth being sent back
by any regiment to the military stores. Remem-
bered prisoner making several patterns of coats,
and thought he had gone to the expense of buying
the cloth, for which witness expressed regret, upon
which prisoner told him he had made them from
the remnants. Did not tell the prisoner it was
wrong to make the patterns which were sent to
Sir Thomas Troubridge from the Government cloth.
Shell jackets might have been made from the rem-
nants, and sold by the master tailors, but not with
the sanction of Government,
Mr. Lewis observed that he gathered from what
had occurred that it had been the magistrate's in-
tention to commit the prisoner for trial, but he
hoped that from the fresh complexion put upon the
case by the cross-examination the magistrate's view
of it was altered. The question for the magistrate's
consideration was not whether the prisoner had kept
the cloth back from an error in judgment, or upon
strength of a prevailing custom, but whether he
had withheld it feloniously; and he submitted that
there was nothing to constitute a charge of larceny.
No jury of master tailors, or any other men, would
come to the conclusion that the prisoher had
vs tanni entag teh
teoea man,
cloth; and if character was of any ad-
he surely had it ; for he obtained
his present appointment by that and his ability.
Instead of being guilty of peculations, he showed
how two inches of cloth, which he might have kept,
could be saved in every tunic, and that surely did
not savour of dishonesty ; and he trusted that the
accused was not to be put to the shame and disgrace
of a trial by a jury upon this charge. If committed,
there still fortunately happened to exist a grand
jury, who might probably save him that disgrace
by ignoring the bill. He (Mr. Lewis) would call
Col. Burnaby, of the Grenadier s
professionally Guards,
s
whose kindness the prisoner w
de-
fended that day, to speak to his character;
but it
suggested itself to him that Col Daubeney might
feel it hie duty to withdraw this prosecution
the
for
felony, after an explanation
which
act at most was mainly showed that
referable to a prevailing
system.