The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-02 00:00:00

Thames was 4707 deg; the:mean-of the lowest was

45 5 deg. On Satuiday a thermometer in the water
rose to 50.6 deg, the highest temperature of the air
on that day having been 49 deg.

ASSIZE INTEL LIGIV CE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—WARWICK, April 1.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams.)
James Jones Salt was yesterday again placed at
the bar upon another charge of forging a bill of
exchange with intent to defraud, and in another
count with uttering the same with the like intent,
and he pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Beasley appeared for
the prosecution, and Mr. Kennedy conducted the
defence.

The particular charge sought to be substantiated
against the prisoner respected the forging and utter-
ing of a bill purporting to be accepted by M. Tans-
ley, a glass dealer. The evidence was almost a re-
petition of that adduced respecting the forgery of
the bill purporting to be accepted by Mr. Dawes
reported yesterday. There was, however, one piece
of additional evidence of much importance adduced
by the prisoner.
Frederick Brookes, formerly an electroplates, nor'
a pawnbroker, the son-in-law of Mrs. Leonard,
swore that the name " M. Tansley," which formed
the acceptance to the bill, was in the handwriting
of his own wife, and Mrs. Wadham, who had been
Mrs. Brookes's instructress in writing when she
was a girl nine years old, confirmed his testimony.
Mrs. Brookes swore directly the contrary. It was
elicited in cross-examination that Mr. and Mrs.
Brookes had quarrelled about ten days since re-
specting her evidence. She owned that she had
stated as facts at the public office, before the magi-
strates, and also in her examination in proceedings
touching Salt's bankruptcy, matters that were, as
she now stated, untrue respecting her mother,
touching an imputation of forgery. Her inducement
to do this was, she said, that Mr. Marshall, her
husband's step-father, had persuaded her that if she
made this statement, which she said he called a mere
point of law, she would get her mother and her
husband out of trouble, and there was no harm in
it. She owned that before marriage she had, at her
mother's request, put her own maiden name of Law-
son to bills of exchange, but denied that ehe had
done so since her marriage. She had left her hus-
band's house, taking away their bed, which her
husband afterwards had taken from under her by
two bailiffs. She had since been living in the house
of a labourer named Rogers, her expenses being
paid by a detective officer. Since having made the
false statements she had mentioned she had been to
Mr. Kindersley, the magistrate, and bad told him
that she had made an untrue statement, and he told
her to mention the matter to a solicitor. Mr. Mar-
shall directly contradicted her as to the statement
imputed to himself, and swore that he had told her
that she should go to the Bankruptcy Court and
speak the truth. She further swose, and was in this
respect supported by a servant, that Salt and Emma
Gubbins, his housekeeper, had come to her on the
12th Feb. last, when she was lying in bed, and in
Brookes's presence brought ink and paper to her,
and urged her to write the name of Tansley several
times on pieces of paper:
Emma Gubbins and Mr. Brookes directly denied
the truth of this story, or that Salt and Emma
Gubbins had ever been into the bedroom.
It was further attempted to be established by
Gubbins's evidence that Salt had long ago given his
bsoililiciinto4ruPesltri.oHn. after Wright),
it who
had retained the
was paid, and when there
was no suggestion of its being a forgery, to take
proceedings against the acceptor, who had dis-
honoured it.
Mr. Kennedy in the course of the case took an
objection to the admissibility, in proof of the guilty
knowledge of the prisoner, of evidence that a great
number of other forged bills had been uttered by
him ; and the cases " Regina v. Millward," Russell
and Ryan, and " Regina v. Ball," Russell and Ryan
and 1 Camp., were quoted.
His Lordship, however, admitted the evidence.
Mr. Sergeant Shee addressed the jury, directing
their attention rather to the charge of uttering than
to that of forging.
' His Lordship directed the jury to confine their
attention to that count.
The jury, after half-an-hour's deliberation, re-
turned a verdict of guilty of uttering.
He was sentenced this evening to six years' penal
servitude.
This case concluded at about 2 p.m., and
Mrs. Leonard was afterwards placd at the bar
and pleaded not guilty to a charge of forgery.
The case occupied the court to so late an hour that
we must defer our report.

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, APRIL 1.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
The learned Judge charged the grand jury, an
then proceeded to try cases.
The calendar is light, there being only 15 pr
soners for trial, and none of the cases being of the
gravest character.

A beardless youth, named Edgeler, was indicted
for highway robbery.
Mr. Lilley was for the prosecution.
Looking at the prisoner, the case seemed one of
unusual audacity. He was a labourer living with his
father, in the employ of Mr. Roper, in the neighbour-
hood of Godalming. The employer's sister was
crossing some fields, on her way home from Shackle-
ford, at one o'clock in the day on the 27th of De-
cember last, when on her reachinc, a lonely spot, a
man, who was disguised, rushed' at her, threw a
handful of dust in her face and knocked her down,
wresting from her hand a bag she carried, contain-
ing a £lO note, a sovereign, and some other money.
She struggled with him and kicked him as she lay
on the ground, but he very soon got it from her,
and tha whole affair was over in a minute. She
gave information to the police, describing his ap-
pearance but not mentioning his name. He was
taken the same night at his father's, but nothing
was found at the house, nor anything, except a few
shillings, on his person, The bag was afterwards
found hid in a plantation in the direction in which
the robber had run off, and where also the dis-
guises used were found. Before the magistrates
the young lady swore positively to the prisoner,
as she did on the present occasion, and she also
said she knew his name, though she did not men-
tion it at the time. She said that, as he worked
for her father, and was paid with the other
men, he would know she would have money to get
on the Friday, the day of the robbery, but so would
20 other men in the same employ. The case, it will
be seen, turned entirely on the question of identity,
and in support of the casefor the prosecution several
witnesses were called who had seen the prisoner
near the spot about the time in question, and one
of whom—a very small ploughboy, who was " mind-
ing birds" near the place—spoke to something like
a disguise as described by the prosecutrix. The
learned Judge examined this little boy as to whether
ho knew the obligations of truth, and instead of
putting it in the usual way—" Do you know the
nature of an oath ?"—put it thus :—" Is it a bad
thing or a good thing to tell lies ?" to which
the little witness twice over answarcd, " Good"—
an answer which excited some laughter; but it
would appear that he had not quite understood the
question, for on its being again repeated he said,
" A bad thing ;" so he was examined. He did not
seem above six years old, and did not know, he said,
how old he was. He gave his evidence with the
most amusing gravity and deliberation.
Mr. Ribton, for the prisoner, made an ingenious
but hopeless defence, founded on the fact that the
prosecutrix, though she said she knew the prisoner,
had not mentioned his name at first.

The learned Judge summed up the case with his
characteristic care, especially on the question of
identity; but _ _

The 31iry, without any difficulty, found a verdict
of guilty.

The learned Judge said he believed the evidence
had satisfied every one who had heard the case that
the prisoner had committed this violent robbery.
There could be no doubt that he had waylaid the
lady, after carefully disguising himself for the pur-
pose, and committed the offence with every circum-
stance of violence, The offence was of the worst
description, and the prisoner must suffer penal ser-
vitude for four years.
A young man, named Brunel, was indicted for
burglary.
Mr. Lilley was for the prosecution; Mr. Oppen-
heim was for the defence.

The prosecutrix is a widow, living at Coldhar-
bour-lane, Camberwell, in whose house a Mr. Wes-
tall,i a clerk, was lodging. Between one and two n
the morning of the 28th of February the latter was
awoke by hearing the banging of a door, and, on
going down stairs, he found two men—the prisoner
and another, who had not been taken—armed with
bludgeons. They said, "We came in quietly, and
you had better lot us go quietly." He, however,
strove to arrest them, when they said, " If you do so
we will knock you down." He still persisted, and
they, fell upon him and beat him severely, cutting
his lace open. Ho then called loudly for the police,
the street door being opened by the burglars. They
threatened that if he cried out they would kill him.
Seeing them determined to carry out their threat,
h© thought it prudent to let them go away, which
they then did, the lady not being disturbed until
seven o'clock,
He gave information, however,
promptly to the police, and the prisoner was ar-
rebted.

Mr. Oppenheim made a clever defencP, on the
ground that in the E euffle the sole witness to iden-
tity might have been mistaken.
. Mr. Justice Wightman, in summing up the case,