The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-05 00:00:00

THE SIJN; LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 5, 1862.

them; indeed, we care very little whether the par-

ties accused of foul play are guilty or innocent, or
whether they deserve the modified acquittals against
which they are now protesting. But we see no rea-
son why the Jockey Club should not have arrived
at the conclusion at which they have arrived if they
thought that it was borne out by the evidence ad-
duced before them, or why they should be expected
to go out of their way to compliment Col. Burnaby
and Capt. Annesley on their complete innocence if
they entertained any doubts of it, which they very
possibly may do. Col. Burnaby and Capt.Annesley
knew very well what sort of a tribunal the Jockey
Club was when they appealed to it. Had they
chosen, they might have refused to submit to its
jurisdiction, and have stood upon their own cha-
racters. The worst, or rather the best, that could
have happened to them would have been exclusion

from the heath and the rooms at Newmarket and

from the stands at Epsom and Ascot, so limited
are the powers which the club wields. But as
they did not see fit to do so, as they invited the
opinion of that tribunal and volunteered to
submit to its decision, to which they would have
appealed triumppantly had it been more in
their favour, we really conceive that the only
sensible and manly course which is now open to them
is to eat their leek in silent resignation, than their
stars that they have not fared worse, and do their
best to mend their ways for the future. They may
rest assured that such a case as theirs will not be
bettered by the combined ravings of all the racing
prophets in England, no matter how loudly or how
rabidly they rave.—the London Review.

mercy, and it was stated that there would be no
other home for the family but the workhouse.
Mr, Payne said this was truly-
painful case,..aci
he thought, under the circumstances, he woulo. cm
justified in altering the sentence, which wast that he
be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six weeks.
There was applause at the back of the court, but
it was suppressed by the officers.
The jury in the box, as well as the jurors in wait-
ing, immediately got up a subscription amongst
them, and to which we believe everyone contri-
buted, which was handed to the poor woman, for
which she expressed her deepest gratitude.
John Hurd, 19, and James Jennings, 18, were in-
dicted for stealing a table,icover and other articles,
the property of Napihali Meyers.
Mr. Martin prosecuted, Mr. Taylor defended.
The prisoners got in at a window of a charitable
institution of Baron Rothschild's, at Bedford-
square, Stepney, and stole the articles in question,
a little girl seeing Hurd come out.
The jury found Hurd guilty, and acquitted Jen-
nings.
Mr. Payne sentenced liurd to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for twelve months.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 4.

GUILDHALL—ALLEGED FORGERY OP A BILL
OF EXCHANGE.--Edward Brauodbeck, a dealer in
sewing machines, was placed at the bar before Al-
derman Hale, charged with forgery.
Mr. Benham appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Holt conducted the defence. _ _ .

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner
called upon Messrs. Pitt Brothers, sewing machine
manufacturers, of Cleckileaton, in Yorkshire, in July
last, and requested that certain goods should be sup-
plied to him upon credit. The state of his account
was not considered satisfactory, and the prosecutors
therefore declined to extend their credit, upon which
the prisoner said he had two bills of exchange for
£lB 15s. 6d. and £l6 10s., which he gave in reduc-
tion of his account, and was accordingly supplied
with other goods on credit, but on the bills arriving
at maturity they were found to be worthless, and
farther inquiry elicited the fact that " W. Peters
and C 0.," the acceptors of the £lBlss. 6d. bill were
not known at the address given en the bill, and
there was no such number as 25 in George-street,
Commercial-road East, where it was alleged Peters
and Co. carried on business. The prisoner had since
admitted that there was no such person as Peters
and Co., and that he should have to pay the bill
himself. A comparison of the handwritings of the
drawer and acceptor of the bill led to the conclusion
that the whole had been written by one person, and
several witnesses stated that, to the best of their be-
lief, the handwriting was that of the prisoner_ In
reply to the charge, the prisoner said he had been
swindled out of the amount of the bill which he
had received from a man named Peters, but when
he found out that Peters did not live at George-
street, he merely said that Peters and Co. were no-
body, and not that there were no such person.
Alderman Hale committed defendant to Newgate
for trial, and refused bail.
BURGLARY AND ROBBERY OF £250 WORTH OF
PROPERTY.—Ribert Smith, alias Jackson, alias
Moss, alias Henderson, was charged with burgla-
riously breaking and entering the premises of
Messrs. Berthold and Co., of 13, Little Britain, and
stealing a large quantity of silk and other goods, to
the value of about £250.

Richard Balkwill and Charles Howard, a couple
of labourers, were employed in repairing some pre-
mises situated opposite to the prosecutors' ware-
house, shortly after six o'clock in the morning,
when they saw the prisoner and another man come
out of No. 13. They stood on the doorstep for a few
minutes, after which they closed the door and
walked away in the direction of St. Bartholomew's
Hospital. In about a quarter of an hour or twenty
minutes the prosecutor came to the warehouse, and
after he had been in a few minutes he came out and
called the policeman on duty, with whom he re-
entered the warehouse. About seven o'clock the
prisoner came back alone, put the key into the lock,
and was about to open the door when it was opened
from the inside by the policeman, and the prisoner
ran away. The witness Blackwill followed the
prisoner into Falcon-square, where he saw him
throw something down an area.
Mr. Dullens, of the firm of Berthold and Co.,
umbrella manufacturers, of 13, Little Britain, said
he locked up the premises on the previous evening,
between seven and eight o'clock, and on the follow.
ing morning he came rather earlier than usual to
business, and on entering the warehouse he saw
half -a-dozen packages and bales, which he knew
were not there over night. He immediately called
in a policeman and examined the premises, and
found that every desk, drawer, and box, had been
broken open, and their contents, consisting of 16
pieces of alpaca, three dozen silk umbrellas, _six
dozen alpaca umbrellas, two piedes of silk contain-
ing 220 yards, 16 gross umbrella materials, and
other articles, all packed up ready for removal. He
concluded the thieves would come back for their
booty, and had not waited many minutes before he
heard a key put in the lock, upon which the con-
stable ran out and eventually captured the prisoner.
There were signs of the thieves having been in the
warehouse all night, as they got at some wins and
appeared to have enjoyed themselves, for they left
only empty bottles, with the exception of some
cyder which they took for Champagne. The lock
of the street door was not forced or injured in any
way.
Sergeant Oram said, he found the prosecutor's
tool-chest was the first thing broken open, as the
tools had been used in forciug all the other places.
He produced a skeleton key which had been found
by another officer in the area in Falcon-square,
where the prisoner was seen throwing away some-
thing. The skeleton key had been tried in the lock
of the street door and found to unlock it.
Police-constable Betts, 461, and policeman 23 K,
proved three former convictions against the prisoner
for burglaries, in different parts of London, during
the last seven or eight years, for which the prisoner
had
one
The f
undergone
12 months each, and
two
eimprisonment.t
rnis
of
reserved his defence, was fully
olprisoner,
8 months
w,
committed for trial.

BOW-STREET.—Mr. Edward Capel White-
hurst, of Guildhall-chambers, City, and Lower Bel-
grave-place, Eaton-spar!, solicitor, was placed at
the bar, charged with inciting the prosecutor, Mr.
George Blake Lebeup Rogers, of Grosvenor Hotel,
late cornet in the sth Dragoon Guards, to commit
an unnatural offence.
The case excited considerable interest from the
high standing of the prisoner both in his profession
and in society, and from the fact that the prosecu-
tor, also a person of
highly respectable position,had
recently stood prominently before the public in cer-
tain proceedingsin the Westminster Police-court.
Two solicitors were engaged on each side ; Mr.
Smyth and Mr. Abrams for the prosecution; Mr.
George Lewis, jun., and Mr. Bury Hutchison for
the defence.

Mr. Rogers, the prosecutor, having taken his seat
in the attorney's box beside his solicitor,
Mr. Lewis requested the magistrate to order the
prosecutor to quit that position. After alluding to
the ease at the Westminster-police court, Mr. Lewis
said that he wondered that Mr. Rogers should take
the liberty of sitting there.
Mr. Rogers removed to the seat usually appro-
priated to witnesses.
Mr. Smyth said the charge which he had to pre-
fer against the prisoner was of a most serious and
distressing nature, and he regretted to have to press
such a charge against a gentleman of acknowledged
respectability, especially being a member of his
(Mr. Smyth's) profession. It appeared that the
prosecutor, who was a gentleman of wealth and
position, had unfortunately got into company with
some soldiers, one of whom was brought up at the
Westminster police-court, upon the charge of rob-
bing Mr. Rogers of his watch. The soldier de-
fended himself by some charge against Mr. Rogers.
The case was adjourned, the soldier being ad-
mitted to bail upon his own recognizances. That
case was reported in the newspapers. After
the appearance of that report Mr. Rogers
received several anonymous letters, one of which
would be shown to have been written by the
prisoner. The letter contained a proposal of
an infamous nature, It commenced, "If Mr. Rogers
really desires," &c., and it closes with a proposal
that Mr. Rogers should on the following evening,
at six o'clock, present himself at the top of Consti-
tution-hill, under the arch, wearing a pair of white
kid gloves, when tt e writer would introduce
himself. That letter was directed to the address,
11, Queen's-road West, Chelsea, which Mr Rogers
had given at the Westminster police-court, and
which had appeared in the papers. Mr. Rogers
had iu the meanwhile removed to the Grosvenor
Hotel, and the letter was forwarded to him there.
It bore the postmark 25th October. A second let-
ter in the same handwriting, bearing the postmark
30th October, was received by Mr. Rogers. The
writer said he presumed other engagements had pre-
vented Mr. Rogers from keeping the appoint-
ment, and he proposed another appointment
at the same place, also at six in the evening. Mr.
Rogers handed over the two letters, and all the
anonymous letters he had received, to the police. A
third letter was received, in which the writer ex-
pressed his regret at learning that Mr. Rogers had
been ill, and proposed an appointment on that day at
the same place and hour. Mr. Rogers delivered
that to the
police. After this Mr. Rogers had occa-
sion to write to the Times a letter which appeared
in that journal, and in which he gave his address
at the Grosvenor Hotel. On Monday Mr. Rogers
received a• fourth letter in the same handwriting
as the other three, addressed to him at the Gros-

venor Hotel. The writer suggested that Mr. Rogers'
change of address might be the cause of his not
keeping the previous appointments, auu proposed
''ter that night (Monday) a fresh appointment
the same ladece and hour. By the advice of the
police. Mr. Rogers kept that appointment. He
was accompanied by an inspector of police, a ser-
geant of police, and a person named Malcome, re-
commended by the police, and one other person.
Malcome was concealed at a certain place in the en-
closure within the rails, and near the archway. Mr.
Rogers remained under the archway until the pri-
soneri after passing him several times, said to him,
"Are you Mr. Rogers ?" Mr. Rogers replied in the
affirmative, and asked the prisoner if he was the
writer of the letters. The prisoner said he was.
They then walked arm in arm along Constitution-
hill to the spa Where Malcolm was concealed, and
a conversation took place Which Malcom overheard.
In the course of that conversation the prisoner pro-
posed that be and Mr. Rogers should dine together
on the following day (Tuesday), at an hotel, where
they should pass the night. Mr. Rogers then
asked him whether he was sure he had written the
letters ? He said, " Yes." Mr. Rogers produced
one of the letters, showed it to the prisoner, and
said, " This is a matter of great confidence, will you
swear that you wrote this letter, and the other let-
ters in the same hand writing ?" The prisoner said,
" Yes, I will swear it." The prosecutor then asked
the prisoner for his name and address, which the
prisoner wrote down in the prosecutor's pocket-book,
" C. C. Whitehurst, 6, Lower Belgrave-pl ace.” The
prosecutor then gave him in charge.
Mr. Rogers was then called, and deposed to the
facts as above stated, with some further details of
the conversation utterly unfit for publication. He
also produced letters, the substance of which we
suppress for a similar reason.
Edward Malcome, commission agent, formerly a
police-constable, but having left the force for some
years, and subsequently manager to an omnibus
company, deposed to that part of the conversation
which he had overheard.
Mr. Lewis severely cross-examined both witnesses.
The case was adjourned, the defence being reserved,
with an intimation from Mr. Lewis that the case
would be fought out to the last. The defendant en-
tirely denied that he had being guilty of any im-
propriety.
Mr. Smyth bad several other witnesses to call.
Mr. Lewis said as he believed Mr. Smyth was
about to apply for a remand, the case might as well
be remanded upon the evidence now before the court.
The case was then adjourned, Mr. Whitehurst
being admitted to bail in two sureties of £250 each,
and his own recognizances for £5OO.
Substantial bail, approved by the prosecutor, was
provided.

WANDSWORTH.—THE ATTEMPTED MURDER
IN BATTERSEA-FIELDS.—George Robert Kilsby,
clerk in the Tothill- fields House of Correction, was
brought before Mr. Ingham after the business of the
court had been disposed of, for final examination,
on the charge of wilfully shooting Henry Cooke, a
grocer, with a pistol.
Mr. Butt, the superintendent of the V division,
was present to watch the case on behalf of the po-
lice. The prisoner was undefended.
The wounded man attended for the first time. He
appeared in a very weakly condition, and was al-
lowed to be seated in the witness box while under
examination. He frequently placed his hand to his
right side, as if still suffering from pain. Although
his deposition had been taken at his house at the
time it was believed he was dying, Mr. Ingham
requested Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk, to take his
evidence again. On being sworn he stated as fol-
lows :—My name is Henry Cooke, and I reside at
No. 1, Thoresby-place, Battersea-park. I am a
grocer. 1 have known the prisoner about eighteen
months. He lodged with his wife and family in my
house for about nine months up to Saturday, the 6th
Sept. last. Before he left I had some dispute with
him. It was on the Friday night before. It was
with reference to a statement he had made to my
wife that he had caught me kissing his wife. He
told my wife not to mention it to me. I spoke to him
and asked him what induced him to tell my wife a
parcel of lies. He first of all denied that be had
said so ; but after pressing him more closely, he ad-
mitted that he had. I said I would not let the mat-
ter drop. I said it was a parcel of lies he had told
my wife, and we should part. He then ordered his
wife to bed, but she refused to go, I may observe
that my wife was present at the time. He seized
his wife violently and shook her. During the
struggle she cut her fingers very badly with some
glass. She then appealed to me to protect her. I
interfered to separate them, and pushed him out
into the passage. That ended the dispute, and we
went to our separate apartments. I did not speak
to him again until this matter happened. He spoke
to me on the following (Saturday) morning, and
said he was going away that day. I said " Very
well." He and his family left on Saturday night.
I saw him again on Monday night a few minutes
before 10 o'clock. I was closing my shop. He, his
brother, and his brother's wife came across the fields
opposite my house, and stood in front of my shop.
The prisoner said, "Well, sir." I answered him
" Well, sir." He said, " What have you done with
my wife ?" I said, "I have a wife of my own to
look after, without troubling after yours ; you are
very foolish to ask such a question.' He stood a
few seconds while I continued closing my shop.
After 1 had done I stood on the step outside the
door in front of the shop. My wife stood imme-
diately on my left hand side. I had scarcely stood
still before I heard him say " There." I immediately
turned round and received the charge in my side.
I heard him distinctly say, " Take that," simulta-
neously with receiving the charge. I immediately
said to my wife, " He has shot me." He then walked
away. I then went indoors, thinking he might have
another barrel. I rushed indoors immediately.
Mr. Ingham—What distance from you was he
standing when he fired ?
Witness—About two paces.
Mr. Taylor—Did you see what he fired from
Witness—l did not. I had no time. I have no
doubt be fired at my other side. When he said
" There," I turned sharply round, and instead of
receiving the charge in my left side it entered my
right side. My wife was standing so close that
some of the gunpowder scorched her face.
Mr. Ingham then asked the prisoner whether he
had any questions to put to the witness, and he re-
plied, " Nothing, sir." He immediately afterwards
said it was a pity that the witness could not tell the
truth.

The evidence taken on the first examination was
then read over by Mr. Taylor. It will be remem-
bered that the prisoner, with his brother and his
wile, were seen in the evening in question walking
to and fro in front of Mr. Cooke's house. Shortly
before 10 o'clock the prisoner inquired of Mr. Fey,
one of Mr. Cooke's neighbours, whether Mr. Cooke
was at home. He was told that Mr. Cooke went
out at 11 o'clock in the morning. The prisoner
went away. After Mr. Cooke had been shot the
prisoner walked into the Prince of Wales public-
house next door.
The prisoner was hilly committed for trial.