The Sun.
London, England, 1862-09-05 00:00:00

POLICE IN7ELLIGENCE.—Sept. 4.

GUILDHALL.—Richard Edwards, the son of a
highly respectable country attorney, and James
Ferguson, a printer, were summoned before Alder-
man Carter, to answer a charge of unlawfully con-
spiring with a man named Cordner to defraud a
youth of the name of Beavis of three sums of £5,
£l5, and £2O, under the following circumstances.
Mr. Lewis, jun,, defended the prisoners.
The complainant stated that on the 12th of July
last he saw an advertisement in a newspaper which
induced him to call at 222, Strand, where he saw
the defendant Ferguson. Shortly afterwards a man
came in and Ferguson introduced him as Mr.
Cordner, the proprietor of a paper called the
Employes' Advocate. Ferguson represented that
the paper had been in existence for three or four
weeks, and Cordner said the paper was a genuine
affair, and referred witness to the advertise-
ments, which he said brought in £3O per.
column. He then explained that he did not
require the clerks he had advertised for, but it
was only a money collector, and it was ultimately
arranged that witness should attend to that
de-
partment at a salary of £2 per week,andthioatthhee
should pay a sum of £5O fcr a fourth share
profits of the paper. He paid £5 deposit at that
thMatonhdeay
wasa further
sum i nte r
ov eiw2,oa. n d olt nwt
ahse
af
rorl
al onwgiendg
the other £25 in a month. He paid the £2O at
31, Whitefriars-street, where he saw the defendant
Edwards. That was the publishing-office, and
on Saturday, the 19th of July, he again
saw Edwards in Whitefriars-street, and he then
' represented to witness that they had obtained
another column of advertisements, which witness
believed were genuine, and Cordner, who was also
present, said the concern was prospering, and pro-
posed, as witness had to pay £25 in a month, that
he should pay £l5 on the 21st of July instead, by
which Le would save £lO. He agreed to do so, and
paid the amount on the day named to Cordner, to
whom he also paid the £5 deposit. The £2O he
paid to Edwards, and at his request called on a
number of advertisers, but during the whole of the
time he was so occupied he only collected ls. 3d.
The publication of the paper ceased at the end of a
fortnight, and witness then discovered that many of
the advertisements were fictitious. He parted with
his money on the faith that the representations
with regard to the value of the advertisements were
bona fide. After all this money was expended,
Edwards and Cordner went down to Greenwich,
with a person named Brown, with whom they
the
pro-
posed establishing a newspaper, to be called
..absu
i,keptd ig
sa,t
butthe
Greenwich
Birkbeck Bank, in
Asnouatchcaomunpttown
witness never received a farthing of his money back,
or a fraction of the salary agreed upon for his ser-
vices. He afterwards saw Ferguson, who said he
knew the advertisements were not genuine, and that
he would come up as a witness if required, as he had
only received £2O for printing out of witness's £4O.
Some of the advertisements were given him, he said,
by Cordner, and others he put in on his own autho-
rity, to fill up the paper. About 3,000 copies of the
paper were printed during witness's fortnight, and
they were afterwards sold for waste paper.
The clerk from the Birkbeck Bank proved that
an account was opened on the 7th of June, in the
names of Edwards and Cordner, when a sum of
£3O was paid in. That account was closed on the
12th of July, and a new account opened in the name
of Edwards and Co. on the 14th, with a sum of
£2O, and on the 24th of the same month a further
sum of £l5 was paid in, and that account was
closed on the 26th of July.
Mr. Walters, an anatomical instrument maker, of
Moot gate-street, said the advertisement of his busi-
ness in the _Employes' Advocate was a copy of one
he had inserted in another newspaper, but he never
authorised its insertion in the newspaper produced.
Mr. Lewis said there was no pretence for charg-
ing the defendants with conspiracy or defraud.
Alderman Carter said it looked very like a cheat,
and he regretted that Cordner was not before the
Court.
Mr. Roe, the summoning officer, said he held a
warrant for the apprehension of Cordner, but had
not been able to find him.
Mr. Lewis said ho should like to see Cordner
here, as Lis clients were as much the victims of
Cordner as the complainant had been. Edwards
was introduced to Cordner through the medium of
an advertisement, and the £3O paid into the Bank
on the 7th of June was the money Edwards blought
into the concern. With regard to the defendant
Ferguson, he had a claim of about £2O against
Cordner for printing.
Several witnesses were called, who gave Edwards
an excellent character, after which
Thomas Blower, a printer, of Black Horse-alley,
Fleet-street, stated he printed the Employes' Ad-
vocate for Ferguson. The early numbers were-
called the Exhibition Directory. Some of the ad-
vertisements were good, many were bad, and others
were put in by Ferguson's directions, merely to fill
up. He had known him 16 or 18 years, and had
recently employed him as a canvasser for advertise-
ments, at 20 per cent. commission. Ferguson was
his customer, and always paid him for the printing.
Mr. Lewis put in an account to show that nearly
the whole of the £4O advanced by Beavis had been
fairly expended, and submitted that his clients were
the dupes of Cordner, who appeared to have victi-
mised every one he could.
Alderman Carter said according to Edwards's ac-
count he had lost his money, and had afterwards
lent himself to Cordner to inveigle the young man
complaining ; but the conduct of Ferguson- was