The Sun.
London, England, 1854-10-28 00:00:00

POLIO.

'E'NCE.

MANSION-13 OUSE.—James Vi sing and Thomas
Martin, two well-dressed young men, were brought be-
fore• Alderman Hunter under the Vollowing circum-
stances :
John Storey, city detective officer, 414, said—From
information I received by the electric telegraph yester-
day afternoon, respecting a forged bill: drawn upon the
Northumberland and Durham Bank at Newcastle-on-
Tyne, I apprehended the prisoners without a warrant at
3, Turner-street, Commercial-road. Th ey are described
in the communication I received as " Laing and Vin
ing." I believe they are connected ha some way with
the charge referred to, and, if detained, I have no doubt
that I shall shortly have a warrant for t'b eir apprehension
on a charge of felony. They both told me that they
came from Newcastle on-Tyne on Sunday last, accom-
panied by a woman. I have received information that
the bill has been negotiated, and that part of the money
was to have been obtained this day at Messrs. Glyn and
Co.. the bankers, by a person named Joseph Laing. 1
believe " Joseph Laing" to be the prisoner Vining.
Mr. Spairey, Superintendent of the City Police, said
that, upon searching Vining, a gold watch was found on
bin, and that he (the superintendent) bed reason to be-
lieve, from information that had reached him from the
police at Newcastle-on-Tyne, that the prisoners had been
concerned in burglaries there.
The prisoners were remanded.

GUILDHALL.—John Worth, a respectably-attired
)oung man, who described himself as a warehouseman,
living at 111, Brook-street, Kennington, was charged
with a moat brutal and cowardly assault ou Mrs. Char-
lotte Preece._

He said the plaintiff first accosted him, and wanted
him to go home with her, and appealed to Mrs. Preece
whether that was not the case, but she indignantly de.
vied it. He then went on to state that the plaintiff had
endeavoured to take liberties with him, and he, being in
liquor, had struck her.
The plaintiff denied the whole of this statement.
Sir G. Carroll said, he should fine him 20s. for the
assault, or 21 days' imprisonment.
The fine was paid.

LAMBETH.—Join Henry Lynne, a traveller to Sir
Robert Burnett and Co., the rectifiers in Vauxhall, who
was brought up in custody from Bristol by Adam Saun-
ders, one of the warrant officers, was placed at the bar,
before Mr. Elliott, on a charge of embezzling upwards of
1,5001., the moneys of his employers.
Mr. Grant, solicitor to the firm, attended for the pro-
ecu tion ; and Mr. Logie, the barrister, instructed by
Mr. Drew, appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Grant having briefly stated the nature of the
charge, called Mr. G. R. Burnett, one of the partners of
Sir Robert, who deposed that the prisoner had been in
the employment of the firm as a traveller and collector
for about 10 years, and, as such, it was his duty to collect
orders for the house through the west of England. It was
also his duty to receive moneys on account of the firm
from all parties he did business with, and to account for
the same every ten days or a fortnight, by sending what
was called a " pay-list," and further, to send the money
received by him, and to balance the account every
three months. The account, or pay-list, put in was that
furnished by the prisoner, and purported to contain the
items, or entries, of al, transactions for the house from the
19th of August last to the 14th of September. In that
account there was no entry for 871. lOs 9d. received by
the prisoner from Messrs. Swan and Saunders, of Exe-
ter on the 25th of August. Oa the sth of October the
prisoner came to town, as was his custom every three
months, to settle his accounts, and on the 13th he came
to him (Mr. Burnett), and asked him to advance hint
1501., and also a check for 1001., on account of his
salary, saying he had not money enough to pay up his
balance ; but he refused to do so. According to the pri-
soner's own acknowledgment, be had received during
his journey 4,6141. es., and had only paid in 3,9421. 6s.
7d., se that this would leave a balance of 671/. 19s. 5(1.
unaccounted for, but out of this the prisoner was entitled
to about 2001. for expenses. The sum of 87/, 108. 9d.
did not form any part of this account, and, in fact, it had
never been accounted for at all by the prisoner. In con-
sequence of the state of the prisoner's accounts, and the
deficiency in his balance, he (Mr. Burnett) caused cir-
culars to be forwarded to all the customers of the house
in the west of England, and by this means ascer-
tained that on the 25th of last August the prisoner
received the cheque 871. 10s. 9d. before mentioned,
and on the back of that cheque was a receipt

stamp, over which is written the prisoner's name,
in his own handwriting. In his cross-examination, Mr.
Burnett admitted that the firm held as a security poli-
cies of assurance on the prisoner's life, but these, he
said, were for advances made to him before on account
of the illness of his wife and family. There were also
securities from a guarantee society, the officers of which
he understood were now in possession of the prisoner's
furniture and effects.

In reply to Mr. Elliott, the witness said, that, if
even he complied with the prisoner's request, there
would still be a balance of 2211. 19s. sd. left on the
quarter's account, but he was sorry, he said, to add that
the prisoner's deficiencies altogether amounted to 1,5001.
Mr. Passet Burnett, a relative, and clerk to the firm,
said that on the sth inst. the prisoner came to him in
the counting-house and read over the items in his quar-
terly or three months' account, and he (witness) chocked
over each entry in the books as they were called. The
entries in the books were those that had been taken
from the different accounts or pay-lists forwarded every
10 days or a fortnight by the prisoner. The item of
87/. 10s. 9d. did not appear in the books, nor was it
called over by the prisoner. The prisoner called over
the name of Swan and Saunders, of Exeter, as having
returned some casks, but he did not say anything, of
having received a check for 87/. 10s. 9d. on the 25th of
August from that firm.
Mr. Grant here said, that he was not at present pre-
pared to carry the case further, and had therefore to re-
quest his worAiip to remand the prisoner to a future
day, when he should be prepared with the necessary
witness to support the charges of embezzlement against
him.
Mr. Logie observed that, under the circumstances, he
did not feel justified in resisting a remand for further
inquiry, but he had to apply to his worship to admit his
client to bail, a course he understood Mr. Grant had no
objection to on the part of the prosecution.
Mr. Elliott observed that, as the amount of defalca-
tion was so enormous, he did not think he should be jus-
tified in accepting bail in a less sum than two sureties of
7001. each, and the prisoner himself in double that sum.
Mr. Logie doubted much whether his client could pro-
cure bail to so large an amount, particularly as he was
so far removed from his respectable blends, who resided
in the west of England, and principally at Bristol.
The prisoner was remanded for a week.