The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-27 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.—PERJURY : MITCHELL V. PRINCE
OF ARMENIA.-A gentleman attended before Mr. Al-
derman Finnis, accompanied by Mrs. Mitchell, to apply,
on that lady's behalf, for a summons or warrant, which-
ever might be deemed necessary, against Sarah Sich,
who gave evidence at the trial of Mitchell against the
Prince of Armenia, for wilful and corrupt perjury. The
gentleman stated that the trial took place on the Bth of
July last, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Guildhall ; on
which occasion a verdict was given against the Prince—
damages 7501. The applicant said he had had the
honour of the Prince's acquaintance prior to the trial,
and knew him to be a very honourable man. He also
knew Mrs. Mitchell to be an honourable lady, and be-
lieved that the charge got up against her was a most foul
conspiracy. He was prepared with witnesses, who
would be able to contradict the most material point in
the whole case, and put the matter in its proper light.
The gentleman said be had enjoyed the confidence of
Mr. Mitchell both before and after the trial, and thought
his conduct unimpeachable ; and, being the friend of all
parties, he *as making this application with a view to
check the proceedings taken in the ecclesiastical court
to obtain a divorce. The husband had been drawn
into the conspiracy innocently enough, and the appli-
cant anxiously hoped to be able to bring him and
Mrs. Mitchell together again, and pave the way to a
reconciliation. The assignment of perjury would be
grounded on that part of Sarah Sich's evidence in which
she swears that a pair of boots were brought home on
the morning of Wednesday, the Bth of September, and
that on taking them up to Mrs. Mitchell she found
that lady and the Prince of Armenia in that position
which led the jury to believe the charge established.
The circumstance in itself appeared very insignificant,
but it proved very material to the case, for Lord Camp-
bell in addressing the jury, told them if they believed
that witness the charge was made out, and they must
find a verdict for the plaintiff. Now the witnesses ap-
plicant intended to produce would show that the boots
were brought home in the evening, and not in the morn-
ing, and on Saturday the 3d of September, and they
were taken up to Mrs. Mitchell on the following Mon-
day, September 5. The Prince of Armenia was at pre-
sent abroad, and the question therefore was, whether
Mrs. Mitchell, not having been either the plaintiff or
defendant, although the injured party in the action in
which the perjury was alleged to have been committed,
could, in the absence of the prince, take out a summons
against the party complained of. The same perjury had
been committed in the ecclesiastical court in support of
the divorce, and if it was, as he believed, a case for this
court, they could go upon the perjury in that court or
the Queen's Bench.

Alderman Finnls asked if the prince had applied for a
new trial ?

The gentleman said the prince applied at judges'
chambers, but he was required to pay into court the
amount of damages, and being an exile, and not able to
raise the money, he was obliged to retire into an
honourable retreat, and leave his friends to fight his
battle for him.

Alderman Finnis said that the specific charge of
perjury must be set forth in the summons, for it was not
a case for a warrant, before it could be investigated by a
magistrate.

The applicant not being prepared with the precise
form in which the charge ought to be framed then left
the court, on the understanding that a summons should
issue when applied for in the proper form.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—UTTERING FORGED
CHEQUES.—Frederick Herbert, a well-dressed man, whose
real name is Welsh, was brought before Mr. Hardwick,
charged with having uttered several forged cheques.
Mr. James Falcke said : I am an importer of curio-
sities, and live at No. 16, Parkside, Knightsbridge. On
the 29th of July last, about two in the afternoon, the
prisoner called at my shop, and asked me if I knew a
Mr. Andrew Fountain (a customer of mine) ; also Lord
Hastings, and others. I said " Yes." He then asked
me if I bad any Lemoyne enamels. I showed him some,
and he said they would not do. I then sold him a sou-
venir for 221., which formerly belonged to Prince Albert's
father. He then asked me if I knew him. I said, "I
had not the pleasure ;" and he said, "Do you know
Lady Cholmondeley ?" I said "Yes." He said then,
" I am her son, the Hon. Frederick Cholmondeley,"
and he wished to present it to her. He then said, "I
suppose you will take my cheque." I said, "Certainly,"
and he then gave me the cheque now produced, for 221.,
on Messrs. Child and Co., and then went away with the
souvenir. The same afternoon I presented the cheque
at the banker's, and it was not paid.
Mr. Lobert Ruthvyn Pym said : lam clerk to Messrs.
Child and Co., and no person of the name of " Frederick
Cholmondeley" keeps an account at their house.
Charles Burbidge said : lam a pawnbroker, at 33,
Duke-street, Manchester-square. I produce a gold
souvenir which was pledged with me by the prisoner, on
the 29th of July last, for 101. He said his name was
Cholmondeley, and that Le purchased it, at Louis
Philippe's sales. _

Mr. David Combe said : I am a dentist and live at
No. 18, King-street, Holborn. In December last I ad-
vertised a chronometer for sale, and two or three days
previous to the Ist of January last the prisoner called
on me. I showed it to him, and he requested me to
show it to Messrs. Parkinson and Frodsham, of 'Change-
alley, for their opinion upon it. I did so, and a day or
two afterwards he called and told me they approved of
it, and I agreed to sell it to him for 32/. 10s., and he
gave me a cheque for that amount upon Messrs. Cox
and Greenwood, and took the chronometer and went
away. Ott the Ist of January I presented the cheque,
and it was not paid.
Mr. Henry Joseph Salter, clerk to Messrs. Cox and
Greenwood, said the cheque for 32/. 10s. was. signed
" Frederick Howard." He had no account there. It
was proved that about five years ago the prisoner was
committed from this court on a similar charge, and on
conviction was sentenced to seven years' transportation,
and was sent to Australia, from whence by some means
he made his escape. He is of good family, and his
father is in the Charter Rouse.
He was remanded for a week.

LAMBETH.—CHARGE AGAINST A HUNGARIAN.—
Yesterday Joseph Rottenstein, who represented himself
as a Hungarian officer, who had bled for the freedom of
his country, and who had been in custody for the last
10 days and upwards on a charge of forgery and fraud,
was again placed at the felons' bar before the Hon. G.
C. Norton, for further examination.
It having been understood that a second summons
had been served on M. Kossuth for the attendance of
that distinguished exile to give evidence in the case, the
court during the investigation was much crowded. At
two o'clock M. Kossuth, accompanied by a Hungarian
gentleman of military appearance, and who was said to
be an officer of distinction in the army, entered the
court, and was accommodated with a seat in the place
appropriated to barristers when these gentlemen attend
on public business. Mr. Pearse, the barrister, of the
Temple, attended for the prisoner, as before.
The first witness called was Johannes Kineling, a
German, and pianoforte-maker, residing at No. 33,
Liverpool-street, King's-cross, who deposed that 'ae
knew a man named Joseph Rottenstein, and the last
time he saw him was in the month of September, when
he was at his house, and on that occasion remained there
for eight or nine days. That person told him that ae
had been a first lieutenant in the 36th Regiment in the
Hungarian army, and that he bad wounds on his per-
son. He (witness) had not seen him since, nor did he
know what had become of him. He had a paper in his
possession which was read in his presence, and as vell
as he (witness) could recollect its purport was to got
some work, and witness also recollected that there was
something in that paper about a battalion. At the lime
the paper was read witness's wife and a Hungarian,
named Kerhn, were present as well as himself. The
prisoner was certainly not Rottenstein, the person he
had been describing. The latter was a fine young man,
of military appearance, and at least a foot taller than
the former.

M. Louis Kossuth was here sworn, and said—The
certificate produced is in my handwriting, and the sig-
nature thereto is mine, but ,I have some scruple about
the seal attached being mine. When Joseph Rotten-
stein came to me I did not know him previously. Ido
not recollect exactly, but I believe that Rottenstein bad
a military bearing, and was suffering at the time from a
wound on his leg. lam frequently called upon by per-
sons who are political exiles for certificates, and it fre-
quently happens that several persons call who are not
lau known to me, but if upon a careful examination of then,
come to a conviction that they are the persons
they re
resent t themselves to be, I then give them cer-
the a tificates,. and such I believed to have been the case with
pplicant Joseph Rottenstein. The certificates 4re
given to the applicants with the view of procuring for
them sore©
enable them employment, no matter how humble, to
to support themselves in their unfortunate
exile from their native country. This object was ex-
pressly stated in the certificate in his hand, and it neNer