The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-23 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 21.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. JusticePATTEsoN.)
James Henry Hughes, 28, was indicted for forging
the acceptance to a bill of exchange for 301., with intent
to defraud Thomas Wilkes. There was a count for
uttering.

Mr. ‘.EAGER stated the case, from which, and the
evidence, it appeared, that the prosecutor was, in
August last, looking after the repairs of a house of
his at Birkenhead, when the prisoner, who is a
gentlemanly-looking man, came to him, and said he
thought it would suit him, and after some talk about
it, he agreed to take it. This led to an acquaintance,
and as the prosecutor, who had been a master mariner,
had lately lost money, and as the prisoner represented
himself as a person in easy circumstances, he employed
the prosecutor in various matters. He got him to
order a vessel to be built for him, for which the
prisoner was to pay 570/. ; to take some land for the
purpose of building on it, and to take a yard for the
sale of bricks, &c. He professed to be related to Sir
R. Brooke, of Norton Priory. The prosecutor began
to want some money after some eight or nine weeks,
but all he could get was 55., is., and 10s., at
several times, and as the prosecutor became more
pressing the prisoner told him a person who owed him
701. was willing to give two acceptances for it, and
he drew the bill in question, addressed to George
Hornby, marine store-dealer and ship- chandler, which
he afterwards produced accepted, and suggested that
the prosecutor should get it cashed, give him 51., and
keep the other for his services, including eight weeks
overlooking the vessel building at Runcorn. The
prosecutor said he refused to take the bill or have any-
thing to do with it, as he begun to suspect the pri-
soner, unless he would send it in a letter to his house
in Preston (where his home was) ; on which the
prisoner in his presence wrote a letter directed to him
there, which was received by prosecutor's wife, who
acknowledged the receipt of it in a letter to the pri-
soner. The prosecutor's suspicions on leaving the
prisoner induced him to go in search of George
Hornby, but he conld find no such person, and the
only person in business in Liverpool of that name said
now it was not his handwriting, and the bill was dis-
honoured when due. It had not been negotiated by
the prosecutor.

Mr. BLAIR, for the prisoner, contended that the
prosecutor was not to be believed. The bill, he said,
was a joint transaction. They were to be partners in
the several speculations, and there could, therefore, be
no intention to defraud Wilks, the prosecutor.
His LORDSHIP summed up rather favourably, it
was thought, for the prisoner, for the prosecutor had
not given his evidence in a very satisfactory manner,
and the jury retired, but in about half an hour re
turned with a verdict of Guilty, on which his Lord-
ship sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned fifteen
months with hard labour.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice EaLE.
Yesterday Francis Edward Brodrich, 25, pleaded
guilty to an indictment for forgery.
Mr. Ribton appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. BODKIN, who appeared for the prosecution,
said there were two other indictments against the
prisoner of a similar description. A cheque-book
had, in the first instance, been obtained from the
bankers by means of a forged letter, and it had after-
wards been used for the purpose of committing these
forgeries.

judgtm.nt was postponed.
Henry Smithies, an attorney, surrendered to take
his trial upon an indictment for misdemeanour at com-
mon law.

Sergeant Ryles, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Huddlestone
were for the prosecution ; Mr. Cooke and Mr, Robin-
son appeared for the defendant.

The Learned SERGEANT, iii opening the case for
prosecution, said that the defendant was an attorney
of the superior courts, and he was now charged with
the offence of rnisdemeancur at common law, for
having unlawfully forged and uttered an instrument
known to the legal profession as a retainer, with an
intention to defraud. The defendant had been
admitted as an attorney for several years, and he
carried on his profession in partnership with a gentle-
man named James, at Aylesbury. The latter had
not been so long in the profession as the defendant,
and he entrusted the whole of his business at Ayles-
bury, and particularly that portion of it relating to
Chancery proceedings, to the defendant, in whom
he placed the utmost confidence. It appeared that,
in 1847, the defendant was engaged to act as attorney
in a Chancery suit for certain infants named Miles,
and it was necessary that they should sue by their
next friend, and a gentleman named Soden, who was
their uncle, consented to act in that capacity for

them, but upon the express understanding that he
should not incur any liability for costs. The suit
went on, and at length proceedings were taken to
change the attorney, and a gentleman named Kirk
Was employed instead of the deendant, to conduct
the suit, and on the commencement of the present year
the defendant brought an action against Mr. Soden
for 3551., the amount of the costs that had been in-
curred. The action was defended, and upon the
defendant's bill going before the Master to be taxed,
the retainer in question was produced. The body of
the document was in the handwriting of the defendant,
but the signAture, although it bore a close resem
blance to Mr. Soden's hand-writing, he should be able
most distinctly to show them was a forgery. The
action proceeded, but in the evening before it was to
come to trial the defendant withdrew the record and
declined to go on, although, us he alleged, he had a
distinct retainer from Mr. Soden in his po=ses-ion.
r. James, upon becoming acquainted with what had
taken place, addressed a communication to the defen-
dant, which he should put in evidence, and
likewise some other letters which passed be-
tween them, and by which it would appear that the
defendant did not deny that he had committed the act
imputed to him, but endeavoured to give some expla-
nation of it. The defendant subsequently obtained
possession of the document in question, and took it,
with all the other papers in the action, to his office at
Aylesbury; but Mr. James, feeling that the matter
was of such a nature as to demand inquiry, went down
there ; and in the absence of the defendant, he felt
himself justified in breaking open the drawers in the
office, and thus obtained possession of the instrument
upon which the-present indictment was founded.
Mr. Bull, the clerk to Mr. Meeking, the London
agent to the defendant in the chancery suit, produced
all the papers connected with it. He also proved the
production by the defendant of the alleged consent of
Mr. Soden to act as next friend in the suit, and the
subsequent proceedings in reference to the action
brought by the defendant to recover, his costs from
Mr. Soden. The cause, it appeared, stood for trial in
the Exchequer on the 26th April, but the record was
withdrawn by the defendant.
Cross. examined—Mr. James had been clerk to Mr.
Duncan, the solicitor to the Eastern Counties. Railway
Company, and he was engaged in that capacity until
Mr. Duncan ceased to he connected with the company.
The whole of the business at Aylesbury was carried
on by the defendant, and Mr. James did not interfere
with it, but resided in London. He did not recollect
hearing the defendant say anything about having lost
an original consent paper, but he certainly did say
something to him about having lost a retainer, but he
did not remember having searched for it, or being
requested to do so by Mr. Smithies. When the de-
fendant first produced the retainer before the Master,
it appeared to him that it was for the purpose of
fixing the date. The Chancery suit had been going
on for nearly two years, and it was now being carried
on by Mr. Kirk. The business at Aylesbury in-
creased after the defendant became a partner. The
whole of the papers in "Miles v. Miles" and " Smithies
v. Soden" were tied up together, and he handed the
whole of them together to the defendant. The wit-
ness then identified a letter which was produced as
the handwriting of Mr. Soden.
The letter was put in. It was to the effect that
Mr. Soden was willing to do all he could for the
benefit of the family of the Mileses, but stated that
he would not find security for more than 2001.
By Mr. BODKIN—When the retainer was produced
the defendant did not say a word about its being a
copy, and his impression was that he stated it was
the original consent.
The document was then put in and read. It was
as follows :
"In Chancery—Miles v. Miles—l hereby consent
to act as next friend to the infants for the purposes of
this suit. " RICHARD SODEN."
Richard Soden deposed that he was an innkeeper,
and resided at Castlethorpe, Buckinghamshire. He
was uncle by marriage to the plaintiff in the suit of
" Miles v. Miles." The signature to the " consent "
that had been produced was not his writing, and he
never signed such an instrument, or authorised any
person to sign it for him. The signature was very
like his handwriting, and was a good imitation of it.
Mr. Smithies was the solicitor in the Chancery suit,
and the first time he saw him was on the 29th of
May, 1847, at his office in Aylesbury. He went to
him upon that occasion in consequence of a note he
received from one of his nieces, and a person named
Frederick Monk accompanied him. They discussed
at this meeting the question of his becoming next
friend, and he told the defendant that he had no ob-
jection to lend his name to serve his nephews, but he
would not be responsible for any costs; and Mr.
Smithies replied that he would not be called upon for
any. He did not sign any paper on that ccasion,
and he distinctly understood that he was not to be
responsible for costs. lie saw Mr. Smithies several
times afterwards, but nothing was ever said about
costs, and he never signed any paper consenting to
be responsible. An action was afterwards brought
against him for the costs, which he defended.
By Mr. COOKE—The Mileses were the children'; of
his sister. Their father had an estate which he
farmed. There were eight children altogether. One
of the objects of the suit was to keep the farm going
for the benefit of the family, instead of turning it into
money, and generally to protect the interests of the
children against certain trustees who had become
bankrupt. Some of the family objected to the mode
in which the suit was carried on. Mr. Smithies at
one period advised a sale, and three of the family
would not consent, and they employed Mr. Kirk. His
nephews told him that he was to go and see Mr.
Smithies, to act as their next friend. He did not
recollect ever being told by Mr. Smithies that the
costs would 'come out of the estate, but he always
understood that it was to be so. He went several
times to Mr. Smithies's office, and wrote several let-
ters, and rendered all the assistance he could to his
relations in their prosecution of the suit. Did not
know anything of Mr. James until he went to Bow-
street upon this matter, and he was then asked to be
the prosecutor in this indictment. Did not think he
should leave instituted the prosecution of his own
accord. He was very glad to get out of it. He
pledged his oath most solemnly that he never signed
any paper at Mr. Smithies's office. Did not recollect
that he had ever expressed any doubt upon the sub-
ject. He had always said that he never recollected
signing such a paper, and it was a very extraordi-
nary thing if he had done so without knowing it.
What he said was, that he had never signed any
paper to make himself liable for costs. He was
still the next friend in the suit. The action between
the defendant and himself was settled by Mr. Kirk
on behalf of the family, and he had received a re-
lease. The family employed Mr. Kirk to defend the
action, not on the ground that he had never consented
to become next friend, but that he had not made him-
self liable for the costs, but it was, of course, al ways
understood that Mr. Smithies was to have his costs,
but that they were to come out of the estate.
By Mr. HUDDLESTONE—It was when he was told
that a consent had been produced before the taxing
master, which purported to be signed by him, that he
made the remark that he had no recollection of having
ever signed such an instrument.
Several letters were here put in, which had passed
between Mr. Soden and Mr. Smithies, relative to
the Chancery suit.
Mr. James was then called as a witness. He de-
posed he was an attorney of the Court of Queen's
Bench, but not of the Court of Chancery, and he now
carried on his business at Aylesbury. His father
and grandfather had carried on business in the same
town. The defendant became his partner in 1846,
and he had the entire management of the Chancery
suit, " Miles v. Miles." He remembered the action
being brought by Mr. Smithies against Mr. Soden,
and he heard of the record being withdrawn on the
25th of May, and he inquired of the defendant how
he came to withdraw the record after the positive
assurances he had given him of Mr. Soden's liability.
The defendant replied that upon a consultation he
had told his counsel that a witness was to be called
for him who was known to be so great a blackguard
that he would not he allowed to go into the box by his
counsel. Witness then said he had better settle, and
not a word was said about the retainer on that occa-
sion. Witness, on a subsequent occasion,
again inquired why he had withdrawn the
record, and the defendant replied that he
had lost the retainer. Witness remarked that a
retainer had been produced before the master, and he
replied that it was a copy, and he said he had drawn
it up from memory. He then asked him if he had
signed Mr. James's name to it, and he said he did,
and also that he had imitated the signature. Witness,
with an oath, said itewas a forgery, and the defendant
answered, that he might call it so if he pleased. Wit-
ness then said it was the first time such a thing had
happened in his office, and he would take care it was
the last. They then parted, and the next day he
wrote a letter to the defendant, in which he expressed
his intention to have no further intercourse with him,
and upbraiding him with his conduct relating to the

alleged retainer by Mr. Soden.
A letter written by the defendant to Mr. James
about the same time was then put in, in which he
admitted the propriety of his remarks with regard to
the transaction respecting the retainer, and expressed
his regret that it should have occurred, and said it was
certainly wrong, and he ought not to have done it,
and he would be more careful in future. On the 12th
of May the defendant wrote another letter, in which
it appeared he stated that he had, in point of fact, re-
ceived a retainer from Mr. Soden, but had mislaid it,
and when he was called upon to produce it before the
master he said that he had merely handed in the do-
cument now in question as a copy.
Examination continued—Before these letters had
passed between them, witness had expressed his dis-
content at the proceedings relating to the Chancery
uit and some other matters. He had no premium
with the defendant when he entered into partnership
with him. Until the 15th of May he had no suspicion

that there had not been an original retainer, but in
conseqty.nce of what he learned on that day he went
down to Aylesbury- and broke open the defendant's
desk, and took out, all his papers, and among them
vv2s the document which formed the subject of the pre-
sent inquiry. He also took possession of some other
letters written by Mr. Soden, and the signature to the
alleged consent paper appeared to him to have been
copied from these letters. After he had broken open
the desk, as he had stated, a warrant was obtained
against him, and the matter was inquired into by the
magistrates at Aylesbury, but they refused to In-
terfere.

By Mr. CooKE—Witness was in Mr. Duncan's
office, in 1846. Mr. Duncan was the solicitor to the
Eastern Counties Railway. Mr. Smithies managed
all the Aylesbury business, but he was sometimes
there two or three days in the week. The de"
ft ndant. had been practising as an attorney at
New port before he entered into partnership
with him, and he was aware that his father was
a clergyman in Essex, and a magistrate for that
county. The defendant first gave him notice of
dissolution of partnership, but be was preparing
notice himself, at the time he received it. The de"
tendant was engaged in London upon business for the
office at the time he went down to Aylesbury to
seize his papers. He not only seized all the papers re'
Laing to this affair, but also all the defendant's private
papers, but the latter had since been returned to him.
Witness left Mr. Duncan's office in September last,
and he continued with him so long as he was cow
nected with the Eastern Counties Railway. He
offered to take the defendant as managing clerk if he
would consent to retire from the partnership. The
proposition was made to his brother, but at this time
he was not aware of the forgery. He also made s
proposition that the defendant should continue his
partner, but that there should be an agreement that
he should at any time, without notice, have the power
of saying that he was no longer his partner. Wit'
ness did not appear as prosecutor at Bow-street.
The charge was dismissed by the magistrate upon
that occasion. The defendant refused to accede to the
proposition he had mentioned, and it was after this that
he had a communication with his brother, and said
that he would have the defendant struck off the rolls,
and that he would also prefer a charge of forgery
against him.
By Sergeant BYLES—Witness made no offer 10
continue the connexion with the defendant after he
became aware that the alleged consent was a forgery.
Mr. Frederick Miles deposed that he accompanied
Mr. Soden to Mr. Smithies's office in May, 1847, but
he did not see his uncle sign any paper. He con-
sented to act for the benefit of the family in the
Chancery suit, but expressly said that he would not
render himself liable to the payment env costs.
Cross-examined—His uncle had always denied
having signed any such paper as the one in question.
Lie had said that he thought his uncle might have
signed a paper, but had no recollection of his having
actually done so.

This- was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Coowx took some technical objections to the
indictment, contending that at common law the offence
of uttering a forged instrument could not be supported
unless there was clearly shown to be an intention to
defraud. Lie likewise submitted to his Lordship that as
there was no proof of a forgery having been commit-
ted within the Central Criminal Court district, that
the Court had no jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice ERLE, after some Argument, said he
thought there was" sufficient evidence to go to the
jury:

.ilr. COOKE accordingly addressed them for the
defendant, and after having called their attention to
the curious nature of the charge, he called upon thou
to remember that this was not a prosecution by any
person who had been injured, but it was a prosecution
by one attorney against his partner for the object, 9s
he should contend, not of vindicating the law, but of
effecting his own private object of destroying the
partnership and obtaining all the profits of the busi"
ness himself. He could not conceive what was the
object of the forgery, if forgery had been committed,
for Mr. Soden bad never denied that he had con'
sented to act as the next friend, and therefore the
defendant was sure to obtain his costs out of the
estate, and there was not the least necessity for his
bringing forward the instrument in question. He
urged that it was very possible that during all the
tedious proceedings of this Chancery suit that Mr'
Soden might have signed such a paper and have
forgotten the fact, and that the defendant's represen"
tation that he had made a copy of it from memory
was correct. The 4earned Counsel then proceed
at considerable length to remark upon the CO
,o-
duct of Mr. James, and expressed his opinion that o
had acted most unjustifiably and improperly in break'
ing open the drawers of the defendant, and laying
hold of all his private papers, and he concluded l
able address, by calling upon the jury to give the
defendant the benefit of that doubt, which he con"
tended all the circumstances -of the case must neceS.
sarily occasion in their minds, and say that he was
not guilty of the charge made against him.
Mr. Justice ERLE then summed up the whole case,
and the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of Guilty of uttering a forged instrument with
intent to defraud.

A eiscussion then took place upon the point re'
lating to the jurisdiction, and eventually the Learned
Judge requested the jury to give a special verdict,
expressing their opinion whether there was any
evidence of a forgery having been committed within
the jurisdiction of that court, and on their finding
that there was not, he said the points should be
reserved for the consideration of the Judges, and 14
the meantime he should postpone judgment.
The defendant was liberated upon entering into
sureties to appear and receive the judgment of the
Court, when he should be called upon to do so.

IVE IV COURT.
(Before the COMMON-SERGEANT.)
George Cook, 33, a sweep, was indicted for stealing
a sweeping-machine, brush, and other articles,
valued at 21., the property of John Francis.
The case was most satisfactorily proved by two
witnesses, the prosecutor, who identified the property.,
and a man who saw the prisoner coming away with
the property.
The COMMON-SERGEANT (looking over the deposi•
tions)—Here are five more witnesses to prove the
case, which is now fully proved; five more witnesses,
and I shan't call one. What all of them have been
sent for I can't tell. I know we shall have to pay for
them. The magistrates who commit ought to pay for
them; and, if I had the power to make them, they
should.
The prisoner had been sent for trial by one of the
Bench of Magistrates for Brentford, where the offence
was committed.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and be,
having been before convicted, and sentenced to trans-
portation, was now ordered to be transported for ten
years.

George Latour, aged 20, a sailor, was convicted of
stealing some articles of linen from the garden of a
gentleman, living at Eltham, in Kent.
The prisoner, when called on to plead, said be
should wish to be tried by a jury- of half foreigners'
but finding that he could not make the Court believe
that he was a foreigner, he abandoned the wish.
The COMMON• SERGEANT--Where did you last have
your hair cut? (The prisoner's hair was very short.)
Prisoner—Had a fever—had my head shaved.
COMMON-SERGEANT—No, Sir ; you have had it cut
rather close. Where did you come from ?
Prisoner (in perfectly good English)—Paris, Sir.
COMMON -SERGEANT—HOW do you get a living ?
The prisoner could not tell—only knew that he had
just come from Paris.

- COMMON- SERGEANT—A very long time since you
were in Paris ?

Prisoner—Very recently come from there, Sir.
COMMON-SERGEANT—Then, the sooner you get
back to Paris, the sooner you may adorn and suit
society there, for you will not here.—(Laughter.)
The, prisoner was then sentenced to three months
imprisonment, and hard labour.

BIRTHS.
At Wentworth, on the 14th inst., Viscountess Milton, of a
daughter.

On the 18th inst., at Liverpool, the lady of Major Wr.
Matthias, of a son.

On the 20th inst., at Chester-terrace, Chester-square, the
wife of J. Streatfiel, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 20th inst., at Bolton-place. Queen's Elm, Bromptoe,
the wife of Captain F. Schreiber, of a son.
On the 20th inst., in Dorset-square, the lady of R. J. P•
Broughton, Esq , of a son.
On the 21st inst., at Sutherland-street, Walworth, Mrs. G.•
Shadbolt, of a daughter.

ARRIED
On the 15th inst.. at M
Whalley. Church, Lancashire, the
Rev. S W. King, eldest son of the Rev. W. H. King, M.A.
to Emma, daughter of the late John Fort, Esq., M.P., of
Read-hall, in the same county.
On the 21st inst., at Woodtnansterne Church, the Rev. E.
B. Berens, rector of Downham and Wickford, Essex, to
T
Sophia Frances, youngest daughter of the late T. Walpole,
Esq., and the Lady Margaret Walpole, of Stagbury, Surie2:7_

DIED
On the 20th inst., in Regent-street, London, the Right
Hon. David, Earl of Airlie and Lintrathen, aged 63.
On the 17th inst., Mr. J. Martin, 42 years clerk to the
Society of Antiquaries.
On the 17th inst., Sir Cuthbert Sharpe, Collector of her
Majesty's Customs at Newcastle, ag.2.cl 68.
On the 15th inst., at the Sanctuary Probus, Cornwall, the
Rev, Robert Larnpen, M.A.. vicar of Probus, and Prebeil''
d Ary of the Cathedral Church at Exeter.
On the 18 h inst., at Albert-square, Clapham, Edward
Murrell, Eq., Lite of Northfleet, Kent, aged Bt.
On the 19th inst., at Ramsgate, Susan Schweitzer, the
wife of Professor W. J. Schweitzer, aged 47.
On the 20th inst., at Herne-hill, Dulwich, Robert Currie,
Esq., aged 64.
This morning, at 57, Judd-street, Brunswick-square, St.
Pancras, Henry Hetherington, bookseller, aged 59.

London; Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The ,Sun Office, No. 1121
Strand, in the Precinct of the Stwov, in the coantY or
Middlesex, Thursday, August 28, 1849.

A 44