The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-31 00:00:00

tl ten said that he was examined as a witness before the
g ran d jury, when another bill of a similar description to
tl ie present was preferred against the defendant. The
g rat Id jury threw out that bill, but he did not remember
81 hying to another of the witnesses that he thought the
g rand jury did not believe him.
The witness was pressed upon this point, but he gave
st tch unsatisfactory answers, and conducted himself in
au :ch a manner, that the Recorder interfered, and or-
de Ted him to answer in a proper manner, and not to
val tste the time of the Cotirt.
He then said that he might have made such a state-
me ,ni-; at least he might have said that he thought the
grt to d jury had a doubt upon his evidence.
1171 te RECORDER—And expressed that doubt by throw-
ing e sit the bill?
UT eon being further cross-examined, the witness said
that : about this time he had gone from his lodging with-
out p aying the rent, and that there were County Court
judgt nests out against him. He gave up stock to the
amount of the bill to Shaw, and he expected him to
pay i t. Neither witness nor his father had paid any
porti, sit of the amount, At the time the bill was dis-
count ted he owed Mr. Jones some money, and that was
dedu, sted from the amount, and Mr. Jones gave him a
draft for 11/. 17s. 6d. for the balance. Shaw had part
of 01 st money. A person named Rose also endorsed the
bill. Rose was a clerk in the Custom-house, and he be-
lieved he had given a power of attorney to Mr. Jones to
secure payment of the bill.
The Recoups:it, when the examination of this witness
was co, ncluded, inquired of Mr. Ballantine if he had no
better witness, remarking at the same time that in a
charge of perjury, where the balance of testimony was
the only point at issue, it was material that the evidence
should be satiAtetory.
Mr. BALLANTINE said that if he had depended entirely
upon this witness he should have known what course to
take, but there was other evidence which he should feel
bound to lay before the jury.
Mr. Edward Jones, the prosecutor, was then called.
He deposed that he resided at No. 34, Penton-street,
Pentonville, and that he discounted the bill for Smith.
He denied having sent Smith to the defendant to make
any such offer as that which he had represented. He
said that the consideration for the bill was a sum of 15L
in the first instance, a clock, which he was to charge
6/. 10s. for, and he also paid some money on account of
Smith, and then handed him over a draft on his banker
for 111. 17s. 6d. as the balance.
By the RECORDER—It was always understood that
the clock was to be given up, and it was not intended as
a douceur in the shape of interest. He happened to have
three clocks at the time, and they were of no use to
him. Would swear that the same clock had never be-
fore formed part of any bill transaction.
Mr. PRENDERGAST (to the witness)—l see by one of
the affidavits that you are described as " a gentleman;"
pray, how does it happen that a " gentleman" comes to
be dealing :with goods in this manner? Witness—l
only deal in goods as other gentlemen do, with my own
customers. If I have goods on my bands, I let people
have them for their value. Unfortunately I have been
robbed very often, and there are many men in court who
have done it.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—Pray don't look round the bar-
table, Mr. Jones.—(Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued—l have been robbed by
taking securities which were not paid. If I cannot get
money I take goods, and then I use the goods again as
part of the consideration when I discount a bill. I have
bad cloth in my possession, but never had a quantity of
boots or brushes, and I am quite sure this clock was never
sold but once. •
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I believe, when you had this
transaction with Smith, he made an entry to this effect
in the book you keep for that purpose—" I have re-
ceived all the above amount of 3SI. los., with thanks?"
Witness—He did make an entry to that effect in my
day-book.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—That he had received the money
" with thanks," and not a word about the clock? Wit-
ness—No, the clock was charged.
Mr. PRENDERGAST-110W many acknowledgments of
the same description have you got in this book? It is
quite full of gratitude, is it not?—(Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued—l got Rose's name to
the bill in order to make it more substantial. He owed
me money at the time, and I go to the Custom-house
under a power of attorney to receive his salary. His
salary is 1751 a year, less income-tax.—(A laugh.)
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I see you know all about it. Now
tell me sir, do you not take all this man's salary and
allow him twelve shillings a week for the support of his
wife and family? Witness—l do not. I allow him
twenty-five shillings a week for his support, and pay his
rent and taxes.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I believe you have the names of
several other clerks in Government offices in your book
of gratitude? Witness—l have.
The Learned Counsel then mentioned the name of a
clerk employed in the Paymaster-General's office, and
asked the witness whether he was not one of those who
had, according to the book, received money, " with
thanks," from him? The witness said that he was, and
added that he was a very honest man.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I believe you used to receive his
wages also? Witness—l did.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—Did not this poor man destroy
himself ? Witness—Yes, he did.
The RECORDER inquired of the witness what rate of
interest he usually charged? He replied that he charged
5 per cent. upon the money actually advanced, exclusive
of any goods that might form part of the transaction.
He charged the interest for the period the bill had to run.
Some other witnesses were then examined, but their
1 evidence did not carry the case any further. One of
them was evidently in a state of intoxication, and he
conducted himself so improperly while under examina.
tion, that the counsel for the prosecution ordered him
to leave the box, and told him that he had acted most
disgracefully.
Mr. BALLANTINE then said that he had fulfilled his
instructions ?Ind had called all the witnesses, and that
was the rise for the prosecution.
Mr. PRENDERGAST asked if there was any case at all
made out which called for an answer ?
The RECORDER said he was not the jury. It was for
them to say whether they could place reliance upon the
witnesses who had been examined.
The jury immediately said they could not rely upon
the evidence for the prosecution.
The RECORDER said he had been of the same opinion
a long time, but it was not his province to say so. In a
case of perjury, above all others, where a man was
charged by another with swearing falsely, it was essen-
tial that the evidence to support the charge should be
above suspicion.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and
the defendant was immediately discharged from custody.

NE TV COURT.
(Before the COXMON-SERJEANT).
David Jones, aged 38, labourer, was indicted for
having in his possession counterfeit coin.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Sleigh appeared on behalf of
the Mint, and Mr. Payne defended the prisoner.
Inspector Brennan, of the G. division, stated, that
in consequence of information he had received from the
Mile, he went, on the 18th of January, to No. 199,
Whitecross-street, St. Luke's, an empty house, in which
the prisoner had a room, and having obtained an en-
trance, he found the prisoner in the passage, and having
stated the object of the visit of himself and the officers
accompanying him, the prisoner tried to conceal
something under his apron, upon which ho was se-
cured, and in the apron-pocket was found a coun-
terfeit shilling carefully wrapped lup in soft paper to
prevent its being damaged. having handcuffed him,
they proceeded to the room occupied by the prisoner,
and under an image on the mantelshelt found four more
base shillings, all wrapped in separate papers, similar to
the one found on the prisoner. An old woman, who
occupied the lower part of the house, then came into the
room, when the prisoner, addressing her, said, " I have
been sold." Upon searching the ashes some white
metal, recently melted, was found, but no coining im-
plements.
The prisoner denied all knowledge of the base coin
found in his room, and said he had taken the one found
on him in the market.
In cross-examination Mr. Payne elicited from the old
woman alluded to, that a few days previously to the
police coming two very suspicious-looking men came to
the house, and, under the pretence of looking at it, went
into the prisoner's room and stayed there for some time.
Mr. PAYNE, in a very able manner, contended that it
was most probable those two men had " planted" the
money where it was found and then given information to
the Mint authorities and so entrapped the prisoner.
The jury Acquitted him.
John Jones, aged 32, a seafaring-looking man, and
Ellen Jones, 28, described as married, were indicted for
uttering base coin.
It appeared that the prisoner, on the 10th of January,
went to the Orange Tree, Barnet, and there passed a
crown, and three half-crowns, all of which were bad, and
thence went to the Blue Lion, Colney-hatch, Middlesex,
and
passed three bad half-crowns, at which place they
wore apprehended.
They were found Guilty, and sentenced to one year's
imprisonment.
The other Mint cases did not possess any feature of
public interest.
erest.
Harriet Ackley,
spinster, aged 21, was indicted for
concealing the birth of her femoalrne,chhaildd.
The child, which was still-burn,
the prisoner in her box, but there not beingbee any
p evidenceplaced by
to show that she did not intend making known to her
friends where the body was,
The jury Acquitted her.—•

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WORSHIP-STREET.

the name of Barber,
A distressed-looking woman,
rwyiAthnnaen infantinmhadere
arms, who gave _ .
man named Henry G
of her child, of which
application to Mr._Hammill for a summons against a
Gray, to show cause why he refused
she declared him to be
that he was a married woman,
to contribute towards supportththeefat
The applicant stated s er.
About three y
nearly five years since.
was induced to accept the
but had parted from her husband, by meuatrusalacfotenrsetnhte,
period of their separation she
protection of the man Gray,
of their intimacy.
now nine months old, was the result
few days' since,
She continued to live with Gray until a
and the child in question,
when he suddenly discarded her, and,
as he refused her
any assistance towards the support of their offspring, she
was compelled to resort to compulsory measures against
him. for husband had been all along aware of the
na-
ture of her relation with Gray, during her residence with
whom a formal instrument was drawn up and signed by
them both, with the view of cancelling their marriage
contract, and which she was led to believe would be
equivalent to a legal divorce.
The following is a copy, verbatim et literatim, of the
document referred to by the woman, which was handed in
for the magistrate's perusal:—
" Wee, john and mary anne barber, do mutally agree
to operate for ever giving oach other a free toleration to