The Sun.
London, England, 1838-10-25 00:00:00

COUNCIL

COURT OF COMMON
(THIS DAY.)

A Ccurt of Common Council was held, this day, at
Guildhall.
The LORD MAYOR took the Chair at twelve o'clock.
The minutes of the last Court were read and confirmed.
ST. BRIDE'S PARISH.
Mr. Alderman KELLY presented a petition, signed by the
Rev. Thomas Dale and several of the inhabitants of St.
Bride's parish, in Fleet-street, praying that the Court would
grant a sum of money towards defraying the expenses of
erecting the new church in Gough-square.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND moved that the petition be
brought up.
The Rev. THOMAS DALE was heard at great length in sup.
port of the prayer of the petition. He stated that the inhabi-
tants of St. Bride's parish did not ask for the assistance of that
Court, before they had put their own shoulders to the wheel—
they had subscribed no less than 4.0001. towards the erection
of the new church. In proof of the fact that the majority
of the persons resident in St. Bride's parish were Church-
men, the Rev. Gentleman stated that in the year 1837 the
number of marriages of persons belonging to the Established
Church in that parish was 924, while that of the Dissenters,
at least of those who were married at Dissenting Chapels, tees
only 10.
After a long discussion, the petition was referred to a
Committee.

(LEFT SITTING.)

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

FORGERY. —Edw. Cooney, 21 , described in the Calendar as
a Clerk, was indicted for forging and uttering, on the 4th of
October, a check for the sum of 51., with intent to defraud the
Governor and Company of the Bank of England. There were
several other indictments against the prisoner, charging him
with intent to defraud other persons.
Mr. MAULE, Mr. ADOLPHUS, and Mr. BULLOCK, conducted

the case for the prosecution.
Mr• PIIILLIP3 defended the prisoner.
Mr. MAuLE stated the case on behalf of the prosecution, and
called— _ .

Wm. Fabin, who stated that he was a clerk in the Drawing
Office of the Bank of England. In that office they were in
the habit of issuing checks marked of 501. each. Messrs.
Lawrence and Blencairn, solicitors, of Bucklersbury, kept an
account with the Bank, and in September last he received a
request, purporting to come from that firm, for a book of
checks, which was given them. Three of those checks
were marked " T 12,1851, and 1900."
Mr. Blencairn, a partner with Mr. Lawrence, stated that
the prisoner at the bar was in their employ about two years
and a half, as junior clerk. He left in 1836. During the
time he was in their employ be repeatedly went to the Bank.
He believed the order produced for the check book to be in
the prisoner's hand-writing, as well as the checks.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS.—It was upwards of two
years since he had seen the prisoner write.
Mr. Thomas Clewes examined by Mr. MAULE. --Had been
clerk to Messrs. Lawrence and Blencairn for four years. Had
seen the prisoner write repeatedly, and had no doubt the
checks produced were in his hand-writing. Had no doubt
that the letter, purporting to come from Mr. Long to Mr.
Duval, requesting him to cash the checks was in the prisoner's
hand-writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS.—It was two years since
he had seen the prisoner.
Mr. Blencairn re-called.—Believed the letters produced
to he in the prisoner's hand-writing.
Mrs. Duval of Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square, stated that
her husband received a letter on the 4th of the present month,
upon which he desired her to give the boy who brought it a
5/. note. The letter produced was the one received by her
husband together with the check.
Mr. Duval gave similar testimony. The letter purported to
come from Mr. Long, a Roman Catholic Clergyman, whom
witness well knew. The check enclosed purported to be
drawn by the same gentleman. The check and letters were
then put in and read, together with a letter written by the
prisoner to Mr. Lawrence, stating that he was in great dis-
tress, and asking for relief.
The Rev. Mr. Long examined by Mr. BULLOCK—Was a
Catholic Clergyman, residing in Sutton-street, Soho-square.
Mr. Duval was one of his congregation. The check and let-
ters produced were not in his hand-writing. Had never seen
either of the checks until the prisoner was in custody. Did
not know the prisoner. Witness had a female, named Cooney,
in his employ.
Mr. Wilson, examined by Mr. :MULE, was a silk mercer,
in Hanway-street, Oxford-street. The check produced was
brought on the 6th of October to his shop by the prisoner.
Had no doubt of his being the person.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—Had not always been so
positive of the prisoner's identity.
Mr. Gotta, the assistant of the last witness, at the station-
house stated that he did not think the prisoner was the person
he saw in his employer's shop. He believed now that he was
the person.
This was the case ;or the prosecution.

Mr. PHILLIPS addressed the Jury on behalf of the prisoner,
contending that the evidence of the identity of the prisoner
was not such as they could rely upon.
Two brothers named Burton gave the prisoner a good cha-
racter, and also stated that he was playing at skittles with
them on the night of the 6th of October, at a public-house in
Drury-lane, from half-past six to twenty minutes past ten
o'clock.

F. W. Glyndon, a painter and glacier, had repeatedly seen
the prisoner write, and did not believe the checks and letters
produced to have been written by him.
Mr. MAuLE replied upon the evidence adduced on behalf of
the prisoner.
Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up, and
The Jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner
Guilty.