The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-16 00:00:00

HARRIS V. FOX, ESQ.

This was another action by the same plaintiffs against
Mr. George Sackville Lane Fox, the son of the former
defendant, to recover the amount of 16 bills of exchange,
some of which purported to have been drawn by the
Colonel and accepted by his son; others to have been
drawn by Leon Solomon and accepted by the defendant,
and the whole of which bore the endorsements of Solo-
mon and a person named Benjamin Joseph, and so en-
dorsed by the latter to the plaintiffs' bank.
The same Learned Counsel were engaged in the cause.
Mr. PEACOCK opened the pleadings, and read a number
of pleas that had been made by the defendants, some of
them being want of consideration and fraud. There were
also the usual pleas denying the endorsements.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL having opened the plaintiffs'
case, called the following witnesses:—
Mr. J. Dolby, a clerk at Cox and Greenwood's, the
army agents, said—The signature to these bills is that
of the defendant. I know that he is an officer in the
Royal Horse Guards Blue.

By Mr. CHAMBERS—Mr. Fox is quite a young man.
He has a very youthful appearance, and looks quite
like a youth.
Mr. T. Pegler, a clerk in Messrs. Dixon's bank,
proved the signature of Colonel Fox, the drawer of the
bills.

Henry Joseph said, I am the son of Abraham Joseph,
of Plymouth. I know his handwriting, and also that of
Leon Solomon. The endorsement to these bills I have
no doubt are their handwriting.
By Mr. CHAMBERS—Leon Solomon is in court. He
is my brother-in-law. Ido not know where he carries
on his business, but he lives in Maddox-street, and I
suppose he carries it on there. Abraham Joseph is my
father. He lives at Plymouth, and is a bill discounter.
This was the case for the plaintiffs.

Mr. CHAMBERS said the defendant in this case was
an extremely young man, an officer in the Royal Horse
Guards, and it happened in an evil day that he became
connected with Joseph and Solomon, and having
some expectations, it appeared that Solomon resolved
to make a terrific example of him. His Learned
Friend, Mr. Peacock, had gone through the pleadings
very elaborately, but he had omitted altogether to tell
the jury what was the amount of the bills which were
the subjects of the present action. He would, however,
tell them; and the fact was, that though the defendant,
a cornet in the Royal Horse Guards, had only come of
age in the beginning of the present year, the total
amount of these bills, for which he was now sued, was
14,720/., whilst, as he was instructed and hoped he
should be able to prove, not more than 2,0001. had been
advanced upon them. His instructions were that this
money had been advanced while the defendant was
under age, and that the bills had been obtained from
him upon the representation that a larger sum should be
advanced; but he had never received one farthing, and
he was now called upon, under these circumstances,
to pay the large sum of money he had mentioned.
He begged the jury to consider who were the plain.
tiffs in the present action. They were described as
the proprietors of the Naval Bank at Plymouth, and
in their presence he did not shrink from expressing
his opinion that it was perfectly clear they must
hive known that this was not an honest mercantile
transaction, and he felt some confidence that the jury
would entertain a similar opinion. He would ask them
whether they considered that a bank of respectability
would have discounted the acceptances of a cornet in the
Horse Guards, who had only just come of age, to the
amount of 14,0001., without making some inquiry? He
telt certain they would agree with him that no respect-
able bankers would have discounted such bills; or, if
they had done so, they would have shown clear and satis-
factory reasons for such a proceeding, and, at all events,
have produced evidence to show that they were no par-
ties to any fraud. His Learned Friends had not called
Leon Solomon, although they had heard he was absent,
but he should do so; and, notwithstanding his being a
hostile witness, vet as he was aware that a bill in Chan-
eery had been filed, and as he should now inform him,
in addition, that a shorthand writer was engaged who
would take down every answer he gave, he believed he
should be able to getlsome truth out of him. The Learned
Counsel again remarked upon the conduct of the Naval
Bank, and said he was assured that every respectable
banking firm would shrink from the suspicion of being
connected with any dishonest transaction, and would feel
it their duty to produce their books and their clerks to
clear themselves; but here nothing of the sort had been
done, and there was not the slightest evidence of the
plaintiffs ever having given any consideration for these
bills.

The Leaned COUNSEL then called Leon Solomon.
The witness got into the witness-box, but declined to
be sworn to give evidence until he was paid his expenses.
The CHIEF BARON inquired who he was subpoenaed
by? He replied by the defendant.
The CHIEF BARON—Then be must pay your expenses,
or else I cannot compel you to give evidence.
Some discussion took place as to the amount that was
to be paid, and at length a sovereign was given to the
witness, and he was sworn.
He was then examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—He said,
I am a capitalist, and I am in the habit of advancing
money to gentlemen for their accommodation. I live in
Midden-street, and carry on my business there. I was
4"ormerly a " capitalist" at Plymouth. I is my custom
to travel about to different parts of England, to supply
the officers of the army with plate, jewellery, and money.
Mr. CHAMBERS—Then you are in the habit of going
to the places where the cavalry regiments are stationed
for the purpose of lending money to the officers? Wit-
ness—Yes; but I am not particular whether they are
cavalry or infantry officers.—(A laugh.)
Examination continued—l have kept a banking ac-
count with the plaintiff for twelve years. I also bank
with the London and Westminster, and Sir John Lub-
bock's banks. I have known the young gentleman, who
is the defendant in this action, for two years, He is a
cornet in the Blues, and he was not of age when I first
did business with him. I advanced him a small amount
before he was of age. I cannot say how much ; it might
have been 5001., or a little more. I cannot recollect if
it was 1,0001. He owed me money when he came of age,
but it is impossible for me to recollect the amount. It

was not 5.000/. It was 1,0001, but I cannot reeelleet if
WAA 2 004. My name is upon all tee bills, gill! their
ti.u.wunt is nearly 15,000/. Some or the bills wk re ac-
cepted at my house, and others at the House Guards,
where the defendant was on duty. The six bills for
7,5001. were all accepted at one time.

At this stage of the case, it being seven o'clock, the
further examination of the witness was postponed.
August 15.
HARRIS V. FOX.

The above trial was resumed this morning, when the
witness Leon Solomon was again called, and further ex-
amined by Mr. CHAMBERS. He said—l cannot recollect
whether these bills for 7,5001. were accepted at the Horse
Guards, or at my house. I have so many similar trans-
actions that I cannot recollect them all. When I took
them defendant owed me money. It was not 10,0001.
that he owed me, but he did owe me more than 4,0001.
He owed the money jointly with his father, Colonel Fox.
I cannot say how much he owed me when he came of
age. I swear that when he renewed any bills I always
gave him the old ones. When he gave me these bills I
was to have advanced some more money, but I cannot
recollect how much.

Mr. Clams Ens —Surely you can tell la how much
more money your were to give for these bills of 7,5001.?
Witness—l really carnot recollect. I dare say I gave
him some money. I will swear I did give him some. I
cannot recollect whether It was 1001. or 1,000/. My
books would have enabled me to speak correctly to that
transaction.

The CHIEF BARON inquired if the witness had been
subpcened to produce his books?
Mr. CHAMBERS said unfortunately he had not.
Examination continued—l know I gave the defendant
several hundred pounds on this occasion.
Mr. CHAMBERS —Did you make any inquiries re-
specting the circumstances under which all these bills
had been drawn by the father and accepted by the son?
Witness—l dare say I did.

Mr. CitAmnEus=-And were you not perfectly aware
that they were accommodation bills? Witness—l dare
say they were. _

Examination continued—l sent all the bills to my
father-in-law Abraham Joseph, at Plymouth. Joseph
and I are not partners, but we do business together in
the discount way. The bills were all seat to the Naval
Bank, and Joseph gave me some money, and I also had
some from the bank. The bank paid the full value for
the hills, less the discount. They gave me credit for all
the bills that were endorsed by me and Joseph, and
credit for those which ho endorsed. I cannot tell how
much money came to my share. I have no recollection
of the nature of the settlement with Joseph. I have no
letters or cheques referring to the transaction. Some
letters passed between us on the subject, but Ido not
know whether they are destroyed or not. The way in
which we do business is, that I send Joseph all the bills
I receive, and he gives me half the amount; and when
they are paid into the Naval Bank credit is given us
for the amount of the bills, less the discount. We
usually divide the profit upon every transaction,
but I cannot say how much Joseph had for his
share of these bills. I swear that the bank placed the
full amount, less the discount, to my credit. I do not
know how much discount they charged. That depends
upon circumstances. I will swear it was not .50 per
cent. (Two bills for 2001. each, drawn on the 2d April,
at one month's date, were here shown to witness.) He
said—l discounted these two bills for the defendant, and
gave him 1001. in cash and 300/. worth of jewellery for
them. These bills were discounted for me by the bank,
and at that time they held the defendant's dishonoured
acceptances for 3,7001.

M. CHAMBERS—Did not the bank make any inqui-
ries with regard to these two additional bills, when so
large an amount of dishonoured acceptances were already
in their hands? Witness—They made no inquiry of me.
In continuation he said that he paid in the two 2001.
bills of the defendant's with two of Colonel Fox's ac-
ceptances for 500/. each, and he produced his banker's
book to show that credit had been given him for 1,3911.
153. on account of these bills, 81. ss. only having been, as
it appeared, deducted for interest.
The witness was pressed a good deal upon the subject
of the transactions with the bank, but he persisted in
the statement that the plaintiffs had given full value for
the bills.
Mr. CHAMBERS asked the witnees whether he had
ever got any bills discounted by his London bankers?
—The witness said he would rather not answer the
question.
The CHIEF BARON asked Mr. Chambers if he could
carry the case any farther?
Mr. CHAMBERS replied that he was afraid he could
not.

The CHIEF BARON then addressed the jury, and said
that the formal evidence which had been given on the
previous day entitled the plaintiffs to a verdict; but the
defendant had endeavoured to make out the pleas he
relied upon by calling Leon Solomon. There was no
doubt that he was a hostile witness, but the defendant
was entitled to call him, and it was to bo regretted that
he had not also been subpoansted to produce his books, the
contents of which he said would have enabled him to
speak more clearly with regard to the matter. It was im-
possible not to see what was the nature of the transac-
tion between the defendant and some of the parties,
but the plaintiffs sued as bankers and bond fide holders
of the bills, and upon the evidence that had been
adduced they were in law entitled to the verdict. At
the same time he felt it his duty to state
that it was not customary for respectable banking
firms, and there was nothing before him to lead to a
conclusion that this bank was other than respectable, to
bring actions in this manner upon their customers' bills,
and it certainly was the habit of the eminent London
bankers to return such bills, when they were dis-
honoured, to the parties from whom they received them,
and never to bring actions upon them except under par-
ticular circumstances. He must, therefore, admit that
he concurred with most of the observations that had
been made by Mr. Chambers upon this point, and he
would add, if respectable parties did not lend their as-
sistance in this manner, persons would not be able to
scramble through dishonest transactions so easily as
they often did by such means. He did not impute to
the Naval Bank at Plymouth that they had done so in
this instance, but he did hope the present proceedings
would be a caution to them ; for, upon some future oc-
casion, they might meet with a jury who would take a
very unfavourable view of their conduct. It was highly
important to the mercantile community that the law re-
garding bills of exchange should be strictly enforced,
notwithstanding some unfortunate persons who had been
swindled out of their acceptances might occasionally be
the sufferers, and he felt it to be his duty, therefore, in
this case, to tell them that in law the plaintiffs were en-
titled to a verdict.

The jury, after consulting a short time, asked his
Lordship if they were to understand that they were
bound to return a verdict for the plaintiffs?
The CRIEF BARON said he thought they were. The
plaintiffs had done all that the law regarding bills of
exchange required of them, by proving the signatures of
the endorsers and acceptors. It was then the duty of
the defendant to impeach the instrument, and the jury
must understand that it was not only necessary for him
to show that the bills had been fraudulently dealt with,
but also to show that the plaintiffs were cognisant of it,
and he must impeach the bills in their hands. A good
deal, no doubt, had been proved in the case, which told
its own story; but he could not see anything to impeach
the title of the plaintiffs, and they were, therefore, by law
entitled to recover.

The jury, after a short consultation, said they were
sorry that, under the direction of his Lordship, they had
no power to return any other verdict than one for the
plaintiff.
A verdict was then recorded for 14,4701., the jury
refusing to give any interest for the period the bills had
been overdue.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Bristol, Aug. 15.
The business of the assize was brought to an abrupt
termination this morning. Never was so uninteresting
an assize known, and never was a cause list on this cir-
cuit run through so rapidly; no doubt the fear of cholera
entertained by all parties had something to do with it;
but independently of this the cause list was a very rotten
one; nineteen common juries were got through the first
day (Monday), and eleven yesterday. Scarcely a single
case has gone to a jury. In the undefended causes, ofcourse,
proper verdicts were taken, but nearly all the other ac-
tions were referred; and it was amusing to see the
anxious countenances of the different barristers who had
friends as counsel in the causes, hoping that they might
be appointed arbitrators to decide between the parties,
and thus obtain, in the long vacation, good fees to make
up for a very bad circuit,—for such, as regards emolu-
ment, it has been to most parties. Whether the heavy
expense of a reference will be the means of increasing a
love for litigation is extremely questionable. We never
recollect a circuit in which there has been matter of so
little interest. Three causes were left last night, but
they wore all referred this morning, and Mr. Justice
Cresswell left the court, and the business was all over by
ten o'clock.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 15.
CIVIL SIDE .—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)

HULL V. THE STAR FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

This was an action on a policy of insurance against
fire, effected by the plaintiff for 284/. 16s. Bd. with the
defendants. To which the defendants pleaded-Ist,
That they did not make the policy; 2d, That the policy
was made by fraud and covin, and that there was a mis-
description of the kind of goods spun in the mill on which
the insurance was effected.

Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. H. Hill appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles, Q.C., Mr. Mathews, and Mr.
Atherton for the defendants.

It appeared that the plaintiff, Mr. Richard Hull, was
a commission agent at Manchester, and the defendants
were a company called " The Star Fire Insurance Com-
pany," carrying on business in London. The plain-
tiff had a mortgage for three hundred pounds upon a
" hardware mill," and in manufacturing " cop-bottoms,"
at a place called " Goldshaw Fold." In this mill a
quantity of what were called " strippings " of cotton
were made and worked up, in the process of the
manufacture, in which articles by themselves there
was no danger of fire; but they were apt to get mixed
with the oil of the machinery, and when so mixed and
teazed by a machine called a "devil" they were liable to
become inflammable and burst. into flame. The plaintiff
was anxious to insure this mill to protect his interest
therein, and he therefore applied. to a gentleman named
Bird, the Manchester agent of the Star Fire Insurance
Company, and that gentleman accompanied him and
made a survey of the mill for the purpose of having an
insurance effected up it, and at that time there were
six or seven " devils at work in his presence teazing
" strippings." In September, 1846, a policy for 5001. on
the mill was granted, and that policy having lapsed, the
plaintiff effected another policy for 5001. in the West of
England Insurance-office. Mr. Bird afterwards came to
the plaintiff, and representing to him the superior cheap-
ness and advantage of insuring in the Star Fire Insurance
Office, and the great value of the mill, the plaintiff was
induced to effect a further insurance for 3 OW. in the
Star Insurance Company, and the policy was duly de-

livered. On the 13th of February last the mill took fire,
in eonsegii,ne9 of the -pont on ous combustion of some
" strippings," and the mill was burnt to the ground.
The . West of England Insurance Company paid the
amount of the insurance effected with them, but the de.
fendant's company refused all payment, alleging various
grounds of objection exbodied in their pleadings.
For the defence, it was contended that the mill was
described in the policy not as a " waste" mill but as a
" cotton" mill, and that a waste mill was a far more dan-
gerous property, and it was also provided in the policy
that "No bought flyings or strippings, nor any other
waste than that produced by the owner of the said mill,
should be spun therein." To this it was answered, that
the defendant's agent, who effected the policy on their
behalf, himself saw what kind of a mill it was, and that
if this defence were intended to be relied on, the defen-
dants knew at the time the policy was effected with them
that it was void.

It was eventually agreed to refer the construction of
the policy to his Lordship, who decided in favour of the
defendants, reserving leave to the plaintiff to move the
Court above to set aside that judgment, if in their
opinion it should be erroneous.

- Verdict accordingly for the defendants.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
Olsen Divine and Peter Divine, aged respectively 19
and 28, were indicted for the manslaughter of George
Brounou, at Manchester, on the 20th of last January.
Mr. Joseph Pollock appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Atkinson for the defence.

It appeared that about half-past ten o'clock on the
night of the 20th of June last the prisoners were drink-
ing at the Spread Eagle public-house, in the Rochdale-
road, Manchester, when the deceased entered the room
in which they were and joined the party, and whilst
passing the prisoner Owen Divine accidentally trod on
his foot, on which the prisoner Owen immediately jumped
up, and struck him a violent blow on the face ; and
a fight thereupon ensued, in which the deceased was
knocked down, the prisoner Owen Divine falling upon
him. The other prisoner then came up and kicked the
deceased, whilst on the ground, on the body, he at the
time having on a pair of heavy clogs tipped with iron at
the toes. The deceased was at length dragged away from
them, and then cried out to the person assisting him,
" Oh, Billy, either my heart is kicked, or my ribs are
broken." He was carried to a surgeon's, where his face
was dressed, and he was then taken home. He remained
in bed a few days, and then got up to obtain some one
to do his work for him, but was obliged to return to bed,
and he lingered until the 25th of April, when he died
at the workhouse, to which he had been obliged to be
removed. A post mortem examination showed the cause
of death to have been abscess in his side, where he had
been kicked.

His LORDSHIP, at the close of the case, said there was
no evidence against the prisoner Owen Divine, and as to
him directed an Acquittal.
Mr. ATKINSON having addressed the jury for the
other prisoner,

HiSLORDSHIP summed up, and the jury found the
prisoner, Peter Divine, Guilty.
The sentence was deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Elizabeth Vickery, a young person of respectable ap-
pearance, and believed to be well connected, was brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having attempted
to destroy herself. She had been given into the custody
of a policeman by the persons who saved her life at one
o'clock on Tuesday.
The defendant, it appeared, had been seen at nine
o'clock in the morning loitering about the stairs at
London-bridge, at which some labourers were em-
ployed. There was a wildness in her counte-
nance which the labourers attributed to gin, but which
was supposed to proceed from excitement of a dif-
ferent kind. At a little before one o'clock she was
observed again on the stairs, and then she suddenly
slipped off her shawl and bonnet and flung herself into
the river, out of which she was, however, soon dragged
by Perkins and Simmons, two of the workmen employed
in the neighbourhood. By medical treatment she was
so far recovered as to be able to attend before the chief
magistrate, but it was evident that she suffered much in
mind and body.
Alderman GIBBS (locum tenens for the Lord Mayor)
asked whether any one was present who could give any
account of the defendant ?
Scott (the Mansion-house officer) said that the unfor-
tunate woman had been tried three or four years ago for
bigamy and. convicted, and that since that event she had
acted in such a manner as showed that she was deter-
mined upon self-destruction.
In answer to the Alderman's question whether she
wished to say anything, the defendant shook her head, and
hid her face in her hands.
The ALDERMAN directed that her friends should be
communicated with, and that she should be brought up
again when more perfectly recovered front the almost
fatal effects of her attempt upon her life.
Honora Ryan, a moaning beggar, was brought up. She
was heard long before she ascended from the cage to
the justice room, crying in the peculiar style called the
" allagone," so well calculated to touch the pockets of
the tender-hearted. It was not until she was threatened
with immediate imprisonment that she stopped her music
to allow the charge to be heard.
It appeared that she had called at the relief office of
the city of London Union, and insisted upon being re-
lieved, declaring that she could get no work, and that
she was starving. As the officer to whom she applied
had grounds for believing that a little delay would not
prove fatal, he directed the female searcher to perform
her office, the defendant protesting all the time that she
did not know what the colour of English money was.
The officer's sagacity was rewarded. The searcher
found, upon a very close examination, that the applicant
had the sum of ss. Hid. in her possession, and it was
considered necessary to send the case for adjudication,
particularly as at the present time the means of supply-
ing the real wants of the poor are much diminished by
the skill of the impostor.
Alderman GIBBS—WeII, Mrs. Ryan, what have you
to say in answer to this complaint, that, with money
about you, you said you were starving and utterly desti-
tute? The defendant replied in the tone already de-
scribed, and, with a crying face not touched by a tear,
that the money found upon her was not hers, but her poor
mother's.
Alderman GIBBS desired that the mother should be
called.
The defendant—She's at home in Tipperary, and
there's no use in calling her.
How the money which the searcher's hands reached
became the property of the defendant's mother was ex-
plained in the following statement, which she made in
substance:—
The defendant came over from the other side of the
water to work, and by chance, after wandering about, she
met a lady, who, upon hearing her story, gave her 65.,
upon the promise that she would get home to her own
country as fast as she could and hand over the money to
her mother. As she was resolved to keep her word
with the lady, and not break in upon the property con-
fided to her, she stitched it up in a rag, all but ono half-
penny, which she kept for her own trouble, and put it
out of the way, as she thought, of everybody. She
found, however, that she could not act honestly, even to
her own parent without being put in prison for it; so
because she was not a bit of a rogue she was treated just
like as big a thief as ever came out of the country.
Alderman GIBBS—How long have you been here?
Defendant—Five weeks; and it is I that wish I never
saw the place in all my days.
Several of the police force said the defendant was one
of the unfortunate beggars who were rather encouraged
than repressed by denial, and spurned the idea of labour.
Alderman GIBBS—I sentence you, defendant, to four-
teen days' imprisonment in Bridewell, where you will
receive some notion of the labour to which you have been
unaccustomed.
Defendant—Give me back my mother's money, and let
me go home.
Alderman GIBBS—Your mother's money must go to
pay for your support in prison, and you shall be sent
home the moment you come out.
The defendant then set up a "pallalu," and appealed
to the tender hearts of all present in her usual style, but
finding that she was disregarded, she turned round and
walked in custody down stairs, muttering "Arrah, then
bad luck to you all."

GUILDHALL.
A well-known burglar, named William Ash, was
charged, before Mr. Alderman Carlin, with stealing
upwards of 250 pair of boots and shoes, of the value
of 1001.
George Reid, aged 14, the son of Mr. William Reid,
of 21, Finsbury-pavement, boot and shoe manufacturer,
stated that about half-past ten or a quarter to eleven
o'clock, the previous night, he, in company with another
person, went to his father's shop, into which they were
removing, and on putting the key in the door, to his
astonishment found that it was bolted inside. While
wondering who could have done it, the door was sud-
denly opened, the prisoner with another man rushed out,
and the former felled the witness with a blow, and both
darted off in different directions, but ultimately Ash was
overtaken after a smart chase, and conveyed to the sta-
tion-house.
James Donohoe, in the employ of Mr. Reid, corrobo-
rated the testimony of the prosecutor's son, and said
that he started in pursuit of the prisoner, and over-
took him in South-street, Finsbury, and there gave him
into custody. On returning to the house with the
officers, they found three large sacks of boots and
shoes packed up ready to be taken away. They bad
been taken down from the pegs all round the shop,
and he never saw the sacks before. The desk
was broken open, but there happened to be no
money in it.
Frederick Nelson Johnson said ho was passing
along Moor-fields, and saw the prisoner and another
man run out of Mr. Reid's shop and run away. He
followed the prisoner, and during the race did not lose
sight of him.
William Bryant, shopman to Mr. Reid, identified the
property as belonging to his master, and which was safe
on pegs and in boxes a short time before, as they were
moving into the house, and had only gone out for a short
time to get some refreshment.
Police-constable 125 said he heard a cry of " Stop
thief !" and on running to Finsbury-pavement saw a
man running, followed by another. He hastened after
them, and received the prisoner in custody from a me-
tropolitan officer. On searching Mr. Reid's shop he
found a piece of candle, which had been recently lighted,
and the three seeks of boots and shoes ready done up
to be carried away. On the prisoner were found some
lucifer matches.
Mr. Reid, see., deposed that the property, which was
packed ready for removal, was worth from 100/. to 1201.
Alderman CARDEN asked the prisoner what he bad
to say to the charge. Ash replied that he knew nothing
about the affair. He was quietly walking along with
his hands in his pockets, whe❑ stopped by the second
witness. He was never in the house.
Alderman CARDEN said it had been distinctly sworn
that he was in the house, and when he ran away he was

not, lost sight of. He should likp to bp informed whethe r
tt:m pr!SOTler WSAS

George Tr, w, of the City polio-, said he knew the
prisoner well, and had had him in custody on suspicion
of being concerned in the robbery at Savory's, when
so many watches were stolen.
Alderman Carden committed him for trial.