The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-13 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

George Clamp, of 4, Flask•row, Ebury street,
Pimlico, was brought up for further examination,
charged with having presented a forged cheque for
490/. at the banking house of Messrs. Child and Co.,
Fleet- street.

At the previous examination Mr. Alfred Mortimer,
clerk in the house of Messrs. Child and Co., stated
that on the 6th instant the prisoner presented a
cheque for 4901., purporting to be drawn by F. J. H.
Temple, Park-lane, solicitor, on Messrs. Child and
Co. Mr. Te.nple had an account at their house, but
witness detected that it was a forgery, although the
handwriting was an excellent imitation of that gentle-
man's. He accoriingly questioned the prisoner as to
who gave it to him, and he replied that he met a short
gentleman coming from Lord Brownlow's in Bel-
grave-square, who requested him (prisoner) to get it
cashed for him. He had not seen the gentleman
before, but was to take the money back to the same
place. On being further questioned he said he was a
servant out of place, but was in the habit of jobbing
in the Queen's-mews, and other places, at the same
time mentioning the name of Mr. Lewis, the manager
of her Majesty's stables. He was then given into
custody, and when brought here Mr. Temple deposed
to the cheque not being in his handwriting, although
it was an excellent imitation.
Mr. Mortimer now handed a bundle of cheques in
Mr. Temple's handwriting for the Alderman to
examine, and called his attention to one in particular,
and the forged one that had been presented.
Alderman Musmaovs, after carefully comparing a
great number of them, asked Mr. Temple if the
cheque for 201. to a Mr. Coyle was in his hand-
writing, at the same time handing the cheque for his
inspection. _ _ _

Mr. Temple (after examining it)—Yes ; I believe

Alderman MUSGROVE—You believe it is. Do not
you know your own handwriting? Mr. Temple—lt
is my handwriting, although some persons say it is
not. The fact is, Mr. Coyle owed me 301. and gave
me a note for 50/, and I gave him this cheque for
201., that being the balance of the note.
Al ltrmati MusGaovE—You should have said at
fist it was your writing, and not that you believed
it was. Di i you ever see the 201. cheque before you
were told that the 4901. cheque was a forgery ? Mr.
Temple—The cheque being in my handwriting I
must hive seen it before I heard of the forged one.
Alderman MUsGaovE—Then the cheque for 4901.
is not your writing ? Mr. Temple—The 201. cheque
is mine, but I repudiate the 490/. cheque.
Alderman Musonova asked if Mr. Coyle receired
the 201. ? Mr. Mortimer said he did, on the same
day it was written. lle had spoken to Mr. Coyle
since, and he declared that from the time he received
it from Mr. Temple, he never parted with it until he
presented it at the bank about three o clock the
same day.

Alderman MUSGROVE asked whether the 4001.
would hare been paid had the forgery not been dis-
covered? Mr. Mortimer said it would, without
reference to the account.

Alderman Mosaaova—And if you had done so
Messrs. Child and Co. would have been at the loss ?
Mr. Mortimer—Most decidedly.
Alderman Mut.uaovE—lt appears to me that the
201. cheque awl the 4901 cheque are evidently in the
same handwriting, while all the other cheques of Mr.
Temple are quite different, and that seems to me to
be the most mysterious part of the affair.

Mr. Temple—The 201. cheque is mine, and is
written on a different paper to the 4901. one.
Alderman MusGaovE—Still the handwriting is
the same on both. 'Was Mr. Coyle present ?
Daniel Forrester, in whose hands the case is now
placed to trace out the guilty parties, said that he
was not. He had seen Mr. Coyle that morning, but
no intimation had been given to him for his at-
tendance.

Mr. Mortimer said he hoped the Alderman would
grant a further remand, as he had written to
the country respecting another cheque which had
been presented at the bank, but he had received no
answer.

Alderman MUSGROVE thought it most desirable
that the ends of justice should not be defeated
in what be considered a most singular case, and
therefore the prisoner was remanded until Fri-
day next.