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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 21.
CROWN COURT.— (B efore 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. SEALER stated the case, from which, and the
evidence, it appeared, that the prosecutor was, in
August last, looking after the rer airs 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 6701. ; 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 ERLE.

Yesterday Francis Edward Brolrick, 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.
i
_Judgmait was postponed.
Henry Smithies, an attorney, surrendered to take
his trial upon an indictment for misdemeanour at corn.
mon law.

Sergeant Byles, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Huddlestone
were for the prosecution ; Mr. Cooke and Mr. Robin-
son appeared for the defendant.
The Learned StunEatirr, in opening the case for
prosecution, said that the defendant was an attorney
the superior courts, and he was now charged with
the offence of misdemeanour 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 utmoEt confidence. It appeared that,
in 1847, the defendant was engaged to act as attorney
in a Chancery Suit for certain infanta nArnecl
and it N% hecebs4ar.) that they slibuid iiae th..ir
next friend, and a gentleman named Soden, who was
their uncle, consented to act in that capacity for