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

GUILDHALL.

George Clamp, of 4, Flask-row, Ebury street,
Pimlico, was bough: up for furthee examination,
charged with having presented a forged cheque for
4901. 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, of Park-lane, solicitor, on Messrs. Child and
Co. Mr. Temple had an account at their house, but
witness detected that it was a forgery, although the
handwriting was on excellent imitation of that gentle.
man's. He accordingly 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 chequa 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 beenhresented.
Alderman MUSGROVE, after Ci'6fully comparing a
great number of them, .asked Mr. Temple if the
chequq for 201. to a )4r..„Poile was in his hand-
writing, at the same time hapding the cheque fur his
inspection.
Mr. Temple (after examining it)—Yes ; I believe
it is.

Alderman MUSGROVE—You believe it is. Do not
you know your own handwriting ? Mr. Temple—lt
is my handwriting, although same 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
20/., that being the balance of the note.
Alderman MUSGROVE—You should have said at
first it was your writing, and not that you believed
it was. Did you ever see the 20/. cheque before you
were told that the 4901. cheque was a forgery ? Mr.
Temple—The cheque being in my handwriting 1
must have seen it before I heard of the forged one.
Alderman MUSGRQVE—Then the cheque for 4901
is not your writing ? Mr. Temple—The 201. cheque
is mine, but I repudiate the 490/. cheque.
Alderman Musenovis asked if Mr. Coyle received
the 201. ? Mr. Mortimer said he did, on the same
day it was written. He bad 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 have been paid had the forgery not been dis-
covered? Mr. Mortimer said it would, without
reference to the account.

Alderman MUSGROVE—And if you had done so
Messrs. Child and Co. would have been at the loss ?
Mr. Mortimer—Most decidedly.
Ald man Mufc ROVE-It appears to me that the
201. cheque and 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 MUSGROVE-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 ho had written to
the country respecting another cheque which had
been presented at the bank, but he had received no
answer.

Alderman Musonovs thought it most desirable
that the ends of justice should not b 3 defeated
in what he considered a most singular case, and
therefore the prisoner was remanded until Fri-
day next.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Laurin, Smith appeared to answer a charge -of
perjury preferred against her by Benoni Joseph Mo.
relle, a foreign upholsterer, living in \largaret-street,
Cavendish- square.
The defendant had sworn a child to the prosecutor,
and had produced such convincing evidence as in-
duced the magistrate to make an order on the prose-
cutor for the payment of 2s, 61. per week. The
order was appealed against, but the sessions confirmed
it. The prosecutor then preferred a bill for perjury
before the grand jury, but the grand jury would not
entertain it. The prosecutor then brought the young
woman to this court, and engaged Mr. Ballantine to
prefer a charge of perjury against her.
Mr. Davis, of Boswell-court, solicitor, defended the
young woman.
The prosecutor swore that he never was intimate
with the young woman, who was one of his work-
women; that he never slept with her at any house;
that he never gave her money; that he never ironed
her gown for her at her lodgings, having only on one
occasion called at her lodgings and put her in the way
of doing this piece of work, the same way as it was
done in France; and, further, that he never called on
the young woman on the 4th of May and the 19th of
May, he being at that time on the continent.
On the other side evidence was produced to show
that the prosecutor had slept all night with the young
woman at a coffee-shop; that he had called with hif,
wife on the 4'h of May at the young woman's lodg-
ings, being the day when she was confined, and gave
her money ; that he had several times given her
money; and that on the 19:h of M:y he also called on
the young woman and saw her at her lodgings, and
gave her more money.
Mr. HARDWICK made some pointed observations on
the case, and immediately dismissed the charge.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Mr. James Eliot, vestry-clerk of St. 'Jude's, White-
chapel, a presbyter of Dr. Dillon's Reformed Church,
in White's-row, Bethnal-green, officiating minister
for a considerable period of a congregation assembling
for worship at a chapel in the City, and by profession
a solicitor, appeared before Mr. Arnold, at the instance
of the parish authorities of St. Mary, Whitechapel,
to undergo the reoessary examination as to the state
of his mind, preparatory to na order being issued,
under the Bth and 9th of ictoria, chap. 126, sec. 48,
for his removal to a proper asylum, as an alleged
pauper lunatic chargeable to that parish.

Mr. ARNOLD ordered the defendant to put in two
substantial bail, in 301. each, for his peaceable be-
haviour towards the complainant until the next exa-
mination, and the defendant, who laboured under
much excitement, bring unable to procure them, was
transferred to the House of Detention in the prison
van.