The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-03 00:00:00

INSOLVENT COURT-SATURDAY.

Richard Butler, a young man of genteel appearance,
applied on his petition to be discharged. He was not op-
posed. The insolvent, who is a professor of music, upon
the demise of his father, who had carried on the business
of a bricklayer, entered into partnership with his brother,
with a view of continuing the business to support their
widowed mother. In June, 1834, the insolvent left the
bricklaying business, and applied himself to his own. His
wife was also a professor of music. Mr. Cooke, on behalf
of the insolvent, stated that the petitioner had derived no
advantage whatever from the partnership. He had entered
into the speculation with the very laudable intention of sup-
porting his mother. The insolvent knew nothing whatever
of the business.—He was discharged.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

A young man, named James Meredith, a paragraph
writer for some of the newspapers, was brought before Mr.
Alderman HARMER, charged with attempting to defraud
the proprietors of the Morning Advertiser, by presenting a
fictitions bill, in the name of a known reporter, for various
articles which had not been inserted in that newspaper.
Mr. M'Laughlin, the publisher of the paper, stated that
this was the third Bill of this description which had been
detected. He knew the defendant as an occasional repor-
ter. On Friday evening the cashier came to witness, and
told him that the bill had just been presented to him for
payment. Witness closed the doors, and then ascertained
that it had been uttered by William Jackson, a porter, who
attends a public-house in the neighbourhood, and who af-
terwards pointed out Meredith as the party by whom lie
had been employed to receive the money.
Mr. Alderman HARMER, observing the bill was not
made out in the name of Meredith, inquired whether the
money was really due to the reporter whose name was used ?
Mr. Forrest said it was not, and begged to explain some
particulars. The cashier will not pay any reporter's bill till
it has been signed by the sub-editor, and the latter will
not affix his signature till the porter has examined the bill
by referring to every article in the newspaper, and ascer-
taining the number of lines and the writer. As the porter
checks each item, he puts a tick against it, and places his
initials at the bottom. When the bill in question was pre-
sented to the cashier, he observed the ticks were not such as
the porter usually made ;and he went to him to know if the ini-
tials" T. W." were made by him. He at once stated that they
were forged ; so that the bill had been presented to the
sub-editor as having been examined and marked by the
porter, when, in fact, it had not. When Meredith was
brought into the office by the patrol, he (Forrest) asked
which of the reporters (for there are two of the name em-
ployed in this bill) had authorised him to receive the money.
Meredith replied he could not tell. It could not therefore
be shown that neither of them bad employed Meredith. All
that could be shown was, that nothing was due for the
ar-
ticles charged, and that the ticks and signature of the porter
had been forged.
William Jackson proved that the prisoner employed him
to get the bill paid.
Thomas Watson, the porter, deposed that the letters
" T. W." resembled his writing, but were not written by
him. Inasmuch as these letters did not make the document
an order or request to the cashier to pay money, but merely
verified the correctness of the bill, it was clear it was not a
case within the statute against forgery. It was rather a case
of misdemeanour, in attempting to obtain money by uttering
a false token.

Mr. Alderman HARMER said, the manner in which the
offence could be dealt with could not be determined till the
whole of the evidence was before the Magistrates. The
testimony of the person in whose name the bill was made out,
and of the cashier, should be obtained. Perhaps some other
inquiries might be made. He should remand the prisoner
to some other day.
The prisoner wished to have legal advice, and he would
decline making any defence till then, though he was sure he
should prove his entire innocence of any fraudulent inten-
tion. The prisoner was then remanded till Monday (this
day).