The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-31 00:00:00

then said that he was examined as a witness oefore the
grand jury, when another bill of a similar as cription to
the present was preferred against the deft in dant. The
grand jury threw out that bill, but he did 11(4 remember
saying to another of the witnesses that h e thought the
grand jury did not believe him.
The witness was pressed upon this poin bit he gave
such unsatisfactory answers, and conducted himself in
such a manner, that the Recorder inter fered, and or-
dered him to answer in a proper mann, sr, and not to
waste the time of the Court.
He then said that he might have mad a such a state-
ment; at least he might have said that h e thought the
grand jury had a doubt upon his evidence.
The RECORDER—And expressed that dotes tby throw-
ing out the bill?
Upon being further cross- examined, the vitness said
that about this time ho had gone from his ' dging with-
out paying the rent, and that there were runty Court
judgments out against him. He gave u ? stock to the
amount of the bill to Shaw, and he ear ected him to
pay it. Neither witness nor his .
father bad paid any
of the amount, At the time the was dis-
counted he owed Mr. Jones some money, :and that was
deducted from the amount, and Mr. Jon( is gave him a
draft for 11/. 17s. 61 for the balance. S ew had part
of that money. A person named Rose als, a endorsed the
bill. Rose was a clerk in the Custom-hou st ~ and he be-
lieved he had given a power of attorney to Ir. Jones to
secure payment of the bill.
The RECORDER, when the examination oft his witness
was concluded, inquired of Mr. Ballantine if' he had no
better witness, remarking at the same them that in a
charge of perjury, where the balance of tend mony was
the only point at issue, it was material that th e evidence
should be satisfactory.
Mr. BALLANTINE said that if he had depemil 'd entirely
upon this witness he should have known wilia t course to
take, but there was other evidence which he should feel
bound to lay before the jury.
Mr. Edward Junes, the prosecutor, was then called.
He deposed that he resided at No. 34, P e nton-street,
Penton ville, and that he discounted the bill for Smith.
He denied having sent Smith to the defend at it to make
any such offer as that which he had repre s anted. He
said that the consideration for the bill was se sum of 151.
in the first instance, a clock, which he was to charge
61. 10s. for, and he also paid some money on account of
Smith, and then handed him over a draft on , his banker
for 11/. 17s. 6d. as the balance.
By the RECORDER—It was always under stood that
the clock was to be given up, and it was not intended as
a douceur in the shape of interest. He happet ied to have
three clocks at the time, and they were of no use to
' him. Would swear that the same clock hat 1 never be-
fore formed part of any bill transaction.
Mr. PRENDERGAST (to the witness)—I sett by one of
the affidavits that you are described as " a g
,entleman;"
pray, how does it happen that a " gentlema..n" comes to
be dealing .with goods in this manner? Witness—l
only deal in goods as other gentlemen do, with my own
customers. If I have goods on my bands, 1 let people
have them for their value. Unfortunately I have been
robbed very often, and there are many men in court who
have done it.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—Pray don't look round the bar-
table, Mr. Jones.—(Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued—l have been robbed by
taking securities which were not paid. If I cannot get
money I take goods, and then I use the gooCls again as
part of the consideration when I discount a bill. I have
bad cloth in my possession, but never had a quantity of
boots or brushes, and I am quite sure this clock. was never
sold but once.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I believe, when yore had this
transaction with Smith, he made an entry to this effect
in the book you keep for that purpose—" I have re-
ceived all the above amount of 381. 10s., with thanks?"
Witness—lle did make an entry to that effect in my
day-book.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—That he had received the money
" with thanks," and not a word about the clock? Wit-
ness—No, the clock was charged.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—HOW many acknowledgments of
the same description have you got in this book? It is
quite full of gratitude, is it not?—(Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued—l got Rose's name to
the bill in order to make it more substantial. He owed
me money at the time, and I go to the Custom-house
under a power of attorney to receive his salary. His
salary is 1751. a year, less income-tax.—(A
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I see you know all about it. Now
tell me, sir, do you not take all this man's salary and
allow him twelve shillings a week for the support of his
wife and family? Witness—l do not. I allow him
twenty-five shillings a week for his support, and pay his
rent and taxes.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I believe you have the names of
several other clerks in Government offices in your book
of gratitude? Witness—l have.
The Learned Counsel then mentioned the name of a
clerk employed in the Paymaster-General's office, and
asked the witness whether he was not one of those who
had, according to the book, received money, " with
thanks," from him? The witne-s said that he was, and
added that he was a very honest man.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—I believe you used to receive his
wages also? Witness—l did.
Ntr. PRENDERGAST—Did not this poor man destroy
himself ? Witness—Yes, he did.
The RECORDER inquired of the witness what rate of
interest he usually charged? He replied that he charged
5 per cent. upon the money actually advanced, exclusive
of any goods that might form part of the transaction.
He charged the interest for the period the bill had to run.
Some other witnesses were then examined, but their
evidence did not carry the case any further. One of
them was evidently in a state of intoxication, and he
conducted himself so improperly while under examine
tion, that the counsel for the prosecution ordered him
to leave the box, and told him that he had acted most
disgracefully.
Mr. BALLANTINE then said that he had fulfilled his
instructions and had called ad the witnesses, and that
was the case fir the prosecution.
Mr. PRENDERGAST asked if there was any case at all
made out which called fur an answer ?
The RECORDER said he was not the jury. It was for
them to say whether they could place reliance upon the
witnesses who had been examined.
The jury immediately said they could not rely upon
the evidence for the prosecution.
The RECORDER said he had been of the same opinion
a long time, but it was not his province to say so. In a
case of perjury, above all others, where a man was
charged by another with swearing falsely, it was essen-
tial that the evidence to support the charge should be
above suspicion.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and
the defendant was immediately discharged from custody
,g,

NEW COURT.
(Before the COMMON-SERJEA/4T).
David Jones, aged 38, labourer, was indicted for
having in his possession counterfeit coin.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Sleigh appeared on behalf of
the Mint, and Mr. Payne defended the prisoner.
Inspector Brennan, of the G. division, stated, that
in consequence of information he had received from the
Mint, he went, on the lath of January, to No. 199,
Whitecross-street, St. Luke's, an empty house, in which
the prisoner had a room, and having obtained an en-
trance, he found the prisoner in the passage, and having
stated the object of the visit of himself and the officers
accompanying him, the prisoner tried to conceal
something under his apron, upon which he was se-
cured, and in the apron-pocket was found a coun-
terfeit shilling carefully wrapped lup in soft paper to
prevent its being damaged. Having handcuffed him,
they proceeded to the room occupied by the prisoner,
and under an image on the mantelshelf found four more
base shillings, all wrapped in separate papers, similar to
the one found on the prisoner. An old woman, who
occupied the lower part of the house, then came into the
room, when the prisoner, addressing her, said, " I have
been sold." Upon searching the ashes some white
metal, recently melted, was found, but no coining im-
plements.
The prisoner denied all knowledge of the base coin
found in his room, and said he had taken the one found
on him in the market.
In cross-examination Mr. Payne elicited from the old
woman alluded to, that a few days previously to the
police comit-, two very suspicious-looking men came to
the house, and, under the pretence of looking at it, went
into the prisoner's room and stayed there for some time.
Mr. PAYNE, in a very able manner, contended that it
was most probable those two men had " planted" the
money where it was found and then given information to
the Mint authorities and so entrapped the prisoner.
The jury Acquitted him.
John Jones, aged 32, a seafaring-looking man, and
Ellen Jones, 28, described as married, were indicted for
uttering base coin.
It appeared that the prisoner, on the 10th of January,
went to the Orange Tree, Barnet, and there passed a
crown, and three half-crowns, all of which were bad, and
thence went to the Blue Lion, Colney-hatch, Middlesex,
and
passed three bad halt crowns, at which place they
were apprehended.
They were found Guilty, and sentenced to one year's
imprisonment.

The other Mint cases did not possess any feature of
public interest.

Harriet Ackley, spinster, aged 21, was indicted for
concealing the birth of her female child,
The child, which was still-burn, had been placed by
the prisoner in her box, but there not being any evidence
to show that she did not intend making known to her
friends where the body was,
Thejury Acquitted her.,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WORSHIP-STREET.
A distressed-looking-.orif amfna,rwyiAthunane
Binufrahnetrthaz
arms,
suemwmhoyn sh
eagainstrefuse
refused
man named Henry Gray,
application to Mr.
jiamaitio showor acaus
st Oh
eC Odneterliabruetde
htoimwatordbseththeesfuaptphoerr.t
was
a married woman,f her child, of which
The applicant stated that she w
but had parted from her h shaud,
by mutual consent,
period of their separation she was 1
nearly five years since. Aboutu thurdeueeeydeatrusueaufeteprt
tthhee
now nine months old, was the result of their .
protection of the man Gray, and the child in
iqnutiemstaicoyn.,
refused her
She continued to live with Gray until a few days' since,
when he suddenly discarded her, and, as he
she
was assistance towards the support of their offspring, she
was compelled to resort to compulsory measures against
him. iler husband had been all along aware of the na-
ture of her relation with Gray, during her residence with
whom a formal instrument was drawn up and signed by
them both, with the view of cancelling their marriage
contract, and which she was led to believe would be
equivalent to a legal divorce.
The following is a copy, verbatim et literatim, of the
document referred to by the woman, which was handed in
for the magistrates perusal:—
" Wee, john and mary anne barber, do mutally agree
to Separate for ever giving each other a free tolervition, to