The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-02 00:00:00

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, he should insist upon
the witness giving the name of the person who wrote the
acceptance.
He, however, still hesitated, and at length said that
he had not represented, although another person was
present, that this other person wrote the acceptance.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Are we to take it that
you yourself wrote the acceptance? The witness gave
no answer.

He was then questioned with regard to other transac-
tions, and he admitted that the defendant had applied to
him, in consequence of reports that were abroad, to
know whether he had put his name to any bills, and
upon his telling him that he had, he was very angry with
him. The witness had, it appeared, been engaged pro-
fessionally by the defendant.
At the close of the examination, his LORDSHIP directed
the witness to remain in Court.

Several other witnesses we; then examined, all of
whom stated positively that the acceptance was not the
handwriting of the defendant.
Mr. CHAMBERS, in his reply upon the evidence for the
defence, said he felt compelled to admit that he should
not be entitled to a verdict upon the proof of the accept.
ance being actually written by the defendant; but he
called upon the jury, recollecting the extraordinary evi-
dence given by the witness Garbet, to come to the con-
clusion—although he had chosen that day to admit that
he was guilty of forgery—that, in point of fact, he had
the authority of the defendant for putting his name to
the bill; and if the jury should be of that opinion, the
plaintiff would still be entitled to a verdict.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, said that this cause
was certainly one of a very extraordinary nature. It
appeared to be admitted that the acceptance was not
written by the defendant; and the only way, therefore,
in which he would be made liable was for the jury to be
satisfied that Garbet had put the name upon the bill with
his authority.

The jury -returned a verdict for the defendant.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then ordered the witness
Garbet to stand committed, and he was accordingly
Placed in the custody of Mr. Keene, the governor of the
county gaul.

April 1.
CROWN SIDE.
Francis Elope, William Hill, and James Franklin, who
were convicted on Wednesday for felony, were brought
up for judgment, and the prisoner Hope was sentenced
to be transported for seven, and the others for ten years.
William Durant, who was also convicted on Wednes-
day of stealing some property from the palace of his
Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, at Addington,
was likewise brought up, and he was sentenced to ten
years' transportation. -
These prisoners, together with several others, who
were under sentence, were then taken back to Kingston
gaol, and placed in one of the yards of the prison, and
shortly afterwards it was discovered that Durant had
contrived by some means to scale the prison wall, and
make his escape. He was observed to drop from the
wall at the back of the prison, but before an alarm could
be raised he was out of sight.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.— Warwick, March 31.
John Milward, aged 20, was placed at the bar, chargd
with killing and slaying Mary Brown at the Borough of
Birmingham.
The facts of this case were few, and are soon told.
The prisoner on the night in question was at a house of
rather questionable reputation; in his company was a
young woman with whom he was on intimate terms. On
this occasion he was quarrelling with, and threatening
her. The deceased, a perfect stranger to the prisoner,
came in and interfered in her behalf. Milward swore a
dreadful oath at her, and suiting the action to the words,
he took a pair of tongs from the fire-place, and gave the
deceased a dreadful blow over the head. The prisoner
was taken into custody, and had up before the magis-
trates. The deceased's depositions having been taken,
the witnesses were bound over to appear against him for
the assault. On Mary Brown returning home, she was
taken ill, and died.

A true bill fur murder was found against him by the
grand jury, and he aas now put upon his trial for that
crime. The jury found him Guilty of manslaughter,
and he was sentenced to .two years' imprisonment and
hard labour.

John lial dwell, aged 37, pleaded Guilty to a charge of
embe zz!ement, preferred against him by his master,
Stephen Lewis.
There were as many as nine indictments against this
individual, but having pleaded Guilty as to one, the
others were not proceeded with.
The Nisi Prius business finished about one o'clock.
Mr. Baron Parke then assisted his brother judge in dis-
posing of some of the criminal business. Mr. White-
hurst and Mr. Humfrey also lent their aid, by which
means the business of this assize and circuit was brought
to a close about one o'clock this day (Thursday).

IV 0 R THE RN CI RC Ul T.—Liverpool, March 31.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
Michael Seabriglit Fitzgerald, aged 28, and John
Richardson, aged 22, were indicted for obtaining by false
pretences, 4671., with intent to defraud the employers of
the former, Messrs. Barbour Brothers, merchants and
commission agents, at Manchester.
It appeared in evidence that the prosecutors had be-
come indebted for goods to Langworthy Brothers, manu-
facturers, at Salford, and that it was the custom of the
former, when payments became due to them, to send
the creditor what is called a "payment note," contain.
ing a request that if the amount be found correct, it
shou:d be returned, on doing which the amount would be
paid. Fitzgerald, from his employment, knowing this
custom, and the deb.: to Langworthy, made out (it was
supposed, for the note was not forthcoming,) a note for
the amount, and got Richardson to present it, as from
Messrs. Langworthy to the prosecutors, who, on his
doing: so, gave him a cheque for the amount, he giving
a receipt in the name of " John Smith." The prisoners
divided the money which they got for the cheque, that
is, four 1001. notes, and 671. in gold, and, as is usual in
such eases, commenced a course of the most reckless
extravagance, buying clothes and jewellery, treating
companions, and going from place to place—Liverpool,
Bristol, London, &c., till all the money was spent.
The case was clearly proved against them, and the
jury found them both Guilty, but recommended Richard-
son to mercy, in which the prosecutor joined.
It was stated also, to obtain a lenient sentence, that his
friends would provide him the means of retrieving his
character in a distant land. He was simply, they said,
and had been made the tool of by• Fitzgerald.
• His LORDSHIP said it did not look as if he were a mere
tool—a tool would not probably have got half the spoil.
He added, it was a very bad case, but he thought the
prosecutors were not free from blame—the system of
payment notes was a bad one, and gave facility for the
fraud. He then sentenced Fitzgerald to be imprisoned
with hard labour two years, and Richardson one year,
adding, that if his friends wished to send him abroad,
they might apply to the Government, and he would not
throw any obstacle in their way.
Maria O'Neil, aged 20, was indicted for cutting and
stabbing Mary Ann M'Cumskey, at Liverpool, on the
sth ofJanuary last, with intent to do her grievous bodily
harm.

The prosecutrix and the prisoner were both of the
class termed unfortunkta ',vase in
Wittiamsnn-square. On the night mentioned they had
been at the theatre, and drinking a good fleet, and an
altercation had arisen between tuein during the evening..
After midnight the prisoner went to her bed-room, and
had with her a pointed carving-knife, for the purpose (as
she alleged in her defence) of cutting open her boot.
The prosecutrix went up to the same room, in order, as
she said, to get her night-dress, when the quarrel re-
commenced, and the prisoner attempted to strike her
with the knife. She seized it, but the prisoner kept hold
of the handle, drew the blade through and cut her hand,
and then three times stabbed her in the body. For-
tunately, the wounds she inflicted were not serious, but
sufficient to satisfy the law of the case, and they would
probably have proved fatal but for the protection of her
dress.

The jury found her Guilty, but recommended ber to
MCI

His LORDSHIP towl.ca her who Pho ITAb, what she had
been, and how long she had been pursuing the ♦icious
life she now led ?—ln answer, she said she was from
Westmeath, in Ireland, but that she had lived in
London from her childhood, till she fell into her
present way of life, nine moths ago, when she came
to Liverpool. She had up to that time been a
lady's maid.
His LORDSHIP asked the prisoner with whom she
had lived, but she declined stating that in public. He
told her that his object was to rescue her, if he could,
from her present degraded life, and she consented to
give the information in private. His Lordship then
passed sentence on her of two years' imprisonment, tell-
ing her that he would examine into her case, and pro-
cure her, if possible, a way to recover the position from
which she had fallen.

Michael Bird, an elderly man, a carter, was indicted
for the manslaughter of Mary Ann Meldun, at Liverpool,
on the 7th of January last.
The prisoner on the day in question had the care of a
horse and carriage called " a float," which is a heavy
vehicle running within six inches of the ground, pro-
jecting very much behind, and in length alto ether about
twenty-one feet. This unwieldy thing he was in the act

Mr. Edmund Garbet was the next witness called, and
his evidence was of the most extraordinary character.
He deposed that he had formerly carried on the pro-
fession of a solicitor, at Wellington in Salop, and latterly
was engaged in the same profession in King William-
street, in London. lie said that he was the drawer of
the bill which formed thQ subject of the action, but the
acceptance was nut written by the defendant nor by his
authority.

Cross-examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—He handed the
bill to Mr. Phillips in his drawing-room, and at this time
the acceptance had been written across the blank stamp,
but not by the defendant.

Mr. CHAMBERS asked the witness whether he was
aware what he was attempting to prove ; and whether
they were to understand that he admitted he had nego-
tiated an instrument which he knew to be a forgery ?---
The witness replied, that the acceptance to the bill was
not in the handwriting of Mr. Booth.
Mr. CHAMBERS asked, who did write it then ?—The
witness said, he should decline to answer the question.
In answer to other questiens, the witness said, that
when the acceptance was written, another person was
present besides himself, but be declined to state who that
person was.
Mr. CHAMBERS applied to the Court to insist upon the
witness answering the question.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked the witness whether
it was to: be understood that either he or the other per-
son wrote the acceptance to the bill ?—The witness re-
plied, that it was so.
On further cross examination, the witness said that he
was allowed the use of part of an office in King William-
street, where he at present practised as a solicitor, and
the bill was drawn up either there or in Old Bond-street.
Heals° said that he saw the acceptance written, but he did
not think it was copied from a genuine signature of the
defendant.