The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20. 1840.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

William Mosses Kearns surrendered to take his trial
upon an indictment charging him with forging a portion
of a deed, with intent to defraud Samuel Thwaitcs.
Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the
prosecution, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Clarkson defended
the prisoner.
The case occupied the attention of the Court for a
considerable time, but the details were of no public in-
terest. The defendant, it appeared, was an attorney,
and the prosecutor was a brewer, at Brixton. The
parties had had some transactions together, and in
1830 the prosecutor gave a warrant of attorney to the
defendant, dated the 9th September, which document
should have been filed in the Court of Queen's Bench
within twenty-one days, to render it valid, but this, it
appeared, was not done, and the date had, in
consequence, been altered from the 9th to the
19th, and it was then filed in due course,
and execution entered upon it against the goods of the
prosecutor, but upon application to the Court of
Queen's Bench, that judgment was set aside on the
ground of the alteration in the deed. It appeared, how-
ever, that the prosecutor had afterwards signed a docu-
ment expressing a belief that the alteration of the date
was an accidental occurrence.
The Recorder in the course of the case expressed
his opinion that the charge must fall to the ground, but
the prosecutor requested Mr. Prendergast to examine
all the witnesses.
When the case for the prosecution had concluded,
the Jury, without hearing Mr. Phillips for the defence,
returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

as the bankers of the alleged Board, declared, upon
being waited upon by the deputation, that they knew
nothing in the world of the Tokenhous:-yard establish-
ment.
The LORD MAYOR—Then the whole has been got
up for the purpose of. getting together funds ?
The Gentlemen of the Deputation said there was no
doubt as to the real object. Indeed, they had called at
29, Tokenhouse-yard, and saw a person, who called
himself Mr. J. S. Byng, and said he was the secretary ;
and they asked him several questions upon the subject
of the Board, but he refused to state the names of any of
the parties with whom he was connected, but he admit-
ted that his object was to collect subscriptions on the
document.
The LORD MAYOR observed that the paper was in-
geniously put together, and really described the negli-
gent mode of obtaining signatures as if the Board was de-
termined to remedy the defect.
The Deputation stated that his Lordship's interfe-
rence had upon many occasions checked the progress
of imposition, and they trusted that the scheme they
whoseh ..s
names were published as a sanc-
tion, was wholly ignorant, would receive his Lordship's
unqualified condemnation as a security to the public.
hadthe exposed
Men°
The LORD MAYOR said it was a common practice
with speculators in companies and schemes of all sorts
to use the names of gentlemen of fortune without their
authority, and a vast deal of mischief hail been accom-
plished by such a system. His Lordship considered
that the Deputation had on this occasion acted with pru-
dence and vigour by making inquiries, the result of
which put it beyond a doubt that the object was unsanc•
tioned and unjustifiable.
A man with but one arm, whose name was stated to
be Edward Richards, was brought before his Lordship
charged with having been in a helpless state of intoxica-
tion in the streets on Sunday nn-ht.
The defendant was taken to the station-house by a
policeman and taken care of. The unfortunate fellow
was in a sailor's dress, and would have lost the little
money he had if it had not been for the policeman.
The LORD MAYOR—You lost your arm at sea, I sup-
pose, my good fellow? Defendant—No, my Lord ; I
have not been a sailor.

The Lotto MAYOR—You appear in the dress of one.
Why is that ? Defendant—l have not been a sailor,
but I have been a soldier.
The LORD MAYOR—And you arc going home now ?

Defendant—l am going home to Ireland, my Lord.
The LORD MAYOR—Aye, after having lost your
arm your are going to live upon your pension ?
Defend-Int—No, please your Lordship ; I have got
ho pension.

The LORD MAYOR—NO pension! How did you
lose your arm ? Defendant—By a gun-shot wound,
please your Lordship.
The LORD MAYOR—And no pension ?
Mr. Hobler—How did you get the wound, my
friend ? Defendant—l wounded myself.
The LORD MAYOR—What do you mean by wound-
ing yourself? Defendant—l wanted to get out of the
regiment, and it occurred to me that the only way in
which I could get my discharge was by doing myself some
mischief ; so I overloaded my musket, and fired it off,
and it burst, as I expected, and shattered my hand and
arm, so that I am for ever rendered useless.
The LORD MAYOR—I have heard of soldiers cutting
and maiming themselves to get discharged, but I never
in my life heard of such a desperate mode of obtaining
a discharge as you have resorted to. You are dis-
charged. Defendant— Thank you, my Lord. I
thought it best to get out of the army, at any rate.

taken into custody denied having touched the animal at
all, and said the wound had been produced by in ac-
cidental friction of the part against some hard sub-

stance.

Mr. BINGHAM said, that notwithstanding the prison-
er's declaration of innocence to the Sergeant, he was
inclined to think there must be soma truth in his de-
fence, as he could not believe that any one in the shape
of a human being would he guilty of such cruelty to-
wards a poor dumb creature, unless he had acted upon
strong provocation. Nothing, however, could extenuate
so inhuman an act, and he should visit him with such a
punishment as would teach both hint and the class to
which he belonged the necessity of controlling their
violent passions. He must pay the sum of 3/. Ss. 6(1.,
the amount of expense to which his master 'had been
put, over and above which, he was fined 40s. penalty,
and in default of payment he was committed to the
House of Correction. with hard labour, for one month.
The prisoner was locked up.