The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-28 00:00:00

would therefore be only ...i4Pr
9?11 14 2:4til the su-
perior power of the court had given a decision upon
the subject. lie thought that Dr. Freund ought
therefore to be reinstated in his position until the re•
1.-4 V
sult of the inquiry had been ascertained.
After some considerable discussion,
ERNEST BUNSEN, the son of Cevalier Bun,en, said
that Dr. Freund had not as yet been condemned un-
heard, as had been said by some persons. Ile could
not be condemned except by the whole court, and
the court could not be in a position to pronounce an
opinion on the subject until an inquiry had been
made, and evidence produced on the subject.
Dr. BIRNIE hoped that if Dr. Freund was rein-
stated in his position, no obstacle would be placed in
performance of the functions of his
tohffiecwe:ay of his

Renewed discussion of a more irregular and violent
character took place upon this suggesti.n. Several
members of the House Committee stating that they

should exercise their power of preventing the entrance
of the doctor into the house until the resolutions of
the committee were rescinded. Other member.', on
the other hand, considered that they had exceeded the
powers given to them by the byt -'.aws of the inAitu-

iion in refusing admitaance.
The Chevalier BUNSEN thought that the meeting
might take for granted, that relying upon the good
faith of the committee, and the suggestions of tt.e
Chairman, there would be no person, whether trustee
or member of the committee, who would refuse ad-
mission to Dr. Freund, should it be considered neces-
sary, for the vindication of his character, to demand
necessary facilities for the performance of his func-
tions as directing physician to the institution.
A committee was subsequently appointed to inquire
into the charges brought against Dr. Freund, it being
understood that no obstacle was to be placed in the
way of that gentleman performing his duties.
The meeting then broke up.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

FORGERY.—Charles Crornmell Hicks, a respect-
ably-dressed man, aged 52, and described a a
labourer, was placed at the bar on remand from last
session, charged with feloniously uttering a forged
cheque for 71. 10s., well knowing it to have been
forged.
Mr. Prendergast appeared for the prosecution on
behalf of the Society for the Protection of Bankers
from Frauds.
The prisoner conducted his own case.

It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor,
Mr. Robert Simpson, a baker, in the Wandsworth-
road, that the prisoner, who had dealt with him for
some time, came into his shop about six o'clock, and
asked if he could let him have 31. 10s., as he re-
quired it urgently, and as it was too late to get
it cashed that night The order was directed to Mr.
Pratt, army agent, at Messrs. V acher's, Parliament-
street, and sought the payment of the amount to
himself or bearer, and to charge the same to the
account of R. Hicks. It was signed "C. Hicks."
The witness inquired from whom he got the cheque,
and the prisoner replied that he had obtained
it from his uncle, who, he said, was a
rick , old fellow, and worth 200,000/. ; but "if
you were to see him in the street you would not
think him worth 200 pence, and if he were to see
him (the prisoner) he would say, There's a penny
for you, and be off with you.' " He put "H. I.
Hicks" on the back of the instrument, saying, that
he (witness) might either pay it away, or he would
return the money the next day; but he did not see
him again until the subsequent Thursday, when he
gave him into custody.
Cross-examined by the prisoner—lt was not dark
when he put his name on the back of the cheque. He
was positive he did not use the word " father," but
he was positive he used the word " uncle." Did not
propose to take security for the payment of the
money.
Mr. Thomas Pratt was next examined. He said
he was an army agent in King street, Westminster,
and that he occupied chambers at Messrs. Vacher's.
Had only seen the prisoner twice, but he knew his
father very well, who had died since the prisoner had
been in confinement. He kept the father's accounts
for many years. His name was Raymond Hicks.
Never knew or heard of any uncle of the prisoner's.
At the time in question his father kept an account
with him, but he had no directions from him to pay
any money to the order of H. Hicks or C. Hicks.
About the time of the occurrence the prisoner called
upon him to inquire about his father's health. The
cheque was presented to him, but he refused to pay it.
Cross-examined—Did not know that sums of 401.,
501., and 10/., had been lodged by his father with
Messrs. Vacher for his use. Was not aware the
prisoner's mother-in-law paid the amount of the
cheque.
May, a police•constable, took the prisoner into
custody. He told him that the prosecutor had told
him if the money was paid he should not proceed
against him. lie also told him that he would do him
a service if he would hang him up to a lamp-post, as
both he and his wife were starving, and had had
nothing to eat for a fortnight but bread and water,
and that he wanted the 3/. 105. urgently to proceed
with the book he was publishing.
Mr. Thomas John King, said, to the best of his
belief, that the writing was the prisoner's.
The prisoner entered into a long defence. He said
he saw little or nothing of his father during his
lifetime. He had been most unfortunate in life,
and had lost 16,000/. by one person. He had pub-
lished a translation of the poems of Laimtre, which
had been patronized by the Duchess of Kent, the
Queen Dowager, and the Duke of Cambridge, which
had yielded him something, but poetry being
at a discount, he was unable to obtain a
living; but his father having given him permission
to draw upon his account he had simply done so,
and had not the most remote intention to defraud
any one.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but strongly
recommended him to mercy.
Sentence deferred.