The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 22.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesteiday.)
MESSAGE FiWM THE COMMONS.
A messenger from the Commons brought up several
Bills.

SUTTON HARBOUR BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
Their. Lordships then adjourned during pleasure.

Their Lordships resumed at Five o'clock.
CRIMINAL CODE.

Lord BROUGHAM drew the attention of the House
to the necessity of having a digest of the criminal code.
A complete revision would be a work most invaluable ;
it was at present in a very imperfect state. If steps were
now taken for such a purpose, it could be done before the
next session of Parliament.

The subject then dropped.
CONVEYANCE OF LANDED PROPERTY.

Lord BROUGHAM moved that the evidence taken
before the Committee appointed to inquire into the con-
veyance of landed property be printed.
IRISH RATES.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from a board
of guardians in Tipperary, complaining of the difficulty
of collecting the rates which had been struck.
EDUCATION.

Lord S PAN LEY drew the attention of the House to
the late minute of the Council on the subject of educa-
tion, and desired to know to what schools assistance
would be afforded, where religious education was ex-
cluded.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who was very in-
audible in the gallery, was understood to say that no
assistance would be afforded to any school where reli-
gious education was excluded.
The Bishop of LONDON said that he thought that he
was speaking the sentiments of the Church when
he said that they were still willing to accept the
Minutes of the Council respecting education as they
were originally set forth, but he warned the Government
not to be making alterations in them to suit the conve-
nience of the religious prejudices of the different sects;
by doing so, they would produce a very different feeling
n the country from that of harmony and peace.
Lord 13EAUSIONT said that the more he read and
the more he heard upon this subject, the more he was
impressed with the enormous difficulties by which
they were surrounded. Did the Right Rev. Prelate
wish the assistance afforded to schools to be confined to
such only as taught the religion which he himself pro-
fessed?—(Cries of " No, no," from the Bishop of
London.) Well, then, what did he want, if he did
not want that ? He hoped the Government would
return to their former liberal principles, and
set at nought the outcry which had been raised against
them. He felt the sect to which he (Lord Beaumont)
belonged had been hardly treated, but still he could
not stand by without bearing his testmony to the Go-
vernment upon this question.
After a few words from the Bishop of LONDON in
explanation,

The Earl of MINTO said that the question re-
solved itself simply into the following—whether
they would or w.)uld not exclude from their
assistance a very large proportion of the most
religious portion of the community. He should
also observe that there was a large number of persons in
Scotland who would have a conscientious scruple in com-
plying with the conditions of the minute.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he did not understand
the conscientious scruple of the Scotch people. They
asked with their eyes open, and applied for assistance
yet they refused to comply with the conditions. Now,
this he considered, instead of being conscientious, was
rather quite the other way. They should not take
the money at all if they did not intend to use it in the
manner condition* d.
Lord STANLEY said he must express his hope that
those minutes would not be considered to be finally
arranged, but that they would undergo some more con-
sideration and revision, for a great infraction had been
made upon the principle upon which Parliament first
made a grant for the purposes of education. He depre-
cated these continued changes, which placed a great
power in the hands of the Minister, which was never
intended by the country.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that they were
in the habit of taking notice in their legislation of con-
scientious scruples, in matters of oath, and in matters of
allegiance, and other things, and he was not prepared to
refuse the blessings of education to parties who were not
able to conscientiously agree with them.
Lord STANLEY said that the minrite to which he
alluded was not the former one upon which discussion
had taken place in the Lower House. The present
was dated the 10th of the present month.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, in which
he again insisted that no party had a right to take money
without being prepared to receive Ps; upon the conditions
with which it was accompanied,
The Bishop of LONDON explained.
Earl GREY considered that it was a disgrace to the
country that so large a proportion of their children were
unable to read or write. Ll'4 was in favour of any plan
of education; and he was prepared to extend it to every
class, no matter what were 'their religious tenets.
After a few words from Lord NELSON, the sub
ject then dropped.
POOR-LAW .11.DMINI ST RATION BILL.
The Marquis of I. Jt:hTSDO WN E rose to move that
their Lordships wou'ul agree with the Commons' Amend-
ments to this Bill. He did not think the clause which
their Lordships lead adder: to the Bill, and which had
been rejected by the Commons, was by any means ne-
cessary.

Lori! STRA _DBROKE opposed the motion, and in-
sisted on the r Amendment.
Earl URE•I said that the Noble Lord attached much
greater imp artance to the clause than it deserved ; if
they reject( d the clause, they would reject the Bill, and
it would at cordingly be lost, for it was too late in the
present se ,sion to restore it, and the question would be
agitated :st the next general election, and gentlemen
would cc snie pledged from the hustings to vote against
such a %measure. He had a strong opinion that these
pledges were quite at variance with the spirit of the con-
stitutic .11. lie put it, then, to their Lordships, as friends
of the Reform effected in 1834, to adopt this Bill.
The Earl of RAI)NOR said that the consequence of
the cl ause would be to subvert the order in the work-
house .s, and introduce indecencies and immoralities there ;
in hot it would make the workhouses a place for the
encouragement of pauper intercourse between the sexes.
The; Duke of CLEVELAND supported the Bill, and
expatiated upon the inhumanity of separating old couples
who laad lived together all their lives, until they were
unfortunate enough to enter a workhouse.
Ererl FORTESCUE opposed the motion, and consi•
dere d that it would be better to lose the Bill than have
the 4;lause inserted.
Lord REDESDALE also opposed the motion, and
of ,served that order could not be preserved in the house
if it was inserted ; for by the clause as it at present
s tood, if the parties lived together in order only to
quarrel, it was not in the power of the guardians to
separate them ; it was only introduced for electioneering
purposes.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE reminded the House
that it was a concession to the Lower House which it was
only constitutional for them to make ; he did not think
it wise for them upon a trivial question to oppose the
wishes of the Commons.
Lord REDESDALE explained.
Lord STRADBROKE said that he would press his
motion to a division.
The House then divided—

For the clause
Against it
Majority
—lB
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER.
The Commons amendments to the Bishopric of Man-
chester Bill were then considered, and agreed to.
PASSINGIIAM'S ESTATE.

The Commons' amendments to this B.—ill were eon.
sidered and agreed to.
The following Bills were then read a third time :
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Commons Inelosure Bill.
New Zealand Bill (No. 2).
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 22.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
PORTUGAL.
In reply to Sir DE LACY EVANS,
Lord PALMERSTON stated that he believed all the
prisoners in Fort St. Julian had been released. Some
delay had been occasioned by the loss of time in bringing
affairs at Oporto to a conclusion. He understood that
the quarantine laws would not be suspended longer than
the present month. The decrees taking away the liberty
of the press would be shortly revoked. With regard to
the formation of a new Ministry, he was not in & condition
to state anything positive, but the matter had been under
consideration. He might state, however, that there was
an earnest disposition on the part of the Queen of Por-
tugal to fulfil all the engagements into which she had
entered with this country, and her Majesty would take
carp that they were observed.
The business set down on the paper was here brought
to a close, but the House had to wait nearly an hour
before the Usher of the Black Rod summoned the House
to hear the Royal Assent given to several Bills, a list of
which will be found in our report of the House of
Lords. The delay was occasioned, we understood, by
the non-arrival of the Royal Commissioners from
Osborne House.
R Ty ha
le
ASsPs
ennAtKhF.aud having
vreent übryn edco ,tn amnins
soiuonncte(d) n that r
ot hues
public and private Bills (for which see Lords' report).
The House then adjourned at Half-past Three till One
o'clock to-morrow.

THE LATE ATTEMPT TO MURDER.--The poor man,
Michael M'Dearmed, who has been in a dangerous
state from the late murderous attack on him, having
been considered worse on Sunday last, it was deemed
expedient that an examination of him should take
place at the hospital, in the presence of the prisoner,
ltobert %Venial:a ;
and in the course of the day his
deposition was taken before F. G. Probart, Esq.,
M.D. Ile was unable to utter more than a simple
" yes" or " no," and the following was the examination:
" Were you last Wednesday week, at night, violently
assaulted and robbed ?"—"
Yes." "Do you know who
assaulted y0u?"..._,, yes." "Is that person present?"
—" Yes" (pointing to the prisoner). It was not con-
sidered expedient to examine him further, and he put
his mark to the deposition, and the prisoner was con-
veyed back to the gaol. We understand that M'Dearmed
has been worse these two last days, and that his condi-
don is very precarious. Indeed, the chances are very
great against his recovery.—Bury and Norwich Post.
The railways from Hanover to Minden, and from
Minden to liaman, will be opened for traffic by the 15th
Ektober next at the latest. Though of no great extent,
these lines are of considerable importance, from entirely
completing the; line of railway which unites 019 east
gind the west of Germany.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCISE, Aly 22.
(Before 11. F. STEPHENSON, E‘q., C. J. HERRIES, Esq.,
and CHARLES Hoss,•Esq.)
Joseph Murray alias John Smith, keeper of the wine
and supper-rooms, familiarly known as ‘• Mother It's,"
oppo,ite Drury-lane Theatre, was charged with retailing
foreign wines without license. This ease, as in many
others, arose out of the supposed protection that a name
of a free vintner would bPstuw, of enabling any persen
borrowing the same to retail wines without license. The
court was again much crowded, especially with accommo-
dation " free vintners," who appeared greatly interested
in the proceedings.
Dr. Bateman appeared on behalf of the Crown ; Mr.
Humphreys for the defence.
Mr. John Austin, Supervisor of Excise, was the
first witness examined. He stated, that on the 15th
of May last, he went to the house of the defendant,
No. 13, Brydges-street, Covent-garden, which is
used as a wine and supper rooms. There is
a large room or saloon up stairs, which is opened
at a late hour in the evening. It is known as '• H.'s
Saloon." Mr. Sillifant went with him, but entered
the house first, and remained there for a quarter of an
hour. When he came out, witness entered the house,
and seeing a lady and gentleman at a bar, he asked to
see by what authority they sold wines there without
licens.. The gentleman said they had not got the autho-
rity. Witness then inquired for Mr. Smith, who was not
to be seen. The name of " Joseph Emanuel Castellino,
Free Vintner," was over the door. A few days after-
wards he went again to the house, uccompanied by Mr.
Sillifant, and upon the door being opened by a girl, he
inquired for Mr. Castellino, and was informed that he
was not there; and upon further inquiries as to Mr.
Smith, she replied that she did not know such a person.
A female then said that a Mr. and Mrs. Murray attended
there every night. After several visits they succeeded
in seeing Mr. Castellino, who was with Mr. Murray
Castellino remarked. " All the wines sold here are mine.
and the premises are mine." Witness inquired if he had
any other premises for the sale of wine, and he replied
in the negative. Murray has no entry for wines, either
in the name of Smith or Murray. Had seen the name
of Castellino at a house in Bridge-street, Westminster,
but since these proceedings have been instituted be has
withdrawn his entry from it.

Mr. Sillithnt stated that he went with the last witness
to the house, 13, Brydges-street, and having gone to a
room up stairs, he ordered a glass of sherry, which was
brought. On leaving he went to a bar to pay for the
wine, when a shilling was demanded, upon which he
remarked that it was a very high charge for one glass
of wine. The man at the bar said it would have been
the same amount if he had had two glasses; upon
which he ordered another glass, which he gave to a
female who was sitting near to him.
Mr. D. Coghill, the poor-rate collector of the parish
of St. Paul, Covent-garden, deposed that Mr. Murray
was the rated occupier of the whole house, 13, Brydges
street, and had been so for some years. Had frequently
received the rates from him. Had never seen Mr. Cas-
tellino till yesterday, when he was introduced to him.
Never heard of him before.

Mr•. Humphreys cross•examined the witnesses, but
nothing material was elicited.

Mr.llumminEirs then addressed the Court for the de
fendant, and contended that the case had not been
proved against the defendant, as there was no evidence
to show that he had sold the wine, or, in the words of
the information, " that you (naming the defendant) did
then and there" commit a certain offence.

Mr. Commissioner STEPHENSON—It is proved that the
wine was purchased in the house of Mr. Murray, and
it is also proved that he is the rated occupier.
Mr. HUMPHREYS contended that the premises were
not Mr. Murray's, and that Mr. Castellino was the real
bona fide occupier.
A long discussion ensued, in which various points
were urged and combatted by the solicitor on behalf of
the Crown.

The COURT eventually gave judgment against the
defendant for the full penalty, with liberty to petition
the Board, and it was the opinion of mot persons in
court that the decision in the case was nut a unanimous
one.

Two other cases of a similar description were with-
drawn.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIR CUI T.—York, July 21.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
There being two other indictments in the Mirfield
murder case,
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN asked Mr. Bliss what course
he intended to pursue ?
Mr. Buss replied, that in a case of such importance be
wished for time to consider, and it might be proper to
consult some high authority—say, the Secretary of State.
His LORDSHIP assented to this view.
James Bradley, aged 23, and George Bradley, aged
26, brothers, were indicted for the wilful murder of John
Riley, at Sheffield, on the 12th of January last.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS (Mr. Pickering and Mr.
Pearce with him) stated the case to the, jury for, the
prosecution. He said John= Riley was a tobacconist,
carrying on business at Sheffield, and living at a place
called Broom Lees, about a mile from Sheffield, on th,-
Grimthorpe road. He was about forty years of age. 11e
left his shop in Sheffield about half-past nine o'clock, and
with a friend, went to the Cattle-market Inn. He left
there to go home about twelve o'clock, and when he got
to a place called Bailey's-gate he was attacked and
robbed, and so injured, that, although he was able t,,
get home by about two o'clock, on the 16th of January
he died.

Eliza Tune, landlady of the inn, examined—Mr. Riley
and several others were there on the II th January. Ht-
left there a little after 12 o'clock, quite able to know
what he was doing. He had three sixpenny glasses of
brandy and water. He walked perfectly well, and was
quite capable of walking home..
Mary Riley, widow of the deceased, examined—Sh,
went to the shop at Sheffield. His watch was then in
its place. Her husband came home at -twenty minutes
to two o'clock the following morning. She alone was
sitting up for him. He rang the bell, and she let him in.
His face and hands were covered with blood. lie had
no hat on, or stick which he ususually carried. Ht
walked into the kitchen and sat down on a chair. 11
had a large bruise on his forehead. His right ham
pocket was turned out, and one brace broken. At nine
o'clock the following morning she sent for a surgeon.
Her husband died on the following Saturday. His
health was generally good. In the left-hand pocket
there were 15s. The watch produced was his. He
generally wore it in his waistcoat pocket. without swivel
or guard. He had it not when he got home that
morning,
George Bowling, cdgetool- maker, examined—On the
Thursday following the murder, James came to the
Coach and Horses, where witness lodged. Witness was
asleep and James woke him, and asked him if he could
sell him a watch? He produced it—it bad no glass or
swivel to it. The one now produced was like it. Wit-
ness asked him what he had done with them? He re-
plied he had broken the glass, and broken or thrown the
swivel away. Witness said he would go and see if he
could sell it to a person called Sayles. They then went
to where Sayles worked. Sayles gave him 175., and
witness gave him the watch. He then went and called
the prisoner James out, and gave him 15s. and kept 2s.
Sayles went away but returned in half an hour. James
said they were not to say anything about the watch, it
had come from Master Riley, the tobacconist, in Wain-
gate. He had robbed him of his watch and 30s. He had
heard that he had missed 3/. and the shop-door key. He
said he was alone ; he had stood at the top of a lane by
the tea-garden cottages, waiting for Riley, and had
knocked him down the first blow. Witness promised he
would not tell. On Sunday night, the 24th of January,
witness saw James again at the Coach and Horses. They
sat together, and James said he had heard Master Riley
was dead, adding, "it is a bad job for me." He then
said it was not he who struck the blow, but he would
not tell who it was—he would stick staunch if he got
hanged for it. He again told witness to say nothing
about it, and he promised ho would not. He said the
police had bee❑ to Green's on Saturday. Witness told
him that Sayles had said he had taken the watch back
and put it by Mr. Riley's garden-wall. He said that
was a good job.
Cross-examined—He first told this on the 3d of April.
There had then been 1001, reward offered. The reason
he did not tell before was, he had had such threats. The
reason he told then was, he could not keep it on his
mind any longer. He had himself been brought before
the justices three times for felony. He had been con-
victed once for one felony only. He had been taken up
for highway robbery, but he got off. He was dis-
charged.
_ _ .

Re-examined—The conviction was for stealing a pair
of trousers. The third case was this transaction, for
selling the watch.
George Sayles, cutler, corroborated the last witness.
T. Raynor, chief policeman, proved the statement
made before the justices.
Cross-examined—The prisoner James had been set at
liberty after being arrested on this charge.
Statement of James, read in substance as follows:
Challoner and I went home together on Monday night.
We met the watchman about half-past twelve o'clock.
I had been at home half an hour when my brother
(George) came in, and put the watch into my hand
saying that he had found it by the side of Mr. Riley as
ho was lying on the road. He showed me some money,
also 10s. or 12s. Ho gave me the watch to sell for 15s.
I was to have what I could get more. What Bowling
and Sayles had said that I had said about striking the
first blow was false. I neither knocked him down nor
robbed him. I never stated that I did. I could not
say so, for I was not on the road when Mr. Riley was
robbed.

Statement of George, read in substance as follows:
I found the watch, and I Is. 4d. in silver, on the road, the
silver squandered about. I did not know the man, but
it was Mr. Riley, I suppose, He was very drunk, and I
tria to help him up. He was lying with his head
against the wall, as if he had fallen. I told him I had
found a watch and some money, and he said, "D—n you,
go, I can do without you." I saw a man coming down
past him before I got the money, who, in passing me,
said to me, " There's a man drunk yonder." I don't
know who the man was, he was running. I then went
home, gave my brother the watch, and told him I had
found it by the side of a man. Mr. Riley was covered
with blood, lying between Bailey's-gate and the Tea-
gardens Cottage. I never mentioned the watch to my
brother after giving it to him. I never asked any-
body about it, but I heard it had been found in Mr.
Riley's garden. Mr. Riley said he had fallen three tildes.
For the defence it was attempted to be shown-that
Riley had received the injuries of which he died from
a fall.

At twenty-five minutes to six o'clock the jury retired
to consider their verdict, and at a quarter past six re-
turned and pronounced the prisoners Not Guilty.

Mr. E. V. Sidebotton3 and Dr. B. Hawkins had also
an interview yesterday with the Bight lion. Baronet.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
CILtRGE OF FORGERY.-IVilliarn H. G. Baugh, was
brought. up for final exsrnination upon the charge of
having forged a draft upon Coutt's bank for 2221. 153.
6,1.. in the name of John Skley Caley, of Breok-street,
Brentwood.
Messrs. Bush and Muller, solicitors to the committee
of bankers for protection against forgeries and fraud,
attended for the prosecution.
The date of the draft was 7,11 April, 1847.
The following was the additional evidence in the case:
Mr. Charles Carne Lewis said-I am an attorney of
Brentwood, and am Coroner for the county of Essex.
Ile prisoner was in my service as a clerk until the day
of his apprehension. He entered my service in the month
of June, 1846, at a salary of 1001. a year. In April last
I was engaged for the parish of South Weald in an ap-
peal with the Eastern Counties Railroad against the as-
signment of the poor-rates of the parish, and a question
arose whether certain occupants of the parish were not
rated too low. in consequence of which I applied to
several occupants to let me have their receipts for rent,
amongst others to Mr. Caley. I received from Mr.
Caley a letter containing two receipts. I have made
strict search for these documents and cannot find them.
I am not positively certain of the contents of the re-
ceipts. The prisoner had access to those documents, and
was partially engaged in the appeal. On the 13th of
April the prisoner left me at Thetford to go to Somerset
House to pass some accounts. The memorandum in
the pocket-book produced is in the prisoner's hand-
writing. I produce his disbursement book, in which is
an entry on the 13th of April of one shilling, charged
as his omnibus fare to and from London. On the 29th
of April the prisoner applied to me for leave of absence,
which I gave him for a few days. The entry in the
pocket-book of the 30th of April is in his handwriting.
I don't recollect seeing him again until the 13th of May,
but I believe he was at my office on the 12th. He staid
away longer than the extent of my permission. He said
it was on account of illness, and I understood he had
been to Chester. (Here several entries were pointed out
to the witness, one of which was " 29th May, admitted,
at Lin. Inn, paid 31/. 13s. fees," and he stated his belief
that they were all in the handwriting of the prisoner.
In his cross-examination, the witness said all the
clerks in his office had access to the receipts. The pri-
soner resided at Miss Carey's, Bromwell-cottage, Brent-
wood.
Mr. E. P. Frodsham, clerk in the North and South
Wales Bank its Liverpool, said-On the 10th May last a
person applied to me at the bank for a credit in Birming-
ham for 1521. in favour of Ernest Hawkins, Esq. The
person so applying handed to me the produced ticket
ready filled up, and said he could not have a credit in
Birmingham as we had no agent there, but he could
have a credit in London; that an order in London would
answer his purpose just as well, as it could be cashed
at Birmingham. He said it would do. He then gave
me Bank of England notes amounting to 155/., and
deducted the 1521. and 7s. Bd. for commission, and gave
to the party 21. 12s 4d. as the balance of the 1551.
and altered the ticket, by strikng out " Birmingham and
inserting London," and inserting the words " On de-
mand" at the top of the ticket of those given him. He
produced a draft on the London and Westminster Bank,
for the 152/. The bank notes which Iso received, I de-
livered, together with the ticket, to Mr. R. Jones, another
clerk in the bank at Liverpool.
The bank notes received by the last witness for the
1521. draft on the London and Westminster Bank, now
proved to be one of those which had been indirectly
received in payment of the forgery, and were traced
through several hands, so that it was quite evident that
the perpetrator calculated upon escape, from the con-
fusion likely to arise from his ingenuity.
Mr. George Doudney said I am assistant to my father
in his business as a tailor, carried on at 49, Lombard-
street. The prisoner has been a customer of ours for
about twelve months. On the 14th of June last, I re-
ceived a 50/. note from Mr. Baugh, our foreman, in the
prisoner's presence. I took it to Messrs. Barclay and
Co. for change, and received ten 51. notes, and gave Mr.
Baugh nine of them, and the difference, between 31. 195.,
and the other Si. note he gave to the prisoner.
William Pearce, a person in the service of Mr.
Doudney, recollected that the prisoner called on the 13th
of Aprit to pay his bill, observed that the prisoner had
a great deal more money in gold and bank notes. He
noticed the circumstance particularly, in consequence of
repeated applications having been made for the amount
of the bill, and an order having been refused to be exe
cuted because the money was not paid.
Mr. W. Base said, I am a clerk to Messrs. Bush ane
Mullens, of No. 7, St. Markel's-court, Poultry, solicitors.
In consequence of information which I received on thf
12th of July, I went to Messrs. Doudney's, and saw the
prisoner in a cab at the door. I got into the cab, and
said,• I believe you are Mr. Baugh; it will be in your re-
collection that you paid to Mr. Doudney a 501. note.
After some hesitation he said, " Yes; I received two 501
notes from a salesman." I said it is important that
we should know from whom you received the
notes ; they are indirectly the produce of a
forgery. I observed considerable hesitation abow
him, and said, perhaps you would prefer giving your
explanation to Mr. Bush. He asked who Mr. Bush
was ? I said he is the solicitor to the Bankers' Associa-
tion. He then consented to go. I left the cab, and
John Forrester got in, and they drove away together.
Shortly afterwards I saw the prisoner at No. 7, St. Mil-
dred's-court. Mr. Bush, Mr. Dcudney, John Forrester
the prisoner, and myself, were present altogether. After
Some preliminary observations respecting the forgery.
Mr. Bush cautioned the prisoner that what he might
say might be given in evidence against him ; and then
Mr. Bush said it was his duty to call upon him to ac
count for the possession of that 501. note. The prisoner
hesitated very much, and afterwards said, " I sent ►ome
horses to Smithfield, and received 1001. fur them. I
think he said he sent them from Brentwood. Mr. Bush
said he was bound to ask him the name of the party
who had given him the notes ? The prisoner returned
no answer, and was given into the custody of Forrester.
I afterwards went to Brentwood to the house of a Miss
Casey, called Bromwell cottage ; and in a sitting room
there found a number of papers. Amongst which was
the bill produced, of Mr. William Douduey, for 31. 19i
Mr. D.)udney's bill and receipt for 11/. 175., and a re-
ceipt, signed by the Steward of Lincoln's Inn, for 31/
13s. 101., and the produced pocket book.
John Forester said-I was present at the interview
which the witness, Mr. Base, has described, and he has
'les .ribAl it correctly. I searched the prisoner, and
• iund upon him a 20/. Bank of England note, dated 9t',
January, 1847, No. 76,588 ; a 101. note, No. 56,889,
dated 10th May, 1847 ; an a 10/. note, No. 46,106.
101 March, 1847 ; and a receipt for 271. for a horse ;
the form of a prommissory note for 300/., payable to
Miss Burdett Coutts ; a six-shilling bill stamp, and a
duplicate for a gold pin.
The prisoner, who, it was stated, had been prosecuting
legal studies with the intention of being called to the
bar, was then fully committed for trial for the forgery.
No attempt was made to prove that he had had any
dealings in horses at Smithfield.
GUILDHALL.
The Justice room was crowded with members of build-
ing societies, to hear the examination of Bari! Henry
Strongsberg, the manager of the Fifty Pound Building
Club, in Victoria-street, and the Times Building So
ciety, held at the Guildhall Coffee-house. The prisoner
was on this occasion defended by two solicitors, Mr.
Lewis and a clerk from Mr. Humphrey's office.
Mr. Digby said, he appeared to prosecute on behalf of
three societies. He had laid the evidence already be-
fore the magistrate in two cases. In one of them he
(defendant) was entrusted by the treasurer to pay a sum
of money into the banker's next day ; he did not, and
took his passage to America. He was taken from the
steam-boat. In the other case he had shown that a
member paid 71. 10s. to him as an officer of the Society,
which he had not accounted for, but had absconded.
There were other similar cases. He understood 'here
might be much difficulty in procuring a conviction„"and
that a prosecution might lead to much litigatioricand
expense, which the building societies did not feel `is-
posed to incur. Without, therefore, withdravving- or
pressing the charge, he begged to leave the matter wholly
in the hands of the magistrate.
A gentleman who appeared for the Guarantee Sogiety,
begged it to be understood that he had not favoured the
withdrawal of the charge. The society desired that,who-
ever was guilty of dishonesty should be duly punished.
Mr. Alderman IlucuEs desired the evidence preitiously
)1( `, be - td.

taken to be reau.
The evidence applying to the payment of 71..16. was
read.
Mr. Humphrey's clerk contended that thertOvas not
the least ground here for any prosecution. was not
authorised to receive the money ; and if he 144 been the
period for accounting had not come round` ivhich was
the monthly meeting night, and he was not chargeable
with not accounting.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES remarked that jet he had suc-
ceeded in getting off to America, he cod not have re-
turned in time to account. The intention not to account
was plain enough.
Mr. Humphrey's clerk suggested Otero must be proof
of not accounting at the proper tinae. He might have
left the money for the society with a4riend.—(A laugh.)
The ALDERMAN said he felt that, there was no ground
for this bold assertion, that the Fisoner had committed
no offence. It was proved to latm that the society was
enrolled under the Benefit Siitileties Act, and by that
Act any officer having in his,or her possession any sum
of money belonging to suck: society, and fraudulently
withholding the same, may* ordered to pay double the
sum so fraudulently withheld, or be committed to hard
labour for three months,—
Mr. Lewis submitte4 there was clearly no offence in
the matter. His clieltilad duly entered in the societ3's
books every farthing, and that was accounting, though
he did not hand over: the money. He cited a case where
the judges held .that a party was not indictable for
embezzlement in ouch a state of circumstances.
Mr. Aldermalf-HuoirEs HuGHEs had no doubt that
any servant who accounted in writing, but kept the
money, was .indictable in some form. Somebody was
injured in the present case, either the member who had
to pay his subscription over again, or the society, who
were defrrided of the money.
Mr. liiimphrey's clerk—The prisoner's conduct might
be molly wrong. and yet not legally criminal.
MNAlderman HUGHES HUGHES said he considered
theie societies had a beneficial operation. The working
classes ought to be encouraged in purchasing houses
when opportunities offered, paying for them, by means
of these societies, by instalments spread over a number
of years, and they should have all the protection he
could give them. But he believed the law had been ren-
dered doubtful by the conflicting opinions of counsel,
delivered on cases prepared by the building societies on
another point, but which incidentally affected such mat-
ters as the present. He inquired the amount of the
prisoner's deficiencies.
Mr. Dighy said he believed they would reach 100/.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES HUGHES, after some desul-
tory conversation, remanded the prisoner for a week, to
see whether the money would be forthcoming at the

prover time, and whether any other evic'en3e could be
adduced.

The 'prisoner was then remanded. so all
By the 4th section 01 the Building Societies Act, A
the provisions" of the two Benefit Societies Acts. ‘-
far as the same, or any part thereof, may be applies!?
ee
li
t) the purpose of any Building Society, and to b
framing, certifying, enrolling, and altei tug the ru
thereof, shall extend and apply to such benefit building
society and the rules thereof."
By the Benefit Societies Acts, such societies have the
option of placing the money in the funds, or in a savingosi
bank, or with the Sinking Fund Commissioners, or
loaning it out on the security of real property. 13Y11„
other clause, no instrument or document whatever, tult'"t
rised to be taken or made by the society, is to be sukr-
to stamp duty.
of
The building societies expected the 4th sotioll
their Act gave them the benefit of this exemptionr:
their mortgages. The Government, however, requ•if
the duty. The opinion of Mr. Tyrell, of Lincoln's it
was taken by the societies, and he thought that all the
was obtained by the 4th clause was so much as aPPlir
to framing and certifying the rules, for he said it
gll5
the
a
necessary to mention the rules, particularly -11 the
brovisions of the benefit societies were extended t°
uilding societies. The opinion of seven counsel 'leo,
taken, three were for the exemption from mortgage,uues
and four against it. If, however, the building eTetilje.
have no other advantages from enrolment under Wino
nefit Societies Acts than Mr. Tyrell allows, theYTie
the advantage of punishing their officers for fraud- doe.
property of the society is that of a partnership, isol'A by
not rest in the treasurer, nor can they sue or be so v`" •
their trustee or treasurer.