The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-30 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, THIIII.SDAY EVENING, JULY 30, 1846.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTERN CMCWP.—Preter, jay 2t.
The commission for this county was opened here ot
Saturday by Mr. Justice Brie and Mr: Baton Platt.
On Sunday both the !mimed jutiges attended divine
service at the Cathedral.
The husincsg of the assizes commenced this morning,
JUstice Erie presiding in the Nisi Prius Court, and
Mr. Baron Platt in the Crown Court, The business is
rather heavy, there being 27 causes entered for trial, of
which six are Marked for special juries.
The calendar is heavy, there being 52 prisoners for
trial, and itlany of the charges against them are of a
Seriotts nttture. They may thus be classed:—Manslaugh-
ter, 4 ; rape, 2 ; arson, 4 ; unnatural, 1 ; assault with
intent, 1 ; shooting with intent to murder, 1 ; burglary,
10 ; sheep stealing, 4 ; horse stealing, 1 ; bigamy, 1 ;
false pretences, 1 ; embezzlement, 2 ; larceny, 20. Of
these only 5 can read and write well, 27 imperfectly, 16
!Tither read nor write, and of 4 there is no account.
CROWN COURT.
BEFORE MR. BARON PLATT.

them to be impounded in order that they might be pro-
duced oh any future occasion if they were required.
James Brooker, the constable of West Grinstead, was
then called, and he deposed that in April, 1845, the
prisoner, whom he had previously known, came to his
house, and after some conversation had taken place
between them, he made a charge of a certain descrip-

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MAN SION- HO US E.
Yesterday a great deal of interest was excited by the
examination of a yonne man, named John Puce Hum-
phrey, who was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged
with having uttered a forged acce stance, purporting to
be the acceptance of Hugh Stamftsd, Esq.. for 181. 18s.,
there being no such person as Hugh Stamford, Esq., in
existence.
Mr. Vyner, solicitor, of Ironmonger Hall, attended for
the prosecution, and a solicitor, appared for the prisoner.
Mr. R. Knight, clerk to Mr. D. Birkett, jun., of Bill-
court, Mincing-lane, wine-merchant, stated that, on the
11th of March' he received from the prisoner the bill of
exchange produced, dated 7th of March, drawn by him
and purporting to be accepted by Hugh Stamford, Esq.,
Ivy-cottage, Hampton Wick, and made payable two
months after date, at 78, Park-street, Grosvenor-square.
The prisoner endorsed the bill in presence of witness,
who received it on behalf of his employer, in part pay-
ment for goods sold, either wine or guano. When the
bill became due, witness sent a letter directed to Hugh
Stamford, Esq., Ivy-cottage Hampton Wick, Middlesex,
but the letter was returned, endorsed "no such person
of that name at Ivy-cottage."
Upon his cross-examination the witness said he could
not swear that he received the identical bill from the
prisoner, for he had received a great many bills on that
very day, but he believed that such was the case. It
was certainly paid into the house.
The prisoner's solicitor—There is no question as to
its heine: uaid into the house.
Mr. Vyner, solicitor to Mr. Birkett, jun., then gave
evidence—He had, in consequence of instructions from
Mr. Birkett, applied to tin alleged acceptor for payment,
and upon the return of the letter unopened, he went to
Ivy Cottage, but could get no information about
Hugh Stamford, Esq., either there or from the postmen
or some old inhabitants of the place. 'I he prisoner, he
learned, was known in the neighbourhood, having dealt
in guano and other articles there.
The prisoner's solicitor said he could prove that the
acceptance was no forgery; that it was in the hand-
writing of Mr. Hugh Stamford.
Mr. Arthur Burke, clerk to a solicitor, proved that he
knew a gentleman of the name of Hugh Stamford, and
swore via; the acceptance was in the handwriting of
Mr. Stamford, who was what was formerly called
a sharebroker, but what was now called a stag.—
(Laughter.) Witnes: knew the prisoner, but had never
done business with him. Mr. Hugh Stamford went by
the name of Thorn in London, and Stamford in the
country. Witness took persons to him who wanted to
sell scrip letters, and get a commission upon the
business. " I never," said he, " work without being
paid for it." I have an impression that his name
was Thorn. Before this business, my impression
was that his bond fide name was Stamford, but
now my impression is that his name is Thorn. When I
introduced parties to him for the sale of letters, the
name of' Thorn was on the counting-house door. I al-
ways treated Mr. Stamford as the principal. There was
a grey-headed man there whom I considered to be his
clerk.

Lien against Mr. Percy Burrell, and at the same time
said he would make him pay dearly fur what he had
done. _ _ _ _

Mr. Baron PARKE said that this evidence did not
carry the case any further. The statute, in his opinion,
only applied where the charge was made directly to the
person accused of the offence, and that it would not do
where it was made to a third party. He would, how-
ever, take the opinion of Dir. Justice Coltman upon the

point.
His Lordship accordingly retired to the other court
to confer with his learned brother, and upon his return
he said that Mr. Justice Coltman concurred with him in
the opinion that the present indictment against the
prisoner, as principal, could not be supported, and that
the course that ought to have been adopted was to indict
Bowyer as the principal and the defendant as an ac•
cessory before the fact. The prisoner must therefore be
acquitted on the present indictment ; but he should
order him to be detained, so that another indictment,
charging him as an accessory before the fact, might be
pref.: rred against him at the next assizes.
Mr. Wishaw inquired whether the Court would give
any directions with regard to Bowyer.
Mr. Baron PARKE said he should make no order with
regard to him. Tne parties would proceed in the ordi-
nary way before the Magistrates.
Mr. Bodkin said that the grand jury had returned a
bill against Bowyer and the prisoner Steer, for con-
spiracy, and he now applied to the Court to fix the
amount of bail to be entered into by the defendant
Bowyer.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that the amount must be larger
than in an ordinary case, and the defendant Bowyer
must enter into his own recognisance in 2001., and find
too sureties in 1001. each, and give 48 hours' notice to
the prosecutor's attorney, in order that the sufficiency of
the bail might be inquired into.
Boyer, who had been in Court during the trial of the
other defendant, was then called upon to plead, and.
having pleaded not guilty, he was ordered into custody.

James Hill was indicted for having feloniously stolen
a ram, the property of William Manning. There was a
second count charging him with killing the same with
intent to steal the carcase.

Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Cox de-
fended the prisoner.
From the evidence adduced on the part of the prose-
cution, it appeared that the prosecutor was a farmer, re-
siding at East Ansty, in this county. On the 3d of May
last, his shepherd saw his flock of sheep safe in a field
near to a road, but on going to the field on the morning of
the 4th, he found the gate of the field unhung, and one of
the flock (a ram sheep) missing. Upon this the prose-
cutor went to his field, and on examination found tracks
of where the sheep had been caught and killed. Tracks
of blood were then found, together with the footsteps of
a man, leading along the road towards a cottage where
the prisoner lived, and one drop of blood was found on
the stairs in front of the cottage door. A search-war-
rant being obtained, the house of the prisoner was
searched, and in a jut in the cupboard some ram's mut-
ton fat was found, and also two pieces of mutton. Fur-
ther examination of the premises being made, tracks of a
man's footstep were found leading from the back of the
cottage across the garden into a ploughed field, and
over the hedge into a furze brake, and under a furze
bush was found a bag containing about thirty pounds'
weight of mutton, which had been recently killed,
and which appeared to be ram's mutton. Of this
one piece matched exactly with one of the pieces
found in the cottage, and a witness was called,
who identified the bag in which the mutton was
found as a bag belonging to the prisoner, and which had
been left at his master's house by the prisoner for some
days. The constable who apprehended the prisoner
also proved that one of the marks of the footsteps found
where the sheep was killed corresponded with a track
made by the boots which the prisoner wore, and was
also precisely similar with the track which led to the
furze hush from the prisoner's cottage.
Mr. Cox then addressed the jury for the prisoner, and
Mr. Baron PLATT having summed up, the jury found
the prisoner Guilty.
A former conviction for felony was then proved
against him, and he was sentenced to be transported for
ten years.
This is the only case worthy of report in the Crown
Court, and nothing of the slightest public interest has
been taken at Nisi Prius.

The LORD MAYOR said the witness just examined
had proved the ca,:e for the prosecution. Mr. Thorn
was the acceptor of the bill.
The prisoner's solicitor submitted that it was clearly
shown that his client had committed no offence. Mr.
Hugh Stamford, as the prisoner knew the gentleman, was
the acknowledged acceptor of the bill.
The LORD MAYOR—Produce your other witness.
Mr. Herbert Wall, of No. 4, Cross Keys-square,
Little Britain, was then called for the prisoner. He said,
lam now out of business. I was in the wine trade some
years ago. I know a Mr. Hugh Stamford. I knew him
when he resided at Chapel-place, Poultry, and after-
wards at No. 21, Nelson-street, City-rOad. He is a dealer
in shares. I have seen him write many times. This
acceptance is his. I have known him by the names of
Stamford and Thorn promiscuously.
Cross-examined by Mr. Vyner—l have seen him
write in the name of Thorn. I have seen him both ac-
cept and indorse bills in that name. He is now at Good-
wood races. He is a. sporting man, and has been very
fortunate this year on the Derby. Ido not know that
he had any christian name, for he was never baptised.
The prisoner's solicitor said the evidence of Mr. Wall
confirmed the fact of his client's innocence. If it pleased
Mr. Stanford, he might have gone in the name of Thomas
Williams, or John Thomas, but he accepted the bill in
the name by which he is known to Mr. Humphrey.
There was no pretence for saying that the prisoner had
uttered a forgery.
Mr. Wall's cross examination was continued—Mr.
Hugh Stamford first came up to London in the name of
Thorn. I was not aware that he then used another
name, but he came to my office as a clerk in the name of
James Thorn. I was then a wine-merchant in !Tart
street, Mark-lane. It was seven or etsht years ago.
He was with me seven or eight years ago about a couple
of years. I have known him, in the share market both
as Hugh Stamford and Thorn. He took a manor in
Kent last year, and I always addressed letters to him
then as Hugh Stamford. I called upon him in Chapel-
place. He went by the name of Thorn in London, and
by that of Stamford in the country. I have addressed
letters to him at Lurbiton and Hampton Wick in the lat-
ter name. They were letters which I re-addressed or
put in an envelope, which had been t-ent to his country
house in the name of Thorns or Thorne Brothers.
Never -received' any letters from him from Hampton
Wick; The lindlOrd took possession of the`- premises I
believe, for rent, either in December 1844 or 1845.
The body of the bill is one in my handwriting. I drew
it at 78, Park-street, Grosvenor-square.
The LORD MAYOR—Knowing that he went by two
names, did you not ask in which he intended to accept ?
Witness—The prisoner asked me to draw the bill, and
I did so by his dictation. I put the address, Ivy Cot-
tage, Hampton Wick, by the prisoner's direction. and I
saw Mr. Stamford sign the bill in the prisoner's pre-
sence. I did not see any money pass at the time.
The LORD MAYOR—And you knew at the time that
bill was accepted in the name of Stamford, that it was
accepted by your old clerk Thorn ? Witness--I did. I
knew him in both names. I heard him say that he was
not baptised, and that he might take any name he
pleased.—(A laugh.)
The prisoner's solicitor said it was quite impossible
that after what had been stated his client could be sup.
posed to be guilty of having uttered a forged acceptance.
The LORD MAYOR said he should remand the case till
Saturday, and refused to take bail for the appearance of
the prisoner. His Lordship directed that Mr. Wall and
Mr. Burke, the witnesses, should attend upon the next
examination.

HOME CIRCUIT, Lewes, Tuesday, July 28.

The Commission for Sussex was opened on-Monday.
The calendar and cause list are both very light, there
being only twenty prisoners for trial, and fourteen com-
mon jury causes on the civil side.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.).

Daniel Steer, 28, was indicted under the statute, for
having feloniously threatened to charge Percy Burrell
with having committed a felonious assault, with the in-
tent thereby to extort money from him.
Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Johnson con-
ducted the prosecution. The prisoner had no counsel.
Mr. CLARKSON stated the case for the prosecution,
and the circumstances appeared to be of rather an ex-
traordinary character. The prosecutor is the eldest son
of Sir C. Burrell, M.P., and is also related to the family
of Colonel Wyndham. The defendant is the son of one
of the lodge-keepers to Colonel Wyndham, and the
transaction which led to the present prosecution was re-
presented to have taken place in Paris three or four
years ago. It appeared that Mr. Percy Burrell had
been travelling on the Continent, and while at Paris met
the prisoner, who introduced himself to him as having
formerly been connected with the establishment of Col.
Wyndham ; and, upon his representing himself to be in
distress, Mr. Burrell gave him a small sum of money to
help him home, and soon after this a person named
Bowyer, who acted as an attorney at Petworth, made a
communication to the solicitor of Sir C. Burrell, as from
the prisoner, to the effect of charging Mr. Percy Burrell
with the offence in question, and it appeared that upon the
prisoner being subsequently confined in gaol upon
another cause, he confessed to the chaplain that the
charge against Mr. Percy Burrell was without founda-
tion, and that he had been instigated to make it by Mr.
Bowyer for the purpose of extorting money from Sir C.
Burrell. Mr. Clarkson, in the course of his address, said
that of course all along the family had scorned any idea
of compromise, and the moment they obtained the neces-
sary evidence, they instituted proceedings against the
defendant, and also against Mr. Bowyer, but he at the
same time told the jury that there was reason to doubt
the truth of the story told by the prisoner as to Mr.
Bowyer having been the original instigator of the of-
fence; and as the share taken by that person Li the
transaction would no doubt have to be investigated by
another jury, who would form their own opinion upon
the evidence that would be adduced, he should refrain
from saying anything that might prejudice that inquiry,
and would merely observe that doubt was entertained
whether the prisoner told the truth when he stated that
Mr. Bowyer was the person who incited him to make the
charge. The Learned Counsel having concluded his ad-
dress, the following evidence was adduced:—
The Rev. Mr. Langshawe deposed that he was chap-
lain at the Petworth gaol. He remembered the prisoner
being brought there to undergo a sentence of six months'
imprisonment. Shortly after the prisoner came into the
gaol he made a communication to him in reference to
the charges he had made against Mr. Percy Burrell, and
ultimately, after having been cautioned with regard to
the serious effect of the admissions he had made, he per-
sisted in them, and witness took his statement down in
writing, and the prisoner signed it, and the same paper
he now produced.
The statement was then put in and read. It was of
great length, and commenced by a solemn declaration
that the charge he had made against Mr. Percy Burrell
was utterly false, and a most wicked fabrication. He
then went on to give a detailed statement of the share
Mr. Bowyer had in the transaction, and asserted that he
had first instigated him to make the charge, assuring him
that it would be the means of getting a large sum of
money from the Burrell family, and sufficient to make
them both " gentlemen." He also declared in the state-
ment that Mr. Bowyer had written letters for him to
copy as from Mr. Percy Burrell, in the feigned name of
John Smith, and that, in fact, all he had done was by his
advice and instigation. The prisoner likewise admitted
that nothinc, more took place at Paris between him and
Mr. Burrell,' except that he received 15 francs from him,
upon his representing to him that he was in great dis-
tress, to assist him to return to England.
Mr. C. Coppard deposed that he was a solicitor at
Horsham, and acted as the local agent and attorney for
Sir C. Burrell. In the month of January, 1845, he
was at Petworth, when Mr. Bowyer made a communi-
cation to him, and afterwards handed to him two letters
which be now produced.
Mr. CLARKSON called upon Mr. Bowyer to produce
the letters in question, and he did so; and they were
handed to Mr. Straight and read as evidence.
The first letter was dated Paris, December 23, 1844;
and the second, December 29, in the same year, and the
latter distinctly made the charge against Mr. Burrell
referred to in the indictment.
Mr. Coppard's examination was then proceeded with
—He said that Mr. Bowyer also produced a third letter,
signed " John Smith," which he represented to be the
name assumed by Mr. Percy Burrell in his communica-
tion with the prisoner. He also asked witness if he was
sufficiently acquainted with Colonel Wyndham to get
an interview with him, and be told him he was not. Mr.
Bowyer then asked him if he knew Mr. Percy Burrell,
and he replied that he did, but not intimately. Witness
communicated what had taken place to Mr. Walter
Burrell, the brother of Mr. Percy, and subsequently had
an interview with Sir C. Burrell.

Mr. JOHNSON asked the witness whether at this inter-
view anything was said by Mr. Bowyer about the um
of 1,000/. ?

Mr. Coppard said he did not recollect that any par-
ticular sum was mentioned, but Mr. Bowyer said that
the matter was one of very great importance, and the
sooner something was done to hush it up the better. Tie
also suggested the propriety of his being aunt to Paris
to see Mr. Percy Burrell, and he said that he thought
Sir Charles had better entrust him with some money,
and he believed the sum mentioned was 1,0001. Ile also
said that if when he saw Mr. Burrell at Paris he was
not provided with sufficient money of his own, he (Mr.
Bowyer) would propose to advance the money out of his
own pocket, and would take his note of hand or pro-
missory note for the amount, which he would endorse to
Sir C. Burrell upon his return to England, for him to
hold as security against his son. Witness mentioned the
proposition to Sir C. Burrell, omitting that portion of it
respecting the advance of the money, which he was
quite sure would not be agreed to, or even listened to,
and Sir Charles repudiated it altogether, and said he
did not believe the charge, and he would not give the
tenth part of a farthing to hush it up, and the whole
matter should, on the contrary, be fully investigated if
any charge was made. The witness then stated that
Mr. Bowyer distinctly represented that the letter signed
John Smith was written by Mr. Percy Burrell.
Mr. Baron PARKE here interposed, and expressed an
Bowyer
re
awndasthme
opinion that upon the evidence as it stood at present,
Bo
sodoel3o.usthtaorebtehothperispornienrciappapl
eianrothdetotrhaanvse-
acttaken was that of accessory before the fact.
Mr. Bornarf said
that the case for the prosecution
was, that the prisoner's statements with regard to his
being instigated by Bowyer, were all false, and that he
had merely acted as his agent.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that did not alter the facts.
The charge was made by Bowyer by the production of
the letters, and he also suggested the advance of money
to enable him to go to Paris, as he said, to hush up the
business ; and if the evidence amounted to anything it
made him a principal.
Mr. CLARKSON explained that a difficulty had been
thrown in the way of the prosecution by the letters being
withheld by Mr. Bowyer until that moment. As it was
uncertain, therefore, as to the course that-might be taken,
he begged to apply to the Court to order the letters and
all the other documents that had been produced, to be
impounded.
Mr. Baron roxE laid certainly he should 9rder