The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-17 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE.
STEALING A. CHEQUE.—Yesterday a young man
named Alfred Cummins, the son of a master baker re-
siding at Hampstead, was placid at the bar before Mr.
Long for final examination, charged with having stolen
a cheque for Si. upon Straban and Co., bankers.
From what transpired upon the former and present
occasions, it appeared that on the 31st ult. Elizabeth
Moody, cook to Captain Hamilton, Downshire-hill,
Hampstead, received from her master for wages and
other monies due to her a cheque for the above amount.
She went to the house of the prisoner's father, who
served the family, in order to get it cashed, when she
saw Mrs. Cusramins, who was not able just then to ac-
commodate her. She left the house, when the prisoner
whom she bad seen in the shop, followed her and having
offered to obtain change for her she gave up the said
cheque to him, but saw no more of him until he was
taken into custody on Thursday, 9th instant, by a con-
stable of the S division, who found upon him several so
vereigns and time silver. The cheque was produced, and
it was shown that the prisoner had on the day he ob-
tained it received cash fur it from Mr. Avann, landlord
of the King of Bohemia, Hampstead, and who had paid
it in the course of business to a collector belonging to the
firm of Barclay and Co., the brewers.—The prisoner was
committed for trial.
EXTENSIVE ROBBERY.—George Alexander Cooper was
charged with having stolen paintings and other property
of different descriptions to the amount of 401., belonging
to Mr. Theodore Richards, residing at 5, Bowling-street,
near this court.]
The evidence, which was but briefly gone into, was to
the effect that the prisoner had been employed at the
house to do some paperhanging. &c., and that after he
had completed his job, and left, the property in question
was misral. He (prisoner) was ultimately captured,
and in his possession was found a duplicate relating to a
pipe, which prosecutor swore to as being his.
In order to afford time for further inquiry the prisoner
was remanded for a week.
Daniel Gsey was further examined on a charge of
having stolen a scarf, value 305., the property of a per-
son named Davis.
It appeared that the prisoner, who had watched for a
favourable opportunity, ran into the shop, No.l, Princess-
street, Portman-market, when he snatched up the article,
which was at the lower end of the counter, and made off
with it. He was pursued, and then got clear off, but was
afterwards taken into custody while in the company of
a number of well known thieves. The prisoner had upon
a former °cession been convicted of felony.
The Magistrate sent him to Newgate for trial.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
CHARGE OF CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD.—Mrs. Raba%
off erwise Knight, of Arabella-row, Pimlico, and Jernsyn-
street, brush and sponge dealer, was brought before Mr.
Biegham, to undergo another examination, on a charge
of having derranded Mr. Mark Davis, sponge merchant,
of Duke•street, Aldgate, of about 50/. worth of sponges.
The charge was, in the first instance, attempted to be
made one of forgery and felony; but as the evidence did
not sustain it, the case yesterday was brought forward in
the form of a charge of conspiracy.
Mr. Huddlestone was for the prosecution, and Mr.
Austin for the prisoner.
Mr. BINGPIAM asked Mr. Huddlestone how he proposed
to frame the indictment for conspiracy.
Mr. Huddlestone said the indictment would run in
this firm—that the prisoner, with other parties, by un-
due means and devices, conspired to defraud certain
tradesmen of their goods, and among others the prose-
cutor Mark Davis. The prisoner had made two false
representations in order to obtain goods. First, o.ihe re-
presented herselr to be Mrs. Knight, the ownellsf the
two shops, whereas her former husband, Knig t, had
been dead for some years, and she was married to a per-
son named Habett; next, that her daughter, a girl of
about sixteen years of age, was her agent, placed in the
shop in Jermyn-street by herself, and accountable to her.
The plaintiff, Davis, believing that he was dealing with
Mrs. Knight, the owner of the two shops, furnished
goods to the amount of 501., and took a bill at four
months' date, which bill was accepted by the daughter
for her mother. The bill was dishonoured, and when
proceedings were about to be taken plaintiff encoun-
tered this dilemma:—The daughter said, "If you sue
me, I shall plead my minority;" and the mother said,
"-It you proceed against me, I shall plead coverture."
Mr. Austin said he had a sufficient answer to the
charge if the magistrates would allow him to examine
Mr. Davis as to the particulars of the transaction.
Mr. Mark Davis said he called at the shop in Arabella-
row, where the name of Knight was over the door, and
he showed the prisoner samples of his goods. The pri-
soner said she could take some, but could not pav cash
down. Plaintiff said he did not mind giving three or
four months' credit provided he had a satisfactory refer-
ence. The prisoner then gave him a card, with the
name of Knight upon it, and referred him to Messrs.
Howell and James, of Regent-street. Plaintiff called
on Mr. Howell, and was so satisfied with the reference
that he called again on the prisoner, and told her she
might have goods on credit. The prisoner came to his
warehouse, in Duke-street, and took away 501. worth of
sponges. Plaintiff afterwards called on her, with a bill
of exchange, and the prisoner sent him with it to her
other shop, in Jermyn-street, with a message that her
daughter there was to accept the bill for her. Plaintiff
asked the meaning of this, and the prisoner said it was
the way in which she usually did business; that
she kept on the shop in Jermyn-street because it was so
well known, and had been so long established.
Plaintiff went to Jermyn-street, accompanied by
a man whom he believed te be the shopman, and
there saw the daughter who said it was all right, and
that she would accept the bill for her mother. The
daughter accepted the bill, and wrote the name of F. M.
Knight. The bill was never paid. Plaintiff throughout
was led to believe be was dealing with Mrs. Knight, the
owner of the two shops. He would not have parted with
his goods in the way he did to the daughter nor to the
prisoner, had he known she was a married woman.
Mr. BINGHAM asked the solicitor if he did not think
he had extracted enough to show that the case ought to
be submitted to a jury? Mr Austin said he owned the
case, as stated by the plaintiff, did look like a fraud;
but he had evidence to disprove what bad been stated.
Mr. BINGHAM said it was not his province to try the
case. It was enough for him if prima facie evidence of
fraui was produced to send the case to a superior court.
Mr. Austin said he could prove that the plaintiff was
warned, if he took a bill accepted in the name of
Knight, that it would not be paid.
Nlr. BINGHAM—And do you say that after this the
plaintiff was venturesome enough to take it? Mr. Aus-
tin—Yes.

Mr. BlNGHAM—Considering the plaintiff's persuasion
and the ordinary habits of mercantile men, I am of opi-
nion that such a circumstance is so wholly out of the
course of nature and probability, that I shall be doing
right to send the case before a jury.
The depositions were ordered to be taken on Monday
next.

There are a great number of similar cases against the
prisoner.

CLERKEIV WELL.
A HEARTLESS VAQABOND.—John Barrymore„a felloW
of Jewish appearance, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Tyrwhitt, charged by Mr. John Elliott, of No. 4, York
Cottages, Downham-road, Islington, with the following
heartless and impudent robbery:--
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Elliott that he
held a situation in the Accountant's office of Excise.
On Wednesday morning, about eight o'clock, he pro-
ceeded thither in order to attend to his duties, when he
observed the prisoner following him. About half-past
ten o'clock, his brother-in-law and some friends drove
up in a cabriolet to the Excise-office, tieing very
much excited and alarmed, and inquired for him,
and making his appearance, he shook bands with
them, and was surprised at their sudden and
unexpected visit, when his brother-in-law ex-
pressed his astonishment, and exclaimed, " Good
Godl are you alive and well? We thought you were
killed! Have you not been run over by an omnibus?"
Witness manifested equal astonishment, and inquired the
reason why they put such questions, assuring them that
he was never better in all his life, and was free from
accident. He was then informed that his wife and
daughter were almost heart-broken at having received
intelligence that he had been knocked down and run
over by an omnibus in Bishopsgate•street, and his wife
had accompanied them in the cabriolet. He instantlyjgot
into the vehicle and . returned to his residence, when
they arrivel just in time to meet the prisoner, who
caused all this excitement and alarm, coming from the
house with a large bundle of clothes, which he had ob-
tained from Miss Elliott, his daughter, under a false
pretence, when he was given into custody and taken to
the station-house. It appeared that after the prisoner
had followed and watched Mr. Elliott to the Excise-
office he paid a visit to his house, and informed his wife
and daughter that he bad been run over by an omnibus
in Biehopsgate-street, and nearly killed, and he was
a.nxious to see her (\lrs. Elliott) immediately. She ac-
cordingly started off instanter, having thauksd the pri-
soner for ha kindness and trouble. He subsequently
called again at the house, and saw Miss Elliott, fourteen
years of age, whom he told that her father had desired
him to request her to send him a coat, waistcoat,
trousers, and boots, which she was to wrap up in a silk
handkerchief. She could not find a handkerchief', but
she handed them to the prisoner, and he left the house
with the property. She saw no more of him until her
father came home with her uncle and her mother, when
they met the prisoner who was recognised by her mother,
who gave him into custody.
Miss Louisa Margaret Elliott, the daughter,confirmed
this evidence, and identified the prisoner.
Mr. TYRWRITT said it was a most heartless transac-
tion, and he should commit the prisoner for trial; he
cautioned him that he was not bound to say anything, if
he did, it would be taken down in writing, and might be
used for or against him at hii trial.
The prisoner, who seemed rather chap-fallen, reserved
his defence.

the prisoner on Sunday evening, she said she had burned
sevoral rnln}inn• t-, •-r1- ;': -
Utlci
her house on the 6th iustant, leaving her infant chil-
dren entirely helpless, she herself being absent from the
house at the time, without giving her any notice, and she
never saw her again until she was in custody. On look.
ing over the house she missed silver table spoons, des-
sert spoons, tea spoons, a toast rack, forks, and, from
the closet, a quantity of plated articles, with wearing
app,rel from her drawers.
The property was found pledged in York-street,
Westminster, and High-street, Kensington.
Thompson said the prisoner admitted having destroyed
the duplicates relating to the property in question.
In answer to the Court,
Mrs. Cooke said that she had received a character
from the prisoner's family, which is very respectable, in
the neighbourhood.
Thompson said the prisoner had been convicted of
felony on a former occasion.
The prisoner declined saying anything in her de.
fence, and she was fully committed to Newgate on both
charges.