The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-21 00:00:00

The magistrate refused to take bail to any amount for
,he prisoner.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
On Friday George Binford, a young man who had
been in the employment of Mr. Bassett, or Wood- stree.,
warehouseman, was brought before Alderman Gibbs for
final examination, charg-d with having embezzled about
6001., the property of his employer. The prisoner had
been in the house for a considerable time, and the
greatest confidence had been reposed in him; he had
been lat ly appointed cashier.
Mr. Hobler attended for the prosecution, and Mr.
Clarkson, the barrister, and Mr. Humphreys attended
for the prisoner.
Mr. George Burford, linendraper, of Stratford, in
Essex, stated that on the 15th of November he was in-
debted to Mr. Bassett in the sum of 11/. 13s. for goods
sold, on which day he called at the warehouse and paid
the prisoner the amount in gold and silver, and got a re-
ceipt, signed by the prisoner, for the same.
Mr. William Waterhouse, linendraper, of Chipping '
Ongar, Essex, stated that he dealt with Mr. Bassett, and
was indebted to him, on the 7th of July, the sum of 291.
145., which on that day he handed over to the prisoner
on account.
Mr. G. T. Staines, linendraper, of Romford, in Essex,
stated that on the Ist of last January he paid at Mr.
Bassett's warehouse, to a person who, to the best of his
knowledge and belief, was the prisoner, the sum of 241.,
for goods sold by Mr. Bassett, and on the 11th of June
he paid, at the same place, the sum of 91. ls. to the pri-
soner on the like account.
The receipts were here produced by the witness.
Mr. T. Samuel, assistant to his father, a linendraper,
of No. 2, New Bridge-street, Vauxhall, stated that on
the 12th of March, he paid to the prisoner 131. for goods
sold by Mr. Bassett. He produced the prisoner's receipt.
Mr. John Swinford Bassett affirmed that the prisoner
had been in his service between five and six years as
clerk, and latterly as cashier, in which capacity he was
authorised to receive money from the customers, which
it was his duty to enter in the cash-book and to pay over
to witness, who had examined that book and found that
not one of the sums mentioned by the preceding wit-
nesses were entered there, although they were in the
ledger. The prisoner had not paid over any of the
money to witness. who, on the 9th instant, having reason
to suspect him told him so, and then the prisoner said,
"I am guilty. I have been robbing you." Subse-
quently the prisoner said the amount of his plunder had
been, he believed, 6001.
The prisoner was upon these several charges com-
mittted for trial.
FORGERY OF STOCK IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND.—
A man named Joseph Jones was brought before Mr.
Alderman Gibbs, in the custody of Daniel Forrester,
charged with having forged a transfer of stock, which
was deposited in the names of George Edwards and his
wife. Forrester received the warrant for the apprehen-
sion of the prisoner at a quarter past five o'clock, traced
him to Greenwich immediately, and placed him at the
bar at a quarter before seven o'clock.
Mr. Henry Freshfield, of the firm of Freshfield and
Co., solicitors, to the Bank of EngIand,LAMBETH. stated that the SINGULAR DELUSioN.—Mrs. Susan Lawrence, the
sum of 31. 10s. per annum, standing in the Long Annul-
wife of a compositor in the employment of Messrs.
ties in the namer of George Edwards and his wife had Clowes and Sons,.o of Duke-street, Lambeth, appeared
been taken out by the prisoner, who represented George
Edward,, with whose wife he lived, and for that purpose before Mr. E on_ a warraiit charging her with
threatening the life of Mr. Powell, an egg-tnerchant.
forged the name of Mr. Edwards.
The complainant stated that in consequence of several
A clerk at the Transfer Office of the Bank proved
c'rculated throu hout th ;
„rn_ erous reports 1 _ g_ _ e ne.gbour-
that the transfer of the stock had been made.
,hood against him by the defendant, Airs. Lawrence, he,

spirituous liquors, so that, in fact, a magistrate could not
enforce the penalties for the second conviction--the
clause would- thus be inconsistent. Under these cir-

cumqtances, it was quite clear that the clause could not
be held to apply to licensed victuallers, but only to beer-
shop keepers. The powers given by this section were
calculated to inflict great injustice ; even the Police Act
contained no such clause. There was one instance in
which the police had entered the house of a most re•
spectable licensed victualler, at night, and had actually
obliged him and his family to turn out of bed in order
that they might search the house.
Mr. BURRELL said he had paid the greatest attention
to the argument that had been used, which was very
ingenious, but not strong enough to overrule the express
words made use of in the first part of the section. If,
however, Mr. Duncombe's client was desirous of dtpeal-
ing, he would inflict a fine above 31., in order that the
appeal might be made under the Police Act.
Mr. Duncombe said his client was not rich enough to
desire the expense of an appeal.
Mr. BURRELL then fined the defendant 10s., which
was not enforced.

A witness was called, who denied the statement of the
officer.

The officer said Mr. Vince, the inspector of the
market, had said it was extreme cruelty to force the ani-
mals to walk at all. They were labouring under a
disease of the lungs. The witness said this was very
prevalent ; at least twenty beasts a week in that state
were taken into the market, and witness had caused
several to be killed.
The worthy Alderman fined the boy ss. and costs, and
the father 10s. and costs.
BOW-STREET.
George Neats, a lad in the employ of Mr. Moseley, a
gold beater, in High- street, Bloomsbury, was placed at the
bar before Mr. Henry, having been remanded from Mon-
day, charged on suspicion of stealing his " work," con-
sisting of 2 oz. 4 dwts. of gold ribbon, and the " work" of
a shopmate, amounting to a similar quantity.
Mr. Humphrey appeared for the prisoner.
The prosecutor's son, Mr. William Moseley, said that a
few days ago the prisoner left his work at the dinner
hour, with the other men and boys, but did not return
with them. In about an hour after the usual time he
came in, but was so tipsy that by witness's advice he
went away. After he was gone witness missed his work
(that is, the material that had been given him to work
upon), and thar of another lad. Each consisted of
2 oz, 4 dwts. of gold ribbon. •
Daniel Warner, the lad whose work had been lost,
said that as the prisoner was the only person who had
access to the place where witness's work was left, and
where he ought to have left his own, he must have
stolen it.

Mr. HENRY, without calling on Mr. Humphreys for
any defence, discharged the prisoner, saying that there
was no evidence to show that he had stolen the gold.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
George Lifitt, a working upholsterer, was charged by
Thomas Hird, 116, Oxford-street, with stealing 201bs.
of horse hair and 10 lbs. of wool, worth 20s.
The complainant had given out to the prisoner 20 lbs.
of horse hair and 10 lbs. of wool, with other materials,.
to make a sofa cushion and bolster, which were to be
returned on Thursday. The prisoner made excuse for
not having it finished that day, but promised it on
Friday. Several excuses were made that day, so that
his suspicions were excited, and he took a policeman
with him and went to the prisoner's house. He found
that the hair and wool were gone.
The defendant said he was in want of money, and
sold it, partly to Mr. Kettle, Union-street.
The MAGISTRATE ordered him to pay 205., the value
of the property, and 20s. for the felony, or go one month
to the House of Correction.
Ann Wilson, a well dressed young woman, was put to
the bar, charged with stealing a piece of silk out of the
shop of Mr. Nicholson, 240, Regent-street.
The complainant said, his attention was called to some
parties in his shop on Friday, by one of his assistants.
He ordered the young man to clear away the goods from
off the counter near them, and watch their movements.
The assistant, a short time after, intimated his
suspicions that one of them had lifted a
piece of goode, And was moving towards the door. The
complainant then stopped the woman at the bar as she
was walking down the shop, and accused her of having
something not her own, He immediately cleared away
the goods lying near theta on the counter, and then saw
a movement under cloak, anal when she stepped aside he
found a piece of silk lying on the floor where she had
stood.
Mr. HARDWICK —Did you see her take the silk?
Complainant—No.
Mr. HARDWICK—Did you see it fall from her?
Complainant—No, I could not; I saw a movement under
her cloak, and a bulk. I removed the goods on the
counter with my own hand, so that there might be no
doubt; nothing, therefore, could have dropped from the
counter.
The prisoner said the piece of silk dropped on the
floor, and she was about to pick it up when one of the
shopmen accused her of intending to steal it.
The complainant—She had already moved some way
down the shop with this bulk under her cloak.
Mr. HARDWICK sent the case for trial at the
sessions.

WESTMINSTER.
A question of some interest to licensed victuallers
arose before Mr. Burrell, upon a complaint made by the
police against D. Crow, the proprietor of the Three
Elms, St. Anne-street, Westminster. who was charged
with refusing to admit Police Sergeant Loom, and de-
taining him three minutes at the door. The question
which was raisc d by Mr. Duncombe, the solicitor to the
Licensed Victuallers' Social', was, how far the police
had a right of entry into the house of a licensed victualler?
Mr. Duncombe said, that this information was laid under
the 4th and sth of Will. 4, cap. 85, inti tied an Act to
amend an Act passed in the Ist of Will. 4, to permit the
general sale of beer or cider. The Act of I Will. 4
applied only to beer-shop keepers as appeared by the
preamble. By the 7th sec. of the 4 and 5 Will. 4, it
was enacted, that it should be lawful for constables and
police-officers to enter into all houses, which should be
licensed to sell beer or spirituous liquors, to be consumed
upon the promises, when and so often as such constables
or police-officers should think proper. and if any person
having such licence as aforesaid, or any servant in his
employ, should refuse to admit such police constable he
should for the first offence forfeit Si, and that it should
be lawful for any magistrate upon the second offence to
adjudge that such offender should be disqualified from
selling beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, for the space of
two years, or for such shorter time as the magistrate
should think fit.
Under these words it was contended that the Act
only applied to persons who sold beer, and not to those
who sold spirituous liquors, and had received their licence
under the 9th of Geo. 4, cap. 61, as licensed victuallers.
It was manifestly the intention of the Legislature to 'con-
fine the powers of entry given to the police by the 7th
section of the 4th and sth William IV., to those who
sold beer, cider, &c., and the words "spirituous liquors'
used in the first part of the section, must have been in-
serted by mistake ; this was evident by the latter part
of the section, where it was stated that upon a second
offence the magistrate should have power to disqualify
the offender from selling beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry.
No allusion was here made to spirituous liquors or wine.
Under these words the magistrate could have no power
to. deprive a licensed victualler of his license to se.

SOUTHWARK.
Mr. Thomas Babson, a merchant, residing in Three,
crown-square, Southwark, was brought before Mr.
Clive, charged with committing an assault on Charles
Brown, one of the railway constables belonging to the
South-Eastern Railway.
Charles Brown stated that he is a constable belonging
to the South-Eastern Company, and that at half-past
four o'clock that morning, on the arrival of the express
train from Dover, he ,collected the passengers' tickets.
The defendant being in a first-class carriage, he was
asked for his ticket, when he produced a second-class
one, and being informed that he had to ray 2s. more,
being a passenger from Tonbridge, he immediately paid
it, but refused to deliver up the ticket. He was told
that the ticket must be delivered, and informed of the
consequences if he did not ; but he still refused to do so.
Finding the defendant determined not to resign posses-
sion of the ticket, witness to'k him gently by the arm,
upon which, the defendant immediately seized him
round the waist, and threw him down upon his back,
and while on the ground, struck him on the mouth.
Witness added, that the defendant was then taken in a
cab to the station-turtle, where he delivered up the
ticket to the inspector on duty.
In the witness's cross-examination lie said that the
defendant told him he had given up his return•ticket at
Tonbridge to one of the railway servants, who did not
give it back twain. That witness, on hearing it, did not
say to the defendant, " Then you are acl d fool," but
might have said that it was foolish of him to do so.
The defence was, that on the preceding morning the
defendant purchased a second-class return ticket to Ton-
bridge, from London-bridge, intending to come back the
same evening. When the train arrived at Tonbridge, he
gave his ticket to the policeman on duty there, in order
to mark it, or " punch it," as it is termed. In the con-
fusion, however, created by the arrival of another train,
the policeman hurried away, without returning the
ticket ; and he (defendant) thinking it would be set
right when he returned to the station, mentioned it to
the clerk, and while the necessary inquiries were making
on the subject, the train he intended to start by left the
station, and he was detained at Tonbridge until half-past
two that morning, awaiting the express-train, the clerk
assuring him that if he paid the fare there, it would be
returned to him, on his explanation of the matter at the
terminus. He did explain it all at the London-bridge
station, and refused to deliver up the ticket without some
acknowledgment—having paid double fare—until be saw
the secretary. The ticket however was still demanded,
and as he refused to part with it, he was seized with vio-
lence, and in resisting they both fell to tire ground.
Mr. OLIVE, addressing a gentleman in attendance on
the part of the South-Eastern Company, asked what
clause would justify the Act of taking the defendant
into custody, for refusing to deliver up his ticket ?
The by-laws of the company were produced, by
which it appeared a power was given for that purpose ;
but Mr. Clive, on referring to the Bth Victoria, chap.
20, said that even suppos'ng it was proved the defendant
intended to have defrauded the company by refusing to
deliver up his ticket, still he did not think it would
justify hie being taken into custody, much less when it
did not appear that he had any such intention, but
merely wished to retain it, to have a portion of the fare
restored to him when the matter would be investigated
by the secretary. Under -the circumstances, therefore,
he (the magistrate) should dismiss the complaint against
the defendant.
The defendant's solicitor expressed his client's deter-
mination to enter an action immediately against the
South-Eastern Railway Company, to prevent acts of the
above description being perpetrated on the public who
travel on their railway.
William Staunton, a porter, belonging to the South-
Eastern Railway Company, was brought up for his ex-
amination charged with stealing a live crab out of a
basket from Ashford.
It appeared that on the arrival of an early train from
Ashford on Monday morning, the prisoner, whose duty
it was to help to unload the trucks, was observed to have
something bulky under his coat. He was followed to
the entrance gates by Mr. Shaw, the superintendent,
who; suspecting that he had takers something, insisted
on an examination, and discovered that he had a large
live crab under his coat. The prisoner at first said he
only had a few apples, but when the crab was discovered
he begged hard for forgiveness, and wanted to replace
the crab in the basket from which he had taken it, but
he was prevented, and given into custody.
Mr. HENRY said that extensive depredations were
committed on the prop_lrty intrusted to the company for
conveyance, and that an example was intended to be
made on a discovery.
The magistrate committed the prisoner for trial.
MARYLEBONE.
William Bardwall, an architect, residing at 49, Great
Queen-street, Westminster, was charged with having
wifully damaged one of the public baths recently opened
in George-street, Euston-square.
William Ward, an atteedant on the baths, deposed
that on the previous evening he prepared a second-class
bath for the prisoner,, and, upon his corning out, witness
smelt something unpleasant in the bath. Upon looking
in, he found that a great portion of the wall had been
blackened, and a part of the enamel of the bath damaged.
He then gave directions that the prisoner should be
stopped. He considered the damage to have been done
, by some very powerful liquid.
Sergeant Neeld, 3 S, who was called in, said that he
asked the prisoner what he had got in his pocket? to which
he replied. " Nothing ; if yoq touch me you shall suffer
for it." Witness then searched the prisoner, and found
an empty half-phial in one of his pockets, but the
prisoner refused to say what it had contained.
Mr. Thomas Harris, superintendent of the baths, said
that the damage, which was evidently caused by some
extremely strong acid, amounted to no less than 41. The
act must have been of a wilful nature. Nothing what-
ever was used in cleaning the baths but soap and water,
and the room was perfectly clean before the prisoner
went into it.
The prisoner said that he had used nothing in the
bath but a solution of sulphur, which he was in the habit
of washing himself with. He had often been in baths
before, but had never been complained of. He denied
doing any intentional harm.
Other evidence was then given, confirmatory of the pre-
ceding, in respect to the amount of damage, and the pri-
soner was ordered to pay 41. He did so, and was liberated.
THAMES:
On Friday a well-dressed, venerable-looking man,
named Aaron Bray, a horse-dealer, was brought before
Mr. Ballantine, charged under very novel circumstances
with stealing 661., the moneys of Mr. William Pears-
house, a cowkeeper and job-master.
Mr. Pelham appeared for the prosecution, and said his
client was a cowkeeper and farmer at Woolwich, and
who maintained an establishment at Greenwich, and
rented stables in Southwark. On January last the pri-
soner, who was then in very indigent circumstances, be-
came acquainted with the prosecutor, who suffered him
to hang about his place, and occasionally employed him
to bid for horses, and execute various commissions for
him. This continued up to the end of August, when
Mr. Pearshouse having reason to doubt the prisoner's
integrity, and finding that he had been engaged in
various disreputable transactions, refused to- employ
him any longer, and told him that he had no
farther occasion for his services. Mr. Pearshouse
saw no more of the prisoner until the 4th of
September, when the prisoner called upon him at his
stables in Southwark, and said he could introduce him
to a purchaser for three horses, and requested him to
let • him se!l them. Mr. Pearshouse intimated to
Bray that he had been deceived by him so often that
he could not intrust him with the sale of any horses;
but he had no objection to his (the prosectfter's)
som accompanying him to the intended purchaser.
The prisoner said he had no wish to interfere
in the transaction at all, except to introduce the
purchaser, and it was then arranged that Mr.
Pearshouse, jun. should proceed to Blackwell next
day with three horses, and meet the prisoner at the The article of the Universal Prussian Galette which
premises of Mr. Money Wigram, a ship-builder and intimates the decided sentiments of the Pruostan Go-
merchant, the intended purchaser. It was also most vernment in, the- question of Schleswig-Holstein, was
clearly arranged that Mr. Pearshouse, jun., should re- copied yesterday into the Berlin Gazette, which draws
ceive the money for the horses, if sold. On the follow- the attention of its readers to it, but without adding any
ing morning, Mr. Pearshouse, jun., met theprisoner with remarks.

" Sir,—i have reseived sixty five pounds for two horses.
Shall be most happy for you to appoint one meeting to
settel our accounts as Earley as most convenant to you
self. I remain your humbl servt AARON BRAY, Sept. 4,
1846. Mr. P,arshouse, Greenwich."
Mr. Pelham admitted the receipt of the letter. That
was part of n well-concocted scheme of the prisoner, to
make it appear there was a debtor and creditor account
between him and Mr. Pearshouse.
The prosecutor was recalled, and said he never autho-
rised the prisoner to sell the horses to Mr. Wigram, or
receive money for them, and until he heard the cheque
wag pail, he considered Mr. Wigram his debtor for 661.
The prisoner said the prosecutor had been to the
Southwark Police-court, and was informed there by, the
magistrate that he had better not give auy one into
custody.

fir. Pelham said the offence was not committed within
the jurisdiction of the Southwark Police-court, and tke
prosecutor only went there because he lived i❑ the vici-
nity of the court.
Alter a long discussion, during which the prisoner
expressed his gratification that ho was given into

Mr.- BALLANTINE doubted whether the prisoner's
attorney had given the advice here presented, and ulti-
mately consented to take bail for the prisoner's appear-
ance on Tuesday, and directed that Mr. Wigran should
be requested to attend on that day.
The prisoner said he could send for bail. Mr. Dixon,
of the Repository, in Barbican, who was his brother,
would bail him.
Mr. BALLANTINE would be quite satisfied with Mr.
Dixon's bail without any other.
The prisoner then made a low bow, wished the ma-
gistrate a good evening, and was removed to prison.

CAPTURE OF A THIEF.
en Saturday evening, a gentleman belonging to this
evn was returning from Huntingdon in a gig, and on
arriving at Fenstanston, about half-past eight o'clock, he
was suddenly accosted by a decent-looking woman, who
earnestly requested him to stop, and urged him to re-
ceive into the gig. and to convey to Cambridge, a young
man by whom she was accompanied, setting that a
scoundrel had just robbed her of very considerable pro-
perty--that he was not gone above an hour—that she
had received information which induced the belief that
he had gone to Cambridge, with the view of proceeding
by the first train to London, and that it would be of
great importance to follow him up, and if possible to
overtake him. Overcome by the iirportunities of the
woman, who seemed highly respectable, and who was
evidently much affected by the loss of her property, the
gentleman took up her companion and pursued his way.
The story was no fiction. The young man whom our
informant received into the gig was brother•in-law of
the very worthy woman whose property had been con-
veyed away, and he stated the particulars of the case`
as they drove on together. The man who had ab-
sconded had been lodging some months in the house
of his sister-in-law. lie had worked with a harness-
maker in Fenstanston. He had come from another
part of the country, but had generally conducted him-
self in such a manner as induced them to treat him with
some confidence. During the four months that he had
lived in the village, he received board and lodging and
various articles of dress, &c , and had promised faith-
fully- to pay for all when he received his money. On
Saturday last he did receive his money and forthwith
disappeared, having previously packed up and conveyed
away the whole of his very limited property, increased
however in bulk and in value by several articles which
were net, his own. This was the man whom he was
now in pursuit of. Our friend, on learning these parti-
culars, recommended that they should call at the first
public-house. They did so, and were given to under-
stand that the knight of the harness had indeed been
there, and had left about a quarter of an hour. The
travellers proceeded with the lull resolution of calling at
the next public-house. The night was very dark, and
it was only by such means that they could hope to dis-
cover the object of their search. As they approached
the next house of refreshment, the landlord and the
•identical runaway himself came to the door. The latter
at once recognised the brother-in-law of his late land.
lady, and entreated to be allowed to proceed, protesting
that he would surrender on the spot all the money
which he had in his , possession. This offer was
not accepted. The young man (the brother-in-law) had
been in the police force-at Cambridge, and knew some-
thing of, the business on which he happened to be em-
ployed. Nothing would do but that the runaway gen-
tleman should go back. To this unwelcome retrocession
the latter at length consented, and both, before retracing
their steps, retired into the inn to have a glass of beer
with the landlord, who was not a little surprised at the
sudden and unexpected capture Of the temporary guest.
At this point our friend, who had evidently done one
good action' that evening, proceeded on his way to
Cambridge, and how the matter has been settled, we
cannot tell. But perhaps we have-omitted the strangest
part of the transaction. It is a singular fact that the
hindlerd (who knew nothing
of the miscreant, except
that he had stated his desire to reech Cambridge
speedily) had hurried with him to the door, on hearing
the sound of wheels, to get him, if possible, accom-
modated in the same manner as his pursuer had
been ; so that our friend in the gig, if be had not
conveyed the one, would probably have been prevailed
upon to do that office for the other. Providentially, it
so happened that instead of assisting a rogue to escape,
he was the means of overtaking him. He was altogether
an instrument in the hands of Providence. Actuated
only by kindly motives, he might have done evil, but it
just so happened that he did good; and we trust the
worthy woman will have her own, and that the rogue
will get what he merits.—Cambridge paper.

1 FIRE ON THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.—On
Wednesday evening a fire broke out in one of Mr.
Cheat's vans, which was attaelh•d to the mixed train
from Exeter. It-was first discovered after the train left
Ealing, a few minutes before eight o'clock, and after
j'neffectual efforts to subdue the flatnes, it was considered
advisable to detach the van from the train, near the
Junction of the West London Railway. The inhabitants
in the vicinity of Kensal green lent their assistance to
extinguish the fire, but their efforts proved unavailing.
The contents of the van were consumed, excepting two
barrels of ale. The cash-box and invoices cannot be
found, so it is to be presumed they have b.ett destr6yed.
The origin of the fire has not been ascertained.
DREADFUL FIRE IN SWEDEN.—The whole of tLe
buildings, tools, and materials for working the silver
mines of Sala, about 20 leagues north-west of Stovk-
holm, were destroyed by fire in the night of the 26th
ult., causing a loss estimated at a,000.000 francs, and
putting 2,000 men out of employ.—Galignani.
BRISTOL SUGAR MARKET, SEPT. 18.—A large
business has been done in sweets this week, and prices
coritintue to ha, e rather an upward ter4.ncy. The rum
market is quiet, but there is not much offering.—Bristol
Mercuq.

-
A GANG OF SkV DLEIRS._
CAUTION TO MANUFACTITHMS.
From the following particulars we are led to believe
that a family who have or many years been " dropping
upon" the merchants-(,f Manchester, with great assiduity
and no less success,' are trying another district and
another name. Ileving occasion to call on a friend, at
Littleborough, on business, Thursday, our informant
found that a person of respectable apeearance had been
there passit g himself off as Mr. Henry, of' the firm of
James Henry and Co., of this town, and, under such
pretence, obtaining samples of goods manufactured at
Littleborough and in the neighbourhood, which, on being
obtained, were taken to a car he had with Lim and car-
ried away. Two cases were made out distinctly in which
this bad been accomplished, and there is little doubt that
the parties victimised are net the only sufferers, though
at present other cases have not come to light. In one of
these instances an ineoice of the goods was received, and
thus the affair assumed the complexion of a contract
debt, but in the other there was no such invoice passed,
and, therefore, a piece of swindlieg was complete. In
the one case four pieces of flannels, worth about 81. or
101., 'sere obtained ; in the other, three pieces of finer
texture, worth about 11/. or 121. One of the persons
who had thus unvvil tingly given up his goods to this Mr.
Henry, determined to pursue the fellow, and tracked him,
in company with a friend who entered into his feelings
heartily, and a police officer, to Halifax, where the
scheme developed itself. There the gang (for there can
be no doubt of more than one individual "conducting
the business") had, about five weeks ago, taken a ware-
house in a back street, but so situated with respect to
a main street, that in speaking of it they could say it was
behind such a street, naming a well• known thoroUgh-
fare, and thus gain a further appearance of respecta.
bility of position from the locality of the ware-
house. This place Mr. Henry had had five weeks,
and had scarcely entered or been seen in it five
times
,since he took it, and when examined,
it was quite empty, the sample goods having taken their
departure to other premises. Further inquiries showed
that there was another firm (suspected to be the same)
carrying on an equally advantageous business, and their
warehouse too was empty: in this second case the faci-
lities for transfer of goods were greater than in the first,
for there was a back door, which the other premises had
riot. But the enterprising fellows had not confined their
attention to Lancashire only, but seem to have practised
to some extent upon the unwary among the manufac-
tures at Nottingham, from which place large and heavy
bundles of lace and hosiery have been received per
railway. With the material thus obtained a shop was
opened for the sale of bankrupt stock, and an old woman
was employed to dispose of it; but this ramification of
their scheme has been closed, having no doubt proved a
highly profitable concern for the two months it was
open. One link in the chain of circumstantial evidence
proving these to be a pack of swindlers at work, is the
great eagerness displayed to get the various parcels into
their hands as they arrived per rail. A person was on
the spot almost always, and teased the railway porters no
little respecting the goods, so much so, indeed, that it is a
wonder that in a town like Halifax suspicion was not ex-
cited, and the motions of the worthies watclsed. That they
are adepts at their work, and determined to stop at
nothing to compass their end, is proved by the manner
in which they victimised a too-confiding member of a
religious body. The unwitting man was called upon,
business was transacted, and an invite to breakfast given
and accepted ; the table was well spread, and, as it was
the host's practice to ask a blessing upon his food, the
swindler, knowing his man, with all the coolness imagin-
able, gratified the honest soul, by stringing together for
the occasion a number of very appropriate terms, eat his
breakfast, and then walked off with his ill gotten sem-
ples. These are the particulars we hive at present, but
we understand the matter is in the hands of the indefa-
tigable gentlemen who conduct the business of the Man-
chester Guardian Society ; and we would further im-
press upon our contemporaries in Halifax, Bradford,
Leeds, Wakefield, Nottingham, Derby, and other manu-
facturing towns, the duty of making the circumstances
known, If the party are they whom we suspect them to
be, wo know them well ; they are very old birds—in
common parlance, they know a point or two, and are not
likely to be caught readily, so that the greatest security
tthoem eat:
ouifdaicitl reg
orfs assa be found
connex connexion
with
sucsuch
p cautiousness,ers9n
persons.-
d
Manchester Courier of Friday.