The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TITITIISDA.Y EVENING, AUGtST 6, 1846.

Cross-examined—The day for the marriage had only
been fixed shortly before the communication in question,
but the plaintiff and her daughter were engaged to be
married a long time before she broke off the marriage,
iu e,nascquence of hearing that the plaintiff had been
described as a scamp. The plaintiff did come to her
house afterwards, but she had never sanctioned any
intimacy between him and her daughter since she had
received the communication from Mr. Freeman respect-
ing the plaintiff.
Sergeant SUEE asked the witness whether she did not
know thatler daughter and the plaintiff were at the
present time engaged to be married ?
Mrs. Charrington said she did not.
On being further cross examined, she said the plain-
tiff, and her daughter, and herself had travelled twice,
backwards and forwards, from Guilford, in the same
railway carriage, and that they bad been at the same
inn, but she said it was an accidental circumstance.
Sergeant SHEE—And have you not seen your daugh-
ter sitting close to the plaintiff ?—(A laugh.) Witness
—I cannot say.
Sergeant SHEE—Now, have you not seen them kiss
one another when they have parted at night ?—(Laugh-
ter.) Witness—lf they have, I have not seen it.
Sergeant SHEE—Do you not know that they have
agreed to be married, notwithstanding what has hap-
peaed, and that the time is fixed ? Witness—lt is not
to my knowledge.
Sergeant SHEE—Oh ! you do not seem to be in their
secrets.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Baron PARKE, at this stage of the case, suggested
that the case should be put an end to by some amicable
arrangement. There did not appear to be any grounds
for casting an imputation upon the character of the
plaintiff.
Sergeant SUES said there never was such an inten-
tion, and he considered the evidence did not support the
allegation in the declaration.
Mr. JAMES, on the part of his client, consented to
accept of a nominal verdict, on condition that the defen-
dant paid the costs of the action and the expense that
had been incurred by the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron PARKE expressed an opinion that this was
a very fair offer, and suggested the propriety of acced-
ing to it ; but Mr. Sergeant Shee said his client was not
present, and in his absence he could not do so; and the
case accordingly proceeded.
Sergeant SURE addressed the jury for the defendant,
and said he admitted that the defendant had made use
of some indiscreet words, but he should contend that he
was not amenable to the serious consequences that were
attempted to bi cast upon him by the present action.
He submitted that the mero fact of calling a man a
scamp amounted to nothing, unless it was shown that
some actual injury had been occasioned to him in con-
sequence, and in the present instance it was for the jury
to say what injury had been inflicted. True, it was said
that the marriage of the plaintiff was postponed, but
would the jury have the slightest doubt that although
it did not, in point of fact, take place on the day origi-
nally intended, yet that the engagement was still con
tinued, and that the parties had the full determination
to be married the moment this action was disposed of. Ile
should then submit to the jury that although the defendant
might have acted indiscreetly in making the communica-
tion he did to Mr. Atkinson, still not the slightest in-
jury had been occasioned by it, and that he ought not
to have been compelled to, defend an action under such
circumstances, or be called upon to pay damages when in
reality no damage had been sustained.
Mr. Baron PARKE summed up, and the jury after de-
liberating for a few minutes, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages 501.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man, of very gentlemanlike appearance
and address, named Henry Bidwell Dunn, was brought
before Alderman Gibbs yesterday, in the custody of
John Forrester, upon a very serious charge of forgery.
Mr. Bush, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, the so-
licitors to the Committee of Bankers for Prorection
against Forgeries and Frauds, appeared for the prosecu-
tion; and Mr. Woelfe, from Mr. Flower's offices, at-
tended for the defence.

Mr. Bush stated that the prisoner was a clerk in the
highly respectable firm of Rooper, Birch, and Ingram,
of Lincoln's Inn-fields, solicitors, and had been dealing
in the railway shares with which the Stock Exchange
was so abundantly supplied. It happened, that in the
progress of his dealings in .that line, he had access to
the office of Mr. Rickards, a stockbroker of considerable
eminence, out of whose banker's book a leaf containing
five cheques had been furtively abstracted. One of these
cheques had been filled up with the amount of 248/. 15s ,
and the name of Mr. Rickards, and the amount was ob-
tained from the firm of Barclay, Bevan, Hanbury, and
Tritton, the bankers of that gentleman. The only mode
of connecting the prisoner with the forged cheque was
the following:—The cheque was dated the 10th of No-
vember, 1845, and was paid in 51. and 101. Bank of
England notes. Two days afterwards the prisoner was
sent by a fellow-clerk for a Post-office order for eleven
shillings. The evidence would show that cash was given
to the prisoner to obtain that order, but one of the notes
obtained from Messrs. Barclay and Co. in payment of
the forged cheque was paid at the Post-office by the pri-
soner instead of the cash given to him by his fellow-
clerk. The prisoner was also constantly sent by his
employer to pay large sums of money to their bankers,
and on the 15th of November he paid in to Messrs.
Barclay and Co. four others of the notes which were the
proceeds of the forged cheque, he not having received
these four notes from his employers, but having substi-
tuted them for the notes he had actually received from
them, and having paid three of the notes received from
them to a deposit account which he had opened with the
London and Westminster Bank (Bloomsbury branch)
on his own account.

Mr. John Mitchell, cashier to Messrs. Barclay, Bevan,
and Co., bankers, produced a cheque for 248/. 155., pur-
porting to be signed by Mr. Rickard, who had kept an ac-
count with the house for a considerable time. It was
presented on the 10th of November last by a man, but
witness could not say by whom. He paid five notes of
5/. each. twenty of 104 each, and 231. 15s. in cash.
(Here Mr. Mitchell stated the number and dates of the
notes.) The note for 101., No. 55,573, August 11, 1845,
was one of the notes so paid away.
Mr. Rickard, of Bank-chambers, stockbroker, stated
that he kept, and had for many years kept, cash at Bar-
clay's. The cheque produced by Mr. Mitchell was not
in his handwriting, to his knowledge. He knew nothing
of the body of the cheque, or of such a person as R.
Leeson, and he had no ti ansaction with any such person
in November last. He had known the prisoner for
twelve mouths past, and had transacted business for him
on several occa-aons, and had signed cheques upon Bar-
clay frequently for him. The prisoner had had frequent
access to witness's office, and had seen him draw and
sign cheques. The cheque produced was cut out of wit-
ness's book.
In answer to questions by Mr. Woolfe, the witness said
he firmly believed the signature to the cheque was not in
his handwriting. He had seen the cheque in November
last, and he directly said that it was a forgery. He perhaps
signed 10,000 cheques in the year. He had had transac-
tions with the prisoner since the sth of May, 1845. It
was possible he might have referred to the forgery in the
presence of the prisoner, but he did not recollect such a
thing. There was a disputed account between the pri-
soner and him, and he wished to see the prisoner, whc,
was indebted to him, on that account. Had not seer
him more than five times since November.
Mr. Woolfe—When did you first hear of the 10/. note
having been paid at the post-office? Mr. Rickard—Not
till the other day, when I saw Mr. Bush, in whose hands
I left this business.
Mr. Bush—How did the debt to you arise ? Mr. Ric-
kard—From transactions in shares which I executed for
him, think he owes me upwards of 400/., arising out of
these transaction. My solicitor has issued a writ against
him, and has been looking for him for some months.
Mr. Woolfe objected to the eourse taken by Mr. Bush,
who, he said, was cross-examining his own witness.
Mr. Bush—You have opened the question by your line
of cross-examination, and you shall have the whole story.
Mr. Rickard stated, in answer to Mr. Bush, that the
debt of the prisoner had increased since November, in
consequence of the fall in the prices in the share market.
Mr. Woolfe—Had you not great confidence in the
prisoner ? Mr. Rickard—l had confidence in him.
Mr. Woolfe—llas he not claimed 801. as a balance due
from you to him ? Mr. Rickard—No. He owes me
upwards of 400/. I have known him-about twelve months,
and it was during that time the debt was incurred.
Mr. Bush—Did he ever tell you what he was ? Mr.
Rickard—No. It is not usual in the business transacted
by us to ask such a question. He gave me his name and
address. I never knew that he was a clerk to Messrs.
Rooper, Birch, and Ingram.
Mr. C. S. W. Eicke, clerk in the Money-order-office
of the General Post-office, St. Martin's-le-Grand, stated
that on Wednesday, the 10th of November, an applica-
tion was made for an order for eleven shillings, in favour
of Mary Berry, and he received the 101. note,
"! No. 55,573, August 11, 1845," in payment, and gave
change for it to the person, who wrote the name
and address on the back of it as follows :—" J. Richards,
Maize-hill, Greenwich."
Mr. H. W. Birch, one of the partners in the firm of
Rooper, Birch, and Ingram, solicitors, stated that the
prisoner was, and had been in their service about two
years. He knew the prisoner's handwriting well, and
believed the writing upon the note to be his.
Cross-examinee—Had unlimited confidence in the
prisoner's integrity.
Mr. John Richards, of Maize-hill, Greenwich, so-
licitor, stated, that in November last he was employed
in the office of Messrs. Rooper, Burch, and Ingram. In
November last he requested the prisoner to get a Post-
office order for eleven shillings, payable to Mary Berry,
and he believed the order produced was the one the
prisoner brought back. Witness did not give him a 10/.
note, but gave him change. Did not authorise him to
sign his (witness) llama upon the note produced. Knew
the prisoner's handwriting for about two years, and
thought the writing on the note was his.
Mr. Woolfe said the question he had to put to the
witness was most important to the prisoner, and he ro-
ceived answers the most explicit. The witness said he
was living on Maize-hill in November, and there could
have been no difficulty in finding him by that address ;
and up to May last the prisoner was his fellow-clerk,
and was seen by him almost daily. The prisoner was in
the habit of paying large sums into Messrs. Rooper and
Co., bankers, and witness had observed that the prisoner
always had plenty of money of his own, irrespect!r-:1:)f
the money belonging to the firm.
Mr. Bush re-examined the witness, who said liaht--le
was aware that an inquiry was made in the officet re-
specting some notes in November last. It was insn ion d
to him privately by his employers, and he, of, course,e
never repeated it. The prisoner Bever said anything to
him on the subject.
Mr. Bush then stated that he had to call evidence
upon a new part of the case.
Mr. W. li. Waterhouse, clerk in PraeA's banking.
house, stated that Messrs. Rooper, Birch, and Ingram
kept a cash account at their house. He produced the