The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-26 00:00:00

not instituted for the purpose of ;eliciting facts, but for
the nominal purpose of exhibiting to the world
the desire the ostentatious desire of the
Eastern Counties Company to attend to the
public safety, while really it was intended
for the sole purpose of fixing upon a humble, a prudent,
a sober, but poor man, the onus of errors which were
attributable solely to themselves. This man, incompe-
tent to the task of conducting an engine—this man, im-
paired in his vision—this man, who was paid 255. a
week by the company—this man, assisted by another
man to act as fireman, a person who had been already
discharged from another situation of a similar kind for
unfitness—was sent with an imperfect engine, which had
been before that time declared unfit for passenger
traffic to Romford. He left that place to return to
Stratford—and here, if the company really sought to
fix the guilt on the proper parties, they should have
shown that the signals on the line were properly managed,
and that their instructions had been fully attended to.
They had, however, signally failed in establishing these
points. They did more than fail, for they proved the
astounding fact that the acting station masters and
signal-men did not even know what the purport of these
very signals were. The Learned Counsel then entered
at great length into the evidence adduced, and contended
that the prisoner was an innocent agent, entrusted with
a power which he did not understand, and that the real
guilt lay with those who had placed that power in his
ignorant hands. In that case double guilt lay with the
directors, because even the engine entrusted to the
prisoner's care was so imperfect that it would not act as
a perfect engine would, and to add to his difficulties the
usual precautions which were enforced on every other
railway had been wilfully and wantonly neglected upon
this line.

The Learned Counsel having concluded,
Mr. Justice MAULE summed up, and finished at six
o'clock.

The jury briefly considered, and returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
The prisoner, of course, was immediately discharged.
CAPTAIN RICHARDSON.—We understand that Captain
Richardson was this day discharged from custody.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

William Thomas Power, a man 33 years of age, was
brought before Alderman Gibbs, in the custody of
Daniel Forrester, who apprehended- him at Munich, in
Bavaria, upon the chitrge of having conspired, with an-
other, to defraud Ibia Clonmell branch of the Bank of
Ireland, and with%aving himself absconded with cash,
the property of that establishment, to the amount of
about 13,0001. '-
Forrester, accompanied by Enright, a Clonmell con-
stable, who was acquainted with the person of Power,
traced the prisoner to Munich, and took him into cus-
tody in that town, where he was residing in the name of
Prisk, having passed thither with a false passport.
It was understood that the prisoner expressed a wish to
return to Clonmell, in order to explain the particulars of
the transaction in which he was suspected to have been
concerned.

Patrick Enright, the Clonmell constable, stated that
he knew the prisoner to be the person charged with the
above-mentioned felony. He also identified the hand-
writing of Mr. Ryan, the magistrate who signed the war-
rant, and that of the Lord Mayor of London, who
backed it. Witness then applied for leave to take the
prisoner to Ireland, and the Alderman accordingly issued
an order.

Joseph Jones was brought up for re-examination,
charged with having forged the name of George Edwards
to a transfer of stock, to the amount of 3/. 10s. per an-
num, on the Bank of England. The sum purported to be
transposed by George Edwards, at the request of his
wife, and the transfer appeared to be attested by Thomas
Crompton, a broker.
Upon a former day George Edwards, the proprietor
of the stock, proved that that transfer had not been made
in his name.

It was also stated that Mrs. Edwards lived with the
prisoner, and that the name of George Edwards in the
transfer-book of the Bank, was in the prisoner's hand-
writing ; and the prisoner said it would be all right, as
Mrs. Edwards was not married to the person of that
name legally.
Thomas Crompton, examined by Mr. Freshfield, soli-
citor to the Bank of England, who appeared for the
Bank of England, stated that he was a stockbroker, and
knew a Mr. Bingley, whom he assisted in business of
the kind. He had a recollection of having seen the
prisoner before on a sale of stock of 3/. 103. long annui-
ties. Witness identified the prisoner through the re-
presentation of Mr. Bingley's clerk, and signed the
transfer as a witness. Sold the stock to a Mr. C.
Smith.

Alderman Ginns—Did yon take the prisoner to the
Bank of England? Witness—l did. I always do so.
Alderman Gm:is—How could you identify him ?
Witness—l identified him merely from the:representa-
tion of a young man, whom I believe to be nephew of
Bingley.

Alderman GIBBS—It appears that you identify when
you wish to identify. Do you believe him to be the
man? Witness—There is a similarity in the appear-
ance of the prisoner to the person I took to the Bank.
Mr. Humphreys (for the prisoner)—lt is upwards of
four years since the occurrence is said to have taken
place, and you are right in speaking cautiously.
Witness—l believe the prisoner is the man.
Remandad.