The Sun.
London, England, 1851-10-28 00:00:00

EMIGRANT'S FLOUR MILL.

The ordinary notion entertained of an emigrant, we
believe to be, that he is a man with a wife and four or
five children, setting out for a distant part of the world
where ho can get land for next to nothing, be lord of all
he surveys within the range of a hundred acres, more
or less, cut down the trees that grow upon his domain
in order to build a house, grub up the roots for firewood
and sow corn in their place. Few, however, but those
who actually intend to emigrate trouble themselves to
consider what is to be done with the crop of corn when
it comes. The first impression would be—to eat it—but
then arises the question, in what form? Its conversion
into flour will be a necessary preliminary; but not a
very easy one to accomplish, unless he and those who
accompany him as fellow-adventurers, take the machinery
for grinding it with them. They will find no facilities
for sending it to the parish mill, among the red Indians
in the back settic ments of America, or the flesh-loving
natives of the South Sea Islands. The only course
appears to be to take a mill with them; and the selec-
tion of one must, we apprehend, be a very important
matter with the emigrant. Of course we are speaking of
a hand-mill. The chief points to be kept in view in
purchasing one will necessarily be simplicity of ma-
chinery, so that it may be easily kept in order, and that
it may act with the least expenditure of power. The
latter point seems to have received much attention by
Messrs. Huxhams and Brown, founders and engineers,
at
.Exeter; who have registered a mill which is kept in
action by a lateral motion, similar to that of a rower in
a boat, and not by the old laborious rotatory motion
which involves so great a waste of power. In the de-
scription given of this mill by its inventors it is stated
that "a bushel of wheat may be ground by it in an hour,
to make fine flour; that the corn can be ground and
dressed at the same time, or separately; and that the
mill is not liable to get out of repair."—Kentish Mercury

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

Alexander Gordon John Bishop, a young man of
gentlemanly appearance, surrendered to take his trial
upon a charge of misdemeanour.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Robinson appeared for the
prosecution. Mr. Parry was counsel for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CLARKSON, in opening the case, said that the
defendant, who, he understood, was a clergyman of
the Church of England, was charged with a misde-
meanour under the Pawnbrokers' Act, and another
statute having reference to the same object, in having
unlawfully made a false declaration before a magis-
trate, upon the subject of some property that had been
pledged by him at the shop of Messrs. Vaughan and
Cotterell, pawnbrokers in the Strand, the declaration
implying that he had lost the original duplicate re-
lating to the property. The prosecution was insti-
tuted by a person named Cupett, who, it appeared,
had been on intimate terms with the defendant, and
who bad advanced him two different sums of money
upon the security of the duplicates in question, and
these duplicates were in his possession at the time the
defendant made the declaration, which was alleged to
be false. The effect of the declaration made by the
defendant was to enable him to obtain the property
from the pawnbrokers, and the present charge was
under those circumstances preferred by the prosecutor
against him.
Mr. H. P. Cupett deposed that he carried on the
business of an oilman at Hoxton, and he had for some
time been acquainted with the defendant, who, he
believed was a clergyman, and they had money trans-
actions together. In August and September, 1850,
he received from the prisoner two duplicates, oue re-
ferring to a pistol and case, and the other to two guns
and a case, all of which articles had been pledged at
the shop of Messrs. Vaughan and Cotterell, and at the
request of the prisoner he lent him money to the
amount of five or six pounds upon the security of
these duplicates, which it was understood he was to
retain i❑ his possession until the money he had ad-
vanced was repaid to him. At the time the prisoner
made the declarations to the pawnbroker the dupli-
cates were still in his possession, and the defendant
must have been aware of the fact.

The prosecutor was subjected to a very severe
cross-examination by Mr. Parry, and in the course
of it he said that he had received other duplicates
from the prisoner as security for money he advanced
him, and among them were some that related to pic-
tures. He redeemed one of those pictures, and sold it
for 181, but the prisoner now charged him with
having done so improperly, and without his autho-
rity. He believed the prisoner was very respectably
connected, and that he expected to come into posses-
sion of a considerable fortune. He had been to races
twice with the prisoner, but he didi not remember in-
troducing him to Mr. Broome" at Ascot. He had
been to Mr. Broome's public-house, but he knew no-
thing about him. When they were at Ascot the pri-
soner gave an I. 0. U. for 2001. to a person named
Foster, and he gave him one also for the same amount.
He believed that this money was lost in betting upon
the odd and even numbers on the race-cards, and it
had nothing whatever to do with the horses. Foster
had asked him whether Bishop was "worth anything,"
and he told him be believed that he expected some
property. They were both very much intoxicated
and did not know how the money was lost. Foster
came for the money for the I. 0. U. the next morn-
ing, and the prisoner gave him a bill of exchange for
his 1. 0. U. This bill afterwards got into the pos.
session of Mr. Broome, who sued the prisoner upon
it. Witness was subpoenaed as a witness for the de-
fendant, to prove the circumstances under which the
bill was given, but the matter was arranged, and the
defendant consented to the verdict passing against
him.

The RECORDER inquired who Broome was ? The
prosecutor said he was a publican.
Mr. PARRY asked if he was not something else also ?
The prosecutor said he did not know.

In answer to further questions put to him, he said
he had been twice indicted for keeping a brothel, but
was acquitted on both occasions; and he said that
the first time he was indicted no evidence was offered
against him, and he was told that he had been very
ill used. He admitted that he had paid the rent and
taxes when a distress was put in to one of the houses
he was charged with keeping, and that he told the
broker the house belonged to him ; but he said he
only did so to oblige a lady whom he bad met at
Jersey, and who in reality was the keeper of the
house. He also said that he had opposed the prisoner
in the Bankruptcy Court, and that a person named
Alfred Mortimer Job, who was a moneylender, wes
also a creditor, and made a large claim against the
prisoner's estate, which the prisoner resisted on the
ground that it was a fraudulent claim. He deaied
that this person was the real prosecutor of the present
indictment, or that he had ever said that it Bishop
was convicted of perjury Job would get the whole of
his claim allowed. He had no recollection of having
said so, but would not swear positively that he
had not.

A letter was then put in, in which the prisoner
applied to the prosecutor for the duplicates, stating
that he wanted particularly to have them. Ni
answer, it appeared, was sent to this letter for three
weeks, and the prosecutor then told the prisoner that
ho had left out the tickets for him, and he could have
them when he chose to call for them.

James Hitchcock, the shopman to Messrs.
Vaughan and Co., proved that the prisoner obtained
the declarations from him, and that he signed them
in his presence.

In answer to a question put by Mr. Parry, the
witness said he would not undertake to say that the
prisoner did not tell him, in addition to the usual
statement that the duplicates had been lost or mislaid,
that they were fraudulently detained from him.
Mr. CIARKSON was about to call further evidence,
when

The RECORDER, interposed, and said it appeared to
him that there was no proof that the defendant had
wilfully stated what was false in declaring that the
duplicates were lost or mislaid. The evidence upon
that point rested entirely upon the testimony of the
prosecutor, and be thought the jury would hardly
like to rely upon the evidence of such a person as he
had represented himself to be.

Mr. CLARKSON said that he felt the difficulty sug-
gested by his Lordship. He had some other witnesses
to call, but he did not think their evidence would alter
the aspect of the case.
The RECORDER said that if the jury wished to heaa
more of the case they might do so, but it was clear,
that unless they could place reliance upon the testi-
mony of the prosecutor, the prisoner ought not to be
convicted.

The jury said they were of opinion that they could
not place reliance upon the prosecutor's evidence.
Mr. PARRY begged to be allowed to state on behalf
of the defendant, that he never intended to make any
false statement with regard to the matter. He as-
serted that the duplicates were fraudulently withheld
from him by the prosecutor, and it was upon this
ground that he felt himself justified in making the
declarations in order that he might regain possession
of his property.
A verdict of Not Guilty was then taken, and the
prisoner was ordered to be at once discharged.
Frecharr Von Forster, 25, a Bavarian, described
ou
asf
En a soldier, was indicted for stealing three 201. Bank
of England notes, the property of William Peter
Jrd
an, in the dwelling-house of Thomas Quarter-
maine.

Mr. Parry prosecuted.
The prisoner, who is unable to speak English,
would have been without any professional assistance
but for the kind interference of the sheriffs, at whose
instance Mr. Wollett watched the case on his behalf.
The facts of this case have been given very recently
in the police reports. The prosecutor, who is a mer-
chant, and a native of Oldenburg, was staying at
Yorkthe
Hotel, Bridge-street, Blackeners, kept by
czuartermaine, and the prisoner was also an in-