The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-29 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-Ii

-cum

MANSION-HOUSE.—John Hall, whip has been so
frequently under examination upon suspicion of having
been concerned in the gold-dust robbery committed in
the transit of the property from London to the Conti-
nent, was brought before the Lord Mayor for final exa-
mination upon that charge, and also upon. the charge of
haying absconded from his bail in the year 1841, when
accused of baying received stolen goods.
Mr. Bodkin appeared as counsel for this South-East-
ern Railway Company, by which the prosecntion was
instituted, instructed by Messrs. Rees and Co. ; Mr.
Ballantine, instructed by Messrs. Lewis, appeared for
the prisoner. Mr, Humphreys appeared to sustain the
second charge.
Mr. Bodkin stated to the Lord Mayor that since the
last examination every effort had been made upon the
part of the prosecution to obtain the necessary testimony
t 3 perfect the evidence in the case, but without effect,
although the rigid inquiry made had elicited a consider-
able amount of facts tending to show that the accusa-
tion was far from groundless. He considered himself
bound, therefore, to leave the matter as it now stood in
the hands of his lordship, feeling, as he certainly did
feel, that it assumed the appearance of a case of very
serious suspicion.
Mr. Ballantine said, the prisoner had been from time
to time remanded in order that the prosecutors might
avail themselves of every opportunity to collect the evi-
dence which Mr. Bodkin promised to bring forward in
proof of the charge of participation. His client felt that
it was a great hardship to be incarcerated for so long a
period, especially as a session had intervened since he
had been apprehended.
The Lord Mayor said, he had considered the whole of
the evidence with the greatest care, and he felt the ut-
most willingness to grant all the time that might be ne-
cessary in the investigation of a case of such undoubted
importance to the public ; but after the statement just
made by Mr. Bodkin he could not see that he should be
justified in detaining the prisoner longer on the charge
brought forward by the South-Eastern Railway Com-
pany. He had, he plainly saw, but one course to pur-
sue, which was that, as the prosecutors had failed to
connect the prisoner immediately with the commission
of the offence imputed to him, the prisoner must be dis•
charged as to that case.
Mr. Bodkin said, he the more readily consented to
the discharge of the prisoner in the case alluded to, as
he was aware that Mr. Humphreys was about to estab-
lish a charge against the prisoner which would, in all
probability, have the effect of a further detention in
prison, and in the meantime such evidence might arise
as would complete the case about which such pains had
been already taken.
The Lord Mayor then discharged the prisoner on the
first case.
Mr. Humphreys then proceeded against the prisoner
under the following circumstances, and submitted to hii
lordship the propriety of committing Hall without bail,
as he had already broken faith with his previous sure-
ties whose recognisances, as well as the prisoner's own
recognisances, bad been estreated.
Jas. Brett, .the detective officer, produced a certificate
which he had received from Mr. John Clark, the clerk
of the Central Criminal Court, a week ago. It stated in
substance as follows:
" These are to certify that at the general sessions of
Oyer and Terminer, holden on Monday, the let day of
March, 1841, John Hall, of the parish of Greenwich, in
the county of Kent, laliourer, was and stands indicted for
feloniously receiving of an evil-disposed person a watch,
of the value of 181., of the goods and chattels of George
' Atkinson well knowing the same to have been feloni-
ously stolen. And these are further to certify, that at
the same session a certain recognisance was returned,
whereby the said John Hell and sureties were bound
for his personal appearance at the said sessions to an-
swer and plead to a certain bill of indictment to be pre-
ferred against him for felony; but he did not appear
according to the recognisance, whereby the same became
forfeited, and was ordered to be estreated into the Court
of Exchequer. And these are further to certify that at
the same session it was ordered that process should issue
against Hall, and that, when apprehended, notice thereat
should be given to Mr. W. C. Humphreys, of 119, New-
gate-street, solicitor for the prosecution. And these are
further to certify that the said John Hall bath not been
arraigned or tried on the said indictment."
Thomas M‘Gill said—l was formerly in the metropo•
titan pence force, and am now retired, and residing at 1,
Belmont place, Greenwich. I was in the police force in
1841. I have looked at the certificate produced, and
was the officer having charge of the case therein men-
tioned. The prisoner is the person who is mentioned in
the certificate ?
The Lord Mayor then asked the prisoner, according
to the usual form, whi.ther he wished to say anything.
The prisoner—No ; I leave it to my solicitor.
John Hall was then commiteed for trial on the second
charge.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Jeoe»tialt Rees was
brought before Mr. Hard wick for re-examination, charged
with embezzlement.

Mr. So!mons appeared for the prisoner; and Mr.
Lewis for the prosecution.
James Kenneth, 121, Bond-street, said he was assist
ant to his mother, who carried on the business of a fish-
monger. Toe prisoner was clerk, and it was part of his
duty to take the money to the bankers. In the cash-
book there appeared an entry on the 31st December of
19/. as. 3d. as baring been paid to the bankers. Oa the
15th January an entry of 641. 19s. 6d. was in the cash
book as having been paid into the bank by the prisoner.
The prisoner actually paid only 541. On the 19th
January 241. 4s. 3d. should have been pail in. On the
9th February the sum of 251. 16s. appeared as if paid
in ; on the 13th February 391. 19?. 23. ; and on the 29th
February, 291. 18s. 21, This last sum was made up in
packets. All the entries in the book were in the pri-
soner's handwriting. When the prisoner went to the
bankers', as witne: s supposed, ou the last occasion, he
aske I him for the bankers' pa.sbook ; the prisoner re-
plied that the passbook was boat, and the bankers were
making a rev one.
. . . .

Cro!-s-examined--The prisoner used to post the books
conjointly with witness, and when he (witness) wanted any
money he used to take the amount he required and place
a ticket in the money•bowl. Had seen the prisoner in
the House of Detention, out of sympathy, but did not
say, "If prisoner could raise the sum of 401. he would
do all he could to settle the matter." Had not been to
prisoner's friends to make an offer to settle the business
ft-r 20/.

Ile examined—All the money he took from the bowl
for businesa purposes he afterwards replaced, and re-
ceived the tickets from the prisoner. Sometimes he
borrowed money from the bowl for his own use, but he
always returned it.
Mrs. Kenneth :aid, she employed her son at a salary
of 1001. a-year to manage the bo iness.
Henry Heatly, in the service of Mrs. Kenneth, recol-
lected that the prisoner had lots of sovereigns in his
porte-monnaie on the la,t day he was at the shop.
J,lmes Champion, cashier, at the London and West-
minster Bank, knew prisoner as coming to the bank t
pay in money. The witntsi proved that on the several
dates referred to by the first witness the sums pi,id in
were short of the sums named, in one instance to the
extent of 15/. ; and that the last amount, about 301.,
had not been paid in at all.
Tho prisoner was fully committed, and, under the a.:l-
- of his solicitor, reserved his defence.