The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-19 00:00:00

ER 19, 1851.

It was understood the money was paid.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Matthew Illatthews, Charles Richard Burdetl
Walker, Horatio Stainbridge, Richard Lowe, Francis
Williams, and .Eliza Buckell, six respectably-attired
persons, were placed at the bar before Mr. D'Eyncourt
for re-examination, charged with conspiring together
for the purpose of obtaining goods to an extensive
amount from rnerchares and tradesmen upon false
pretences.
Mr. Lewis appeared on behalf of Messrs. 0 wen
and Jay, secretaries of the London Trade Protection
Society, 170, ltegent-street, to conduct the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Andrews appeared for the female prisoner
Buckell, and Mr. Ablett on the part of the rest of the
prisoners.
Mr. Lewis said, that each time this case came up
it exhibited new features of interest and importance
to the public, and since the last examination a vast
number of letters had been placed in his hands from
mercantile and manufacturing firms, addressed to the
last residence of the prisioner Walker, exhibiting the
widely-ramified nature of the conspiracy in which
the prisoners had been engaged, and embracing
almost all parts of the country. A portion of
this correspondence consisted of letters from
the prisoner Walker, under the same of
Charles Richard Burdett, sometimes called " the Rev.
Charles Burdett," containing applications for lists of
prices and orders for goads upon various manufac-
turing houses, and the answers to which, with the
sanction of the Court, he would now read. The
Learned Gentleman then read, under strong protest
from the solicitors for the defence, an order from
Walker upon Messrs. Jamieson and Paterson, of Glas-
gow, for two dozen pieces of imitation Madras silk
handkerchiefs, accompanied by an invoice from that
firm for the amount of the property so transmitted,
but in the obtainment of which he was happy to say
that the prisoners did not succeed, as the goods had
been fortunately stopped by the. officers in transitu
since the prisoners' apprehension. The rest were
from Messrs. Holden and Co., of Belfast ; Messrs.
Kesselmeyer and Mellodew, of Manchester ; Messrs.
Alsop, Robins, and Co., carpet manufacturers, of
Leek, in Staffordshire ; a Quaker firm, named Whig-
ham and Son, plaid manufacturers, of Nicholson-
street,
Edinburgh; Messrs. Fry and Co., poplin
manufacturers, Westmoreland-street, Dublin ;
Messrs. Ketroyd and Co., Halifax, York-
shire ; Messrs. John Had wen and Sons,
silk spinners ; Messrs. Reynolds and Co., Irish
poplin warehouse, Grafton-street, Dublin ; Messrs.
Bannerman and ons, Dacian fabric•makers, Man-
chester, and others of the same description, all bear-
ing reference to the respective goods in which the
several firms dealt, and most of them expressive of
readiness to execute any orders that the prisoners
might favour them with. To show the prisoner Wal •
keel,' anxiety to conceal the extent of his transactions,
he might mention that he had transmitted directions
to the Post-office since his apprehension not to for-
ward any more letters to his residence in the
Loughborough-road, Brixton, end appointing another
place for that purpose ; but in this he would he dis-
appointed, as effectual measures had been taken to
prevent his wishes being complied with. He should
now complete the first charge against the whole of
them, preferred by Mr. Watkins, a draper in Norton-
folgate, in which the prisoners were jointly implicated
in obtaining goods to a considerable amount, and
should then proceed with a distinct and separate
charge of forgery against the prisoner Walker. From
the extensive and complicated nature of their trans-
actions, he should not be able to proceed further upon
this occasion, but at the next examination he should he
prepared with numerous other charges of a like nature
against them.
After a good deal of evidence in support of the
first case above referred to, the particulars of which
have already shortly appeared in this paper, and the
depositions of the witnesses in which were completed
by Mr. Huristone, the second clerk, the following evi-
dence upon the charge of forgery against Walker,w ho
was now singly arraigned, was gone into :
Mr. Philip Kirk, auctioneer and estate agent at
Brompton, stated that on the 25th of April, 1849, the
prisoner Walker applied to him to become tenant of
the house No. 39, Brompton-crescent, and gave as
referees a Mr. Charles Burdett, of Shepperton-cot-
tages, New North-road, and a Mr. Annesley, of
Union-row, Wandsworth-road. The prisoner at
that time gave his name as Joseph Helmsley, re-
siding at Seething Wells, Kingston, Surrey, and the
answers of the referees having seen perfectly satisfac-
tory, he consented to accept the prisoner as a tenant,
upon condition of his purchasing some carpets, fen-
ders, cornices, and other furniture fitted to the house,
at a valuation of 571. 15s. The prisoner consented
to do so, but said that as he received his income
quarterly it would be inconvenient to pay ready
money, and therefore tendered a bill of exchange at
six weeks, accepted by the prisoner, as was also the
agreement for the house, in the name of Joseph
Helmsley, and endorsed by his referee Burdett, the
witness himself attesting the signature. Two days
before the bill, however, became due, he discovered
that the prisoner had absconded with the whole of
the property referred to, and upon looking for the re-
ferees he found that they had absconded also, and,
although he had been on the active look out since, he
had been unable to hear anything of the prisoner
until, by the newspapers, ho saw that he was in cus-
tody at this court, and immediately came down and
identified him. The bill, of course, had not been paid
by either of the persons whose names it bore.
Francis, an active officer of the N division, who
had cleverly apprehended the whole of the prisoners,
deposed to the prisoner Burdett, Walker, or Helms-
ley, giving his name when in custody at the station
as Charles Richard Burdett Walker; and Henry
Hammond, clerk to Mr. William Norris, a builder at
Hackney, of whom that prisoner had taken a house in
Anne's-place, Hackney, at 501. per year, proved that
on his so doing he signed the agreement for it as
Charles Richard Walker only, describing himself as
of Milman-street, Bedford-row, gentleman.
Mr. Robert Bressey, a coachbuilder, of High-
street, Stoke Newington, also gave corroborative evi-
dence upon the same point, and proved that while re-
,.iding in Anne's-place, on the 17th of August last,
Walker in that name obtained from him a 16 guinea
phaeton, for which he gave him an acceptance at
six weeks, but absconded before the bill arrived at
maturity.
The solicitor for the prosecution then intimated,
that to complete this charge against the prisoner he
should at the next examination cill Sergeant Dubois,
who would prove that at the very time Walker was
passing by the name of Helmsley there was a true
hill out against him for fraud under the name of
Burdett.
A gentleman named Heard, who had a charge to
prefer against the prisoners of obtaining a pony Iran
him by similar means and representations, then
jumped into the witness-box; hut in consequence of
the lateness of the hour it was determined to take no
more cases that day, and the whole of the prisoners
were transferred to the House of Detention, the
magistrate positively refusing to accept bail for either
of them.

LAMBETH.
Yesterday Henry Tarling, who had been formerly
a cabman, but who has been convicted of housebreak-
ing, and has had several periods of imprisonment for
desperate assaults on different persons, and Ellen Tar-
ling, his wife, were placed at the bar for final exami-
nation before Mr. Elliot, for the following murderous
attack upon a police-constable :
Charles Selston, 142 P, deposed that about twelve
o'clock on the night of the Ist instant he found the
male prisoner quarelling with another man in East-
lane, Walwortb. The other man wanted to go away,
but the prisoner, who followed him, wanted to make
him fight. Witness went up and told the prisoner to
go home, upon which he turned round and hit him a
blow on the ribs. He asked him what he bad done it
for, and at the same time laid hold of him; upon
which they both struggled and fell down together.
The prisoner got up and threw bim again, and on his
getting up, he (the prisoner) said he would go quietly
to the station-house. He did go quietly for a short
distance, but, on reaching a dark place, some man
who was following cried out, "Now give it him,
Harry." The prisoner then said, d What you
want with me, you ?" and instantly struck him
a violent blow on the nose; and he (witness) at the
same time having grasped him, they both fell together.
While on the ground some person kicked him (wit-
ness) violently on the ribs. He drew his truncheon,
but the prisoner, by a great effort,r
got on the top of
him, and knelt on his throat. the female prisoner,
who was with her husband when witness first saw
saw
them, got hold of his face, and ex claiming, Now
you you b----, I'll have your eye out," tried to force his
right eye out of its socket. She put her fingers
into both his eyes and tried to pull them out, and
repeated the expression she had before used. His '
right eye she succeeded in nearly pulling away,
so that the pain ho endured was most ex-
cruciating, but he ultimately, by the greatest pos-
sible exertions, endeavoured to get up. He had
scarcely got on his feet when the male prisoner gave
him a desperate blow on the mouth, which knocked
him down, and both prisoners endeavoured to take
sway hi. truncheon, but did not succeed. While on
the ground this time some person; whom he believed
to be the fetnakt prisoner, struck him on the head with
a stone, but he still clung to the male prisoner, and
held him till another constable came up to his assist-
ance, when the male prisoner was taken to the station-
house. The female prisoner riin away when the ortn-r
constable came to his assistance, and he v.'s. frctly
satisfied she was the parson who hurl assisted her hus•
band in assaulting him. He knew her from seeing
her on that night, as well as on a previous occasion,
when she wished hitn to take her husband into cus
tody on a charge of assaulting her. His (witness's)
right aye Wes so severely injured that he could, even
at thtt present time, see but dimly through it, and at
one time. it was the opinion of the surgeon who at-
tended him that he should not be able to see through