The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-31 00:00:00

THE FRAUDS ON THE CITY OF
LONDON UNION.

EXAMINATION OF PAUL (THIS DAY).

John Paul, one of the men charged with being con-
cerned in the frauds on the City of London Union, was
placed at the bar this morning, before the Lord Mayor,
at the Mansion-house, for the purpose of a preliminary
examination.
The charge, as entered on the police sheet, is, that he
stole and carried away a certain order for the payment
of 3781. 15s. 6d., the property of the Board of Guardians
of the City of London Union ; but the amount by no
means represents the amount of his defalcations. A
great number of the members of the Board of Guardians
were present, 'and the Court was densely crowded.
Mr. Humphreys attended for the prdsecution, and

the prisoner was defended by Mr. Wontner.
Mr. Humphreys said he appeared before his lordship
on the part of the Board of Guardians of the City of
London Union, to prefer various charges against the
prisoner at the bar, who, he regretted to say, was
until lately in the employ of the Union, as assistant-
clerk. After laying before his lordship several circum-
ssances connected with the charge, aed having proved
them, he (Mr. Humphreys) bhould ask for a remand, for
the purpose of investigating more thoroughly than has yet
been done the great number of defalcations on the part
of the prisoner. The cases he should now enter into were
two in number. One was for stealing a check entrusted
to him as a servant of the union for the purpose of paying
over to Messrs. Kingsford, who supplied the union with
flour. The check in question was given on the 2d
September, 1855, for 3781. 15s. 6d. and it was the pri-
soner's duty to pay the cheek to Messrs. Kingsford and
Co., but instead of doing so, he, having a banker's ac-
count of his own, paid it into the Bank of London to his
own account, on the 13th of the same month. His
Lordship would find there was no doubt as to his hav-
ing done so, for not only would the entry in the banker's
books show it, but there would be produced a ticket
which the Bank of London received from its customers
on their lodging money with them filled up in their own
handwriting, and the writing on the ticket for the
amount of this cheque would be proved to be in the
prisoner's handwriting. The prisoner, he should show,
admitted some time after to Mr. Rowse'', the clerk of
the Union, that he bad misappropriated the money,
whereupon that gentleman, from a benevolent feeling,
paid Messrs. Kingsford's claim out of his own pocket.
The second case he should prefer against the prisoner
would be one of forgery—the forging the receipt of an
acquaintance for money which was given by him on
19th November last to Mr. Woodward, who was
the collector of the poor's and church rates for
St. Andrew Undershaft. Mr. Woodward from time to

time up to the 18th of Nov. had given to the prisoner
various sums of money amounting to 2001., and on the
18th Nov. he gave him a further sum of 901., making in
the whole 2901., which he was to pay into Messrs.
Smith, Paine and Smith, the bankers of the Union, to
the credit of the parish, the bankers' receipt for the money
to be given to Mr. Woodward on the following day.
According to promise, the prisoner on the following day
gave to Mr. Woodward a receipt purporting to be the
bankers' receipt for the money, and signed by E. S.
Crosier, cashier in the banking house. That receipt he
(Mr. Humphreys) should show, by the evidence of Mr.
Crosier, was a forgery ; and under the circumstances he
should ask for the prisoner's remand.
Mr. S. H. Huish, one of the Guardians of the City
of London Union, deposed that he resided at 17, St.
Martin's-le-Grand, and was a shoe warehouseman. He
attended a board meeting on the 23 of SepteMber last.
The prisoner was then assistant clerk of the union, and
was acting on the occasion for the chief clerk, who was
absent. The board made an order of payment to Messrs.
Kingsford of 3781.155. 6d. A cheque was drawn for that
amount, and was left in the prisoner's hands for pay-
ment to them. Witness did not see the cheque again

till recently, when he found it in a drawer of Mr.
Paul's table, or desk in the office, on the 17th of this
month. He was not attending to his duties then,
having absented himself for a day or two.
Mr. John Robinson Glanville, cashier in the Bank of
London, deposed that the prisoner kept a private ac-
count there. On the 13th of September he paid in a
cheque for 3781. 15s. 61, and the cheque produced had
the bank mark upon it. It was the custom of the
bank to have a ticket for the amount lodged, by the
customers, and he had the ticket, which he produced,
and which was in the prisoner's hand writing, and dated
Sept. 13. The cheque was paid by Messrs. Smith,
Payne, and Smith to a clerk of the Bank of London.
Mr. J. T. Rowsell, clerk to the guardians, deposed
that he resided at Norwood, The cheque produced
(and referred to by Mr. Heath) was counter-
signed by him as clerk. In consequence of some
information he had he spoke to the prisoner on the 27th
Nov., and asked him for the receipt from Messrs.
Kingsford, as he found that the cheque had been
cashed on the 13th Sept. Prisoner hesitated about
the receipt, and witness went again to look at the
banker's book (Smith, Payne, and Smith). He found
he was correct, and returned immediately to the
prisoner's office, when the prisoner said, "It's useless
deceiving you ; I have used the money." Witness paid
the money to Messrs. Kingsford out of his own pocket.

Mr. Humphreys said that was as far as he intended
to go in that case, and he would now proceed with the
other,

Mr. Rob ert Woodward, of 49, Lime-street, deposed
that he was collector of poor and church rates for the
parish of St. Andrew Undershaft. Before the 18th of
Nov. last he handed several sums of money to the pri-
soner, amounting, in the aggregate, to 2001. On 18th
Nov. he handed to him 901. more, making 2901. He
was to pay it into the bankers' of the Guardians. The
bankers were Smitb, Paine, and Smith. On the follow-
ing day the prisoner gave him a receipt for the money,
purporting to be signed by Mr. Crosier, cashier at the
banking house. Prisoner said it was the receipt for the
money.

Mr. E. S. Crosier deposed that he was a cashier at
Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co's. The signature on the
receipt produced, purporting to be his, was not in his
handwriting. He did not receive the money. There
was no other person of his name in the banking house.
Mr. Humphreys said that was all the evidence he
proposed calling to-day, and he asked for a remand.
The Lord Mayor—Certainly. To what day ?
Mr. Humphreys said to-morrow week.
Mr. Wontner offered no opposition, and

The prisoner was accordingly remanded.
The prisoner, who is about 62 years of age, has more
the appearance of a man about 45. He is rather stout,
with small features, and florid complexion.

. -
LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. Commissioner Holroyd was the Commissioner of
the day, but there was no cause on the list. A meeting
was held in re the Royal British Bank, but it was strictly
private.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE-DAMAGES 5001.

BiRBAR V. DE ERESPIGNY.
This was an action to recover damages for a breach of
promise of marriage. The plaintiff is a young lady at
Malta, and defendant an officer in the Royal navy.

Defendant having suffered judgment to go by default,
the jury were now empanelled to assess damages.
Mr. D. E. Colombine, of Basinghall-chambers,
Basinghall-street, appeared for the plaintiff and stated
the case, from which it appeared that when serving as
lieutenant in the Phaeton at Malta, in 1852, he became
acquainted with Mrs. Barbar's family, and paid his
addresses to her daughter, Miss Mary Barbar, with the
sanction of her mother; but he said that, not having
obtained promotion, he must acquaint his mother, on
whom he was dependent. Subsequently he wrote to say
that his mother would not consent to his marriage,
which compelled him to delay until he was in an inde-
pendent position. Mrs. Barbar then wrote to him,
releasing him from any promise, and begging that he
would break off any further engagement or correspon-
deuce with her (laughter. He answered, regretting that
Mrs. Barbar had concluded so summarily, but still hoped
ho would be able soon to renew his engagement. All
was silence till 0c6., 1855, when defendant, then serving
in the James Watt, in the Baltic, renewed his offers and
professed sincerity, and although time was allowed for
reflection, a private note having been written expressive
of anxiety whether his expressions were decisive, to
which he replied in the affirmative. The " happy" day
was not actually fixed, but defendant, who had been ap-
pointed to the Snap gunboat, wrote in Nov., 1855,
requesting Mrs. Barbar and plaintiff to come to England.
As an inducement, he said that he could either remain
in the service and take his chance of promotion to com-
mander, after which he could expect no promotion, as
when peace should be made with Russia, there would
be such a stagnation as to prevent the possibility of
any body's rising in the service; but, cn the other hand,
he thought that instead of taking a house, it would
be better that they should live in the Snap till the
war was over, and then be would take half-pay and go
out to that magnificent country, Australia, where
the Government would give Lim 300 acres of land, and
spoke of ri relations, and hopes of being remembered