The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-19 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—March 17.

WANDSWORTH.—CURIOUS CASE OF FRAUD
AND FORGERY—A FAST BOY OF 1860.—A stylishly-
dressed youth, who gave the name of Henry Coley,
and described himself as a clerk, aged 17, was
placed in the dock before Mr. Dayman, charged
with obtaining £2 from a lady named Knight, re-
siding at Senghurst-cottage, Wandsworth-road, by
fraudulent means.

From the evidence adduced it appeared that Mrs.
Knight, who was quite an invalid, had a sister,
named Maria Goodwin, residing in the neighbour-
hood of Clapham. During the last few days she
had been very much annoyed by the repeated visits
of the prisoner and another young man with letters
purporting to have been written by her sister, and
imploring her to lend her money. The prisoner
brought no fewer than five notes, all signed M. G.,
and containing such words as these—" My dear
sister, do, pray, lend me the money. I have bills
to meet. You little knew the difficulty people in
business have to contend against." Mrs. Knight
had an attendant named Mrs. Turner, and although
the letters were addressed to the prosecutrix, they
implored Mrs. Turner to get the money, as there
was no doubt the writer knew perfectly well that
the letters would be read by the attendant. One
of the letters asked for £5, and on that occasion the
prosecutrix directed Mrs. Turner to give her £2, as
she was short of money and could not spare any more.
The prisoner came several times afterwards, and at
last Mrs. Goodwin happened to hear that some per-
sons were getting money in her name, and she went
to her sister's and waited till he came. The letters
were all forgeries, and the prisoner then stated
that he was sent by a stranger whom he met in
the street, and gave him sixpence for his trouble.
The prisoner was given into custody, and he gave
an address which turned out to be an improper
house. It also appeared that his friends were
highly respectable, but he had ran away from them,
and was living with a number of young girls at the
house in question.
Mrs. Turner produced two other letters which
were brought by the other young man, and she
proved having given him £2.
Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk, said the letters were
written after the same style as the others, but they
were upon a different kind of paper.
The prisoner now stated that the letters were
given to him by a nephew of the family.
Mrs. Goodwin said she had a nephew, but she
scarcely knew him, and did not know where he
lived. She believed his conduct had caused his
mother considerable pain. The prisoner was an
entire stranger to her.
The constable said he had no doubt he should be
able to apprehend the other young man.
Mr. Dayman remanded the prisoner for a week.
There were a number of young girls outside ap-
parently waiting to know the result of the charge.

WESTMINSTER. THE CHARGES AGAINST
Miss RICHARDS.—About a fortnight ago, Miss
Martha Augusta Arthur Richards, who had been
living in great style at 13, Chester-street, Gros-
venor-place and who was stated by her solicitor to
be a lady of good family, was charged with fraudu-
lently obtaining £ll upon a banker's cheque. The
case was then only slightly gone into, owing to the
accused's illness and the want of evidence, and was
adjourned from time to time until the lady was well
enough to appear to the recognisances she had
entered into. The accusation against her was
briefly this :—That she had sent her servant with a
cheque for Xll to Mr. Phipps, butcher, 36, Bel-
grave-street, and obtained cash for it ; that when
the cheque was presented at the banker's there
were no effects to meet it ; and that, subsequently,
when Mr. Phipps sent the cheque to her house with a
request that she would take it up, she destroyed it ;
but in cross-examination it was shown that the ac-
cused had sent her servant to Mr. Phipps with an
offer to pay the money, but he refused to take it, as
he had just sent the cheque to his bankers.
On Miss
.C. Richards appearing for further exa-
mination,

Mr. C. Humphreys prosecuted for Mr. Phipps,
and expressed a desire to shape the charge against
her for stealing the cheque, admitting that there
had been sufficient to meet the cheque at the ac-
cused's bankers for some days after it was drawn;

it had, however, not been eent to the bankers sooner •
in consequence of the servant requesting delay.
Mr. Arnold complained that Mr. Phippshad acted
most disingenuously when he induced him to grant
a warrant for the accused's apprehension. He had
not only withheld the fact that an offer had been
made to pay the money, but had stated that her ac-
count had been closed at her banker's. There was
no false pretence, and he should discharge the pri-
soner for the alleged fraud, leaving it to Mr. Phipps
to give her into custody again, if he thought fit, on
any other charge.
Mr. Humphreys now stated a second charge for
which a summons had been issued against the pri-
soner, for obtaining a silk dress, value £lO ss. 2d.,
under false pretences. She had represented herself
to be a lady, when she was neither more nor less
than a servant. She had stated herself to be the
cousin of Lady Forbes and niece of Lord Tredegar,
both of which were untrue, and upon faith of these
representations she had obtained the dress from Mr.
Parton, linendraper and silk mercer, 3 and 4,
Queen's-road, Piailico.
Mr. Lewis, jun., urged that Miss Richards's ac-
count had been mixed up with a lady's with whom
she resided, and asked Mr. Parton whether £2O had
not been offered him for his claim on the previous
day. Mr. Parton said that was so. Mr. Teed,
Q.C., had been to him upon the subject.
After some conversation Mr. Parton agreed to
take the £2O, and the charge having been with-
drawn, the accused left the court with her friends.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET. —AN ALLEGED
FINDER'S APPROPRIATION OF A STOLEN NOTE.—
Mr. Henry's Simpson, tailor, of 8, Richmond-street,
Leicester-square, was summoned before Mr. Bing•
ham for feloniously appropriating to his own use a
lost £lO Bank of England note, which it was
alleged he had found himself, or in company with
another.

Mr, Humphreys conducted the case ; and Mr.
Edward Lewis, of Marlborough-street, the defence.
After an outline of the case had been given, Mr.
Humphreys called
Mrs. Sarah Dewing,' the wife of Mr. Edward
Dewing, a City merchant, residing at No. 2, Grove,
Hackney, who deposed that she received, on the
27th of February, a £lO Bank of England note from
her husband to pay a bill, and after lunching with
her daughter, a young married lady, at her house
6, Die I Cora m-street, are, proceeded
with her to Woburn-place, where they got into a
cab. Directly after entering she perceived that her
purse in her hand was open, and the note in ques-
tion and its contents gone. Losing no time they
both alighted and retraced their steps, the one on
one side of the way and the other on the other, to
where they called the cab, hoping to find the note,
but were doomed to disappointment.
Mrs. Fanny Cavell, the daughter of the last wit-
ness, confirmed the previous statement as to the loss,
and the proceeding consequent on the same, and
added, that as she looked for the note two men, one
with very dark whiskers, and the other, to the best
of her belief, the defendant, accosting her, asked her
if she was looking for anything. She replied,
"Yes—a note." The man she believed to be the
defendant asked if it was a £5 ors £lO note, and
she answered a £lO, and they, with the remark
that it was a great loss, left, in the direction of
Russell•square, shuffling about on the pavement as
they started. On a subsequent day, from informa-
tion she received, she accompanied her father to the
defendant's shop. He did not at first appear to re-
cognise her, but afterwards turned verypale.
Cross-examined—lt was nearer three than four
o'clock in the afternoon when the note was dis-
covered to be lost. Had never, to her knowledge,
seen either of the men before. It was about four
or five minutes after leaving defendant's shop she
told her father he was the man.

Mr. William Edwar 1 Dewing, merchant and
lard oil manufacturer at the East-end of the town,
the husband of the first witness, said he gave his
wife a £lO note, as stated, on the 27th ult., the
number of which he found, as quickly after the
loss as possible, to be 9,048, and that it bore date
23d January, 1F360. It is the note now produced
by the Bank authorities. On hearing of the less he
advertised the same, and offered £1 reward, both in
the papers and by handbills ; and, besides, gave the
usual notice at the Bank of England. Acting upon
information received, he afterwards went to Mr.
Buckley, 61, Basinghall-street, and thence to the
defendant's, in Richmond-street, where he saw the
defendant. In reply to his questions, he said ho
had paid a £lO note to Mr. Buckley, which he had
received from a man, who gave his name Smith,
who looked like a sailor, and gave it in payment of
a second-hand coat, and this person indorsed it, or
pretended to do so. Defendant's wife coming into
the shop at that moment, said, " No, he did not put
his name to it." He asked him, after telling him
it was his note, which had been lost, if he would
come to some arrangement about the same, and the
defendant replied, No, he would not ; and on the
question of the change he gave, that that was his
business, requiring to know, at the same time, if he
took him for a-- foot. Again he proceeded to
the defendant's with his daughter, and asked if he
had traced out the Mr. Smith he spoke of, and he
replied in the negative.
Mr. John Blizard Buckley, woollen draper, 61,
Basinghall-street, said that the defendant had done
business with him about one year and a half, and
that he paid him the note in question to take £5
off an account of £l7 between them, on the 28th of
February, which. he had. applied for two or three
times. He required his indorsement, and he placed
his name on a corner of the note. He subsequently
paid the note to his bankers, the London Joint-
Stock Bank.

Mr. Richard Bailey, from the Bank of England,
produced the note in question paid in in a bulk of
£l,lOO from the Joint-Stock Bank.
This being the whole of the case,
Mr. Lewis addressed the court for his client, con-
tending that he was a respectable tradesman,
charged with feloniously stealing the note upon
the uneorrobcftated statement of a lady who had
herself very fairly stated that .he could not Speak
with certainty as to the defendant's identity. She
had been taken by her father to the defendant's
house, and had admitted it was not until she had
left there some minutes that she fixed on him as
one of the men who spoke to her in Woburn-place.
Mr. Bingham said as very loose and erroneous
opinions were afloat as to lost property found by
others than the owners, it would be well that he
should endeavour to set this matter right, by giving
some general information on the subject, and he
would state the latest law respecting the same. If
a man find goods that have been actually
lost, or
are reasonably supposed by him to have been lest,
and appropriates them, with intent to take the en-
tire dominion over them, really believing when he
takes them that the owner cannot be found, it is
not larceny ; but if he takes them with the like in-
tent, though lost, or supposed to be lost, but rea-
sonably believing that the owner can be found, it
is larceny. In the present case, had the lady, Mrs.
Cavell, been able to swear positively to the defen-
dant, I should undoubtedly have committed him,
under the circumstances detailed in evidence, to
take his trial. But she has stated very carefully
and fairly that she cannot say without a doubt that
he is the man, and therefore I shall not put the
county to unnecessary expenEn in his committal,
awl do therefore discharge the summons.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.—At the COMi-
tia Majora held on Saturday, March 17, the following
_George Anne Martin, M.D.,
gentlemen, having been previously elected, c; ere admitted
Samuel' Parsons, 3, Clarges-street,
imree
nmtbneerrs,
Isleof t(h)fewi
g Collegeh t ;
Daniel Hack Tuke, M.D., Falmouth; Thomas Hunter,
m. 13,, Cheltenham ; Thomas Leckie, M.D.,
M.D., Edinburgh • John Scott, M.D., Boulogne; Henry
Mills Cannon,
M.D.Brighton;
Torquay ; William St. George Davies, M.D
John Stirling, M.D., Royal Navy ; William Mort, M.D.,
Southport ; William Laxon, M.D., Coventry ; Henry John
Lucas, M.D., Crickhowell, South Wales ; Julius Althaus,
M.D., Manchester-street; John Davidson, M.D., Royal
Hospital, Hasler ; Richard Giles, M.D., Oxford ; John
Dowson, M D., Whitby ; Almeric Walter Seymour, M.D.,
M.D., Leinstor-square ;
BHreingrhytoinlacrDyavdododDeivme,cal\ni.DL.o,
gSatilo'ke Bishep, near Bristol ;
Darwen Chawner, M.D., Lincoln ; Henry G.Wright, M.D.,
Somerset-street ; Richard Leack, M.D., Blackburn ; John
Frederick
M.D., Birkenhead ; Joseph Hutchin-
son Preston; Ravenhill Pearce, M.D.,
redHeraicink niSotnevdr
i\sio.n n,.,
Brighton; Robert Crothers, M.D., Moy, county Tyrone;
John Stewart Kilgour, M.D., Isle f Man; Vans C. Clarke,
M.D., Royal Naval Rendezvous, Tower-hill ; Joseph A.
Radcliffe Harvey, M.D. Southsea ; Edward Cator Seaton,
M.D., Sloane-street
M. C. Faircloth, ; Edward Shortland, Plymouth; John
~
M.D., Northampton ; John Beddoe, M.D.,
Clifton ; Robert Miller, M.D., Somer's-place, Hydel.ark ;
Charles Sylvester, M.D
M.D Bow. •i , Bath • Alonzo Henry Stocker,

- •• -
ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.—The following
gentlemen, having undergone the necessary examinations
for the diploma, were admitted members of the College at a
meeting of the Court of Examiners on the 16th inst., viz.—
Messrs. John Edmunds, Toddington, near Dunstable,
L.S.A., May 2, 1816; Thomas Stiles, Pinchbeck, Spalding,
Lincolnshire, L.S.A., February 1, 1821; James Bryant,
Northampton-street, Clerkenwell, L S.A., November 18,
1824 ; Robert Skegg, S. . Martin's-place, Trafalgar-square,
L. S.A., December 22' 1825 ; Henry Knaggs, Kentish-town,
L.S.A., February 23, 1826; James Griffith, Biddenden,
Kent, L.S.A.' Dec. 21, 1826; James Lambden, Grimsby,
Lincolnshire' L.S.A., April 12, 1827 • James Hurd, Frorne,
Somerset, L. ' S A., June 3, 1830 • Ralph' Linton, Chester-
le-street, L.S.A, June 10, 1830; Francis Chas. Howard,
Linton, Cambridgeshire, L.S.A., June 7, 1832 ; George
Cochrane, Wickham-market, Suffolk, L.S.A., October 17,
1833; Edward Smith Walters, Leek, Staffordshire, L.5.A..,
Nov. 3, 1836 ; Jacob Ashley, Wick and Abson, near Bath,
L.S.A.' July 5, 1S38; Fredericßarham, Maidstone, L.S.A.,
April 25, 1859; John Hurd, Yatton, near Bristol, L.S.A.,
May 8, 1845; Wm. Paine Fisher, Dartford, L.S.A., March
5, 1846 ; Wm. Byron Hill, Carter-street, Walworth, L.S.A.,
July 5, 1849; Alfred Scotchburn, Driffield, Yorkshire,
L.S.A., Nov. 8, 1849; Christopher Kirby, Halifax, York-
shire, L.S.A., May 6, 1842 • John Ivy Mais, Thorner, near
Leeds, L.S.A., May 26, 18'53 ; Edward Swales, Hensley,
Yorkshire, L.S.A., April 2S, 1853 ; Chas. Stuart Watkins,
Chandos-street, Covent-garden, L,S,A., April 20, 18:54 ; and
Frederie Slade Hoger, Highgate,