The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-12 00:00:00

1111DDLES_EX SESSIONAS, April 11.

(Before Mr. Bodkin, Assistant Judge.)
A great number of cases, in which the prisoners
for the chief part pleaded gnilty, were disposed of
by the two Courts. Those who were old offenders
were sentenced either to penal servitude or length-
ened terms of imprisonment. The committals of
juvenile offenders this session was unusually large,
and in every case where it was practicable the Court
passed a sentence which would send the prisoner to
some reformatory institution, the County Industrial
School, or to Parkhurst.

John Sewell, 40, describQd as a stableman, but
who had been a master livery-stable-keeper, was in-
dicted for feloniously embezzling the sew ral sums
of £3 Bs., £5 10i. 6d., £5 145., and also other sums
amounting in the aggregate to nearly £2OO.
Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted, inst:ucted by Mr.
Wontner, and Mr. F. H. Lewis was counsel for the
prisoner.
_ _

- It appeared that the prisoner formerly was the
proprietor of some livery-stables in Gloucester-
mews North, but having fallen into difficulties
which he could not meet, the Sheriff eventually
went in under an execution for over £l6B, which
the prosecutor, acorn dealer, in Praed-street, Pad-
dington, between whom and the prisoner there had
been some business transactions, paid out, and as
the prisoner, after making a compromise even, could
not go on, the prosecutor bought the business, part
of the consideration being the amount paid under
the execution. The prosecutor, under the agree-
ment, took possession of the prisoner's stables and
working stock (to which he considerably added on
his own account), and a further agreement was en-
tered into, by which the prisoner became the ser-
vant of the prosecutor, at a salary of £1 2s. per
week, in addition to what he would receive as
" driving money," which would make his average
pay from £2 2s. to £2 ss. per week, and it was
especially stipulated that from the date of that
agreement the prisoner was to be considered in
every way in respect of the business the prosecu-
tor's servant, that he was to render a just, true, and
accurate account of all orders received and exe-
cuted, and of all moneys received from customers,
to the sole account of the prosecutor. After that
the prosecutor found all the means required to carry
on the business, provided additional horses and
broughams, corn, &c., and made out his own bills,
which he gave in some instances to the prisoner to
receive the amount, and of course he was to account
to him when he received the money. The prisoner,
however, made out other bills in lieu of those given to
him by Mr. Booth, the prosecutor, and received the
money iu his own name, as though the business were
still his, without Mr. Booth's knowledge, and did
not account for it to his master. The bills were
made out in the name of Sewell. These matters
having come to the prosecutor's knowledge, the pri-
soner was questioned about them, and he admitted
some particular instances. mentioned, and afterwards
acknowledged that he had received money for
which he had not accounted to Mr. Booth since the
business changed hands, to the amount of £2OO at
least. When asked what he had done with the
money, he said he had been advancing loans to
friends, and the rest he had spent in " gay life"
with women. It should be stated that the prose-
cutor paid the sheriff out and took to the business
in February, 1859, since which time the prisoner
had been his paid servant.
Mr. Lewis, in cross examination, put some ques-
tions upon his instructions, with the view of appa-
rently eliciting from the prosecutor that the agree-
ment for a service was a mere blind, that the pri-
soner remained a principal not withstanding, and
that there were matters between them which jus-
tified his receiving and detaining this money for
himself. Every one of these questions met with a
direct negative from the prosecutor, whose evidence
was given with the utmost clearnessi, and who pro-
duced his accounts, books and papers, and the pri-
soner's own receipts for his wages from the date of
the agreement.
Mr. Lewis said he had cross-examined according
to the instructions the prisoner bad furnished his
attorney with, but after the evidence of the prose-
cutor, which could not be considered in the least
impugned, he should simply say if the jury believed
it—and he could not see the least reason why they
should not—they would convict the prisoner ; if
they did not, or doubted it, they would acquit. His
instructions had entirely failed.
The Assistant Judge said he thought the learned
counsel had exercised a sound discretion, for a
clearer case of embezzlement was never brought
into a court of justice.
The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty.
The prosecutor, in answer to the Court, stated
that up to the present time his actual loss of money
received by the prisoner was £lB6 Bs. 4d. as far as
he had ascertained.
The Assistant-Judge said the offence of embezzle-
ment was at all times a serious one, but this case
was not only of a serious description, but it had been
scandalously aggravated by the defence the prisoner
had given instructions to be set up. Not content
with plundering a man who had been most kir d to
him, he.made the most atrocious aspersions on him
for which there was not the least foundation. The

sentence upon him was three years' penal servitude.
James Navin, 22, was convicted of stealing a gold
watch, value 40 guineas, the property of James
APS winey, from his person. He was well known
to the police as the associate of thieves.
Sentenced to three years' penal servitude.
Edward Storey was convicted of stealing a hand-
kerchief from the person of George Leatham.
Foulsham, the officer of the Westminster Bride-
well, proved that the prisoner had been twice con-
victed, and sentenced to nine months' hard labour
and ten years' transportation.
The Court sentenced prisoner to five years' penal
servitude.