The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-05 00:00:00

Pullinger—No, my lord. I have nothing to say.
The depositions were then read over, and signed by the
witnesses.
Richard John Lyttleton, lately a clerk in the Union
Bank, was then placed by the side of Pullinger in the dock,
when they were both charged with stealing £3,000.
Mr. Giffard said the joint charge would now be proceeded
with, and as the money taken was in gold, the iststrumen-
tality of the prisoner Lyttleton would be resorted to.
Mr. John Arthur Barton—l am Deputy-manager of the
Union Bank. The prisoner Lyttleten was a cashier. I
produced the cash-book on the 25th and 27th of April,
1859. I find, on the 25th, entries in the prisoner's hand-
writing. In his account current column he entered a sum
of £3,000 as having been. paid to the Bank of England in
gold. On the same day I find an entry of an exchange of
£5OO S. and M. That would be understood to mean in
exchange of notes for gold. We have some customers,
named Samuels and Montague, bullion dealers. It was cus-
tomary to enter the initials of a firm, but not of private
individuals, in such transactions. On the 27th I find two
exchanges. One is E.C.R. (Eastern Counties Railway),
£1,500. The other is £l,OOO, S. and M. Turning back
to the £5OO exchange, I find a £5OO note was given, num-
bered 37,984, 27th of January, 1859. On the 27th the
E.C.R. exchange I find that on one Bank of England
note of £5OO, numbered 38,611, dated January 27th,
and also a Bank of England note for £l,OOO, numbered
85,748, and dated 28th January. Turning to the other ex-
change of S. and M., I find a £l,OOO note numbered 85,778,
dated January 28th, was given for gold.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis, who appeared for Lyttle-
ton—When the prisoner received money to a certain
amount it was his duty to hand it to Pullinger,
as the chief cashier, to see that the accounts balanced, and
then to write out a docket which goes on a file to be passed
through the ledger. The docket is the only proof that the
money has been paid to Pullinger. Lyttleten did all that
was his duty. He was not expected to do more than he has
done. It was no part of Lyttleton's duty to see that the
sum was paid into the Bank of England, that was Pullin-
ger's duty. It was 'his duty, but it was a custom
to pay the money before twelve. I don't know
as a fact that the Bank of England will not receive
coin after 12 o'clock. I believe it is their practice not to
take it after 12. On the 25th there is an entry of £5OO
(gold) having been paid in exchange for a note S.land M.
If the head cashier brought him gold for £5OO, it would
not be his duty to gi►e him a note for that amount, and en-
ter it if he directed as for S. and M. If such a transaction
occurred as to the E. C. R. exchange it would I think be
his duty to consult the manager before he did so. The
Union Bank authorities had the greatest confidence lb
Pullinger. I thought him above a falsehood. He had the
confidence of every one.
Mr. Lewis—Such being so do you mean to tell:me that if
Mr. Pullinger went to him with £1,500 in gold, and said to
Lyttleton give me notes for the amount he ought not to
have done it ?
Witness—No, without reference to the manager.
Mr. Lewis—ls there any rule to that effect ?
Witness—No, but the singularity of the transaction ought
to have induced him to consult the manager.
Mr. Lewis—Don't you by your books know it was done
constantly.
Witness—What.
Mr. Lewis—The exchange of notes for gold.
Witness—l don't know so, but by reference to the books
I find it is so.
Mr. Lewis—Why was Lyttleton not to make the ex-
change ?
Witness Because It was so large an amount.
• Mr. Lewis—A large amount—Was it because he was to
doubt Mr. Pullinger, who had been in the bank 21 years.
Witness—He ought to have consulted the manager.
Mr. Lewis—lf Samuels and Montague had brought
£1,500 or £3,000 to Pullinger, and he had taken it to Lyt
tleton for exchange, was he to hesitate about making the
exchange ?—lt would not be strictly his duty to do so, but
it would have shown a want of discretion.
Mr. Lewis—lf Pullinger had brought you £1,500 for ex-
change, would you refuse to make the exchange ?
Witness—l should have referred this to the manager, as
he is my superior officer.
Mr. Lewis—Then why should Lyttleton have done more
than you would have done ?
Witness—The strangeness of the transaction should
have induced him to do so, as the Eastern Counties Rail-
way were not in the habit of doing such business.
Mr. Lewis—Do you call £1,500 a large amount.
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Lewis—What, for a railway company.
Witness—Yes, especially as that kind of business was of
an unusual nature.
In answer to further questions, witness said—l always
looked upon him as an honourable young man. I have not
traced a shilling to have gone to Mr. Lyttleton. His books
show all the entries as true. There is no false entering dis-
covered. lam induced to say that because the Bank of
England does not give us credit for the £3,000 entered in
one of Lyttleton's books, that entry is a false • one. Mr.
Pullinger kept the pass-book of the Bank of England.
Lyttleton had nothing to do with that book. If I had paid
Pullinger £3OO, and he had put it into his pocket, and
had not paid it into the Bank, I should not call an entry I
should make a false one. The pass-book put in is the only
book between the Union and the Bank of England. There
was another book, but it was kept locked up in the bank. It
is not here, at least I have not brought it. Mr. Pullinger
used to appoint the person to carry the money to the bank.
I don't know that a porter has carried money to the Bank
of England. I know that Mr. Pullinger used to take the
money to the Bank of England. I will not, however, swear
that a porter has not carried as much as £15,000 by him-
self.

Mr. Humphries here said he appeared here on the part
of Mr. Pullinger, not to offer any defence to the charge,
lout his client was anxious to state that there was nothing
to connect Lyttleton with these transactions, mad that he
was perfectly innocent of any fraud. (Applause.)
Mr. Giffaid--I do not intend to take Mr. Pullinger's
word in the matter, a nap who has been committing frauds
upon the loank for a long series of years.
The witness Barton was then re examined by Mr. Gif-
fard—l have no means of knowing that Samuels and Mon-
tague did not come to the bank and make the exchange that
has bees spoken of. Three thousand pounds in bullion
would be a large parcel. It would not attract attention to
it. Pullinger had carried such a parcel from counter to
counter.

Mr. Lewis—Did not Mr. Pullinger hold 30 shares in the

bank ?
Witness—There is the secretary.
Mr. Lewis—Don't you know ?
Witness—He did hold the shares.
Mr. Lewis—Was not Lyttletov's accounts duly examined,
and found correct ?
Witness—Yes.
Gustava Bitter, chief clerk to Messrs, Samuel and Moll'