The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-08 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—May 7.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Henry Francis Richard-
son, who some weeks ago was committed from this
court upon a charge of having defrauded the coun-
cil of the London Rifle Brigade of various sums of
money, was brought up from Ncwgate, by habeas
corpus, to meet a further charge of misdemeanour,
to be preferred against him on behalf of the same
prosecutors.

Mr. Humphreys appeared on behalf of the coun-
cil of the brigade, and Mr. Bartley, of Bartlett's-
buildings, who was not, however, present when the
prisoner was placed at the bar, appeared for the
defence.

Sir It. Carden—Have you retained any solicitor,
prisoner ?
Prisoner—Yes, I have, but he is not here, yet I
never knew of this until Saturday evening, al-
though I have been ten weeks in waiting for my
trial, and now this involves the necessity of new
briefs and new counsel fees.

Mr. Humphreys—That is untrue, as the prisoner
had notice of it a week ago.
Sir R. Carden—l think you have no cause of
complaint, for if you are not yet ready to answer
the charge the judges will adjourn the case, I dare
say, as they often do.
Prisoner—But I have already been in prison ten
weeks, and am not anxious to bo there five weeks
longer.
Sir R. Carden—Well, it is not a very great hard-
ship, as the judges will, I have no doubt, listen to
any reasonable application you make, You are,
perhaps, aware that this charge is brought under a
new act of Parliament, as under the old act the
indictment might have been preferred without the
necessity of this course being taken.
Prisoner—What I complain of more particularly
is that as notice was given to me on Tuesday last I
was not brought up on Wednesday or Thursday,
which would have given me time to prepare for
my trial.
Mr. Humphreys—Under the old act an indict-
ment might have been preferred against the pri-
soner without notice, but he received notice of
this particular case last Tuesday, and was also
informed of the exact nature of the evidence
that would be brought against him. The present
charge, which is brought against him by the advice
of counsel, is of having, by false pretences, obtained
six small sums of money, amounting in the whole
to £lO, from the council of the London Rifle Bri-
gade. The lrarned gentleman then proceeded to
state the precise circumstances under which the
charge had arisen, and which are detailed in the
evidence below.
Mr. Alderman Rose, Alderman of the City of.
London—l am vice-president of the council of the
London Rifle Brigade, of which the prisoner was
acting secretary. Among other books he had charge
of the petty cash book produced. As a member of
the finance committee I admitted his account:, and
among them this petty cash book. I audited it on
the 25th October, 1859. There is an entry in that
book " Paid for advertisement a sum of

Mr. Bartley (who had now arrived to defend the
prisoner)—l must object to the production of that
book unless the entries to bo referred to are in the
prisoner's handwriting.
Mr. Alderman Rose—The book was kept by him.
Mr. Humphreys—And he produced it to Mr.
Alderman Rose.
__ _

1\ Ir. Bartley—He never did produce it. You have
not proved that.
- Mr. Alderman Rose—The book was kept by Mr
Jeffery, but it was in the custody of the prisoner,