The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-13 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Ib. 11.

MANSION•HOUSE.—James Ingram, porter,
was brought up fur further examination on a charge
of forging and uttering a check for £l2O, with in-
tent to defraud the Governor and Company of the
Bank of England.
It had been previously deposed that he presented
the check at the Bank, and was stopped on suspi-
cion of forgery. He accounted for his possession
of the check by saying it had been given to him to
get cashed by a gentleman whom he met in the
street, but, this not being believed, he was taken
into custody, when some other checks were found
upon him, as well as notes of request for the deli-
very of check-books at two banks.
Mr. Freshfield now appeared for the prosecution,
and called additional evidence.

Mr. Collinson, soap manufacturer, said—l bank at
the Bank of England, and produce my check-book,
which I sent to .vlr. Birkett's, of Nortonfolgate, to
be bound, at the latter end of last year ; the checks
are numbered D. V., 93,601 to 93,800. Upon exa-
mining it I found a sheet of five checks missing,
numbered 93,671 to 93,675. The two checks now
produced and filled up for £l2O respectively are
two of the missing checks.
Mr. Freshfield—One of these checks was stopped
at the Bank when presented, and the other he tore
up at the station, and threw the pieces on the
ground.
Prisoner—l don't know anything about the
checks, my lord.
Sir H. Muggeridge—Tie check-book was sent
to Mr. Birkett to be bound, and you were in Mr.
Birkett's employment.
Mr. B. Birkett, stationer, Norton folgate—l know
the prisoner at the bar, who has gone by the name
of James Carpenter during the time he has been in
my employment, from the middle of November to
the time of his apprehension. I received some
waste paper from Mr. H. Bateman, but I cannot
say whether the prisoner had access to it. I do not
remember binding the check-book for Mr. Collinson,
nor am I aware that there were any waste checks
among the waste paper.
By the Prisoner—l do not know that you ever
had anything to do with that checkbook.
The prisoner, upon being asked what he had to
say in reply to the charge, replied,—l have nothing
to say, except that I know nothing about the checks
more than having them in my possession.
He was then committed for trial.

BOW-STREET.—A tall well-dressed man, with
a large beard and moustache, who gave the name
of John Green and stated that he was a linen-
draper, was placed at the bar for final examination
on a charge of assaulting Emily Vivian, a well-
looking and smartly-attired young woman, who de-
scribed herself as a dressmaker, but who was ad-
mitted by her attorney (Mr. Lewis, jun., of the firm
of Lewis and Lewis) to be " under the protection
of a gentleman." He had been originally brought
before the court on Tuesday last, and remanded in
custody, having failed to provide the required bail,
to the amount of £5O.

The case rested chiefly on the evidence of the pro-
secutrix, who stated that on Monday she was at
the theatre, and after the performance was over she
went alone to a supper-room in the neighbourhood
of the Haymarket, where she remained till 6 o'clock.
She was leaving in company with a friend whom
she had met there, when the prisoner entered into
conversation with them. Her friend was calling a
cab to take them to Pimlico, and the prisoner asked
permission to ride with them. Her friend, who was
under the impression that she was acquainted with
the prisoner, readily consented, and they all got
into the cab together. As they were passing through
the Birdcage-walk the prisoner suddenly turned
upon her friend, and ordered him out of the cab,
observing that if he did not get out he (the pri-
soner) would kick him out. Her friend yielded,
but not until the prisoner had struck him on the
face, and she had entreated him to " Get out and
keep quiet." The cab then went on, and presently
the prisoner, without :the slightest provocation,
began to beat her. She tried to scream, but he held
his hands over her mouth, to prevent her. He struck
her several times in the face, and blackened her left
eye. (Her face was much disfigured from bruises
about the left eye.) When they got to Eccleston-
bridge the cabman pulled up and called a constable,
who took the prisoner into custody up JU this charge.
Before the constable came up the prisoner offered
her £5O not to charge him, a proposal which he re-
peated after the constable came up. He was per-
fectly sober.
The constable, however, denied that any offer of
compromise was made in his hearing, and asserted
that both complainant and defendant were drunk.
The inspector confirmed him on the latter point,
but observed that the prisoner was not very drunk.
He was not so far gone as to be unconscious of what
he was doing and saying, or of what was going on
around him.
cabman
edeposedunderstood—at that e was
the hired—by
house
in thethe
looking_ibnrtidh gef into
where the
minutes afterwards he heardg
Haymarket. At the Birdcage-walk the other gen-
tleman
he saw the prisoner striking e ace. He
prisoner,t
leTm gothaenea bamos out. A few
drove on till he came to ,
theca complainant screaming,
the way. He stopped when he
prisoner in charge. He
and complainant gave the
e.aenl edshtoeonrn
he saw a policeman. She had been screaming
tsehreeacomnisntgahallel,
ntner, who ap-
peared for the defence, the complainant
In cross-examination by Mr. Wo
peolanisnidaenrtsd that
paidh the
is prisoner was sober. The com-
fare.
bad told the inspector she was a
was not true.
dressmaker,
hsi
chhe
Mr. Lewis—There is no disguise about what she
is. I stated it in my opening.
Cross-examination continued—Did not attempt
to get out of the cab when her friend left. Did not
object to remain in the cab with a person who had
behavedso violently as the prisoner had done. Did
not care about that ; only wanted to get home. Had
seen her friend since. Asked him to attend here
and give evidence. He said he could not as he was
going out of town.
Mr. Lewis asked the magistrate to send this case
before a jury. After an offer of L5O had been made
to hush the matter up, it would be a farce to impose
a fine of £5. The assault was of a most aggravated
nature, and tho prosecutrix was prepared to press
the charge at the sessions.
Mr. Wontner said the justice of the case would
be fully met by a fine. It was absurd to talk about
an offer of £5O, for the defendant, when taken into
custody, had only 504. about him. On account of
the drunken state lie was in at the time, the defen-
-1 dart Ras not In a position to deny the statements

the open day in so public a place as the Birdcage-
walk, and that the cabman should drive nn while
the woman was screaming and the man beating her,
and that he (the cabman) should not think it worth
while to interfere, or to Plop his cab till he got to
Eccleston-bridge. He (Mr. Jardine; had very little
doubt that complainant and defendant were both
drunk. Still there could be very little doubt that
she had been assaulted, and had suffered consider.
able injury. If her evidence was true the case was
one in which a £5 fine could be a wholly imadequate
punishment. Indeed, the case seemed rather to
come under the provisions of the act applying to
aggravated assaults on women, which gave him
power to inflict a penalty of six months' imprison-
ment, without giving the optibn of aline. But he
must say that he should hesitate to take that course
in a case where the evidence was of so singular a
character. Then, it must be observed that he was
not asked by the complainant to take either of these
courses, but to send the prisoner before a jury, which
he must say was the most proper tribunal to dispose
of such a case. He should adopt that course, but
would admit the prisoner to bail in two sureties of
£lO each, and his own recognisance of £2O,
Mr. Lewis hoped the magistrate would take such
bail as would ensure the appearance of the prisoner
at the trial. Why should the amount be reduced
below what was required on the remand? Re (Mr.
Lewis) was led to believe that the prisoner had
given a false name and address, and that, though he
said he was a linendraper, he really hold a much
higher position.

Mr. Wontner said there were no grounds' for
any such statement.
Mr. Jardine certainly saw no reason to suppose
that the defendant was anything different from
what he represented himself to be, nor did he think
it necessary to exact a higher bail than usual.
The defendant was then removed, but in the
course of the afternoon Mr. Wontner and Mr. Lewis
returned to the court, and said that they had agreed
to a compromise, and would therefore ask his wor-
ship to discharge the prisoner.
Mr. Jardine said that under these circumstances
he had no course but to comply.
The prisoner was then discharged.
It was understood that the complainant had been
induced to withdraw the charge on receiving a com-
pensation of £4O.