The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-19 00:00:00

MANSION-HOUSE.

A JUVENILE BUT EXPERT FORGER.—John Abbot,
a boy of about 12 years old, but of very precocious
appearance, was charged with forging upon, and
obtaining the proceeds from, the National Bank,
Old Broad-street, of a cheque for £lO. It appeared
that Messrs. Rees, Cree, and Co. kept an account
at the National Bank, New Broad-street. Accord-
ing to the evidence of Mr. Cooper, the cashier, a
cheque purporting to be signed by Messrs. Rees,
Cree, and Co. was presented and cashed by him on
Saturday last. It was found that it was a forgery.
Mr. Rees said that he was a partner in the firm
of Rees, Cree, at.d Co., commission agents, Alder-
manbury, and that the prisoner was in his service.
The cheque produced was not signed by them,
although the handwriting was an imitation of his
handwriting. It had been torn out of their cheque
book. The prisoner had been in their employ 18
months.

A City detective officer said that he went to the
offices Of Messrs. Rees and Co., where he slw the
prisoner, and told him that he was an officer, and
that he was come to search him, as he was accused
of forging a cheque. He searched him, but found
nothing. He then told him that he should have to
take him into custody ; the prisoner then said that
he was very sorry that he had done it. He
had picked the lock of the desk by means of
a skewer which he had got from home. He had
taken out the cheque book, torn out a cheque, and
then replaced the chequebook and relocked the door.
He then filled up the cheque for £10; it was cashed,
and he had spent the money. He said that on the Sa-
turday he had gone to High Beach with a boy named
Robt. Maylaud, that he had not given him a farthing.
He had bought a watch from a Mr. Kemp, for
twelve shillings and sixpence, and exchanged it
by paying £2 for one, which the officer stated was
worth £3. He had 'been to the Grecian on Mon-
day. The father of the boy was then examined,
and stated that he could never make any im-
pression upon him. He would keep out late at
night, and he was continually .having rows with
him and correcting him. His mother frequently
brought him home.
The worthy Alderman said he was sorry that so
respectable a father should have such an incorrigible
son, but he must commit him to the Middlesex Ses-
sions for trial.

Hyppolytte was charged with having stolen a
dress coat and vest, the property of a person named
Hick, a dining-room keeper at 88, Minories. It
appeared that the prisoner is a well-known
hanger about houses in the City for the purpose
of waling away with any property that was lying
about.

Sarah Hick, the daughter of the com-
plainant, said that about half-past four
o'clock yesterday the prisoner came into the
eatingbouse, accompanied by another man, and
ordered two dinners. Shortly afterwards he was
seen by the witness from her room going into an-
other one on the first floor, and going towards the
cupboard. She went and told her mother, but
when they got there they found he was
gone. She followed him, and overtook the
other man, when he said it was not he
who had taken anything, and ran away. She
then followed the other man into Swan-street,
and from that into Adam-street, where she over-
took him. She found he bad got an alpaca dress
of her mother's, and a jacket of her own. He
spoke in excellent English, and begged her not to
say anything, but she took him to her mother, who
sent for a constable and gave him into custody.
The prisoner, who pretended to have not the remotest
knowledge of English, obstinately refused to open
his mouth. Police-constable Grey stated that he
took the prisoner into custody, who stated that
he had questioned the prisoner, but he said he had
only been going about from one lodging-house to
another for some time past. Ile spoke English well.
The witness then searched him, and found upon him
the stolen property, and also ten shillings in silver
and fourpence in copper, four brass medals, a brooch
and chain, with the watch, a pawn-ticket, and a
prayer-book.
Partridge, the gaoler, said that he had been in
the habit of doing this sort• of thing, and had last
been brought up at Guildhall.

He was sentenced to three months' hard labour.

BOW-STEEET.

MISTAKEN INTERFERENCE.—An elderly man,
named Charles Butcher, was brought before Mr.
Flowers, in custody of William Woodup, a mendi-
city officer, for begging in tae Strand, and a young
man, .named Brown, a carpenter, for interrupting
the officer in the execution of his duty.
Woodup stated that he WIS on duty in the Strand
yesterday, at about half-past two o'clock, when he
saw the prisoner, Butcher, begging of several per-
sons. He beard one gentleman say, " I won't give
you anything; go away." He also went into a
cook shop, and apparently was asking for something.
Knowing the prisoner, who bad only just served a
month's imprisonment, he took him in custody. As
he was conveying him to the station-house Brown
interfered, and wanted witness to let the prisoner
go. Witness told him to mind his own business. He
persisted in his interference, and in a few minutes a
wdotam. ss who began toholloa and shout at him,
d
i s o h
mud and stones were thrown, and struck
some
mmedßrown did not strike him ; but as he was
rn sa
the cause of the disturbance witness took him in
custody too. At the station-house Brown said he
was sorry for what he had done. Witness had
made some inquiries, and found that Brown was a
very respectable young man.
Butcher addressed the magistrate in a prolix and
vociferous harangue, abusing Woodup as a
" villain," denying that he bad begged at all, and
disputing the slightest details of the evidence. He
denied that he went in and out of the cookshop as
Woodup had described, but said he was there more
than half an hour, and eat a fourpenny steak
pudding and some plum pudding. He had been
formerly a wealthy man, and had laid out
£2OO a month in Mark-lane, and had contributed
large amounts yearly to the charities of his native
town of Arlington, where his brother was now
churchwarden. lie therefore felt that if ever he had
been in distress, and had asked a gentleman to assist
him, it would have been excusable.
Mr. Flowers said he did not believe a word of all
this (which if true could easily be proved), except
that the prisoner had made a very good dinner, as
no doubt beggars were generally able to do. For
the rest, it might be as well for Brown and many
others to know that a professional beggar was never
good for anything.

It was here mentioned that the prisoner was well
known to one of the constables of the F division,
who was acquainted with his family. They had
several times set him up in business—once at a cost
of £.300---but it was quite useless, as he spent all
his money, and was soon as badly off as ever.
Brown said he would not have interfered if he had
known Woodup was an officer, hut as ho was in
private clothes witness thought ho was an ordinary
civilian taking upon himself to convey the prisoner
to the station for begging of him. lie was now
sorry for what he had dono.

Mr. Flowers said he would be more sorry if he
knew as much of the prisoner as he (Mr. Flowers)
did. His experience of the prisoner, who had been
several times before him, was peculiarly unfavour-
able. He should commit him for one month. The
conviction would be returned, and if he were brought
up again he would bo imprisoned for a long time.
Believing Brown to be a respectable man, but mis-
taken, he should remand him.