The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

TUE GREAT FRAUD ON THE UNION

BANK.

MANSION-HOUSE.-(THIS DAY.)

George Pullinger, late chief mushier, was placed at the
bar in accordance with remand, charged with defrauding
the direectors. The sum which the prisoner is charged
with stealing is merely £350. but his defalcations amount
to the enormous sum of £260,000.

Mr. Giffard appeared to conduct the proeecation. Pul-
linger, although undefended, had requested Mr. Humphries
to attend and watch the proceedings on his behalf.
The first witness called was
William Gomm, examined by Mr. Gifford, said—l am
cashier in the Union Bank of London. I remember after
the close of business on the 12th of April last balancing
the accounts of the notes from the different tills. I found
that there was £350 deficient. I mentioned the
circumstance to Pullinger. He told me he had had
the notes out for miscellaneous bills. He told me to
pass the amount through my book. He told me the
numbers of the notes of which the sum consisted, which
I took down. The numbers were-82,826, 25th of Jan.,
£200; 58,850, 24th Sept., £100; 31,432, 20th Jan., £5O.
The document put into my hands is in the prisoner's hand-
writing. [The document was read by the clerk—it was a
sort of voucher for £350 paid for miscellaneous bills.] Pul-
linger showed me that document at the time.
Lord Mayor—Do you wish to put any questions to this
witness ?

Pullinger (bowing)—No, my lord.
The Chief Clerk—The charge against you is for feloni-
ously stealing £350 from the directors of the Union Bank.
Have you anything to say in answer to the charge ?
The Lord Mayor—You have now heard the evidence and
charge against you, have you anything to say in answer to
it

Pullingar—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 instrumen-
tality of the prisoner Lyttleton would be resorted to.
Mr. John Arthur Barton—l am Deputy-manager of the
Union Bank. The prisoner Lyttleton 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
0f£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

Mr. Giffard—l do not intend to take Mr. Pullinger's
word in the matter, a man who has been committing frauds
upon the bank 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 tb at
has been 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 so ?
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 Mon-
tague, bullion dealers, Cornhill—They keep an account at
the Union Bank. They never sent a sum of £5OO or £l,OOO

in gold to be changed for notes. If such transactions had
taken place, it would certainly have been entered in the
book I have in my hand. It is not, however, the book of
the firm. It is merely one to show the balance I commence
and close each day.

By Mr. Lewis—The cashiers at the bank always con-
sulted Mr. Pullinger about changing a large amount of
gold for notes. I have seen cashiers go to consult him.
Mr. H. Sprole (a clerk in in the accountant's office of
the Eastern Counties Railway) said—lt was my duty to
send the mondey of the Eastern Counties Railway to the
Union Bank. The clerk would take with him a book which
the bank clerk would initial into the sum paid in. On

April 27 I sent £3,721 12s. Bd. I did not in that exchange
£1,500 of gold for notes. I sent a person named Lumloey,

he returned with the book initialed " E. L."

[The book was handed to Mr. Barton, but he could not
speak with certainty as to their being in Lyttleton's hand-
writing. Mr. Gomm, however, said it was.]
Mr. Sheldon—On April 25, 1859, Pullinger owed me
£5OO. He paid mo in ono bank note. I paid that money
into Messrs. Masterman's bank. That was the only sum
of money I paid in that way. On the 27th I received
£2,500 from Pullinger—£l,ooo in the morning, and £1,500
in the afternoon. The £l,OOO I gave to a member of the
Stock Exchange who was fidgetty about the accout. The
£1,500 I paid into my bankers. I received the sum in two
£l,OOO Bank of England notes, and one for £500• M.
Uzielli is the name •f the gentleman to whom I paid the
£l,OOO.

Mr. G. Bloor (clerk to Mr. Uzielli, stock-broker)—On
April 27, 1859, Mr. Sheldon paid me a £l,OOO for Mr.
Uzielli, it was number 85,778. I did not take the date. It
was paid into Masterman's bank to Mr. Uzielli's account.

Mr. Wynn (clerk in Masterman's bank) said—Mr. Shel-
don kept an account there. On April 25, 1859, he paid in
£5OO. It was a Bank of England note, marked A. L., and
numbered 37,954. I also received the sum of £1,500 in two
notes--one for £l,OOO, marked A. E. 85,745, and the other
for £5OO, marked a A. L. 38,610.

Mr. Giffard said that was the case against the prisoners.
Mr. Lewis put it to the Lord Mayor whether any case

had been made out against his client Lyttelton.
The Lord Mayor said there was nothing for him to detain
Lyttelton on the charge, neither had there been any collu-
sion proved between him and Pullinger. He perhaps
might have been indiscreet in paying so large a sum as has

been mentioned, but indiscretion was not a crime.

The Chief Clerk—There is another eharge against Lyt-
tleton.

Mr. Lewis—So I believe, but I don't know whether it
will be proceeded with.

The charge having been read over to rußinger,
The Lord Mayor asked him what he had to say in answer
to it.

Pullenger said—l am guilty my lord. I have nothing
to say.
Mr. Giffard said that the evidence in the next case was
not any stronger, and after the observations of the Lord
Mayor he should feel justified in proceeeding with the other
charges against Lyttelton.
Mr. Lewis—The position in which my client has been
placed has been very unjust. For fifteen years he had been
in the service of the bank, and during the whole of that
time ho had conducted himself with the greatest honour
and honesty. His books have been carefully examined,
and not a single false item had been disoovered.

The Lord Mayor having complimented Mr. Lewis on the
manner in which he had conducted the case for his client,
said he must be allowed to observe that the bank authorities
had been justified in taking the steps they had done, as
they had a duty to perform to their shareholders and the
public. With respect to Mr. Lyttleton he left the court
without the slightest blemish on his character. The con-
duct of Pullinger in exerting himself to clear Lyttleton
from any suspicion that attached to him was also worthy
of praise, and it proved he had still somo good qualities
left.
Lyttleton was then released from custody, and left the
justice raom with his friends, and Pullinger was fully com-
mitted for trial on both charges.

GREAT NORTHERN HOSPITAL, KING'S CROSS.—
Number of patients for the week
_ending April 2S, 7H, of
which 333 were Tlew cases.