The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-26 00:00:00

Harvey, and took him in custody at the New York
post-office, just as he was receiving a letter from
England, addressed Richard Harvey, post-office,
New York, to be left until called for. With the
assistance of the sheriff of New York Huggett ob-
tained from the primmer 1;377, £:150 of which was
halves of the Bank of England notes. Upon being
asked about his books, he said he left them with a
Mr. White, an accountant of Whitecross-street.
Huggett not having the power to bring the pri-
soner home then returned, and upon inquiry no
such person as White an accountant could be found.
The prisoner was not again heard of until Septem-
ber, when he was taken into custody in London, he
having returned to this country under as opinion
that after giving up the money in New York, and
having obtained from a Mr. Edwards, a counsellor
of New. York, a release from his creditors, he would
be free.

Mr. Giffard at some length argued that the pro-
secution had failed to prove that the notice for the
bankrupt to surrender had been sufficiently served
upon him to meet the provisions of the law under
which the indictment was framed.
His Lordship decided that it. was enough for the
prosecution to show, as they had, that the notice of
bankruptcy had. been posted upon the prisoner's
shop and the summons left there.
Mr. Giffard having briefly addressed the jury,
they returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Giffard, in mitigation of punishment, urged
that the prisoner had given up the money in New
York, and returned to this country under the im-
pression that he would be free.
His Lordship said the Court had nothing to do
with that, no doubt they made any promise to get
the money back.
The prisoner said that he gave up every farthing
and came home to surrender, not knowing how far
he was wrong.
His Lordship, in passing sentence, said that theie
could be no doubt but that the prisoner knew he
was acting wrong, and did not give back the money
from any decent feeling, but to obtain good terms
from his creditors. He saw nothing to cause him
to take a favourable view of prisoner's conduct.
The prisoner would not be punished for the sake of
the creditors but as an example to deter others.
He was then sentenced to six years' penal servi-
tude.

Lewis Zucker, 35, jeweller, was indicted for mak-
ing false entries, in his books, and unlawfully giving
false evidence before a commissioner of bankruptcy.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Poland prosecuted, and Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. Giffard, and Mr. F. H.
Lewis defended.

The facts ofihis case, although occupying the
Court some time, lay in a very narrow compass.
The prisoner had been since 1855 in a small way of
business as a jeweller, in Oxford-street, In April
of the present year he suddenly appeared to be
doing a very extensive trade, his credit with those
who supplied him amounting in that anc the two
following months to nearly as much as in the three
preceding years. In JUly last he stated that while
in his shop some one had come in and stolen his
cash-box, and that it ',contained a large sum, he
having, in addition to the amount he usually kept
in it, taken £l3O out of the Union Bank. He
called a meeting of his creditors, and offered a com-
position of 10s. in the pound, which was refused,
and the prisoner was made a bankrupt. When
before the Commissioner he was examined about
the transaction of the robbery, in which he per-
sisted, and produced his book, which contained
entries of sale, day by day, dating from 1855, but
there were no names of the parties to whom goods
had been sold. He swore most positively that the
entries had been made from day to day, and that
the book had been in his possession from 1855 down
to July, when the robbery took place. Some of
the entries bearing evidence of erasures and altera-
tions, the book was more closely examined, when it
was found that the paper of which the book was
made had itself 'only come from the manufac-
turers last year, and was sold in August, 1857, by
Messrs. Shaw and Sons, of Fetter-lane, a circum-
stance which was proved beyond all doubt.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The Court sentenced him to six years' penal
servitude.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)

THE CHARGE OF COUTERFEITING TURKISH COIN

Aime Antoine Hugon, 26, described as a traveller,
Hugon Reverde, 46, described as a merchant, who
surrendered to take his trial, were jointly indicted,
with Henry de Boisserolle, who is not in custody,
for the offence of misdemeanor, in having unlaw-
fully attempted to make coins, not circulating in
this country, but resembling, and which were in-
tended to resemble a coin called a piastre, current
in the dominions of a foreign prince—the Sultan:of
Turkey.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty against
both prisoners.

Sergeant Parry said he was instructed to recom-
mend the younger prisoner to the merciful con-
sideration of the court, on the ground that it was
believed he had been endeavouring to support him-
self honestly down to the period of these trans-
actions, and that it was owing to his father having
pressed him to do so that he engaged in the
proceeding.
Mr. Justice Hill, in passing sentence, said that
the prisoners had been convicted of a very grave
offence against the laws of this country, and it was
very necessary that jforeigners who came to this
country should be taught that they were bound to
respect its laws. With regard to the older pri-
soner, there could be no doubt that he knew per-
fectly well that he was acting illegally, and that
he expected, as he said in one of the letters that had
been read, that the result would be that he should
make a speedy fortune, and he should therefore feel
it his duty to pass a severe sentence upon him. As
to the other prisoner, he believed that he had been
drawn into the matter by his father, but still there
was no doubt that he was perfectly well aware that
he was doing what was illegal, and he must take
the consequence. He then sentenced Aime to be
imprisoned for six and Reverde for twelve months.

At the rising of the court, William Lemon
the stockbroker, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Baron Bramwell to receive sentence.

When the prisoner was asked whether he had
anything to urge why judgment should not be
passed upon him, he replied, " I have nothing to
say."
The learned Judge, addressing him, said that he
had pleaded guilty to three indictments—one
charging him with forgery, and two others with
misappropriating securities and property that had
been entrusted to him by their owners. It was
really one of the worst possible cases, and after
having carefully read over the depositions, and
given the matter his most careful consideration, he
felt it to be his duty to order him to be kept in
penal servitude for 20 years.
The prisoner bowed slightly, and without evinc-
ing the least emotion walked out of the dock.