The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-09 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT._MAIDSTONE, DEC. 8.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
Henry Alfred Cocksedge, 39, a very respectable-
looking man, was indicted for feloniously forging a
receipt for £2 10s., with intent to defraud the in-
habitants of the county of Kent.
Mr. Russell conducted the prosecution. The
prisoner was defended by the Hon. Mr. Denman.
This was a prosecution instituted by the direc-
tion of the visting justices of the county gaol at
Maidstone, the prisoner at the time of the commis-
sion of the alleged offence having held the position
of storekeeper at that prison. It appeared that
there had been a custom in the county gaol, that a
sum of money should be placed in the hands of the
governor, for the purpose of providing for petty
disbursements, and that he at certain periods ac-
counted to the treasurer of the county for the
money so advanced, and produced the vouchers.
Latterly, however, it seemed that the governor
had delegated this duty to the prisoner, who held
the office of storekeeper in the prison, and the
offence appeared to have been committed under the
following circumstances. In the month of October
last a pair of new wheels were required for the
prison water-cart, and the prisoner purchased a pair
of a Mr. Loder, a carriage-builder in Maidstone, for
which he agreed to pay the sum of £2. The wheels
were sent in, accompanied by a receipt for that
amount, and the prisoner paid the money, and on
the same day he handed this receipt, with the figure
" 1" placed before the " 0" of the shillings, thus mak-
ing the amount £2los. instead of £2, and two other
receipts for 9s. and 6s. 6d., sums he had paid to other
tradesmen, to the deputy-governor of the gaol,
and receiving from him
.£3 ss. 6d., thus receiving
10s. more than he was entitled to of the county
funds. The fraud was not discovered until several
weeks afterwards, and the prisoner was then taken
into custody upon the present charge, and when he
was asked for an explanation he said that he did
not deny that he had only paid £2 to Mr. Loder
for the wheels, and that he had charged the county
£2 10s. for them, and he accounted for doing so by
saying that he paid the £2 in the first instance out
of his own pocket, and that the wheels were very
cheap at £2 10s., and he considered himself entitled
to charge the additional amount as " commission,"
and that he had not the least idea that he was
committing any offence in so doing. The officers
of the gaol, however, stated that the prisoner had
no right whatever to make such a charge, and he
was committed to take his trial for forgery in hav-
ing fraudulently altered the amount of the receipt
that had been given him by Mr. Loder.
Mr. Denman, in the course of a very able address
to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said that he
had never labou red under feelings of greater anxiety
than on the present occasion, on account of the
high character the prisoner appeared to have borne
all his life, and he said that he should be able, by
the testimony of gentlemen of the highest respect-
ability and position, to show in the most conclusive
wanner that the prisoner, during the whole period

of his existence, had borne the highest possible
character for honour and integrity. This would
in the outset render it very improbable that
the prisoner should have been guilty of an
offence of this serious description, and alth.mgh,
where the evidence was clear and conclusive the
fact of the party accused having previously borne
a good character, ought not of course to have any
weight with a jury, yet in a case like the present,
in which he submitted there was, at all events,
very great doubt whether the prisoner entertained
any intention to defraud, such evidence was most
material, as tending to show the . improbability
that he should have committed such an act. The
learned counsel then said that he :could not deny
that the prisoner had received ten shillings more
than he had paid for the wheels to the coachmaker,
but if the jury should be of opinion that he had no
intention to defraud, and that he considered he was
entitled to the additional amount as commission for
the trouble he had taken in reference to the pur-
chase, the jury would be justified in acquitting
him upon the present indictment.
The father-in-law of the prisoner, a gentleman
residing at Huntingfield, in Suffolk, Mr. Hatton,
the chief-constable of the eastern division of
Suffolk, Mr. Stanford, and several other
.gentle-
men living in that county, were called as witnesses
on the prisoner's behalf, and it appeared from their
evidence that he had formerly been extensively
engaged as a farmer at different places in the
county of Suffolk, and they stated that ho had
always borne :a high character for honour and
integrity.
Mr. Justice Wightman having summed up the
evidence,
The jury deliberated for a considerable time in
the box, and then expressed a wish to retire. In
about three-quarters of an hour they returned into
court, and gave a verdict of guilty, but at the same
time strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy
on account of the good character he had received.
The learned judge, in passing sentence, said
that the jury had found the prisoner guilty
of :a very :serious crime, and every one who
had heard the case must regret to see a per-
son who had formerly enjoyed so high a character
for honour and integrity standing convicted at the
bar of a criminal court of the offence of forgery.
It was of the last importance that the public should
be protected from the commission of frauds by per-
sons holding public situations, and although the
amount was small, and he had every disposition to
give effect to the recommendation of the jury, he
felt it impossible to pass over such an offence with
a light sentence, and his duty to the public com-
pelled him to order him to be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour for 12 months.

Mary Loft, 30, was charged with misdemeanour,
in having attempted to destroy her own life.
Mr. Russell was counsel for the prosecution.
It appeared that the prisoner was a married wo-
man, living with her husband at Sittingbourne,
and on the day named in the indictment she came
home very drunk, and went to her bedroom. Very
soon afterwards a noise was heard in the room and
upon the people in the house going in, they found
the prisoner with a clothes line tied round her neck
and attached to the bedpost, and she was black in
the face. She did not appear, however, to have
made a very determined attempt to destroy herself,
and the suggestion appeared to be that in her
drunken condition she hardly knew what she was
about, and it appeared that she afterwards ex-
pressed regret at what had occurred.
The jury, under these circumstances, returned a
verdict of not guilty.