The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

valet attended there for me. I sent no one to re-
present me there in June, 1856. I paid defendant
1871. 10s. for the shares. I gave a cheque for a
larger amount, but that sum of 1871. 10s. was in-
cluded in it. The remainder was for other transac-
tions. I afterwards paid a call of 24. 6d on those
shares. It was on account. I have had transactions
in other mines with the defendant to the amount of
some thousands of pounds. The following receipt,
which you show me, is in my handwriting :-
1 " London, August 6, 1857.
" Mr. R. Tredionick
I. " Sir,—l acknowledge all accounts betwixt us up to
' this date settled, and that any and all 1.0.U.'s and
agreements up to this date are discharged as null and
void on your part, the same having been embraced in
,he general settlement of the passing of your acceptance
to me for 5001. this day at six months' date.
" ARTHUR R. OLIVER."
The account now put in is signed by me, and shows
a balance of 5001. as due to me, but that was not a
final settlement of accounts between us. I cannot
certify that I read the account before I signed it. I
do not think I did. Until I consulted my solicitor
I was not aware that the receipt went to the extent
it did. I have an 1.0. U. of the defendant. He was
to hive it returned after I signed that receipt. The
defendant is a bankrupt. My claim against his
estate was for 5001., and I proved for that sum only
under the bankruptcy. After I hid proved Mr.
Lawrence, the solicitor, tendered me 5001. in set-
tlement of my claim if I would sign a receipt. It
was upon an acceptance for that sum given in
settlement of this account, and which was not then
due. I knew there was a petition to annul the
bankruptcy. I offered to receive the 5001. to
hand over to the official assignee. I refused to take
it in my private capacity as a creditor. I cannot
say whether the petition to annul the bankruptcy
was signed by all the creditors who had proved. I
did not sign the petition. I believe the defendant
owes me a great deal more than 5001. I proved for
that sum because I had committed myself by sign-
ing the receipt. I refused to take the 5001. partly
to prevent the bankruptcy being annulled, and I
believed that if in my position of assignee I took
the money the interests of other creditors might
have been sacrificed.

Mr. F. R. Bell, accountant at 32, Bucklerabury,
said-I have examined the Carnewas Mine books.
The account produced and spoken to by the last
witness contains an item, " December, 1856, 67/.
12s. 3d.," from the cost-book of the mine. The
sum of 35/. 93. Old. forms part of the 671. 12s. 3d.,
and is entered as Mr. Thomas Martin, timber bill,
35/. 93. Oid." It does not appear in the entry to
be paid. There is nothing in the account to show
that it is paid. There is an entry in the book, "Jan.,
1857, 40/. ls. 7d.," which includes a sum of 101. to
William Martin. The entry, by the heading of
the account, appears to be " cost for Dec,, 1856."
There is an account in the book of the 17th of
November, which is a copy of the account in evi-
dence, which states that there is cash in the hands
of the manager, 551. 17s. ld. There is an account
entered subsequently to the account of November,
and before an entry of Jan., 1858. In that account
are the items 101. and 35/. 9s. There are entries of
merchants' accounts charged, but not paid, and an
entry of calls received of 134/. Bs. The entry
of 101. has the name of " W. Martin" to it, and the
351. 9s. has the name of "T. Martin " to it " by
balance due by R. Tredinnick 1931. 135.," which
includes the three sums of 10/., 35/. 95., and also
credit for 134/. Bs. The 'account of the 17th of
November purports to be an account of monies
paid and received up to September, and if the 10/.
and 35/. 9s. had not been paid those sums should
have been added to the balance of 55/. 17s. ld., as
cash in hand.

The Rev. Thomas Martyn—l hold 240 shares in
the Carnewas Mme. An account was sent to me
of the meeting of the 17th of November, 1857. I
received a letter from Mr. Thomas Martin, of
Wadebridge, for payment of 361. 12s. 7d. (being
351. 93. and interest), as due to him from me as a
shareholder of the company. I was afterwards
served with a copy of a writ for the amount, and I
paid 36/. 12s. 7d., and 21., the solicitor's costs. I
have some accounts with the defendant, and the
311. ss. I am debited with in accounts between him
and me. The defendant was my shareholder.
Cross-examined—l owe 37/. 10s. to the company,
and that was the reason I believe I was allowed to
be sued. I paid the defendant several sums, and
there is an account between us. There is a claim
made by him upon me of 155/. 123. and 11d.,
which I do not admit. That inclu es the 31/. ss.
for cab. I do not admit the balance. I have
paid the 311. 55., be3ause there are sums to my
credit.
Mr. Poland said that was all the evidence he
intended to offer this day, and asked for an adjourn-
ment.

The Lord Mayor—This is the first case of a
proseeut'on under the Fradulent Trustees Act,
and it is a most important one, not only to the
public, but to the parties interested. I shall re-
mand it.

The case was tl-en remanded for a week, and the
defendant was permitted to go on his promise to
attend on the day of adjournment.

GITILDHALL.—Mr. William Henry Parker, a
wholesale mantle manufacturer and outfitter, of
36, Monkwelstreet, Cripplegate, was charged with
wilfully and feloniously setting fire to his house on
the 10th of this month, with intent to defraud the
Westminster Fire Insurance Company.
Evidence having been given in support of the
charge, the prisoner was remanded.
Alderman Hale refused to accept bail.

WORSHIP-STREE I'.—Wm. Wright, an awk-
ward young countryman in the full-dress uniform
of the Royal Artillery, in which he presented a most
uncouth and grotesque appearance, was charged
with the following strange offence :
James Murphy, one of the Artillery bombadiers,
said he was on duty at the Mint at six o'clock that
morning, when the prisoner was brought up in the
custody of a corporal of the Guards, who told him
that he had shortly before met the prisoner wan-
dering about Whitechapel in a state of seeming be-
wilderment, and wearing the uniform he now had
on, and that on stopping and questioning him he
give such an unsatisfactory ace ,unt of himself that
he felt it his duty to arrest him as a des,lter. Wit-
ness whereupon also questioned the prisoner, and
it then became obvious, from his ndi loile and ge-
neral bea, ing, that if he had been in the army at all
it could only have been for so short a titre as not
to admit of being properly drilled, and as the ex-
planation he gave about himself and his uniform
was almost incredible, witness determked to give
him into custody, not for being a de!ertar himself,
which he scarcely believed, but for artfully exchang-
ing his own clothing for that of a man in the wit-
ness's corps, and so facilitating the escape of the
latter.

The account of the affair given by the prisoner,
who was in evident excitement and alarm for his
own safety, and delivered himself with a genuine
provincial peculiarity, was, that he was in the ser-
vice of a farmer at Hilton, in Cambridgeshire, and,
having a sister in Londen, whom he wished to visit
and never having been in town before, he got leave
of absence, and travelled up all the way on foot.
He was thoroughly worn out with fatigue, and was
about to enter a publichouse for a lodging, when
well-dressed woman stopped and questioned him,
and on finding he came from Cambridgeshire, ex-
pressed great sympathy for him, said that was her
county, and offered to procure him a lodging. She
then took him to a hous3 in one of the by-streets,
where he was shown into a first-floor room, but
had scarcely entered it when the door was suddenly
thrown open by two soldiers, one of whom seize I
him by the neck and firmly grasped him, while the
other, with threats, stripped off the whole of his
clothes. The soldier who held him then relin-
quished his grasp, and, rapidly throwing off his
uniform and putting on his (the prisoner's) clothing
ran out of the room, leaving the uniform upon the
floor, and followed by the second soldier and the
woman, who caught up his watch, worth 31., as
she ran, and jeeringly wished bim good right.
He raised an outcry, but no notice was taken of
it, and he therefore put on the uniform and
hurried out after the thieves ; but he had only got
a short distance when he fell into the hands of the
corporal, and was seized as a deserter, which he
asseverated earnestly he was not, as he had never
been a soldier in his life, and did not want to be,

This improbable statement was proved by other
evidence to be perfectly correct, and as there could
be little doubt that a scheme had been prearranged
between the soldiers and woman to facilitate the
desertion of one of the men, and the prisoner had
unfortunately turned up as a convenient victim for
the purpose, the countryman, to his great gratifi-
cation, was ordered to be discharged.

SOUTHWARK.—James Lawler, of 5, Elmo-
place, Lee-road, Blackheath, was summoned for un:
lawfully leaving a third-class carriage on the North
Kent Railway while the train was in motion. The
fact having been proved,
Mr. Combo said, it was a very dangerous prac-
tice for persons to open the door of a railway-car-
riage and jump out while it was in motion, and he
thought the railway company did perfectly right in
bringing such cases to a police court. As a caution
to others he should fine the defendant 55., and 2s.
costs, and, in default of payment, be must be com-
mitted to prison for seven days.
The prisoner, who said he could not pay the
rraemeY, was sent to Wandsworth House of Cor-
ect on.

rLANIR-Era.---A well active-looking
ling I'l4l, who gave the name of Henry Wartair-
on, but refused to give- hie address, was charged