The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

ADMIRALTY COURT.—Atra. 19.
(Before Dr. Curties.)
This was an additional court day, and Dr. Curties presided
as surrogate in the absence of learned judge.
TIIE MARTHA POPE.
Dr. Wambey moved the Court. to pronounce Lr the
balance of wages (£•2l 3s. 4d.) alleged to be due to the
master of this vessel. There was no opposition, 3nd
The Court granted he application.
THE MARION.
This was a cause promoted by the master, mate, and crew
of the brig Marion for wages. The proceeds of the vessel
had not yet been got in.
Dr. Wambey appeared for the parties, and prayed the
Court to grant a decree for the balance of wages out-
standing.
The learned Surrogate said he bad no objection to a
decree being pronounced; but, under the circumstances, it
must be subject to " all prior claims upon the vessel."
THE REVENIER.
Upon the application of Dr. Wambey,
The Court decreed the s,de of the ship Revenier in a suit
for necessaries supplied to her.
THE TANTINA REINDIERDINA.
The learned Surrogate, upon the application of Dr. Twiss,
ua(l a priMUM deeretUnt against the above vessel, and
granted a peristuae monition and a cDiamlssion of rp-
praisernent in a bottomry suit.
TIIE lIILDA.
Dr. Twins applied for a decree for the sale of the Ililda in
an action for necessaries.
The Court made the order.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-Aug. 19.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams.)

John Jervis, 28, a respectable-looking young man, was
charged with embezzling the several sums of £499 Gs. 4d.,
£378 155., and £295 2s. lid., the moneys of his employers.
Mr. Bodkin, Mr. S'eigh, and Mr. Poland conducted the
prosecution; Mr. Metcalfe was counsel for the defence.
This case occupied the Court nearly the whole of the day,
and the details of the evidence were of a very complicated
character. It appeared that the prisoner was clock in the
establishment of Sir Samuel Scott and Co., bankers, of
Cavendish-square, and it was his duty to collect the
cheques and cash from the City bankers on behalf of
the firm. The prisoner went out upon this duty
every morning at 10 o'clock, and he had to collect in the
course of the day very large sums of money, frequently
amounting to so much as £12,000 or £15,000 in all sorts of
seeuritiee, cheques, bills, and casb, and, of course, it fre-
quently happened, with end' a number of instruments, that
there was among them some which, from want cf an endorse-
ment, or the want of advice from the country, were not at
the moment convertible into cash. The prisoner upon his
return to the bank every evening had of course to make
up his account, and the arrangement that was made with
regard to any deficiency that might arise from the course
alluded to was that it should be supplied by tickets upon
which the amount deficient was stated, and also the
reasons for the non-payment, such as " not due," or " no
advice," or whatever might be the reason, and thus the
account for the day was balanced and the securities that
were not paid were carried on to be collected upon another
occasion. The case on the part of the prosecution was that
the prisoner had taken advantage of his knowledge of the
business of the bank being conducted in this manner to
carry on a very extensive and ingenious system of
fraud. He of course received money from a num-
ber of different banks, and it was suggested that
in three ales where he had actually received
the money, instead of paying in the cash at night,
that he handed in tickets for the several amounts, anti
retained the cash in his own possession. Such a pro-
ceeding would of course be speedily discovered if no means
were taken to prevent that discovery; and the mode in
which the prisoner was represented to have acted to avoid
detection was, by paying over on subsequent days the mo-
ney received from other sources—fresh tickets being again
given to make up the deficiency of the day, in order to sup-
ply the previous deficiency ; and thus the matter went on till
the 10th of July, when, in consequence of information that
had come to the knowledge of the bank, the prisoner
was sent for inta a private room, and two of the tickets
referred to—one of which represented the sum of £499 Gs.
4d., which was supposed not to have been paid by the Lon-
don and County Bank, and another for £295 2s. lid:, which
was represented not to have been paid by Messrs. Hankey
and Co.—were shown to him, and he was asked for an
explanation. He at first said iet the amounts had not been
paid, but on his being told that inquiries had been made,
and that it was ascertained that this was not true, he hung
down his head and made no reply. He was then asked
whether he was in a position to pay the money, and he
replied that he could not, as it was all gone. He was then
given into custody.
Mr. Metcalfe subjected the witnesses for the prosecution
to a very severe cross-examination, and he elicited from
Mr. Parrott, the principal clerk in the establishment of the
prosecutors, that the prisoner had to collect very large
sums of money during the day, and to go to a large number
of banks and other places; and it also appeared that he had
asked for assistance in the performance of his duties. It was
also admitted that errors frequently occurred among bank
clerks, and that they occasionally were short in their
collections, and at other times had money over, and that in
the former case it was customary to give tickets for the
admunt of the deficiency, and leave the matter for further
inquiry and explanation at a subsequent period.
Mr. Metcalfe made a very ingenious address to the jury
on behalf of the prisoner, and he particularly remarked
upon the fact that there was no proof of any actual deficiency
of cash in the accounts furnished by his client. He likewise
urged that in the extent of the transactions of business in
which the prisoner was engaged on behalf of his employers
it we, unavoidable that some errors might arise, but that it
would be very unjust on that account to say that he had
committed the offence of embezzlement.

Mr. Justice Williams having summed up, the jury almost
immediately returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Bodkin stated that the total amount of the prisoner's
defalcations was about £600; and, in answer to a question
put by the learned Judge, it was stated that the salary of
the prisoner was £lso a-year.
The rri,nnf, C con to. toed to fi ur yoarc, rp.nnl servitude.