The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 10, 1858,

wrote curd said I wouhi rather have cash. He
gave me h-lheque a long time afterwards for £3OO.
I was not to money for the purchase
of the Kingstown estate. I became security for
him at the end of December, 1852, or January,
1853. The security was given to the London and
County Bank for £90,000. Ten gentlemen joined
in it. The bank told me that I would only be
liable for my share. I have told you all the trans-
actions I had with Sadleir. I wrote a letter to
him on the 4th of December, 1854, in which I
said, " I have not a pound just now. If my ac-
ceptance for £l,OOO will do, I will take that amount
of capital in- the mines." He had asked me again
to lend him some money. I refused afterwards to
have anything to do with the mines. They were
German mines. I got £3OO from Sadleir as my
share of the profit on the transaction, in respect of
the security given the bank. I had never ac-
cepted bills for the accommodation of Sadlier for
more than £2,000 at a time. I should say I did
not lend my name to him to the extent in all
of £20,000. I swear I never had any accommoda-
tion from him. When Scully called upon me at
Loudwater he said he came about the estate. I
don't know that I asked him a price. I did not ask
him £25,000 for it. I said, " Make your own pro-
posal, and I will forward you an answer." I meant
at the time to send the proposal to Sadleir, because
I had not sufficient power over the estate without
consulting him. I did not discuss with him the
terms of the paper. I told him to write what he
liked, and I would consider it. I gave him the
- paper on which he copied that document. Sadleir
told me to name a price for the estate. He men-
tioned £25,000. I don't think I gave the price to
Mr. Scully. £25,000 is the sum mentioned in the
memorandum drawn up by Mr. Scully. I sent the
memorandum to Sadleir. I did not see Sadleir, as
far as I recollect, before the conversation I have
mentioned took place at the Reform Chib. I don't
remember calling upon him at the London and
County Bank on the *day before, and being with
him an hour. That is the only answer I can give.
At:the interview at the Reform Club I won't swear
I did not ask Scully more than £25,000, or a sum
of £28,000, but I might have done so. I don't re-
member discussing with Scullyat Loudwater about
his getting me an equally eligible property. Mr.
Mahoney, on my solemn oath, mentioned £75,000
as Mr. Scully's demand upon me. I can remember
that. When I went to Ireland I don't recollect
going in the same carriage with the_directors of the
land company.
By Mr. Bovill—To none of these matters has my
attention been called from 1853 until the present
time. Mr. Sadleir paid me all the money he owed
me. I had a few shares in the London and
County Bank. I bought them myself shortly be-
fore Sadleir's death, and I sold them soon after-
wards. At Loudwater I gave Mr. Scully a few
sheets of note paper. I never, to my knowledge,
saw a rough draft he made, nor did I discuss it
with him.
Mr. David Mahoney called and examined by Mr.
James.—l am a solicitor in Dublin, and succeeded
my:father, the late Pierce Mahony. When I called
upon Mr. Ingram respecting Mr. Scully's claim I
did not say he claimed £75,000. I mentioned no
sum.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—l told him that
Mr. Scully was a sufferer to a very large amount.
I :depend upon my recollection since 1856 in say-
ing that I did not mention to Mr. Ingram £75,000.
The first time I heard of that sum was when you
made your speech. I am confirmed in my belief
by the letter which I wrote to Mr. Scully within
two hours of my interview with Mr. Ingram. (The
letter was here produced.) There is no mention of
£75,000 in the letter.
Mr. Bovill then summed up the evidence for the
defence. He said Mr. Scully, the plaintiff, had
possessed a great advantage over
_his client, being
skilled in the practice of courts of justice, and able
to give his evidence with the greatest ease and
composure. On the other hand, Mr. Ingram,
without this advantage, was subjected to a cross-
examination by Mr. James, which was enough to
frighten and confuse any witness. How, after the
lapse of six years, could a man, called upon for the
first time to speak to a particular matter, tell
whether he had been to his banker's or solicitor's
on a certain day ? Yet Mr. James said, " Now,
upon your oath, did you not call at the London
and County Bank on a certain day—mind, an at- I
tendance book is kept at the bank," as if he really
meant to produce it, and confront Mr. Ingram with
.the written entry of a particular call he made six
years ago, which if he did make, had escaped his
recollection. Mr. Ingram had not risen into im-
portance in a day, he had long been extensively
engaged in business,, and his history was well
known from his birth upwards ; and although the
plaintiff had every opportunity of inquiring into
his character, he had not attempted to impeach his
honour or veracity in any other transaction. It
could never be said of him that he ever did a dis-
honest action, or defrauded any man of a single
farthing. Putting these facts in the scale against
Mr. Scully's volubility and powers of speech, he
asked them to discriminate between truth and
falsehood, being satisfied that on a careful con-
sideration of the evidence they would acquit the
defendant of the charge of fraud which was in-
volved in the action.
Mr. James then replied on the whole case for the
plaintiff—l quite concur with my learned friend
that this action is in the nature of a criminal
charge against Mr. Ingram, and that it ought to
be established by the clearest evidence. The evi-
dence of the defendant is quite consistent with
that of the plaintiff, and makes out no defence at
all. I ask you if there is any reasonable doubt in
the minds of any of the jury to give the defendant
the benefit of that doubt, but I say there can be
none. The plaintiff's case is that he placed implicit
confidence in Sadleir, and the whole object of this
scheme was to keep from him the estate which
remained in Sadleir. Frauds like this cannot be
perpetrated alone by one party, and the defendant
was just the person that Sadleir would seek outito
lend himself to him. And the defendant did lend
himself as the ready instrument of Sadleir. How
could the defendant stand up in the face of docu-
ments and say that he did not represent himself to
Mr. Sadleir as the purchaser of the estate, and the
seller to the plaintiff? Look at his position with
Sadleir; he was engaged in various speculations
and accommodation bills with him, and took
from him £3OO for lending himself as a security
with others for £90,000 on Sadleir's account. Was

not he, then, the sort of man Sadleir would select
as his instrument ? When he asked the plaintiff
£25,000 for the estate on the Sunday, and on the
Wednesday asked £28,000, no doubt the plaintiff
became disgusted, and never spoke to him after-
wards when they met. What was it done for ? To
save Sadleir from being called on to repay the
£9,000, and to divide any, profit that might be
obtained by a resale. It is a case which for the
ends of justice has been brought to light by the
discovery of these papers, and I can well under-
stand how it came upon the defendanrby surprise
I am amazed with wonder
That I, who never left a track
In all the dark and secret windings to my wealth,
Should be thus discovered, defeated, and made void."

If you find, gentlemen, that the defendant has lent
himself to one of those great [frauds which have
disgraced the character of this mercantile com-
munity, do your duty and return a verdict accord.
ingly.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, said this was,
indeed, a very serious case. It demanded, had re-
ceived, and would yet receive their most deliberate
attention. A charge was brought against the defen-
dant, a gentleman who had hitherto maintained a
mostrespectable position in society, which imputed
to him fraud of a serious kind. The action was founded
on fraud, and unless they believed Mr. Ingram's con-
duct was fraudulent, he was entitled to their ver-
dict. The charge against him was that he repre•
sented to the plaintiff that he had bought the estate
of Castle Hyde from Sadleir. Now unless they
believed that the defendant made that representa-
tion, knowing it to be untrue, and with the fraudu-
lentintention of deceiving and injuring the plaintiff,
he was entitled to their verdict; but if they be-
lieved that he knew it to be untrue, and that he
made it with the intention of deceiving:and injuring
plaintiff, and thereby damnyfying him, the plaintiff
was entitled to such damages as they thought he
could fairly claim. The jui'y should clearly under-
stand that nothing which was said or written by
Sadleir was evidence against Mr. Ingram, and it
was only by clear evidence against Mr. Ingram
personally that he was in any danger of any ver-
dict being found against him. With regard to
Sadleir there could be no doubt that he was a most
unprincipled and wicked man, and that he had de-
ceived Mr. Scully. It was also possible that he
might have deceived Mr. Ingram, and unless they
believed that Mr. Ingram made the representation
to Mr. Scully, believing it to be untrue, for the
purpose of deceiving him, he was not liable to this
action. Lord Campbell then read over the evidence
of the plaintiff and defendant, and told the jury
that their verdict would depend entirely upon the
credit which they attached to the evidence of Mr.
Scully on the one part, and on that of Mr. Ingram
on the other. He owned that if Mr. Ingram. had
purposely lent himself to such a fraud as was here
imputed him, it was very difficult to discover his
motive, but at the same time it certainly did ap-
desirous to represent himself
pear that he was very
as the owner of the estate. In the event of their
finding a verdict for plaintiff there would' be the
question of damages, which presented some diffi-
culty. In the first place the defendant said that in
consequence of the misrepresentation of the defend-
ant he was prevented from pressing Sadleir for the
payment of the £9,ooo,but considering the desperate

condition of Sadleir for many years, it was not likely
that he could have paid that sum. Another ground of
damage was the increased value of the estate since Mr.
Scully first purchased it, but as Mr. Scully ad-
mitted that he could not pay the whole purchase
money unless Sadlier paid him the £9,000, and as
it was not probable that Sadlier could have done
so, the conclusion was that he would not have
become the owner of the estate. The jury would,
however, *form their own opinions upon the matter,
recollecting that before they came to consider the
question of damages, they must he satisfied that
the defendant had knowingly made to Mr. Scully
a false representation that he was the owner of the
estate.

The jury retired at five o'clock, and in about half
an hour came back into court.

Lord Campbell, on being apprised of their return
immediately resumed his seat on the bench.
The Foreman—We do not clearly understand
my lord, whether the connivance of the defendant
with Sadleir consists of a fraud.

Lord Campbell—Undoubtedly. If he connived
with Sadleir, then he is an accomplice.
A Juror—We cannot believe that the defendant
is guilty of a fraud.
Lord Campbell—lf he connived with Sadleir in
a false representation, he is guilty of fraud himself.
A Juror—l am one of those who do not think he
connived with Sadleir.

Lord Campbell—l can only direct you in point
of law. It is for you to deal with the facts. You
may now withdraw and deliberate again.
A third Juror—We are not likely to come to a
unanimous conclusion.

Lord Campbell—l hope you will by to-morrow
morning. It would be impossible to maintain the
principle of trial by jury if they are to be dis-
charged because they are not all of one mind after
half an hour's deliberation. His lordship then
repeated the direction he had given in reply to the
question of the foreman.
The third Juror—lf we have to sit up all night
will we have a fire ?

Lord Campbell—l think the law expressly for-
bids a fire. I hope in another session of Parliament
to succeed in passing a bill by which, if the jury,
after having deliberated a certain time, cannot
agree, the verdict—l will not say of a majority,
but of a certain number of them may be taken as
the verdict in the case ; but at present I am not at
liberty to discharge you. I can only hope that you
will be unanimous before to-morrow morning.
(Laughter.)
A Juror—We came down on the understanding
that we would be unanimous when your lordship
answered our question. It is very hard on us on
this side.

Lord Campbell—You see I cannot enter on a
discussion of your differences.
Another juror appealed to his lordship that they
might be allowed a fire.
Lord Campbell—By law candles are allowed,
and you can have as many as you like in order to
warm the room. (Laughter.) I should hold that
a lamp comes within the meaning of the law.

After a pause,
His lordship said he was glad to hear from Mr.
Secondary Potter that the room was warmed with
gas lights.
A juror said he understood that the plaintiff and
defendant agreed to their having a fire.
Lord Campbell—l see no objection to your
having one, but as the room is heated by gas, a fire
would be unnecessary.
The jury then left the court, and were locked up
as before. _ _ _ _

_______
They returned after an absence of about two
hours, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—da-
mages £3OO.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

THE PARIS MODEL LODGING-HOUSES-IN RE

G. D. CLARK.

This extraordinary case again came before the
court. The insolvent was connected with the Paris
Model Lodging-houses, and claimed upwards of
£13,000 of Mr. Kennard, the extensive iron-
founder in Thames-street. The claim was denied,
and, on the contrary, it was alleged that the insol-
vent was a debtor to Mr. Kennard. An action
had been brought, and some accounts had been re-
ferred to Mr. Ingpen, the registrar.
Mr. Reed applied this morning, on the part of
insolvent, for an adjournment of two months. He
regretted to state that Mr. Clark had met with a
severe accident at a railway station, by which he
had broken his arm, and could not attend to busi-
ness.

Mr. Sargood, for Mr. Kennard, said he, of course,
regretted the accident, which it seemed, happened
a month ago. He thought the adjournment asked
for too long, and hoped the documentary evidence
would be gone into though Mr. Clark was absent.
Mr. Reed objected to any evidence being taken
in the absence of Mr. Clark, who, in his present
state, could not attend. _ _ _

Mr. Commissioner Phillips, after further discus-
sion, granted an adjournment for one month and
renewed the bail. If Mr. Clark could not attend a
further application could be made. He wished it
to be understood, if the case was not proceeded
with, he should not afterwards renew the bail.

Adjourned to the 13th of January.
IN RE JOSEPH DOBBS WILDSMITH.

This insolvent, the late train bearer of Lord Jus-
tice Knight Bruce, applied to be discharged.
Mr. Beard, a publican, opposed in person.
Mr. Richard Martin appeared as counsel for the
insolvent.

The insolvent had petitioned under the Protec-
tion Act, and his petition was dismissed for a mis-
description. He had since lost his situation, and
said he had no promise that he should be restored,
or have a situation of equal value.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips hoped Lord Justice
Knight Bruce would restore him to his situation.
There was nothing in his case to prevent his resto-
ration. Should he again fill the appointment, he
trusted that he would live within his income.
The insolvent was discharged.
IN RE CHRISTOPHER HARRIS THE ELDER.
Mr. Richard Martin opposed for a creditor named
Martin. Mr. Dowse supported.
The case had stood over to prove that the insol•
vent's sons, Charles and Christopher, had advanced
money to the insolvent, and had taken a bill of sale
of his shop as a hosier, in Hampton-terrace, Camden
Town.

The Court was satisfied, and granted the fina
order.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, DEC. 9.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
Francis Briggs, 30, was charged with arson. The
two first counts in the indictment alleged that he
had wilfully, maliciously, and feloniously attempted
to set fire to his dwelling-house, with intent to
injure Jane Waller, the owner of the property;
and a third charged him with having set fire to
certain goods and chattels contained in a building,
the setting fire to which building would have been
felony under an act of Parliament.
Mr. Addison appeared for the prosecution. The
prisoner was defended by Mr. Ribton.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Michael Cavan, 31, John Wall, 17, and Henry
Webb, 20; were indicted for feloniously setting fire
to two stacks of hay at Gillingham.
The prisoners Wall and Webb pleaded guilty.
Mr. Barrow conducted the prosecution.
It -appeared that -the irttteks in -question-were
the property of a farmer in the neighbourhood of
Chatham, and were of the value of £125, and they
were consumed on the night of the 27th of July
last. All the prisoners was seen close to the stack:
at the time the fire broke out, and they were seen
to be running away immediately afterwards with-
out rendering any assistance to extinguish the
flames, but the additional evidence given against
them was of a very unusual character in such cases,
and established their guilt in the most conclusive
manner. A Scotchwoman named Annie Stewart,
who, it appears, was tramping about the country,
but who seemed to be a most intelligent woman,
and who gave her evidence with great clearness and
consistency, deposed that having had a " drop of
beer" on the day in question, she went to lie down
at night under one of the stacks, and she was
awoke by hearing men talking, and she ascer-
tained that it was the three prisohers, and
she listened to their conversation. She stated that
she heard Cavan say to the others, " Let us have
a lark and set fire to the stacks, and give the
' Bobbies' (police) a job, for they want one," and
she said that one of the other prisoners gave Cavan
some lucifers, and struck them and set fire to the
stack, and then they all ran away, neither of them
being, as she said, aware that any one was near
enough to have overheard their conversation. The
prisoners were taken into custody a few days after-
wards, 'and, upon Cavan being told what he was
charged with, he said that as others had been speak-
ing he should do the same, and the fact was, that
it was not he who set fire to the stacks, but " Little.
Jack," meaning the prisoner Wall. A good deal
of laughter was occasioned by the ingenious man-
ner in which Cavan cross-examined the witness
Stewart, and the answers she gave to the ques-
tions which were put to her, which evinced un-
common shrewdness and intellect. The prisoner
appeared very curious to know why she did not
give an alarm when she heard what she alleged was
going on, and she replied that she was "too good
a judge," for she knew what sort of people they
were, and that they would very probably have put
her out of the way if they had found out that she
was listening to their proceedings.
The learned Judge having summed up, the jury

immediately returned a verdict of Guilty, and all
the prisoners were sentenced to ten years' penal
servitude.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.-EXETER, DEC. 8.

(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Mr. Justice Byles arrived in Exeter yesterday
afternoon, and opened the commission for the city
of Exeter and the county of Devon. This morning
his lordship attended divine service at the cathe
dral, after which he commenced the business of the
assizes. The calendar is light.

despatched, witnesses being under examination to
show the small amount of ruins or debris which had
been found after the fire.

YORK, Dec. 8.
The calendar of prisoners for trial at the gaol
delivery for this county is heavy, there being four
cases of murder, three of manslaughter, one of at-
tempted murder, besides several daring burglaries,
and highway robberies. There are 82 prisoners
for trial.
Mr. Baron Watson, the presiding judge, arrived
in York from Newcastle, this morning, and pro-
ceeded to York Castle, where ho opened the com-
mission for the county, and afterwards went to the
Guildhall, where the commission for the city was
opened in like manner.

MIDDLESEX SESSION&—Dec. 9.

(Before Mr. Pashley, Q.C. Assistant-Judge, at
Clerkenwell.) _ _

Mary Ann Neal, 21, was indicted for stealing 11
umbrellas, value £2, the property of Edward
Unwin.
Mr. Le Bruton prosecuted; Mr. Smith defended
the prisoner.
The prosecutor is a hosier, carrying on business
at 164, Strand, and on the 29th of Nov., the pri-
soner went up to his shop door, and placing her
shawl over a bundle of umbrellas standing there
for sale, she broke the string by which they were
fastened to the railing in front of the window, a
man and a woman standing close by to screen her
from observation. One of the prosecutor's
servants, however, saw what was going on, and as
the prisoner was moving the umbrellas, he ran out
to her, and the man and woman made off. The
prisoner was detained and given into custody for
stealing the umbrellas, but she asserted that it was
not-she, but the man who stood beside her.
The prisoner was found guilty, and, being a well-
known offender, and previously convicted, the court
sentenced her to four years' penal servitude.
AN UNGRATEFUL SCOUNDREL. EXTRAORDINARY
CASE.

Thomas Sherwood, 42, was indicted for stealing
252 lbs. cf yarn, and 91 lbs. of mohair, the property
of Edward Wm. Augustus Taylor, his master. He
was charged with feloniously embezzling the sums
of £l5 14s , £1 10s., and £5 65., received by him on
account of his said, master.
Mr. Bodkin appeared for the prosecution ; the
prisoner was undefended.
The circumstances of this case were of a very
peculiar and complicated character, and not only
conclusively proved the guilt of the prisoner upon
the charges brought against him, but showed that
he had been guilty of conduct towards the prosecu-
tor, his benefactor and friend, of the basest and
most ungrateful description. The prosecutor, a
dealer in yarns, now carrying on his business at
Guildhall•chambers, Basinghall-street, formerly in
Bevenden-street, Hoxton, and the prisoner, were
schoolfellows 30 years ago at Leeds, and at one
time the prisoner was in business as a spinner at
Bradford, but he failed, and for many years, until
about 18 months ago, the prosecutor lost sight of
him. He was very much surprised one night to
find the prisoner following him home, and he then
told such a tale of suffering and distress, represent-
ing that he had been without food for days, that he
had been compelled to sleep in the parks, and that
he had no friends to whom he could apply for aid,
that Mr. Taylor became his friend and provided
him with clothes, his own being tattered, torn,
and dirty—lodging, food, and money. The pri-
soner offered to assist the prosecutor in his busi-
ness for a small remuneration to keep him from
starving, and the prosecutor, knowing that he was
acquainted with the details of the trade, employed
him to sell goods on commission, providing him
in addition, with lodgings and necessaries. The
prisoner also undertook to manufacture mohair and
silk yarn, solely and entirely on prosecutor's ac-
count, the latter paying all expenses ; the arrange-
ment being that, after deducting these, there should
be a division of the net profits -.Ton the sale of
goods actually sold. It was distinctly understood
that this was to be solely on prosecutor's account,
and prisoner undertook the business on the terms
of a letter written by the prosecutor, expressly de-
fining the arrangement. When the prisoner was
charged he impudently contended that upon this
arrangement he could neither be charged with
stealing nor with embezzlement, as he was a partner
in the concern. After the prosecutor had dismissed
him from his service he actually went to his credi-
tors and represented that he (prosecutor) was in
the habit of procuring ;goods on credit, and imme-
diately pledging them to raise capital ; the conse-
quence of which was that the creditors were down
upon him, and he was brought to the verge of
bankruptcy and ruin by the prisoner's base and in-
famous proceedings, for which there waa not the
slightest possible justification.
The evidence given in support of the prosecution
showed that on the 27th Sept. the prosecutor acci-
dentally discovered that the prisoner had received
a sum of money from a customer for which he had
not accounted, in consequence of which he was im
mediately discharged, having admitted that he had
embezzled the amount. The result of subsequent
inquiries was the discovery not only that he had
embezzled money to a very serious amount, but
that he had appropriated to himself goods as well,
the loss to the prosecutor being altogether £261.
The prosecutor then caused him to be apprehended
On the 31st of August the prosecutor had a conver-
sation with him with reference to some yarn, 242
pounds in weight, which prisoner said a customer,
named Dart, Bedford-street, Covent-garden, would
purchase at a dertain price, which price the prose-
cutor agreed to take, and on the following day the
prisoner told him he had delivered it to the customer
and charged him cab fare for taking it. The value of
the yarn wa3 £33 6s. 10d. On the 14th May there
was a conversation about a lot of mohair, 91bs. in
weight, which the prisoner said he had sold to a
customer named Hartley, a trimming manufac-
turer, in Pump-row, Old-street-road, St. Luke's, at
Bs. 6d. per pound, at two months' credit. This was
entirely a falsehood, and he had secretly taken the
mohair from the premises, pledged it, and appro-
priated the proceeds to himself. He kept this
transaction secret in a very cunning manner. After
two months had expired, the prosecutor spoke to
him about this account, when the prisoner told him
he had seen Mrs. Hartley, but the account could
not be paid then as Mr. Hartley was at the seaside.
A month after that he had seen Mr. Hartley, who
was not satisfied with the mohair, and would be
glad if it could be disposed of to another customer.
The prisoner said that in consequence he had,agreed
with a Mr. Lewis for the latter to take the lot at
10s. per pound, a profit of ls. 6d. per pound upon
the price Mr. Hartley had agreed to give, and
had delivered it to him; but this was entirely false.

Mr. Lewis was alsoa customer of the prosecutor,
and the latter was, content that he should have the
goods at the increased price. The prisoner's object
was to create delay in having to account for the
property which he had disposed of on his account.
When his guilt was discovered he had put a bold
front on the matter, and audaciously declared that
the prosecutor being in urgent want of money, he
tried all he knew throughout the trade to sell the
wool and mohair to furnish him with ready money;
but as he could not succeed in doing so, he pledged
them, and gave the prosecutor the proceeds ; and
the prosecutor made this charge against him,
to derive for himself all the benefit of a good trade
which, by his knowledge of the business and the
persons in it, and his perseverance and industry,
he had got together.

Mr. Dart, Mr. Hartley, and Mr. Lewis severally
contradicted the prisoner's assertions as to the sale
of the goods to them.
The prisoner, in his defence, said there was no
understanding between him and the prosecutor, but
a bona fide partnership. He worked the trade and
got up an excellent connection for Taylor, and he
pledged the• property to help him out of difficulties,
and Mr. Taylor had every penny of the money
raised upon it.

Mr. Bodkin—lt's a pity you did not ask any ques-
on in cross-examination about that.

Prisoner—Taylor well enough knows it. He was
poor, and if he had stuck to me as I meant to stick
to him, all would have been well, and we doing a
good business.
Prosecutor recalled—There is not one word of

truth in
.his statement that he pawned the goods
for me, or to my knowledge.
The Assistant-Judge told the jury he should direct
,that, in point of law, the prisoner was prosecutor's
servant, and not entitled to deal with the property
without his consent and knowledge. It was quite
clear prisoner had represented to his employer that
lie had sold the property on his credit; it was ad-
mitted by the prisoner that that was all false, and
the proof was that he pawned it. His assertion was
that he did so on the prosecutor's account. That
was 3positively denied; and if true, why should
he have represented to Mr. Taylor that he had
sold it to Hartley first and to Lewis afterwards ?
That the prisoner did not deny.
Prisoner—lt was all lies, your worship.
The Assistant-Judge told him he must be under-
rating the capacity of those whom lie wished to im-
press with the idea that he pawned the property
for the benefit of his employer, when he owned the
account he gave to his employer of having disposed
of it his customers on sale, and now said it was lies.
The jury, without a moment's hesitation, found
the prisoner guilty.
Mr. Bodkin—The total amount of which the pri-
soner has robbed the prosecutor is £260. Between
his dismissal and his apprehension he communicated
to Mr. Taylor's creditors that he was pawning
goods, obtained on credit, as soon-as he got them,

through which proceedings in bankruptcy were
commenced, and he was brought to the very brink
of ruin and destruction. With respect to the em-
bezzlements, we have selected three_ instances, all
which we can put in one indictment, -and if the
court desires it we will proceed upon that charge.
The Assistant Judge thought it had better be
tried.

The case was then gone into, and it was proved
that the prisoner received from G. Bartholomew
and Co., of Finsbury Pavement, £5 65., and from
Mr. Kelsey, of Wilmot-square, Bethnal-green, two
sums, £l5 14s. and £1 10s., on account of! Mr.
Taylor, for which he had never accounted.
The prisoner asserted that he paid the money to
the prosecutor on the very day he received it, and
that he also paid on Mr. Hartley's account £24
which he did not owe, and which he had not re-
ceived from Mr. Hartley.
Prosecutor—Mr. Hartley did not owe me any
such sum at the time. The orders for Bartholomews'
and Kelsey were executed by me, and I never re-
ceived the money. There is no sum of £24 entered
to the credit of Mr. Hartley in my books.
Prisoner—l paid it in Hartley's name, in respect
of the deficiency on the mohair.
Prosecutor(to Mr. Bodkin)—The prisoner received
from me about £26 in money, clothes, food, and
lodging, &c., during the time he was in my service
—about 12 months.

The prisoner—All I have to say is I paid the
money, and I am the injured man.
The jury found him guilty, without hearing the
summing up.
Mr. Bodkin—The nice return the prisoner made
for the prosecutor's kindness is now fully before
the court.

The Assistant Judge said—The court on many
former occasions had to pass sentences of penal ser-
vitude in cases of embezzlement, and it would fail
in its duty to the public if it did not do so in the
present case. The offence had been greatly aggra-
vated by the prisoner's conduct to his benefactor
after he had robbed him of £260 by false entries in
his books,false accounts of misappropriated property,
and embezzlement. In addition to receiving clothes,
food, lodging and wages, he had robbed his friend
of £260 in one year, and had then done his utmost
to bring him to ruin and beggery by destroying his
character as a tradesman. The sentence would be
one likely to induce others to think a little before
they entered upon similar courses, for in no similar
case would a less sentence be passed. The sen-
tence on the prisoner was that he be kept in penal
servitude for five years.