The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-05 00:00:00

The Alleged Embezzlement of £lO,OOO.

At the Mansion-house, yesterday, Mr. William
Charles Haddon, an elderly man, who for many
years was employed as the manager of the London
establishment of Messrs. Russell and Sons, the pro-
prietor of the Crown Iron-tube Works at Wednes-
bury, in Staffordshire, and who has been in custody
for some time upon the charge of embezzling a large
sum of money the property of his employers, was
brought before Alderman Sir R. Carden for final
examination.

Mr. G. Lewis, of Ely-place, again attended on
behalf of the prosecution, and Mr. Wontner, jun.,
of Bucklersbury, appeared for the defence. •

The whole of the volumnous depositions that
had been taken at the previous examinations were
read over by one of the clerks, and it will be re-
membered that the main facts that appeared to -be
established were that the prisoner had received very
large sums of money from various customers on ac-
count of the prosecutors, and that instead of remit-
ting the whole amount he so received he kept back
considerable sums, and paid the cheques to his own
private account to the Affiance and the Metropoli-
tan and Provincial Banks. It was also proved, with
reference to one cheque for £lOl 55., which was
made payable to order, that the prisoner signed the
endorsement of Messrs. Russell and Sons to this
cheque, and had thus rendered himself amenable to
a charge of forgery.
Mr. S. Guy, the accountant to the prosecutors,
and through whose examination of the books of the
prisoner the alleged defalcations were discovered,
was recalled at the request of Mr. Wontner, and
questioned with reference to the alleged forgery of
the endorsement to the cheque for £lOl ss. In
answer to questions put to him, he said he was not
prepared to state upon his oath that the prisoner
would not have had authority under certain circum-
stances to endorse the name of Mr. Russell to a
cheque he received on account of the firm, but he
said he was able to state that he had no authority to
do so with regard to this particular instrument.
Mr. Wontner then put a letter into the witness's
hand, and asked him if it was not the handwriting
of Mr. Russell.
Witness replied that it was.

Mr. Wontner then put the letter in evidence, and
it was read. It was dated Dec. 7, 1865, and was
to the effect that the prosecutor had sustained a
great deal of mischief by reason of the bill transac-
tions in which be had been engaged with the pri-
soner, and expressed a fear that the latter was de-
voting more attention to his own speculations than
to the prosecutors' business. The prosecutor also
requested the prisoner to dispose of certain shares
as well as he could, and retire some bills of exchange
before they became due, and stated that he must
get out of the bill transactions as quickly as pos-
sible. The prosecutor likewise stated in the letter
that the prisoner was aware that he was heavily in-
debted to his bankers, and that in consequence of
the large amonnt of bills that were outstanding in
bis name, inquiries were constantly being made by
parties interested as to whether his firm was in a
condition to pay so large an amount as was repre-
sented by the bills in question. The letter went on
to state that such inquiries were calculated to innlie
his bankers suspicious, and he "urged the prisoner to
sell the shares, anti to use the power he possessed to
raise money by drawing and endorsing bills of ex-
...,change to raise the necessary amount required for
the purpose of retiring the other bills before they
arrived at maturity.

The witness, after hearing this letter read, stated
that he still persisted in the answer he had previ-
ously given, that at the time this cheque came into
the possession of the prisoner he had no authority to
endorse it with the name of the prosecutor.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Lewis, in re-
examination,

Mr. Guy stated that the shares referred to in this
letter were shares in the Hanoverian Petroleum
Companyth, which the prosecutor had purchased
through e earnest representations of the prisoner
as to their value. The subject of these shares had
nothing whatever to do with the charges that were
now made against the prisoner. There was a con-
siderable loss on the shares in question, but that loss
was in no way mixed up with the alleged defalca-
tions in the prisoner's accounts.

Mr. Lewis said that this was all the evidence he
proposed to offer, and he asked that the prisoner
might be committed upon the charge of embezzlement,
and also upon the one of forgery, in reference to his
having placed the endorsement of the prosecutors
upon the cheque for £lOl ss. without their authority.
Mr. Wontner, addressing the Alderman, said that
he should now, as he did on the former occasion,
submit that without the evidence of Mr. Russell no
case of embezzlement had been established against
the prisoner. He should be glad to be informed why
Mr. Russell had not been put into the witness-box.
Mr. Lewis—Because he cannot prove anything.
It has been proved that the prisoner has received
large sums of money on account of his employers,
and that he has not only not paid them over, but
that he has appropriated them to his own use by
paying them into his own private banking account.
If his learned friend wished to examine Mr. Russell,
he was present, and he might call him as a witness
if he thought proper to do so.
Mr. Wontner should take care to call him at
the proper time, but at 'Resent what he had to con-
tend was, that in the absence of his evidence there
was nothing that would justify the magistrate in
coming to the conclusion that the prisoner had com-
mitted any act of embezzlement. It was not enough
to show that a servant had not paid over certain
sums that he was alleged to have received, but it
must be shown in point of fact the master had not
received the money. He said he thought he was
justified in stating that the letter that had been read
threw a flood of light upon the character of the con-
nexion that existed between the prosecutors and the
prisoner, and that the prosecution were bound to
call the former as a witness ; and he could not at
the same time help expressing his opinion that it
was a scandalous proceeding for Mr. Russell to be
seated in court during the whole of these proceed-
ings, and not be called to give evidence.
Mr. Lewis denied that there was anyinbteeinntgion ou
his part to prevent Mr. Russell from s
on he did
exa-
mined, and he repeated that the only
nothingrea at
who all
not call him was that he really
knew
meat of
about the matter.
had been examined His,
had theaceountai entre
,mana
initev( Mr. Guy,
the accounts.
Mr. Wontner said he should prepared to show
Russell
the
at a future time that Mr. beknew all about the
matter, and he urged upon
ll derman that without
em-
bezzlement had been co
his testimony there was
nniompitrtoeodf tbhyatthaenypraiscotnoefre. ni-
Sir R. Carden said he had listened carefully to the
Avlole of the evidence brought forward against the
prisoner; and he was clearly of opinion that it was
his duty to send the case before a jury for them to
decide.
Mr. Wontner then said he trusted that, under all
the circumstances, the prisoner would be allowed to
go at large upon bail. He was about to advance
some arguments in support of the application, when
he was stopped by
Sir R. Carden, who said it would be quite useless
for him to do so, as he had made up his mind that
the case was one of such a nature that he should
not be justified in accepting bail.
The prisoner, by the advice of his solicitor, when

The goldroom is in Broad-street, New York, at
the Treasury end, and within a few doors of the in-
tersection of Wall-street. The goldroom, in the
exterior, is unimposing ; a mere passage-way and
staircase from the street, leading somewhere, which
is not obvious. Its precise whereabouts did not re-
main in doubt a single instant after turning out of
Wall-street. The appearance in Broad-street, in
front of the passage way and staircase, is identical
with that iu front of the more popular London
theatres on boxing night. Thesis a throng outside
the pavement, a regular jam on the pavement, and
those lucky enough to have secured places in the pas-
sage-way and staircase aresubj ectcd to pressure from
without of a sturdy character which may be thought
'of when stimulated by the lust of gain. To be first
in the goldroom is to be in the advantageous
position of offering or accepting the first business,
and during what is called a heated term of excite-
ment there may be a fluctuation of 5 or more per
cent. in the course of a single day, and 1 per cent.
even—say ssoo,ooo—is a large item either for
buyer or seller. We took up a position in the street
throng, and, when those in the passage-way and on
the staircase obtained ingress into the goldroom, the
swaying and surging became for a few moments
dreadful—positively dreadful. Alarmed at the pres-
sure, the writer, availing himself of the first instant's
ease, inquired of his companion whether pocket-
picking was to be feared, and being assured of ha-
munity in that particular, if not in others, squeezing
was borne complacently. Suspicious characters, it
appears, fare badly in the goldroom crowd, so much
so that it is avoided, on principle, by the New
York thieves. -Not long ago the alarm was given
of the presence of one of the fraternity, and in-
stantly all accessible feet and hands were turned on
the intruder, and he was as nearly killed outright as
any one well could be. So pocket-books and valu-
ables are always safe. Elbowing one's way upstairs
the members' entrance is gained, and here the
stranger's pushing stops, until the sanction of the
President has been obtained to his getting in. This
involved little loss of time, it probably being among
the duties of the President to be as well forward in
the squeeze, and as constantly at hand, as an umpire
at a prize fight. He readily accorded the permis-
sion to the influential members who requested it,
and followed up the courtesy by the presentation of
the neat pocket copy of the list of members of the
goldroom and stock and other exchanges, and the
official daily rates for gold since January 13, 1862,
when gold was first trafficked in after the
manner of Agra and Masterman's shares during
the late panic. All this appeared to occupy a second,
so hurried were the greetings-ras informal and de-
monstrative as those on small children when the
fire-escape man lays hold of them in their burning
chamber. Turning round, the writer found the
business of the day proceeding, not as if the doors
had been thrown open during five minutes only, but
as if it had been going on for hours; the members
in their usual corners, the outside speculators of the
kerbstone leaning over the rails of their stalls, the
clerks and messengers of members leaning over
their rails, and the telegraph operators and boys in
their enclosure, as much at home, apparently, and
as intently interested in what is passing as the men
who bawl with stentorian voice "55 for the com-
modity," which left off the previous day at if
more. The hubbub is appalling; for while there
are sellers at 54, there are buyers at 53, who are
also shouting. At half-past ten o'clock there is a
transaction at 54, which is at once posted on the
black board, 151 ; and at three-quarters past ten
o'clock there are other sales, and at this time at 53,
which are instantly posted on the black board, 153.
The excitement heightens; rushes by members to
and from clerks and messengers at the railings, and
to and from the speculators of the kerbstone at the
railings. In another quarter of an hour the rate is
hoisted to 531 and by a quarter past 11 o'clock it
is down to 53. So, ordinarily, the day passes until
half-past four o'clock, when the official business of
the day closes ; but on this occasion, and in fact
every Saturday, the adjournment takes place at a
quarter-past three. The closing prices of the day
was 524, or 1524. That the goldroom should
be seedy and smoky is a reflection foreign to the
place ; for while the buyers and sellers shout
and babble, every marking on the black
board vibrates through the whole money and
commercial dealings of the United States—west,
even beyond the Rocky Mountains, to the Pacific.
The influence of the room is all-powerful for good
and evil ; to-day it may be fixing the relation, as
between gold and notes, 153 notes for 100 of coin,
and to-morrow holding the proportions as 100 of
the latter for 285 of the former, as was the case on
the 11th July, 1864. And those notes, be it ob-
served, are legal tender, $lOO in coin on the one
occasion possessing a purchasing or paying power
of $285 ; and on the other of $153. When our
English dockyards are paved with iron, and are
alleged to be all but useless, the goldroom, by rea-
son of its authority, might well be paved with gold.
It is, moreover, an institution which has rendered
valueless some of the profoundest generalisations of
thinkers and economists on money questions ;
separating, in great measure, the value of coin
from the sum of bank note issues, and bringing it
into subjection to other lawf.

" There is no shame to our manhood if we distrust
our own ability t 3 endure the anguish of the body. . . It
is no se:met that of late local anxthesia has been produced to
such a degree that the patient, retaining his consciousness,
can watch the surgeon's knife as it cuts to cure, and yet be
without the slightes t sensation of physical suffering."—Dally
'I elegraph, July 13, 1868. "To none is the public more I
n
g
in-
debted than to Mr. Day."—lllustrated News, page 826, June
lj
Journal,n a n
p act.sB2, o f duty
9. "Mr. Day has succeeded in robbing tooth extraction of its
horrors,lting icpuabnldlivt; t
o h
think
te
Nve
are
fact."—Court
fulfilling
Painful teeth, or diseased stumps extracted May
26.
without pain.
No chloroform, and perfectly safe. Every description of
teeth, combining the latest inventions and improvements in
dental mechaaism, may be procured Iro In Mr. DAY, dentist
(late principal assistant to Mr. Eskell,of
W.), 291, Regent-street (3 doors from
the Polytechnic).
A Norwegian woman, 105 years old, and 78 of
her descendants, are on the road to Utah.
MISS BRADDON AND THE AMERICAN PUBLISHERS.
—ln a letter to the New York Times, Messrs. Hilton and
and Co. of that city make an impudent attempt to defend
their conduct in publishing a novel, falsely ascribed to Miss
Braddon. They say—" If we have boon the victims of an
imposition in sending forth ' What is this Mystery' as
the work of Miss Braddon, for as such wo were tempted
to purchase the original, we have shared the critical fate
of the editors of some 300 journals who have pronounced
this publication not only to have been the work of Miss
Braddon, but the very best which has emanated from
her pen. Consequently, if our powers of literary detec-
tion, in this instance, failed us, we have the pleasing
satisfaction of having furnished the public with a work
which, if not by Miss Braddon, Is at least equal to her
ordinary performances. Assuredly we are not to blame,
for the reader purchases the book, and not the author's,
name, and it is our business to manufacture such
works,
and such works only, as we can sell. We do
not pretend
to be critics, but merely publishers, and judge material
proffered to us simply as suitable to the
ing ' What is this Mystery' as the c market. Regard-
omposition of a master
hand, we published it, and have
been
amply
rewarded
by the favour by which it has been received. The
reputation of an authoress frequently
indif-
ferent production ; in this instance sells a most
under the name the romance, issued
of a writer, has assuredly sustained the
reputation of its accredited distinctly authoress. As Miss Braddon
says that it did not emanate from her pen we
would be ungentlemanly to
ttdopy her assertion. Still we
in many instances, have witnessed the weakness of authors
who, when their names repudiatel
prior productions, which, whenilisasnuded anonymously, n yum oouns
secured appreciation of their latent talents." T,llisilathve°
New York Times remarks :—" If Messrs. Hiltpon and Co.
were deceived, as they allege, in purchasing a spurious
manuscript, they must be regarded, as, in a certain sense,
victims. Intelligent publishers, however, are supposed to
be not so entirely guileless as the Messrs. Hilton profess in
their vindication; and we must take the liberty of saying
that the philosophic reflections on authorship with which
their communication concludes, scarcely correspond with
the unsophisticated character to which the writers lay
claim at the opening. They have made a 'good thing' out
of it, and they are satisfied—no matter how much Miss
Braddon may have been outraged, or the public swindled,
Messrs. Hilton and Co. probably expect to make even
some additional profit by the smartness of their letter,
heivivith published; and to that profit, with these qualify-
ing words, we make them heartily welcome."
•

(leAjg Sll