The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, .1835.

a single yard of those goods was there ; and the quantity
of any kind of goods was very small indeed. Mr. Hort,
when witness sent to that person's warehouse, . and

identified those cases which had been removed in the in-
terim, gave them up at once, without attempting to keep
them. The amount in value of the goods found at Hort's
was from 8001 to 1,0001. Witness afterwards went back
to Belfast, and found in Hamilton's counting-house the bills
of lading of the goods to Rotter and Co. Witness here
produced some patterns of checks which he said Hamilton
showed to him, and said he had got an order for goods
agreeing with there from his friends at Hamburgh. He
could not state the exact number of bales of the Belfast
goods missing, but he saw in Woolf's warehouse goods to
the amount of from 4,0001. to 5,0001. He had given credit
himself. to. Hamilton for 6001. worth of goods, which had
not been paid for ; but Hamilton had paid him 4001. for
goods. The amount of goods belonging to the other mer-
chants was between 4,0001. and 5,0001. Upon comparison
of the bills of lading with the cases found in Woolf's ware-
house, it was found that the marks 'were all changed.
Where a 5 was the original number, it was made 15 ; and
where the original letters were I F, they were turned into
D E. All the bales of goods he ascertained had been
taken off from Rotter's to Woolf's without delay. Wit-
ness went to Liverpool-Wharf to tell the proprietor to de-
tain six bales which he heard had been coming from Liver-
pool, and were part of the Belfast goods ; and while he
was there Mr. Woolf appeared and claimed them. Mr.
Bates refused to deliver them up without consulting his
attorney.
Mr. Bodkin, after regretting the serious losses sustained
by the Belfast merchants, begged to ask the witness whe-
ther Bryson was not the first person that told him that
Hamilton was a partner in the firm of " Malasius Schneider
and Co. ?" Witness—No ; Hamilton was the first.
Bryson acted as clerk to him.
Mr. Bodkin—Bryson is not here I believe. Pray did
y'u ask him to come ? Witness—No ; I can't recollect
what I might have said to him, but he said that he was
very willing to give any information that he could on the
subject. I think it very likely I said we should shortly
require him.
Mr. Frederick Boson, an attorney, went to Hamburgh,
according- to directions, to make inquiry concerning the
firm of " Malisius Schneider and Co." He arrived at Ham-
burgh on the 18th of September, and went to the English
Consul, by whom, upon his showing the Lord Mayor's
signature, all facilities were afforded. Witness advertised
upon the subject, applied to the merchants, at the police-
offices, to the postman, on the market-place, in the coffee-
houses, to the mailman, who had been twenty-three years
in the employment, and examined the " Directory,"'and he
could find no such firm as " Malisius Schneider and C 0.,"
or as " Schneider and Co."
Mr. W. A. James, a solicitor, proved that Simon Josephs
had been a bankrupt, and had also gone by the name of
George Frederick Hamilton. Witness knew Hamilton's
handwriting, and believed that in the bill for 1201. pro-
duced to b his.

Mr. Bodkin--There is not the least doubt of it.
Mr. Bell, having been called again, said, in. answer to
questions from Mr. Bodkin, that he had not carefully looked
through all the goods in the possession of the Lord Mayor,
but he saw goods of his own and of the other merchants,
which never had been paid for.
Air. Bodkin called for dates and particulars, as indispen-
sably necessary in a case of this kind.
Mr. Hort, at his own request, was examined. He` had
known Mr. Woolf for many years, but had never seen him
write.. Often had bills of parcels, but never letters from
him. He wished to make -a remark as to the erasure of the
marks on the cases which he had got from Mr. Woolf's
warehouse. He had been under treaty for buying the
whole of the cases, and as he was shipping goods to his son
in America he directed that if those cases were sufficiently
strong the old marks should be erased, and other marks put
on. Witness unluckily knew Sirneon'Josephs, for lie lost
4,0001. by him about twelve years ago. He did not know
whether Mr. Woolf and Josephs were or were not ac-
quainted.
Did not know that Josephs was called Hamilton,
but heard that be had assumed it afterwards. After the
account about the seized goods appeared in the newspapers
witness directed that his porter should keep those which he
had had from Mr. Woolf. On the 4th of September the
cases were received by him, and were to lie for examination
and approval. -
Mr. Bell—lt was on the 3d of September I first went
into Mi. Woolf's premises. .
Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Lord Mayor upon the
part of Mr. Woolf, who, he said, so.far from having any
objection to the issue of a warrant for the apprehension of
so profligate a fellow as Hamilton, wished that he might
immediately be traced out, and was anxious to aid by his
purse, and in any other way to bring him to punishment.
With respect to the application to give up the property to
the Belfast merchants, that, he contended, could not in
law or justice be conceded, as Mr. Woolf had, as was evi-
dent from all that had been stated, become possessed of the
goods by -a bona fide transaction. . •
Mr. Bodkin then denied the right of the Lord Mayor to
issue a warrant, and seize upon the goods, and said that he'
was borne out in-that opinion by the Attorney-General and
Mr. Pollock. That question would, however, be tried in
another place.
Mr. Phillips then called Mr. Wm. Langton, who said
—I am a clerk in the Post-bill Office. in the Bank of En-
gland. I produce, a request in writing for a post bill for
500/. I have also the bill given for it. The-request is as
follows:
" .£5OO.

" Five hundred pounds, a bank post bill,
accepted in favour of Mr. Joseph C: Lyons, value received
from M. Woolf, 11, Addle-street, Wood-street.
" July 98, 1835."
Ido not know Mr. Woolf. This is the bill which was
made out. Witness produced a Bank post-bill, dated the
28th of July, 1835, made out for 5001. in favour of Joseph
C. Lyons, for value received of Mr. Woolf.
Mr. Bodkin desired the bill and request to be banded
over, and after looking at it, admitted that it was in Mr.
Woolf s writing.
Mr. William Waller, clerk to Mr. Ashurst, the Attor-
ney, had traced this bank post-bill to have been changed at
Liverpool by Mr. Lyons for notes of 1001. each, part of
which were afterwards given for bills on the Irish bank at
Belfast, in favour of Malisius Schneider and Co. The clerk
at the Branch Bank Office at Liverpool stated to witness
that he recollected the circumstance quite well, in conse-
quence of Mr. Lyons not wishing to put his name on the
back of the post-bill, and that there were other occasions
in which Mr.. Lyons had made similar objections.
Mr. Bodkin asked whether Mr. Phillips intended to ex-
tend the application to Mr. Woolf, who was present, and
ready to answer? He ridiculed the idea that the evidence
just produced proved that Mr. Woolf had supplied money
to carry on the fraud, and declared that his client had paid
Mr. Lyons, not only on that occasion with a bank post-bill,
but upon numerous other occasions. The fact bad been
repeatedly admitted. Mr. Woolf had, he declared, offered
every facility to the police officer upon the application at
his office.

Daniel Forrester denied that such facility was afforded.
On the co'ntraty, Mr. Woolf, upon the arrival of Mr. Sid-
ney, his attorney, tried to put him (Forrester) out, but it
would not do.

Mr. Phillips—Did not Mr. Woolf draw a sword upon
you ? Witness—He did ; but I was not afraid that any
thing would arise from that.
Mr. Phillips—But is that what you call giving every, faci-
lity ? Mr. Bodkin said that his client was certainly and
most reasonably disposed to resist the attempt upon being
told by his attorney that the warrant was illegal. The goods
which were removed from the premises of Mr. Woolf after
the first seizure was made were removed upon the same
principle, in order not to be subjected to a similar inconve-
nience resulting from an illegal act of the Magistrate.
Mr. Phillips quoted the 7th and Bth of George IV. upon
a suggestion from Mr. Hobler, the chief clerk, to prove that
the Lord Mayor was, notwithstanding all that had been
said about the Attorney-General and Mr. Pollock, perfectly
justified in issuing the warrant. He spoke of the high obli-
gations under which the commercial world was to his Lord-
ship for the prompt and benevolent manner in which he had
acted all through this case, and said that the decision of his
Lordship was looked for with the greatest possible interest
in a case which every body saw was one of a very atrocious
character. _ _

The LORD MAYoR said that he had, upon first hearing
the circumstances, decided upon an immediate issue of the
warrant, and he must say that he had had no cause to re-
gret that determination. He was himself no lawyer, but
he acted upon the advice of his chief clerk, by whose able
assistance he was prevented, upon occasions where legal
knowledge was necessary, from going vnvng. He was
prepared to defend the course he had adopted in any place,
and he rejoiced that in a case of such enormous plunder he
had thrown his official protection over the plundered. He
gave no opinion as to Mr. Woolf. He had given no opi-
nion as to that person ; but it was palpable that a most
abominable conspiracy had been worked up against those
who had applied to him for protection and aid. He
should at once grant a warrant for the apprehension of
Hamilton, but as to the goods in question, he should, acting
upon the sound advice of his chief clerk, continue to hold
them until a Jury should decide who were best entitled to
them. His Lordship concluded by expressing a fervent
hope that justice would be done in the fullest manner.
Mr. Phillips expressed himself fully satisfied at the deci-
sion of the Lord Mayor, and the parties left the office.

hawking Cleave's Police Gazette and the Twopenny Dis-
Pach, and was eloquently commending his unstamped
wares to the crowd, who surrounded him, and pocketing
their twopences, when the inspector interfered and attempt-
ed to seize, him. He escaped through the crowd from the
inspector, however, but was stopped by a police constable,
23 G, and he then threw down his papers in the street and
made a violent, resistance, appealing to the crowd for as-
sistance, declaring that he was no thief, but a poor man
endeavouring to earn a bit of bread honestly, and ought
not to be hauled away by, any policeman. He was at
length secured and locked up.
Gladwell, the police constable, produced seven of the
two-penny publications which the prisoner had thrown
down in the street when stopped by him.
Dean, being sworn, stated that he saw the prisoner sell
several of the papers before he interfered, and he had seen
the prisoner selling them before.
The prisoner said he could get no work at his trade,
and it was that that induced him to engage in the sale of
such publications. _
He was committed to prison for one month.
The Magistrate said it would be desirable that, instead
of the poor creatures who hawked the papers about, the
persons who published and supplied the papers to them
should be sought out and punished for their illegal proceed-
ings. A similar remark being made by another of the Ma-
gistrates before whom a vendor of the unstamped was
brought a few days .since,
Dean, the inspector, replied that an attempt had lately
been made at a great expense to effect that object and had
failed, and all they could do at present was to apprehend
those whom they found selling the papers.