The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-09 00:00:00

THE FRAUDS ON THE CITY OF LON-
DON POOR LAW UNION.

Yesterday Mr. Farnell, the Assistant Poor Law
Commissioner and Inspector, sat at the office of the

. --
City of London Union, St. Mary-axe, for the pur-
pose of inquiring into the frauds committed by Mr.
Paul, the late chief clerk to the union.

The inquiry was opened under the provisions of
the 22d and 23d Victoria, cap. 49, sec. 2, entitled,
" The Poor Law Boards (Payment of Debts," which
empowers the Commissioner to order payment of
any debts incurred by any union "after open and
public investigation, during which counsel or solici-
tors may appear and witnesses be examined on both
sides, when the same shall be required by any rate-
payer of the union, parish, or district, and he shall
be satisfied that there is no fraud, collusion, or ne-
glect of the general rules of the Poor Law Board
respecting the contraction or discharge of such debt,
claim, or demand which is alleged to be due, and that
such party has not been accessory to any fraud."
These proceedings have been rendered necessary
in consequence of the frauds of Paul, the chief clerk

to the union, there being charges on tradesmen's
bills to the amount of £9,159 4s. 2d., and a balance
due to the treasurer on the new account of £4,207

s. Bd., making a total deficiency of £13,366 15s
Id.

For these frauds Paul was tried at the Central
Criminal Court, and sentenced to 14 years' transpor-
tation, and as the parishes had already paid their
quota for the discharge of these accounts they re-
fused to pay over again, and to get out of the diffi-
culty the act of last session was passed, giving power
to the Poor Law Commissioners, on proof of the
debts, to older a new rate to be made for their dis-

charge.
Mr. C. M. Roche appeared on behalf of the rate
payers ; Mr. Baylis on the part of the guardians o
the union.

Mr. S. Bare, licensed victualler, said he claimed
from the guardians of the City of London Union the
sum of £12165. ld. for wine, spirits, &c., supplied for
the use of the poor at the workhouse in Bow-road.
The master sent the orders for these articles. The
detailed list showed that the best port,sherry, stout,
bottled ale, and soda water had been supplied. No
champagne was supplied. He sent in the articles,
but he did not know what became of them.
Mr. Roche—The master will tell us what became
of them. At any rate it is quite clear they did not
go to the poor.
A Guardian said he could prove that the soda
water was supplied to the poor.
Mr. Roche—A great deal more of it, I expect,
was used by the guardians than the poor.
The Guardian—l deny it altogether.
Mr. Roche—The master's book will show. We
shall see what was done with it.
Mr. Jas. Lawton, a boot and shoe maker, claimed
for £lOO 10s., on account of the representatives of
John Paul, the clerk. Two or three days after their
account was sent in for this claim they received a
cheque drawn by the guardians for the full amount.
The cheque was paid into their bankers, and it was
duly honoured, bnt in a day or two afterwards Paul
came to them and told them that the account of the
guardians was very short or overdrawn, and there-
fore he should be much obliged if they would give
him a cheque to help the guardians along. A cheque
was given to him, "Payable to John Paul, Esq., or
bearer," and he gave witness his cheque in return,
as security for the £lOO 10s., which they made.
They had previously paid the guardians' cheque to
their account at their bankers. They knew that
the cheque for £l5l 12s. 9d. had been honoured
when they made the advance to which he had
alluded. Similar transactions had before taken
place between them, for no sooner had they got a.
cheque from the guardians than either a letter
cams, or Paul himself, telling witness that as he
could not pay the cheque in for a week they might
as well lend it to him, and he gave witness his own
cheque in return. These cheques were made all
right at the bankers'. They had supplied the union
with shoes for the last 17 years. They only supplied
them once by contract, and for the other part of
the time by tender.
•Mr. Charles Kingsford, a flour dealer, said he
claimed £1,055 of the guardians of the City of Lon-
don for flour delivered at the workhouse in the
Bow-road. The date of the first transaction was
from the 25th of March to the 25th of June, 1856,
and the last up to December, 1856. His tenders
were accepted by the Board of Guardians.
By Mr. Roche—lle never received any check
from Mr. Paul, and had nothing to do with him
except occasionally pressing him for money.
Mr. Rushworth, of the firm of Baiss Brothers,
wholesale druggists, said they claimed £163 ss. 4d.
for goods supplied to the Guardians of the City of
London Union—ilrugs and medicines. They were
sent to the workhouse from orders (signed by Mr.
Paul, or by M-;. Bunting, the medical officer.
Several oti'ner similar cases were brought forward
and the proceedings were adjourned.

TJJE BRIBERY PROCEEDINGS AT

11( weIVICH.

Yesterday the Norwich magistrates were engaged
for nearly four hours in further hearing the charge
preferred against Mr. Albert I. Collins, of conspir-
ing with Mr. H. Croxford and others to bribe Mr.
Joel Fox, by offering him £5OO to vote for eight
Tory aldermen on the 9th of November.
Mr. Power, Q.C., again appeared to conduct the
case on the part of th prosecution, and Mr. Ser-
geant Ballantine and Mr. H. Holl for the defendant.
Mr. Mendham, town-clerk, having stated that the
Town Council had, in accordance with a resolution
adopted on Tuesday, retired from the prosecution,
said he did not appear further in the matter.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine submitted that under
these circumstances Mr. Power had no locus standi ;
if any one were the prosecutor it must be Mr. Fox,
and the question was whether that gentleman in-
structed his learned friend. _ _ _

Mr. Fox, in reply to questions from the Bench,
said he was ready to give evidence as before, but he
had not instructed counsel.

Mr. Power stated that he appeared for several
gentlemen who were anxious that justice should be
vindicated ; they were Messrs. J. J. Colman. R. N.
Bacon, C. N. Bolingbroke, E. S. Holland, J. New-
begin, J. Pyman, the Rev. G. Gould, and the Rev.
J. Crompton. Mr. Fox was not a sufficiently
wealthy man to engage in, a contest with persons
possessing the means of those who instructed his
learned friend, but he occupied the same position as
before, the only difference being, that the gentle-
men whose names he had mentioned had assumed
the attitude formerly taken up by the Town Council.
A lengthened argument took place on the sub-
ject. Various modes of proceeding, such as the pre-
ferring an indictment before a grand jury, or the
filing of an ex officio information by the Attorney-
General, being mentioned, and Mr. Power inti-
mated that, in the event of the decision of the
Bench being adverse to him, those who instructed
him wonld lay the matter before the Government.

On the magistrates proceeding to a division on
the question,
The Mayor objected to Sir Samuel Bignold's
voting, upon the ground that he had been men-
tioned as an accused party in the case.
Sir S. Bignold persisting in his right to vote,

Mr. Sultier also protested against his doing so.
Sir S. Bignold rejoined by observing, with some
warmth, that a junior magistrate who had been
pitchforked on to the bench would show more de-
cency if he kept himself quiet.
The voting then proceeded, and
The- Bonen. decided, by 12,t0 10 that Mr. Power
had no locus standi.

The learned counsel applied for permission to
prefer a fresh information, but
The Magistrates declined to entertain the appli-
cation until the case before them was disposed of.
Several clerks from the banking establishment
of Messrs. Harvey and Hudson were examined,
and it was proved that Mr. Collins was paid £5OO
in three £lOO and four £5O Bank of England notes
on the morning of the 9th Nov. ; also, that Sir S.
Bignold and Mr. Collins had had an interview in
the course of the morning with'Mr. R. J. Harvey.
This gentleman, on being-asked by the Mayor to state
what passed on the occasion, declined to answer the
question, lest by his answer he should criminate
himself. Mr. Harvey stated, however, that it was a
nightly practice to send for notes from London, and
the notes to which reference had been made in the
case were not sent for specially from town. He also
said that Sir Samuel Bignold did not sign on the
occasion any cheque, promissory note, or bank
guarantee for £5OO, nor did he pass his word with
a similar object.
The Mayor said the case could not be considered
to be concluded, but the question was whether the
magistrates ought not to put the matter in a train
for further investigation.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said the magistrates
might certainly exercise their responsibility by
sending the matter for trial, but before they did so
it would be his duty to address some observations
to the bench. The learned gentleman then pro-
ceeded in eloquent terms to denounce the whole
prosecution as a party proceeding got up by the
Liberals as a set-off to their exposure before the
late committee of the House of Commons. The
Liberals had, in fact, baited a trap with Joel Fox,
thinking to catch his client. The inquiry had not
been set on foot for the public good, but simply to
gratify feelings of revenge, and for the purpose of
" showing up" the Conservatives, as the Liberals
had been exposed before the election committee.
The Town Council had on reflection evidently come
to the conclusion that it was not desirable that they
should be any longer prosecutors in the matter;
and it was one of the most wretched circumstances
of the whole wretched inquiry that Mr. Harvey,