The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-24 00:00:00

Mail-office, General Post-office, and Paradise-
place, Richmond, appeared before Mr. Tyrwhitt
to answer the complaint of Mr. John Evans, solici-
tor, of 10, John-street, Bedford-row, which charged
the defendant Is follows :—" For that he did un-
lawfully obtain, by means of a certain false and
fraudulent pretence, of and from the said John
Evans an order for the payment and of the value
of £2O, his property, and with intent to cheat and
defraud him thereof, against the peace," &c.
Mr. Sleigh attended for the prosecution; and
Mr. Talford for the defence.
Mr. Sleigh opened the case at some length, and
quoted the cases of the Queen v. Fry and the Queen
v. West, as particularly bearing upon charges of
this sort.

The defendant, who was placed in the felon's
dock, was, upon the application of his counsel,
allowed to be seated in the misdemeanant's dock.
Mr. Evans, stated—The defendant was intro-
duced to me by one of -his friends. It was by letter,
which was dated July 18, 1859. I had a conversa-
tion with him at my office. He asked me to ad-
vance him the sum of £2O. I was very busy, and
asked him to call again next day, the 19th, and he
did so. I declined on the 19th to lend him the
money. He said he was in the General Post-office.
He said he was a clerk, and that his salary was be-
tween £BO and £9O, that his father vas a rich man,
and that he made him a very liberal allowance.
The Defendant—l could not have said that.
Mr. Evans—Either his father or his friends. I
said I could not lend him the money, as how.sould
he pay me £2O out of so low a salary, and I could
not go to his friends. He went away, and on the
following day, the 20th, I was surprised to see
him ao-ain. The defendant apologised for call-
ing after my refusal, but stated that from what
he knew of me, and from what his friend who
introduced him had said, he felt satisfied there was
some particular reason for my refusal, and asked
me the reason. I told him I did not like the chan-
nel through which he was introduced, for the fact
was that the same gentleman had introduced
a young man from another public office, who got
various sums of money out of me, and that when I
applied to him for payment he set up his infancy.
The defendant said, " I think I know who that
young man is, and he must be a blackguard fell Ow.
I hope you do not think lam under 21." I looked
at him steadily, and said, " I did not think so of the
other gentleman." He said, "I assure you lam 23
years of age. I want the money particularly to go
into Wales. I rely upon getting it from you from
what my friend stated, and as you will be sure to
get your money back, pray let me have it." He
began to tell me who his friends were, but I stopped
him. I said, " I rely upon you as a gentleman." I
believed him to be 23 years of age. Upon that I
lent him £2O, stopping £1 for professional atten-
dance, and was to charge him £5 per cent, interest.
I would not have parted with my money had I not
believed him to be of age, legally competent to enter
into a contract, whether he was in a public office or
not. He promised, when he received his salary,
which would be In about six weeks, some portion
of the money on account. He did not keep his
word, and I wrote him some letters. In conse-
quence of his not calling, although he wrote a
letter saying he would do so, I entered an action
against him in a superior court. The defendant
pleaded infancy to that action, but neither the pe-
tition nor the affidavit is produced.
Mr. Tyrwhitt (to Mr. Sleigh)—What you want
to show is that the defendant went through the
phantasmagoria of showing who his next friend is.
Mr. Sleigh—Yes.. Mr. Baron Watson granted
the rule.

Mr. Talfourd, before cross-examining the witness,
said he had an objection to nealce,'.and that was that
the infancy of the defendant had not been proved.
Mr. Sleigh said he had proved enough for a re-
mand.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—The question is, whether enough
has not been done for a remand; or, if a remand
was granted, whether prima facie evidence could
not be produced that the defendant was not of full
age. There is enough for a remand, for the case
could not be completed that day.
Mr. Talfourd contended that the evidence was in
favour of the defendant, for the statement that he
was twenty-three years of age was found to be from
his own lips.
Mr. Tyrwhitt--The remand is asked for to see
whether that is the fact or not.
Mr. Talfourd—Yes, but there is an action pend-
ing upon the same question, and the complainant
denies that the defendant is an infant.
Mr. Sleigh—Re is bound to do that.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—Then there are two horses run-
ning on parallel courses—a case in the Court of
Queen's Bench, and ono in this court.
The complainant, in cross-examination, said he
would not have advanced the money if the de-
fendant had not Fitatod that he was twenty-three
years of age. He did not rely upon the other per-
son who had pleaded infancy, but upon Mr. Daley,
who had introduced the defendant. No one was
present when the defendant said he was twenty-
three.

Mr. Tyrwhitt remanded the defendant, but agreed
to accept one bail in the sum of £2O.
The defendant' was then removed, and in the
course of the day bail was put in, and the prisoner
left the court.