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

PRICE. 'd
STAMPED sd.

body of the unhappy gentleman reached Chamounix
at two o'clock on the following day, and that the
writer, at the request of the surviving brothers,
rendered his assistance for its conveyance through
France to England, its departure from Chamounix
being attended by a great assemblage of the in-
habitants, the guides who had assisted in the search
for the body surrounded the hearse, each carrying a
lighted taper.

The Alleged Embezzlement of ,ElO,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 previdus examinations were
read over by one of the clerks, and it will be re-
membered that the main facts that appeared to be
established.wgza. ,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 Alliance 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 he 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
his 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 make
his o use , e power' lie 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
Company, which the prosecutor had purchased
through the 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. lie 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 -1
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.
his part to prevent Mr. Russell Mr. Lewis denied that there walls
farnnyminhteeitoenxoan.
andhim h
wase
notmin callexa-
mined,hdethraeatltlyheknonewly
nrneathsoinnghaetdaildl
reptheaatte
had been examined, had the entire
about the matter. His accountant,management
h ofo
the accounts.
Mr. Wontner said he should be prepared to show
at a future time that Mr. Russell knew all about the
matter, and he urged upon the alderman that without
his testimony there was no proof that any act of em-
bezzlement had been committed by the prisoner.
Sir R. Carden said he had listened carefully to the
whole 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.

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