The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-16 00:00:00

The. plan devised wa;!:..,4 .§l'iot‘itt go into the
market and I)z:l'l.i:hasp gcodS ; amt. ksf:ed for it referemei-,
e!iti4.114.!40 Mr: 14,erguffon's name. Barnes had
been paying 201. a wfeelt for tOne tithe to the defendant, in
of her debt when this att.:tor:mat Vfas made. She
idonped to the p)aintift for
.goode, and referied hint to the de-
kridani; antl f!`i6 fiTaintiff having sent to King-sfetety saw
there Mr. tfodson, the nizV;i.-;in6, clerk of defendant, wlier
gave a satisfactory answer; and when Barnes gave up
bttsinoe on the t
Bth of January last, the balance tine to the
plaintiff'. was 3721. the period Mrs. Barnes was NO
Opplied with goods, it would be thews that she was in fre-
cptnt Otr.inunteation with Hodson ; that these coaenninications
t} ere priVite dial. lid had recommended her where to go to
diSpo'k of these goods, and tbai, fltd. of the goods of Mr. Haslock
the Vet 04,2 by Mrs: 8..t0 the defendant, sttie nearly wiped off.
He feared that iraiittzfeient of this nature were not uncommon
in the tnerCantile world; Lttf, wherever they were proved,
they dtseredly Mot the reprobation Of all honest men. If
the Jury believed; ester the evidence that would be brought
beftire them, that the transtEctien was honest, they would of
totire fend. a verdict for the defendant, If they weir of
opinion tint it Lugs' the character of fraud, which he had as-
cribed to it, they wonid find el verdict for the plaintiff
Mrs, Sarah Barnes—During the pear 1834, I carried on
business as a haberdasher in Jermyn-street. I know the de-
fendant, John Ferguson, tho had an establishment in St.
illarthrl,,,lanei and another in Iling-street, Covent-Garden.
The house in hing,street was conducted by Mr. Hodson.
I saw the defendant in King-,street two or three times,
but bad itO conversation with hitn. I think the name of
Ferguson was etc the door. I saw the defendant at
the house in St. Martin's-lane, but never had any
dealings with him. I only know of the house in Covent-
garden being Ferguson's from what Hodson told me. I first
saw Mr. Ferguson in August, 1834, when I owed him between
4001. and 5001. for goods, which I had ordered at his house in
King-strevt. I agreed then with Mr. Ferguson to pay him
201. a week. I again saw defendant in October, having been
in the mean time supplied with more goods by Mr. Hodson.
I had goods till within a month of my bankruptcy, which took
place In January last. In December Hodson was at my house
and was rather tip)/ at my not paying what was due—be said
be must have money dr llti would stop my credit. I first did.
businesa with the plaintiff in Novenber. I gave him a refer-
ence to Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Thresher of the. Haymarket, and
a Mr. Harman. Mr. Hodson had given me leave to use Mr.
Ferguson's name. I sold the•goods purchased from the plain-
tiff to several persons.
John Wilde—l am plaintiff's warehousentan. In November
1834, Mrs. Barnes applied for goods, and referred me to the
defendant, King-street, Covent-garden. That was the only
reference. I saw the name of Ferguson over the door. I
saw a person there whom I supposed to be Mr. Ferguson, but
I have since heard that it was Mr. Hodson. I afterwards
supplied Mrs. Barnes with goods to the amount of 443/., out
of which was received in cash and goods returned 31/. 2s. 6d.
There were two parcels of goods supplied, amounting to about
601., before I went to defendant's shop. Mr. Harman accom-
panied Mrs. Barnes when she first came to our warehouse, and
I deposed to that, and to his making a false representation of
her character and circumstances when Mr. Harman was after-
wards before the Insolvent Judge. I was in business four
years ago for myself and became insolvent, but cannot say
what dividend my property paid.
Mrs. Barnes recalled—l believe the first parcel of goods I
had from Haslock were sold by me a few days afterwards for
ready money at a little under first cost. I paid the money to
Hodson on account of my debt there. I kept paying him 201.
a week out of the goods as I sold them. I sold one lot charged
421. in the invoice, to Hayward of Oxford-street for 201. or
221. I had goods of the parties, which I sold in the same
way. I pawned the last lot, 32/., for from 17/. to 20/. Du-
ring the time plaintiff
.supplied goods to me, I had goods
from other parties, to 'the amount of between five and six hun-
dred pounds.. Mr. Hodson put down the sums I paid him in a
book. .1 did business with the witness Wilde also, and pur-
chased goods of the same sort from him, for which I paid him
ready money. I bought of him 781. worth of ribbons, which
were charged double their value, being much soiled, and out
of fashion. I was paying other persons besides Hodson por-
tions of what I owed them. I became a bankrupt in January
last.

William Marden, clerk to Mr. Hainson, attorney. I recol-
lect the defendant being examined before the Commissioners
in Mrs. Barnes' bankruptcy. The account now handed me
is a copy of that ,in the defendant'Vooks.
The account was then read, from which it appeared, that
from the time Mrs. Barnes commenced dealing with the defen-
dant, she had paid him 4141.
Sir FammucK PoLLocic would admit that the money paid
to Hodson was on account of the defendant.

Lord DENMAN—But I do not see how Ferguson is con-
nected with the reuesentation made by Hodson to Wilde.

Theophilus GoOdwin was called, but there was nothing ma-
terial in his testimony.
Jesse Hodson—l was shopman to the defendant until March
last. I had a conversation with him relative to Mrs. Barnes'
account, when he told me that I must reduce it. I then stopped
supplying her with goods. He had previously told me to limit
the supply to 1001. I might have said, and did say to defen-
dant, that a person had called for a reference with regard'to
Mrs. Barnes. Defendant said I might give her a fair cha-
racter. Previous to August, 1834, Mrs. Barnes had dealt
with the defendant to the amount of several hundred pounds.
She gave references to me, which were very satisfactory.
I showed the defendant's account with her to Wilde.

The evidence for the plaintiff had not closed when our
reporter left. The case is not likely to terminate till a very
ate hour.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-

(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

Susannah Blake, aged 30, was indicted for feloniously cut-
ting and stabbing Matilda Scott, with intent • to kill and mur-
der her.

It appeared that the prisoner had lived about twelve years
in the service of the prosecutrix, a lady residing at Stepney-
green. On the night of 26th November last, while they were
sitting at work in the kitchen, the prisoner suddenly got up,
seized the prosecutor by the back of the neck, and put a
carving-knife to her mouth. A struggle took place between
them, and murder being called, some neighbours came in and
separated them. The wound inflicted was not serious.
The prisoner had since been confined in a lunatic asylum,
and the defence set up was insanity. The prisoner, however,
in her address to the Jury, and her mode of cross-examina-
tion of the witnesses, evinced considerable intelligence and
skill. She said her mistress was a very violent woman, and
first commenced the attack. She denied having used the
knife, and said the wound was inflicted by accident. Several
papers were produced to prove her lunacy, and a brother of
the prosecutrix, whom she called " her lord and master,"
stated that be bad frequently advised his sister to get rid of
her, believing her not fit to be free from restraint.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE summed up, and the Jury returned
a verdict of Acquittal, on the ground of insanity.

NEW COURT.
Part,
John Prt, aged 30, was indicted for stealing 87Ihs. of
indigo, the property of the East India Dock Company.
It appeared in evidence that the prisoner was employed in
the East India Docks as an assistant foreman in the Indigo de-
partment. On the 3d of December he was seen_ coming from
a floor in the warehott.e where five chests of indigo were
placed, and go to. his desk where he was seen to make up a
paper parcel of indigo, and the, chests were afterwards found
broken open and 87lbs. of indigo missing; the prisoners work-
ing jacket was examined by the Captain, Drew the Superin-
tendant of the Dock, and several cakes of indigo found secreted
in it. The prisoner on hearing of the discovery which had
taken place absconded, but was subsequently taken into
custody.

The prisoner in his defence complained that 500 lbs. of in-
digo were missing last year, and no notivc taken of it. There
were only 87 lbs. now missing, and he thought he ought not
to be forced to account for that in a place where so many
men were employed. He denied h? ever took any indigo
out of the dock.

The CoeieoN SERGEANT summed up, and the Jury, after
;ome deliberation, returned a verdict of acquittal.
The COMMON SARGEANT said that the prisoner had the
uckiest escape that he ever remembered since lie had sat in
hat Court. If he had been found guilty, he should have
xansported him.