The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-25 00:00:00

Central Criminal Court—This Day.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
George Soakley was charged with feloniously receiving
a post letter for £25, and ft bill of exchange for £5l. The
prosecution was conducted by the Solicitor-General in
behalf of the post-office authorities.
The letter, it appeared, had arrived. by the China mail
on the 14th of September, and was addressed to Mrs.
Biddle, Cranborne Villas, Oakley-square, Chelsea, and
was given for delivery to John Sole,, an auxiliary lotto).-
carrier at the Brompton Post-office, where he had been so
employed for two years.
Sole deposel that about eight or nine months ego ho
became acquainted with the prisoner, who treated him to
drink, and reproiented to him that a great deal of money
could b 3. made by detaining letters. After that he met
him almost every day and gave him a large nhmber of
letters containing stamps and val:,able articles. Oa the
14th of September he gave him the letter addressed to
Mrs. Biddle. He had got money at various times from
Soakley, in all about £2 10s.

Charles Luna; a draper, deposed that Soakley asked him
the value of the bill of exchange. Witness said ho would see,
and put the document in his pocket, but did not think any
more of it. Abuut a week or ten days after he returned it
to Soakley, who. partially burned it. Witness picked it up
and put it in his pocket, where it was found when he
was apprehended.

The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to 10
years' penal servitude.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Pigott.)
THE LEEDS BANK CASES.

Edward Greenland, the late manager of the Leeds
Banking company, surrendered to take his trial, upon
an indictment for having, upon the Ist of February,
1864, with intent to deceive the shareholders of the
company, and of unlawfully making, circulating, and
publishing and concurring in making, circulating, and pub-
lishing a false statement, purporting to be the report of
the directors of the said company. Two other counts in
the indictment charged wilful and corrupt perjury in cer•
tain affidavits before Mr. Sykes Ward, a commissioner in
Chancery, atLeeds.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to all the indictments.
From the opening statement of the counsel for the pro•
secution, it appeared that the defendant had been for many
years the manager of the Leeds Banking Company, which
ceased in September, 1861. Upon investigating the ac-
counts of the bank, it was found that the defen-
dant had failed in his duty in furnishing a
half-yearly statement of the notes and bills of ex-
change of the bank then in circulation, and the in-
dictment charged that the return so made for the first
months in 1364 were untruly and falsely made. The evi-
dence was of great length, and related principally to the
accounts of the bank and other matters totally devoid of
interest to the general public.
(The case was proceeding when we went to press.)

(Beforo the Recorder.)
CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST A POLICE CONSTABLE.

William Barry, a police constable of the S division, was
indicted for having committed wilful and corrupt perjury
at the examination of two young men, named Pierce
and
Dye, at the liarylebone Police Court, and also reiterating
the same before Mr. Sergeant Payne, at the Middlesex
Sessions. . . _

Twas laid
Hyidaagelat„inst another constable of the
same
division,
ivi chargesion,
named
and both were also jointly
indicted for conspiracy. Mr. Sleigh, who conducted the
prosecution, elected to take the separate indictment for
forgery against Barry, in preference to the indictment
against both for conspiracy, because by adopting that
course Barry 'would have the advantage of calling Hayes
as a witness on his behalf, if he felts° disposed. The perjury
assigned was that the defendant deposed before the magistrate
at M.arylebono Police-court, that he and Hayes took the
two young men into custody close to 63, Gloucester-cres-
cent, Regent's-park, on a charge of attempting to commit
a burglary. The constables swore that on the morning of
the 31st of August the two young men were seen to leap
over the garden wall of the house. The young men; on
their part said that the statement of the constables was
altogether false, and that instead of taking them into cus-
tody at Gloucester-terrace, Regent's-park, they (Pierce
and Dyce) were looking at a person in a fit in
Eversholt-street, Olkley-square, and that the constables
came up to them there and took them into custody, and
conveyed them to the police-station in Little Albany-
street, and falsely charged them with attempting to com-
mit a burglary.. They were both committed for trial at the
Middlesex Sessions ; but the jury returned a verdict of
" Not guilty," and the present indictment was the result of
that acquittal.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE--This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

WANT OF PUNCTUALITY IN THE " LORD CHIEF BARON."
—Mr. James Weale, of No. 2, Malvern-villas, Kilburn-
park, was charged beforo Mr. Knox with damaging a
statue of one of the Muses, the property of Mr. Henry
George Brooks, the " Lord Chief Baron" of the Judge and
Jury Society, No. '2l, Leicester-sqvare.
When the case was called on the
"Lord Chief Baron''
was not in attendance, not having left Chambers, and the
defendant was discharged.
A few minutes afterwards the " Lord Chief Baron''
attended, only to find that the defendant had been dis-
charged.

From his lordship's*statement to the magistrate, and
what could be ascertained, it appears that last night while
his lordship was charging the jury he was interrupted by
a noise in the hall, and on following the "usher" outside
the court, to his discovery he found that one of the Muses
had been very badly "assaulted and battered," and had
been literally converted into a ,4 lay"
figure. Ile also found
that the gas-piping had been broken down, and the safety
of the establishment placed in jeopardy, and the defendant
having been pointed out as the person who had bommitted
the damage, he was given into custody.
Mr. Knox told Mr. Brooks that there being no com-
plainant in attendance, he had discharged the accused.
Mr. Brooks said that but for the fact that he was labour-
ingunder indisposition, he would have been in attendance.

Mr. Knox said that Mr. Brooks could have a summons
for the destruction of his property, and one was obtained.