The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-31 00:00:00

Money Agents and Officers in the Army.

At the Westminster Police-court, yesterday, Mr.
Ormerod Potts, of 57, Cumberland-street, Pimlico,
money agent, a man about 45 years of age, was
charged with fraud under the 24th and 25th Vict.,
cap. 96, sec. 90 (the Consolidated Statutes Act),
which says, " Whosoever, with intent to defraud or
injure any other person, shall, by any false pre-
tence, fraudulently cause or induce any other per-
son to execute, make, accept, endorse, or destroy
the whole or any part of any valuable security, or
to write, impress, or affix his name, &c., upon any
paper or parchment in order that the same may be
afterwards made or converted into or used or dealt
with as a valuable security, shall be guilty of mis-
demeanour, and liable to three years' penal servi-
tude."

Mr. Sleigh, barrister, prosecuted ; Mr. Edward
Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, defended.
Mr. Sleigh, in opening his case, said he should
prove that at the time the prisoner obtained the
bills from his client, the latter parting with them
on the faith that the prisoner was a gentleman and
a man of substance, he was in a state of poverty,
unable to pay the most trifling bills, and that since
1851 he had been insolvent three times.

Lieut.' William Gore Brakspear, 31st Regiment of
Foot, said he saw an advertisement last year in the
papers of a person offering to lend money to officers
in the army or navy. He communicated with pri-
soner at the address given, 57, Cumberland-street,
Pimlico, and having received a letter from prisoner
which induced him to believe he was a respectable
man, and a gentleman of means and position to
advance money, he requested a loan of money. Pri-
soner sent him a bill for £2OO at three months,
which he accepted, and returned to prisoner.—(Bill
produced.)
Mr. Sleigh remarked that the bill was drawn by
James W. Lyon, and asked the witness if there was
a drawer on the bill when he accepted it?
Witness upon consideration said he did not re-
member; he thought not. He should not have ac-
cepted it without he had been under the impression
that he was dealing with a gentleman. He had
never received a penny piece for the bill, and was
now being sued upon it. Three or four days after-
wards letters passed between them, and prisoner at
length said he could not advance money on so large
a bill, and sent two bills of £lOO each which he asked
him to accept. (Looking at one of the bills.) That
was in the prisoner's handwriting, all of it, and
Isuhtnndldi!rd notsig sign
I strikedifferent
h himselfi
nhsiami
ii,
agents.,
signed " Ormerod Potts ;" accepted the bill and
another for a similar amount and sent them back.
theand
,p,roisronaneer-
ePasostts st'r'atnogtehetbhillats
rod" to the letters, because money-lenders went
ptnanidtwatnCim's,Onelva
induceds £lOO bill hadto
acceptbeen
'believing him to be a man of position
and fund. Before he received the second bill of
Ai lidoeor
stho
oat e. e e plvt
itthne e
ss prisonerd id nhad o
t ob
object
£5O
tt
to his
itso
holding him at
the large bill as a security. In January or Feb-
ruary saw the prisoner at his own house. Asked
him the reason why he refused or neglected
to advance more than £5O on all the bills he
held, and he said he should advance no more,
as he had heard witness had other bills out.
That was so. He said the £2OO bill was safe in
back
his hands. When he advanced the £5O he said he
one £lOO bill, and when
would give witness
three months had elapsed witness gave him a bill
Ii for £6o—for £5O lent and £lO interest. Believed
was for £6O. Understood it to be so ; but it
might have been for £6OO. Witness afterwards