The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY _EVENING, JANUARY 3l, 1861,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Tan. 30.

MANSION-HOUSE. Mr. Richard Corrie
Bache, a gentlemanly looking man, bordering on
70 years of age, was charged before Alderman Sir
IL W. Carden, who sat for the Lord Mayor, with
embeztling the nominal sum of £42 9s. 6d., re-
ceived by him on account of Mrs. Elizabeth Grate-
wood Tull, of Charlton Villa, Chertsey, on the stli
of January, 1859, and also with embezzling va-
rious moneys, amounting to nearly £6,000, from
1848 down to the present time.
From 1852, until towards the end of last year,
the prisoner was a member of the Court of Com-
mon Council for the ward of Langbourn.
Sir R. Carden asked if he had engaged any at-
torney to defend him.
The prisoner said he had an attorney, Mr. Red-
path, of Walbrook, but he had no means of com-
municating with him.
The Alderman kindly deferred the investiga-
tion until a message could be sent to Mr. Redpath,
and eventually Mr. Wontner at a moment's notice,
attended to watch the inquiry on the part of the
prisoner. I
Mr. Lewis said he appeared for Mrs. Tull,
the principal in a rope manufacturing firm
at 153, Fenchurch-street, with which the pri-
soner had been connected for nearly forty years
as manager • for the greater part of that
time, and the most implicit confidence had been
reposed in him. The complainant's husband, Mr.
Tull, died in 1851, and from that time, the business
being continued by Mrs. Tull, still greater confi-
dence was reposed in him. One of the duties of the
prisoner was to send a weekly statement to her of
the receipts and payments in respect of the business;
but of late, his accounts having excited suspicion,
an accountant was called in, and the result of an
investigation by him was the discovery of a defi-
ciency amounting to between £5,000 and £6,000,
for which the prisoner had not accounted. Before
the prisoner was given into custody an opportunity
was afforded him of explaining the matter, if it
were susceptible of explanation. At first he treated
the suggestion in an off-hand manner, but at length
made some admissions as to the alleged deficiencies,
and ho was then plq.ced in charge of the police.
Archibald Leighton Baxter finia—l am 0, °lark
in the employment of Messrs. Tull and Co., 153,
Fenchurch-street, rope manufacturers. Mr. Bache,
the prisoner, was the manager of the establishment,
at a salary of £3OO, and had a free house besides.
It was his duty to receive money for the firm, and
pay it in to the bankers, Messrs. Hankey. I have
been in the employment of the firm nearly twelve
years. I kept the books, with the exception of the
cash-book, which was kept by Mr. Bache. I posted
the ledger from the cash-book at his dictation, he
calling out to me from the opposite side of a desk
the amounts and dates. The cash-book was kept
locked up by Mr. Bache in his desk ; I had no con-
trol over it, nor did I ever see the items in it.
I had the key of a cupboard in which the ledger
and other books were deposited. The two
cash-books produced, beginning with 1847, and
continuing up to the present time, are in the
handwriting of Mr. Bache, including the cast-
ings of receipts on the six pages indicated. The
prisoner had possession of the three bankers'
passbooks produced. It was his duty to pay in to
the bankers the money received by him on account
of the firm. I was in the habit :of receiving the
money paid over the counter, entering it in the
petty cash-book, and then handing it daily to the
prisoner to be paid by him to the bankers. All the
sums entered in the petty cash book produced have
been paid by Mb to him. Mrs. Tull is about 70
years of age. Mr.*Tull, her husband, died in July,
1851. It was the prisoner's duty, as I always
understood, to send a weekly statement of receipts
and payments to Mrs. Tull. I have seen him pre-
paring such statements.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wontner—Mr. Bache has
been connected with the concern for about 40 years,
and has had the entire management of it for a long
time. He had to make payments, as well as re-
ceive meney, on account of the firm.
Mr. Frederick Whinney, accountant, 3, Bank-
buildings, said—l was consulted with reference to
investigating the books of the firm of Tull and Co.,
and commenced the examination at the end of
November last, Mr. Bache himself producing them
for examination. I told him no balance sheet had
:oeen sent down to Mrs. Tull for 1858, 1859, or
1860. (It had been customary to strike a balance
for each year up to the 30th of June.) I also told
him I understood Mrs. Tull had been asked by him
to pay in more capital to carry on the business, that
she was not satisfied, and wished to know the state
in which it was. I added I was about to examine
the books from July, 1857, to the present time.
The prisoner then produced to me all the books
now before the Court. In his cash book, under
the date of August 3, 1854, I find an item of £l4B
08 6d not carried out into the cast-up column.
There is no other receipt in the cash book on
that day. That amount does not appear in the
bankers' pass-book on that day or subsequently.
In one page of the cash book the receipts are
summed up £9,001 5s 9d, but the casting-
up should really be £9,061 Os sd, the diffe-
rence being £59 14s Bd. At another page there
are two miscastings—one of £29 and the other of
£4O 17s. Ido not find any miscasting of the pay-
ments on his credit side. In subsequent pages there
are miscastings to the amount of £57 is id ; £57
13s sd; and £286 13s 4d. On the Ist of March,
1856, I find £l6 13s 4d was received by him, but
not paid in; on the 3d df the same month he
received £709 3s lld ; and I perceive he paid into
the bankers on that day £509 3s 11d, showing a
difference of £2OO. That particular page is also
short cast by £286 13s 4d. On the 20th March,
-1856, he received from the Board of Ordnance
£299 9s 6a, and on the day after he paid into the
bankers £209 9s 6d, a-difference of £9O. No sum
was paid in to the bankers on the 20th of March ;
and that page was also miscast by £l6O. I have
compared the entries in the cash-book with those
in the petty cash-book ; in the latter on July 19,
1856, there is an entry of £44 4s; but in the cash-
book the amount received as " shop cash" is £3O
6s 4d, being a ditkrence of £l3 17s Bd. On the
26th of July the receipts are put down at £6B
Os ld, but in the cash-book at £4l 5s Bd, a differ-
ence of £26 14s sd. Again, on February 33,
1858, £62 is od is entered for petty cash ; but in
the cash-book the entry is £33 ss, a difference of
£2B 16s sd. On another day, in March 1859, the
sum received across the counter was £35 17s ld ;
but the entry for that day in the cash-book is only
£2O, a difference of £l5 17s ld. On the 16th of
April, 1859, the entry in the petty cash-book is
£44 2s 6d; but that in the cash-book is £l6 5s 6d
—difference £27 17s. On the 9th of June 1860, the
receipts are entered at £25 5s 7d, but the cash-
book shows only £l4 9s 9d, the difference being
£lO 15s 10d. On the 23d of June, 1860, the
entry in the petty cash-book is £36 17s 10d; in
the cash-book £27 19s 6d—difference £8 18s 4d.
By Mr. Wontner—There is one wrong addition
in the cash-book of £234 8s ld against the prisoner
and in favour of the firm ; but on the other side of
the account there is a short casting of £359 ss. 6d.
By Mr. Lewis—The total balance of the defici-
encies is between £5,000 and £6,000 from 1848.
Mr. Lewis then applied to have the prisoner
remanded—a request in which Mr. Wontner joined,
in the prisoner's interest, on the ground that he
had been called in at a moment's notice to defend
him. He was accordingly remanded until Thurs-
day next.
Francis Lawrence, 32, a working man, was ac-
cused on suspicion of stealing a gold watch and
chain of the value of £2O.
The complainant, Samuel Chambers, a beer mer-
chant in Seething-lane, said the prisoner was at
work for him on Tuesday, corking beer in the ware-
house. Witness placed his gold watch and chain in
a desk in the counting-house, about a quarter to 3
o'clock, covering it over with some loose papers,
but did not lock the desk. The prisoner was then
at work on the same floor, and could see him in the
counting-house. He went out after placing his
watch in the desk, and on returning about an hour
sameo
fflc
itohe:ri
cm,a t a
allthend t
unlessht
ai time,
hise, ai
tnv i
rdwa witnesstaosa
pl.
had.o _
afterwards it was gone. Several other people were
swaoidrkiion
been taken out of the
gat,:
hearing; of
duced he would have them all locked up. They all
denied taking it; the prisoner acided that he had
been in the counting-house, but only to gign a book.
A book had been signed for the delivery of bottles
during witness's absence. The prisoner had a right
to go into the countinghouse; he had the oversight
of the others, who were lads. At first he gave a
wrong address. He offered to be searched, but wit-
ness declined to do so. The prisoner afterwards
gave a correct address, assigning as a reason for not
doing so at first bis unwillingness to be the means
of alarming his wife, who was near her confinement.
He protested his innocence ; adding that any of the
other men at work in the warehouse might have
gone into the counting-house while his back was

turned.
Sir It. Carden discharged the defendant, telling
the complainant he might as well have given any
of the lads into custody for stealing the watch as him.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Charles Douglas, aged
26, described as a porter at a house in the city, was
charged with the following robbery :
The case was somewhat complicated, but the sub-
stance of Mr. Beard's statement and that of his wit-
nesses was, that the prosecutor, Mr. Charles Gib-
bard, a general dealer, lodged at the house of a man
named Cooke, in Wellington •street, Shoreditch, and
the same room was occupied jointly by him and the
prisoner. Beneath a table in this room the prose-
cutor had a brown-coloured box about three feet
long, which contained XB9 in gold, five frock cogs,