The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-28 00:00:00

MAX 28, 185 7,

having taken the money but said she did not mean to
keep it. She had got drunk, when she was knocked
down and robbed of it all.

The magistrate remanded her until Tuesday next, to
enable the police to make further inquiries.

LAMBETH.—ROBBERY Er A SERVANT.—Frances
Bolding, a smartly-dressed young woman with a great
profusion of red locks, and well-formed features, was
charged with having plundered her master, Mr. Joseph
Bumstead, an examiner of bank notes in the Bank of
England.

Sirs. Ellen Ann Bumetead, wife of the proseoutor, who
resides in Holland-street, Brixton, deposed that the pri-
soner had lived in her service for about six weeks, and
during that time, and up to Saturday last, she had no
fault to find with her. On that evening, however, she
absconded ; and soon after she (witness) missed a quan-
tity of linen which the prisoner had been employed in
ironing, together with a 51. note, seven sovereigns, a
half-sovereign, and 2a. 6d. in silver, which had been
taken from a drawer in her bedroom. On a further search
she had also missed a silk mantle and a pair of boots be-
longing to her daughter, and the latter the prisoner bad
on when she was taken into custody. The other things
missed were now produced by the constable, who found
them in prisoner's possession. There was also produced a
heart-shaped locket which the witness had missed about
a fortnight ago, and spoke to the prisoner about it at the
time, out she denied all knowledge of it, and declared
she had not seen it.

Sergeant Standage said that on the evening. before, in
consequence of information be received, he went to the
house, No. 17, Pitt-street. Old Kent-road, and seeing
the prisoner there, he told her she must consider herself
his prisoner on a charge of robbini her master. She
began crying, and said she was very sorry for what
ahe had done ; that she had brought it all on herself, and
that she was going to start on the following morning for
Liverpool. She further said that from Liverpool she was
going to New York with some Mormons, on their way
to the Salt Lake settlement. She then handed hint
a purse, belonging to her mistress, containing three sove-
reigns and 10a. 6d. in silver, and said that was all she
had left of the money. That she paid 51. 7.i. 9d. for her
passage, and purchased some articles she required.
Since apprehending the prisoner he had called ou Mr.
Rudge, 35, Jewin-street, who is the Mormonite agent
i • London, and received from that person 51. 7s. 9‘1.,
which the prisoner had paid to him for her passage to
New Ynrk.
The prisoner was committed for trial.

CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.

John Hind May, of Huggin-lane, City, and Stanley
street, Pumice, a;-nt ; W n, T ylor, 1, Church-passage,
Gresham-street, agent ; and Geo. David Myers, 4, Mal-
vern-terrace, I-liogton, also described as an agent, bu
who is reported to be a wealthy man, appeared befora
Alderman Humphrey at Guildhall, yesterday, for final
examination relative to the charge of conspiracy to de-
fraud Mr. Gorman, of Lurgan, in the county of Armagh,
Ireland, of a quantity of cambric handkerchiefs, to the
value of about 5001., and Mr. Lawson, a manufacture:,
of the same part, of similar goods to the value of about
6001.

Mr. Morgan, of the firm of Humphreys, Son, •and
Morgan, appeared as before for the prosecution ; Mr.
Huddleston, instructed by Messrs. Sole, Turner, and
Co., appeared on behalf of Taylor ; Mr. Hawkins, in-
structed by Messrs. Overbury and Peak, attended for
Myers; and Mr. Wontner defended May ; Mr. Bodkin,
instructed by Messrs. Pontifex and Moginie, attended
to watch the case for Mr. Chas. Meeking, of Holborn.
The depositions taken on the last occasion having
been read,
E. H. Davis, the clerk from the Union Bank, re-
called, said—Myers and May had separate accounts at
the Union Bank. On the 12. h of Marcie last, a cheque
for 1241 was presented by Myers, and it was returned
on the following day. Ido not know whose cheque that
' was, but it was dishonoured. There was a bill to which
May was a party, for 231. 16s. 6d., which was returned
to Myers on the 16th of March. That bill was origi-
nally for 231. 155., and it was paid in to Myers' account
on the 14th of March, and the cost of notsng made it
231. 16s. 6d. A cheque for 301.. drawn by Myers on
the 3d of April, and made payable to May, was paid by
our bank, and debited to Myers' account on the 4th of
April. It was a crossed cheque, and was credited to
May's account. There was also on the 4th of April a
cheque for 811. 10s., drawn, by Myers, and sayable to
May, but I do not find it credited to May's account.
The cheque for 1341. on the 12th of March was debited
to Myers' account, but it does not appear in May's ac-
count. It would not, if dishonoured.
Mr. Morgan said—ln a case of general conspiracy,
it is competent for me to go into as many cases as I think
proper ; I, therefore, propose to go into Mr. Lawson's
case as an accumulative instance in support of the
general charge. It is not necessary for me to prove that
these parties met together for the purpose of conspiracy,
but if I show by their acts that they are pursuing one
common object to defraud a number of persons, as I
shall do in the case, then I apprehend I shall proved
}sufficient to substantiate the charge of conspiracy to
warrant your committing them for trial.
Mr. Huddleston—you have no objection to the legal
part of that argument. In a charge of general conspir-
acy you may give evidence of different acts which may
teiid to prove the general charge, and it was therefore
very convenient for the prosecutors, when they found
the specific charge crumbling beneath them, to deal in
gen rats; and finding ti,at Gorman's case was fail
' ing, they try to mend it by a prosecution on
a general charge. Mr. Morgan now charges these
parties, not with defrauding Mr. Gorm in, but
the whole Irish trade of linen manufactuers in
general; and, if this is to be the charge, undou Hy he
can go irto as many accumulative instances as he can
scrape together to support this charge, and I cannot
legally offer any opposition t. that course ; but that is
not the charge ; for, on the last occasion it was for
conspiring to defraud Thomas Gorman, and I now find
by the remand commitment that it has been made out
for defrauding Thomas Gorman and otner persons, I
insist, as an act of common ju.tice to Mr. Taylor, to
call upon Mr. Lawson to state boldly if he is the pro-
secutor in this matter or not, so that Mr. Taylor may -
know who are the responsible parties. I will withdraw
my objection at once, if Mr. Lawson will s. and up awl
say " I have prosecuted in this matter." (Great
cheery. g.)
Mr. Morgan—l call Mr. Lawson merely as a wit-
ness in Gorman's case ; and it is not, therefore, neces-
sary that he should prosecute.
Alexander Lawson examined—l reside at Lurgan,
in the county of Armagh, Ireland. I am a manufacturer
of cambric handkerchiefs. I received a letter from
Taylor, dated the 6th of December, 1856, in which
he informed me that Mr. Swallow, from Gipestake
and Co.'s, would be at Lurgan, and would look at
the goods in bulk, as he was not content with
sample dozens, and recommended me to try all I
could, as they had a large trade and paid cash. He also
said that if he had had the bulk be could have got offers
for the goods from two parties. At Taylor's suggestion
that he should have the stock, I sent up four cases con-
taining about 2,600 dozen of caesbric handkerchiefs ;
and I afterwards received et letter from him, dated the
27th of December, 1856, in which he stated that his col-
lector had called for the amount of 21. or 31. for the car-
riage of the goods, and asking for directions as to pay-
ing it and sending back the empty cases. Upon the
receipt of that letter, I sent up Henderson's (the ship-
ping agent) receipt for the carriage to London ; and On
the 15th of January Taylor wrote again that he had in-
troduced my goods into two houses, and hoped to have
a final answer that day. He expressed a wish that the
jobbing was over, and said my Lurgan neighbours were
keeping it up with a vengeance; and with regard to
another case of rods, he advised me to send it forward
at once. In c,nsequence of that letter, I t.ent up two
cases, containing 916 or 926 dozen, I forget which, of
handkerchiefs, and I afterwards received a letter from
him, dated the 24th of January, acknowledging the ar-
rival of the two cases of goods, aedetating that he would
not send me a bad bill, but that, if I was afraid, he would
guarantee the accounts, including his commission, for
four per cent. Tax for wrote me again on the 14th of
February, to say that Morley and Nephew would take
my goods at 17A off, and 21 and 60 days from the 20th
of the month ; but that be thought, if pushed, they
would take them at 15 off, and 21 and 90 days. In that
letter he enclosed me the account sales of the goods to
May, consisting of 1,701 dozen at 4501. Bs. 2d.,
which, after deducting 121 and 101. 2s 21 for
discount, &c., left a balance of 3841. The

terms were one bill for 1841. at a month and
another hill for 2001. at three months. I received a let.

ter, dated the 21st of March, from Taylor, stating he had
cleared the whole of tiny g nods, and that I should have
the cash for the large lot, amounting to 3001., on the
28th of March, but that he could not get the cash for the
four small entries until the middle of April. He said
the other 1,000 were in and opened, and that he would
try and sell them the following week. On the 31st of
March I received a letter from Taylor, dated the 28th,
enclosing sake, and statement of account balanced for
all sold, by which it appeared that the sales on the 12th
Feb. amounted to 8841., and on the 7th, 18th, and 28th
of March they amounted to 3931. 34. 6d., making a
total of 7771. 33. 6d., from which bad to be deducted
201. 9s. 2d. for Taylor's
.charges for comrni .sion, &c.,
and this account was balanced by bills sent for 3841.,
761. 123. 6d., and a cheque for 2961. 2s. Thinking I
might be depending on the amount for these goods, he
enclosed me his acceptance at 90 days, to use until I got
the cash for them. The cheque for 2961. 24, referred to
in that account was enclosed in the letter. It was
drawn by May on the Union Bauk, and payable to me.
The amount of the cheque was leas the commission some
201. odd. The bill for 2001. was drawn by me, and ac-
cepted by May. It was sent to me already drawn out,
and I signed it. It was drawn at three months, and
dated the 14th of February. There was another bill for
1841. of the same date, and drawn at one month, and ac-
cepted by May. Both bills were enclosed to mein the
letter I received from Taylor on the 16th February. These
bills were for the first lot of goods. I paid the 1841. bill
away. I heard no more of it ; but the 2001. bill was
dishonoured. The cheque for 2961. was also dishonoured.
I paid it into the Northern Bank of Ireland on the same
day that I got it, and it was returned, there being no
funds to meet it when presented. I also had a bill of
Taylor's acceptance for 761. 12s. 6d., which was paid
before it was due. I did not ask him for his acceptance,
and he had no right to send it to me. On the 9th April
I received the following letter from Taylor
" 1, Church-passage, Gresham-street, London,
Tuesday night, April 7, 1857.
"Mr. A. Lawson.—Dear sir,—On receipt of yours
yesterday, I went to May's some eight or ten times—he
was not to be found. I sent my yeang man to his pri-
vate house, and he said he was too ill to attend, but had ,
made it all right for your cheque to be paid as this day ;
and I am sure he has not, for I hear to-day he is off out
of the country, and has robbed every one. He must
have got about 3,0001. I am distracted. I'know not

what steps to take for you or the others. I learn that
he has intercepted Gorman's goods sold to Myers and
Co , has sold them, and got the cash which was to be
paid this day ; but don't rep-at this until I fired it is
true. I will write to you again to morrow (Wedneedal).
I hope to find out something better. If it proves true I
am ruined entirely. Let me know if I have put your bill
down correct—date in ray cash-bre •k, 60 dem from, March
10, due June 13. I feel beside myself. It your bill and
cheque are met, I shall indeed be thankful. Say per re-
turn. I will devote all my time to the affair if moving. I
hear Patrick Kerwati and Co., of Belfast, bad a large
bill due last week (Saturday) and not met. This
has brought every one down on May, and he cannot
meet it. I will write yen by early pest to-morrosv.—
Believe me, very truly yours, "W. TAYLOR."
On the following day Taylor wrote again to the follow-
ing effect :
" 1, Church-passare, Gresham-street, London,
Wednesday, April 8, 1857.
" Mr. A. Lawson —Sir, —I much regret to find this
day that that infernal rogue May has not honoured your
cheque. Pray write me what I can do to assist y ,u.
Draw on me, if you Eke, for two-thirds of the amount
of the 1,000 dozen I now hold. Anything and every-
thing I can do shall be done. I feel completely done
up, because I know the mi:ery he has caused. Any
transaction I have ever had with the man, up to last
week, was met honourably, and to the very letter of the
word. He has promised me (through a friend) an inter-
view with my attorney to-morrow, at 10. Whatever
transpires I will either write to you or telegraph. I feel
confident it will be one of the worst cases ever made
public —Yours truly, " Wes. TAYLOR."
I accompanied Gorman to London on the 10th of April,
and saw Taylor at his warehouse on the lltb. Some
short time after, Mr. Turner, the solicitor, and Mr.
Drew, an accountant, came in—th, former represented
Taylor, and the latter May ; and the result of our inter-
view was that Mr. Gorman was to bring an action
against Myers. I did not receive the same advice in
my case, as I did not take counsel's opinion upon it. I
received tots letter from Taylor, dated April 25 :
" Church-passage, London, April 25, 1857.
" Mr. A. Lawson—Sir,—May has had, through Mr.
Giles (118. London-wall), counsel's opinion, given in
writing this day, as to his position with Myers, and the
opinion is decidedly favourable to Myers' liability all
through the affair ; and he (Gile-) advises ail the cre-
ditora to club together and try the case, and if all pay
down enough for costs out of pocket for counsel, and the
case is lest, Giles will charge nothing. Then you can fall
back upon May and recover the si. offered, but the ss.
will be paid down at once if accepted by all parties. I
will be glad to hear from you, and all I can I will do to
serve you."—Very truly yours, " W. TAYLOR."
I know Mr. M'Cullagh. About the latter end of March
last he showed me the two letters produced, addressed
to him by Taylor. In the letter of the 18th of May
March Taylor says, " I referred your friend Gorman to
Mr. May as a man who wanted his handkerchiefs
You're mistaken ; I did riot want his goods. You must
stick to me with, goods and I will to you. We shall have
a bard fight, but we will work a trade yet. I have
cleared Lawson's little lot all save the case to this day,
and I shall hope remit him cash and particulars on Sa-
turday first." In the letter of the 25th of March, from
Taylor to Mr. M'Cullagh, he says--" May has tot got
the other partner he spike to you about, nor is he likely
to make any change. Gorman's goods are going out to
him, but Myers and Co. buy them, and find the cash
when due " Mr. M'Cullagh toll me in January that
May owed him about 5001. or 6001. for goods. I never
saw Taylor until I came up is April.
Mr. Hawkins—What charge have you against Myers?
Mr. Morgan—l have put Mr. Lawson in the box as
a witness, arid I advise him not to answer that question,
for no man is bound to answer a question which may
tend to prejudice himself.
Alderman Humphery—l see no harm in his answer-
ing the question. Mr. Lawson has lost his goods,
and no doubt wishes to get them back, or to punish
the parties who have got them from him.
Mr. Morgan—l object to it, because these gentle.
men have now been in London. three weeks upon this
matter, and they cannot walk through the streets, or
stir a step, without having threats held out to them
for taking these proceedings.
Mr. Lawson—That is quite true, sir. When I was
at the Crystal Palace the other day, a lady who keeps
a stall for the sale of needles held out threats to me
if I prosecuted these proceedings any further; but I am
not afraid of them, nor of any action they may bring
against me. I have signed the charge sheet against
ad the prisoners.
Alderman Humphery—l see by this invoice that
Meeking bought these goods at 42 per cent, discount,
which is an important circumstance. It appears that
goods to the amount of 4701 are sold by May, and
Meeking's buyer deducts 2001., making the discount
42i per cent. It will be necessary for you to prove
this invoice, as it shows that the goods were sold to
Metkieg on the 12th of Feb., when, in Taylor's
letter of advice about the sale he states they were
not sold to May until the 14th of February—two
days af, er. . _

Mr. Lawson cross-examined by Mr. Wentner—Taylor
has been my agent since September last The first par-
cel of goods I sent him amounted to 285/ , after deduct-
ing 15 per cent. Those goods were, I believe, sold to
May, and were paid for. He did not first tell me they
were sold to May ; and tbe go els were paid for by
a crossed cheque of Taylor's for 2001. or more. I never
saw the cheque produced, dated Oct. 11, for 2171., until
now. Idi receive a cheque for 611 16s. 11d. and 12s.
in cash. I was paid fur the goods on toe 10dzi of Dec
The next transaction was on the 14th of Feb., and was
for 3841., for which I received the two bills fir 2001. at
three months, and 1841 at one month. Toe 1841 was
paid, but I never received a fraction upon the last parcel
of goods. There is a balance of about 5001. now due
from May to me. I have not received 201., nor 20 far-
things in cash ; but raylor received 201. 9,. 2d. fur his
commission.
Chas. Laing was next examined. He said—l am a
carman in the employ of Thos. Fended, carman, of 40,
Gresham-street. On the 12i,h of Feb. last I went to
No. 1, Church-passage, to fetch some goods from Tay
lor's warehouse, and on that day I took from there 131
Infres to Mr. Meeking'e, on Hoibore-hill. 0., the 13th
of March I took 54 boxes, and on the 16th, 55 boxes.
1 took them all from Tayl ,r's warehouse to Mr. Meek-
ing's. Taylor was present wben I took the first lot
away, and a young man from May's went with me to
deliver at Meeking's ; but I took a delivery-book,
which I got signed for the goods I took on the other
two occasions. When I got the goods into my cart I
went to May's warehouse, in Huggin-lane, for instruc-
tions where to take them. No one went with me from
Taylor's, and no one at Taylor's told me where I was
to go with the goods. I went to May on all three occa-
sions for instructions as to where the goods were to be
delivered.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wontner—l have carried
goods for May about four times. Once from Huggin-
lane, and three times from Taylor's warehouse. I believe
May has an account with Fardell, and I believe this job
was booked to May, and that he paid the account which
was taken into him for it.
Cross examined hy Mr. Huddleston—When I took
the goods from Taylor's warehouse we were employed by
May, and before going to Meeking's I bad no instruc-
tions from Taylor whatever about these goods. I took
them from Taylor's warehouse in the day-time.
S. L. Whittingham said—l am a buyer of cambric
handkerchiefs, in Mr. Meeking's employ. I bought the
goods contained in the invoice of the 12th of February,
amounting to 4701 153 id. They consisted of 131
boxes, containing 1,701 dozen of cambric handkerchiefs.
The price I bought them at was 421 per cent. discount
upon the invoice price. Ido not know who the goods
bel inged to, but we bought of them May, supposing him
to be a respectable agent.
Huraphery—This invoice is for 4701. You must
therefore know of whom you bought such a large quan-
tity of goods.
Witness—Oa a previous occasion I had a dispute with
Jail, and he therefore on this occasion went to Wood-
ward, who brought the samples to me, and I fixed tbe
price ; but Woodward bought them, so that I might not
have seen either May or Jail'.
Alderman Humphrey— What are these private marks
on the invoice ?
Witness—They are the retail prices, and represent the
profit we sell the goods at. Our profit upon this lot of
goods is nearly 281.
Alderman Humphrey—What ! only 281. upon 470/. ?
Witues--Ne, sir ; we bought these goods for 270/,,
and the 281. is the profit upon that amount. I marked
upon the invoice the retail prices, and it was then passed
into the countinghouse. We sold a great many of these
handkerchiefs, but we bad not our window full of them.
The boxes contained 600 dozen handkerchiefs, and the
invoice amounted to 1081. 7s. 6d., for which a cheque
was given. The two cheques produced—for 1501. and
1231.—are both signed iu Mr. Meeki, g's hand wetting,
I bought the 55 bi,xes, containing 725 dozen handi,-er-
chiefs, in the invoice of the 16th of March, and the gross
amount of the invoice was 107/ 15s. 3d. I cannot say
if the 131 boxes delivered on the 12th of February are
the same that Laing has spoken of, but I passed teat
quantity into our stock. Tee goods were brougnt do w n
into the marking-room by Meredith, our warehouseman,
and I saw them there on that day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wonteer—l have known May
about four or five months. I do- not know Myers. I
never saw him that I know of until I saw him in court.
Never bought goods of him through an agent. I
travel in the City to buy good,. We have bought
goods of a great many houses of long standing very
frequently at a very cheap rate, and of houses, too,
the respectability of which no one would think of ques-
tioning. We have bought goods of such houses at so
great a discount as in this instance, and grea• er.
Some of them come and offer their goods to us. I have
bought this class of goods of other houses at as low a
rate, and they are houses that have stood the Auras, and
are still going on.
Mr. Wontner then addressed the magistrate on behalf
of May, contending that May was placed in a critical
position by Myers leaving him in the lurch ; and what-
ever his conduct may have been, the stivement he had
to lay before his creditors was a bona fide one, and not
made with the view of defrauding them. He therefore
submitted that, as far as May is concerned, this transac-
tion cannot be tortured into one of a criminal nature.
Mr. Huddleston trade an able address in defence of his
client, contending that he was entirely innocent of the
charge brought against him, and the sympathy of the
audience was shown in his behalf by frequent applause.
Mr. Hawkins then addressed the magistrate on behalf
of Myers, contending that there was no evidence to chow
that he had seen the goods, or knew of their raisaepio-
priation.
Alderman Humphrey, after some observations on the
principal features of the case, said that under all the cir-
cumstances he he felt it his duty to send the case for
trial, when Taylor and Myers would have an opportunity
of justifyiog themselves.
The prisoners were then caaroitted for trial ; Taylor