The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-14 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Nov. 13.

GUILDHALL—John Jcsslyn, a needle manu-
facturer, of 10, Huggin-lane, recently in the em-
ploy of Air. Walker, needle manufacturer, Gresham.,
street, was charged before Alderman Lawrence
with embezzling the moneys of his master.
Mr. Robinson, instructed by Messrs. Ashley and
Tee, appeared for the piosecution, and Mr. Sleigh,
instructed by Mr. Clarke, conducted the defence.
Mr. Walker said—Defendant was my managing
clerk, at 47, G:esham-street, and has been in my
service about three years and a half. I have also a
manufactory at Alcester. Defendant's duty was to
receive moneys on my account and pay them into
my bankers, Messrs. Pugett as Bainbridge. The
draft produced for £2 3s. from Mrs. Halford, of
Warwick, dated Sept. 19, 1860, is endorsed in the
defendant's handwriting, but without my authority.
It is not entered in the book which shows all
moneys received. In the general cash-book the de-
fendant debits himself with the amount received,
and credits himself with all moneys paid into the
bank to my account, but there is no entry of the
draft for £2 3a. from Mrs. Halford, neither is credit
given in Mrs. Halford's account for it.
Cross-examined--I have been living at Alcester,
and have not examined all the books till lately. I
paid defendant 40g. per week, and a bonus at stock-
taking, according to the business done. I discharged
him in July last in consequence of the irregularity
of his accounts.

J. Webb said—l am a traveller in Mr. Walker's
employ. On Oct. 3, 1860, I received 13s. 10d. from
Mrs. Halford, and handed it, with other sums, to
defendant at the end of the same month. I had pre-
viously advised him from whom I received it.
Mr. Walker recalled, said—The defendant has
cast up the debit side of Mrs. Halford's account as
£4 4s. 2d., but it should have been £7 ls.
Cross examined—There is no foundation for his
claim to a partnership. Overtures were made at one
time with reference to his purchasing an interest in
the business ; but he was unable to arrange the
terms, and the matter dropped.
Miss Pfeil said—l keep a fancy repository at
Lincoln. In December, 1860, I forwarded to Mr.
Walker two halves of a £5 bank note, and I received
on the 10th of December, 1860, an acknowledgment
purporting to be signed by defendant for them.
Mr. Emmens said—l keep a fancy repository at
Abingdon. In the month of April last I sent up to
Mr. Walker the two halves of a £5 note, and on the
10th and 16th of April I received two letters, signed
with the defendant's name, acknowledging the re-
ceipt of them.

Mr. Walker recalled—The letters acknowledging
the receipt of the halves of the two £5 notes from
Miss Pfeil and Mr. Emmens are in the defendant's
handwriting. There is no entry of that £5 being
credited to Mr. Emmens on the 16th of April in the
book for accounts received ; but there is an entry of
£5 on that day in Miss Pfeil's account. There is
not, however, any entry in Miss Pfeil's account on
the 10th of December, 1860. Mr. Emmens is not
credited in any of the books for the £5 received in
April.

Edward Spendlove, clerk to Messrs. Ashley and
Tee, said—We were employed to collect some ac-
counts for Mr. Walker on the 29th of April last,
and I took the cheque produced for £4 2s. to the
defendant, and he gave me £1 18s 6d, the amount
of our costs.

Mr. Walker recalled—There is no entry in the
book, either of £2 4s paid by the last witness, or of
the £1 18s 6d paid to Messrs. Ashley and Tee.
The cheque for £4 2s was paid in to my credit on
the Ist of May, but the amount paid into the bank
was deficient £2 4s upon the amount received.
There is no credit given for the £2 4s paid by the
last witness.

James Ogilvie Stewart, clerk to Messrs. Ashley
and Tee, said—On the 15th October, 1860, I gave
the defendant the post-office order produced for L 3
9s, and he gave me a receipt.
Mr. Walker, recalled—The post-office order
referred to was paid into my banker's to my account
on the same day, but the amount paid in on that day
was £3 9s. less than bad been received. The amount
has not been entered in the " accounts received"
book on Oct. 15, 1860, neither is it entered in the
ledger in which it should appear. On the Bth June,
1861, the defendant received a cheque for £2 13s.
6d. from Mr. Rountree, of Scarborough, and the re-
ceipts produced for that amount is in his handwrit-
ing. He paid that cheque with other amounts into
the bank, bat the total is less by £2 13s. 6d. than
the defendant has debited himself with having re-
ceived. It is not entered in the ledger or any other
book to the credit of Mr. Rountree.
Cross-examined—l cannot swear if the £5 notes
remitted by Miss Pfeil and Mr. Emmens have been
paid into the bank or not, as we usually pay notes
away as soon as we receive them. When I dis-
charged defendant he handed me over a balance of
cash. It might have been £25, but not £5O. I
cannot tell the amount, as I did not count it or make
any note of the amount. He also gave me a list of
items to be entered, as his books were not balanced.
I have had three or four clerks convicted for rob-
bing me, but I was robbed by eleven of my servants
before I prosecuted one.
Inc). Mark Bull, a detective officer, said—When
I took defendant into custody he said he had a com-
plete answer to the charge.
The defendant, on being cautioned in the usual
way, said he was innocent, after which he was com-
mitted to take his trial.

Wm. John Green, a respectable-looking lad, of
13, was charged with stealing 101bs. of brass rule,
belonging to Mr. Burt, a printer, of Holborn-hill,
and Jas. Parker, a marine-store dealer, was charged
with receiving it, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for Parker, and called
several witnesses who had known him for years,
and gave him an excellent character.
Alderman Gabriel said Parker's character had
saved him, although his conduct was surrounded
with great suspicion, He therefore discharged him.
After admonishing the boy, he, at the intercession
of the prosecutor, in whose employ he was, dis-
charged him also.

WESTMINSTER. BRUTAL ASSAULT BY A
WOMAN.—EIiz sbeth Best, a woman of forbidding
exterior, was finally examined, charged with a
brutal assault.

It appeared that John Farrell, a child only nine
years of age, quarrelled with defendant's child, and
they struck each other, when the defendant coming
coming up stized Farrell and lifted him from the
ground, dashed him upon it with great violence,
and then kicked him.

The mother of the child said that he had been a
great sufferer from defendant's violence, and was
still under medical treatment.

Defendant excused her brutality by stating that
her little boy had been recently very ill, and had
only just gone out for the benefit of the air, when
be was attacked by the complainant. She then
abused the mother of the child before the magis-
trate in unmeasured terms.
She was committed for a month to hard labour
in the House of Correction.