The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-18 00:00:00

MIDDLES SESSIO S, Sept. 17.

(Before Mr. Payne.)
Farrell Hogg, 26, described as a clerk, was in-
dicted for stealing in the dwelling-house of Mary
Ray a purse, containing a £5 note, a half sovereign
and other moneys, the property and money of Emily
Mary Ray. He was further indicted for stealing
an umbrella, the property of William Longford, for
fraudulently obtaining by false pretences from
Miguel Riego 10s., with intent to defraud, and for
obtaining with a like intent ss. from John Gardiner
Pearse.

Mr. Dickie was counsel for the prosecution ; the
prisoner was not defended.
Mr. Pearse stated that he was a confectioner,
carrying on business in High-street, Hampstead,
and on April 2,
1859, the prisoner came to his shop
and asked him to lend him half-a-crown. Mr. Pearse
had previously known him from his having taken
tea at his shop as a customer, on which occasion he
spoke of several Roman Catholic families in the
neighbourhood as if he were upon terms of intimacy
with them. When he asked for the money Mr.
Pearse inquired if he could give a reference to any
one in particular, and he said he was related to Mr.
E. Walford, whom he had mentioned before. He
added that if he had been able to see Mr. or Mrs.
Walford he should not have been under the neces-
sity of borrowing money, but Mr. Walford was
from home and Mrs. Walford was ill. Mr. Pearse,
knowing this to be true, offered him half a crown,
when the prisoner said he might as well make it
55., and he would call and pay it next day. On the
faith of his representation that he was a relation of
Mr. Walford Mr. Pearse gave him the 55., and he
wrote an I 0 Ti for it, went away, and never re-
turned.

Mr. E. Walford, of 17, Church-row, Hampstead,
said he was the sub-editor of Once a Week, and
knew the prisoner. Early in 1859 he called upon
him, and said he was greatly persecuted by his
family for having embraced the Roman Catholic
religion, and mentioned the name of Dr. Manning.
Witness gave him some literary employment. The
prisoner was in no way related to him or to Mrs.
Walford, and he had not the slightest authority to
make use of his name in borrowing money of Mr.
Pearse or any one else. The prisoner had also ob-
tained money of Mrs. Peachey, the housekeeper at
20. Bouverie-street, by false representations.
The prisoner was found guilty.
Mr. Riego stated that he was a Spaniard, and
lived at 105, Regent-street. On the 17th of April
the prisoner came to his house, and inquired if a
friend of his, M. Bonaba, had left. M. Bonaba had
left about an hour and a half before, and on being
told that, he asked if his (Mr. Riego's) uncle was
at home. He was answered in the negative; and
he then asked for a few moments' private conversa-
tion. The prosecutor having taken him into the
counting-house, he said that he had to go to Wool-
wich that night, but that in consequence of having
given a cabman a sovereign instead of a shilling he
was actually without the means of paying his rail-
way fare. He wanted, therefore, to borrow some
money to enable him to proceed, which his friend,
M. Bonaba, would pay next day. Mr. Riego hesi-
tated at first ; but the prisoner was so gentlemanly
in his manners and plausible in his address that he
lent him 10s., hich had never been returned.
M. Bonaba said he belonged to a firm in the City,
and had met the prisoner, who had borrowed 15s.
of him, " under a pressing emergency." The pri-
goner had not the slightest authority to make use of
his name to Mr. Riego in order to get money.
The prisoner was also found guilty on this charge.
He was then tried for felony.

The prosecutrix, Mrs. Ray, who resides at 53,
Gloucester-street, Pimlico, had apartments to let,
and the prisoner went to look at them. He was
lelt alone in the dining-room for a short time, and
when he was gone a purse, containing a five-pound
note and other money, was missed from the mantel-
piece. It was seen safe just before. He was taken
about a month afterwards.

The jury found him guilty.
Mr Walthrd said he was personally aware of
other cases against the prisoner, who within a few
weeks had obtained money in his name. He had
prosecuted on public grounds.
Mr. Dickie said there was another indictment
against the prisoner, which it would be needless to
proceed with. He might be permitted to say that
the prisoner had formerly been in the army, but
was cashiered for misconduct of a serious character.
Since he had been in custody letters had poured in,
not only from all parts of London, but all parts of
England, Ireland, and Scotland, showing that he
had been swindling and victimising everybody he
could. Nearly one hundred of these letters were in
court. Jeremy Diddler was nothing to him.
The learned judge said the officers in the case,
Wilson and Sheen, deserved much credit for the
manner in which they had got up the case, and if
he had the power he certainly should order them a
reward. The prisoner was one of those characters
whom it was the duty of the court to remove from
society for some time, and though the court had the
power of sentencing him to a very long term of
years of punishment he should not go to the ex-
tremity. The sentence was that he be kept in
penal servitude six years.