The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-10 00:00:00

letters, but they never came to hand, and nothing
was heard of them or their contents until the morn-
ing of the 24th of June. On that day the prisoner
went to a man named Fitzgi bbon and asked him to
go to Messrs. Prescott's bank and get a bill cashed,
and he handed him the bill for £22, and also the
£32 15s. cheque, which he asked him to present at
Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Smiths', who are the
London agents of the Manchester National Provin-
cial Bank, upon which bank it was drawn, and
asked him to get that cashed also. Fitzgibbon at
first made some objection to do what the prisoner
requested, but he at length consented, and received
£22 in gold for the bill of exchange, but was unable
to obtain the amount of the cheque, as it was made
payable in Manchester, and he went to the prisoner
and gave him the money, and got half-a-crown for
his trouble. It seemed that immediately after the
robbery the prisoner left his employment in the
Post-office, and was not heard of until several days
afterwards, when he returned to his lodging and
was taken into custody. The prisoner at first denied
all knowledge of Fitzgibbon, but subsequently he
admitted that he had given him the bill of exchange,
and accounted for having it in his possession by
telling a very extraordinary tale, to the effect that
a person, who was an entire stranger to him, had
accosted him in Wood street on the morning of the
22d June, and told him that he had by mistake
opened some letters belonging to Mr. Paterson, and
that he had found the bill of exchange and cheque
in them, and he wished him to got them cashed,
and told him that if he did not do so he should
lose his situation, He said that upon this he
took the bill and gave it to the messenger Fitz-
gibbon, and when he received the gold from him
he took it back to the person who gave him the
cheque' and he gave him £5 for his trouble. After
the prisoner had been taken into custody, and was
about to be conveyed to the police-station he said
that if he had known what was going to be done he
would not have been there, and he added that there
were three of them in it, and that he was very mise-
rable where he had been, and he thought he would
come back and "chance it." The officer then in-
quired of him who the other two were, and the pri-
soner replied that he would not tell him then, but
he would let him know before his trial.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
There were two other cases of a similar kind in
which the prisoners had pleaded guilty, and
The learned judge said he would look at the de-
positions in those cases before he passed sentence.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell).
John Durdin and James Holcroft, who were last
session tried for frauds upon the Commercial Bank,
were indicted for stealing the sums of £142 55.,
£l6O, and £6O Bs. 6d., the moneys of Mark Evan
Hunter.

At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution,
Mr. Besley, upon the part of Durdin, said that he
should not address the jury, but rest upon the point
of law raised upon the former trial.
Mr. Sleigh having made a most powerful appeal
to the jury,
His lordship summed up most impartially, sever-
ing the evidence as affecting the prisoner Ho'croft.
The jury was then locked up, and in about an
hour and a half came into court and said they could
not agree.
His lordship directed that they should again be
locked up.
At twenty minutes past ten they again came into
court, and said there was no chance of their agreeing:
After a long discussion, the jury were discharged
without giving a verdict.
The jury were then re-sworn, when
Mr. Giffard said, that as upon a former trial the
jury acquitted Ho'croft, and now they were in
doubt about his guilt, the prosecution would not
offer any further evidence, and an acquittal was
taken upon all the other indictments against him.