The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 13, 1861.°

CEN2BAL CRIMINAL COURT, June 12.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
THE COMMERCIAL BANK ROBBERY.—John
Dur-
den, 45, described in the calendar as a clerk, and
James Holcroft, 50, described as an agent, were
charged with stealing the several sums of £lB5,
£l5O, and £B6 1 ls. 5d., the property of Mark
Hunter, one of the public officers of the Commercial
Bank, in his dwelling-house.
The prisoners were also charged with feloniously
receiving the like sums, knowing them to have been
stolen. _

yv
When the prisoner Durden was called upon to
plead to the charge he said, "I plead guilty to
having made use of money belonging to the bank,
but I did not intend to defraud them."

Baron Bramwell told the prisoner he was charged
with stealing the money, and all he had to do was

to say whether he was guilty or not guilty.
The prisoner said he had no intention to deprive
the bank of the money, and he would therefore
plead not guilty. He added something to the
effect that his fellow-prisoner, Holcroft, was entirely
innocent.

The evidence for the prosecution having closed,
Mr. Metcalfe said that on the part of his client,
Durden, he should decline saying anything to the
jury upon the facts.

kr. 'Hawkins then made a most powerful speech
to the jury on behalf of the other prisoner. He
said he would not deny that a gross fraud had
been committed upon the bank, but at the same
time he hoped the jury would not jump hastily to
the conclusion that both prisoners must have been
concerned in it, and that whatever might be their
opinion with regard to the share one of the pri-
soners had taken in the transaction, they would not
convict Holcroft of having taken a guilty part in
the affair, upon the evidence that had been laid
before them. He then proceeded to argue that
there could be no doubt that Holcroft had been
carrying on a respectable business, and that there
was not the slightest imputation upon his charac-
ter until this transaction. He could not deny that

the ledger of the bank had been tampered with,
and that by means of this tampering with the
books, the bank had been robbed of a large amount
of money, but the only question the jury had to
decide was, whether the evidence established that
Holcroft had acted with a guilty knowledge in the
transaction. The learned counsel then proceeded
to argue that there was nothing whatever in the
case to show that Holeroft had not been made a
dupe by Durden, who, finding that he could not
carry out his scheme of fraud without assistance,
pitched upon Holcroft, with whom he was on
friendly terms, and to whom he had acted as a
friend to render him that assistance ; and, he con-
tended, in all the proceedings that afterwards took
place, he had acted merely as his innocent agent.
He reminded the jury that Durden was looked
upon as a man of high integrity, and that the
utmost confidence was placed in him by the direc-
tors of the bank, and that consequently a man in
the position of Holcroft was very likely to have
listened to any proposition that was made by a man
like Durden; and that he might have thought-
lessly consented to allow Durden 'to place money
to his account, without having the slightest sus-
picion that by so doing he was rendering him any
assistance in plundering the bank of their money.
The learned counsel, in his concluding observations,
particularly urged upon the attention of the jury
that the prisoner had voluntarily offered to give a full
explanation of everything connected with the
transaction, which, he said, was just what would
be expected from an innocent man, and that he was
not permitted to give that explanation, and he
urged that, at all events, the evidence against the
prisoner was not at all conclusive, and that there
was sufficient doubt in the case to justify the jury
in acquitting the prisoner.
A great many highly respectable witnesses were
called to speak to the character of Holcroft, and
they described him as an honest, honourable man,
and as being remarkably correct in all his dealings.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up the case to
the jury, said that the prisoners were charged with
the offence of larceny in stealing three several sums
of money ; but the offence was not one of the ordi-
nary description, but was of a very peculiar charac-
ter, and in the course of the legal discussion that
had taken place, the counsel for the prosecution had
admitted that the jury could not convict Durden
unless they believed that Holcroft had a guilty
share in the transaction, and he (the learned Judge)
concurred with him in that opinion. With regard
to Durden, there could, of course, be no doubt that
he had fraudulently deprived the bank of a large
sum of money; but the only question the jury had
to consider was whether the other prisoner, Hol-
croft, had a guilty knowledge of the fraud, and un-
less the evidence satisfied them that this was the
case, they could not convict either of the prisoners.
The learned Judge then proceeded to call the atten-
tion of the jury to all the important points in the
evidence, and he concluded by stating that if any
reasonable doubt was created in their minds as to
whether Holcroft had a guilty knowledge of the
fraud that was undoubtedly committed by the
other prisoner, the good character he had received
ought to have considerable weight in the decision
they arrived at.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at five
minutes past ten o'clock. At a few minutes past
eleven they again came into court, and stated that
they could not agree as to the guilt of the prisoner
Holcroft.
Baron Bramwell said that if they were not satis-
fied of the guilt of both the prisoners, he was bound
to tell them that they could not legally convict
either of this particular offence. Durden might be
guilty of some other offence, but he could not be
convicted of this particular larceny, unless the jury
were satisfied that the other prisoner acted in com-
plicity with him. If they could not agree he was
afraid that they must be locked up all night.
The jury then again deliberated for a short time,
when they returned a verdict of Not Guilty as re-
garded both prisoners.
There are several other indictments against
them, which Mr. Giffard said it was intended by
the prosecution to proceed with.
The Court did not adjourn until twenty minutes
past eleven o'clock.