The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-31 00:00:00

MASSIE V. MASSIE.-JUDGMENT.

This was a petition for a judicial separation, pre-
sented by a wife on the ground of her husband's
adultery and desertion. It was tried on the 11th
inst., and his lordship reserved his decision.
His Lordship now pronounced the decree for a
judicial separation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—March 30.

BOW-STREET.--Edward Mortimer, a middle-
aged person of gentlemanly appearance, described
as of 2, Russell-court, St. James's, and Thomas
Robert Marshall, military tailor, of 32, Jermyn-
street, St. James's, were charged with " unlawfully
conspiring to bargain for the sale of a certain com-
mission in the army."
Mr. Bodkin conducted the prosecution on behalf
of the War-office ; Mr. Ribton attended for Morti-
mer, and Mr. Orridge for the other defendant,
Marshall.

Mr. Bodkin opened the case, observing that it
was one which would ultimately occupy much of
his worship's time, although he should at present
confine himself to a brief statement of the circum-
stances, and then ask for a remand to a future day.
The defendants were charged, in conjunction with
a third person named Eicke (also included in the
warrant, but not yet in custody), with having con-
spired to sell and receive money for an ensigncy in
the 13th Regiment Light Infantry, contrary to the
49th of George 111., which made it a penal offence
to receive any money, gratuity, or reward, either
directly or indirectly, for any appointment in the
naval or military service. A previous statute,
passed in the reign of one of the Edwards, con-
tained similar provisions in relation to the sale of
Government offices, and the penal clauses of this
act were extended to the subsequent act. It ap-
peared there was a so-called office in Russell-court
in which the firm of " Armstrong and Co., Mili-
tary Agents," were supposed to carry on the busi-
ness ; but he (Mr. Bodkin) believed that there were
no such persons in existence, the real firm being
composed of the defendants and others, and the
real business carried on being the unlawful sale of
army commissions. This was effected partly through
the agency of persons known as military tailors, it
being the practice to requiring the deposit of a
certain sum of money at a banker's pending the
negotiation, the deposit to be handed over to the
defendants on the appointment in question being
gazetted. A gentleman named Bridson who had
interested himself to obtain a commission for his
brother-in-law " without purchase" had been
innocently let into these negotiations, and, the sum
of £4OO having been lodged at White's in the Hay-
market, the arrangements were carried on by a
person named Pugh, who was intimately associated
with the defendants. It happened, however, that
Pugh fell into some pecuniary embarrassment,
and became a prisoner in Whitecross prison ;
upon which the defendants and the others
associated with them (whose names would
probably transpire at a later stage of the
inquiry), appropriated to themselves the whole of
the money. Pugh applied to them for his share,
and sent his wife repeatedly to them, urging the
harshness of their conduct in allowing him to
remain in confinement. His entreaties were dis-
regarded, and consequently Pugh disclosed the
whole circumstances to his Royal Highness the
Commander•in-Chief. This prosecution followed
as a matter of course, and Pugh and his wife
would state what had taken place. Their evidence,
if corroborated by other witnesses, would be en-
titled to credit, and this he should be enabled to
do at the next examination, when witnesses at
present in the country would be present.
The depositions of Pugh and his wife were then
read over. They were in effect as follows :
James Pugh, a military-looking person, wearing
a profusion of beard and moustache, said he was
at present a prisoner in the Queen's Bench, at the
suit of George Andrews, tailor, of 9, Cork-street,
Burlington-gardens, having been previously in the
employ of Mr. Davies, tailor, of 19, Hanover-
street, Hanover-spare. In May, 1858, Mr. Davies
made a communication to him, and he called upon
Mr. Edwards, jun., tailor, of 10, Hanover-street,
who gave him a card. On the same day he (Pugh)
went to the British Hotel, Charing-cross, and saw
a Mr. Bridson, who spoke about a commission in
the army, and gave him the address of Mr. Cun-
ningham, of Harwood, near Bolton-le-Moors. He
knew that " commissions " had been obtained by
persons calling themselves " Armstrong and C 0.,"
and he went to them at 2, Russell-court. He saw
Mr. Eicke, a brother of one of the firm, which
consisted of Mr. Henry Eicke and one Captain
Mortimer, to the latter of whom he (Pugh)
was introduced. He believed him to be the de-
fendant Mortimer. This person asked him if he
knew any gentlemen requiring commissions, and
said that he and his partners could get them with
greater facility than usual. He said they could get
a cornetcy for £250, and an ensigncy for £2OO,
and anything they could get beyond that sum
should be handed over to him (Pugh). Subse-
quently, on seeing Eicke, he declined to go on
with the business, saying that they only got com-
missions for " their own people ;" but about this
time he (Pugh) had some business with Mr, Mar-
shall, tailor, of Jermyn-street, and, menticning the
desire of Mr. Bridson to get a commission for his
relative, Mr. Cunningham, Marshall said he knew
Armstrong and Co., and he would get them to do
it. Witness told Marshall to offer £l5O for one,
and, this being done, Marshall said they had con-
sented, provided the money were deposited at a
banker's. Witness then wrote to Mr. Bridson,
telling him to deposit £4OO, and direct Mr. Cun-
ningham to lose no time in reading up for the exa-
mination. This was in June or July last year.
Much correspondence then took place (described
by witness), and Mr. Cunningham was appointed
in September, 1858. Witness about this time was
arrested, and directed Marshall to bring him £250,
being the amount in excess of the sum agreed upon
by Armstrong and Co. Marshall came to him in
the insolvents' prison, and laughed at the idea of
paying him the whole of the money, although he
(Marshall) had the outfit. He claimed half the
amount for himself. He said he had only received
£2OO from Armstrong, £lOO of which he claimed
for himself, besides £43, which he said he had paid
in advance on the commission, and would be re-
turned to *witness ultimately. Witness then de-

tailed the various attempts afterwards made by him
to get the money, and the interviews with the
partners at " Armstrong and Co.'s," who wanted
him to settle it for £57, which he refus'ed to do.
Ultimately, however, he consented to accept .£57
{seeing no chance of getting more), but £2O
only was offered to him by Mr. Dolman, the soli-
citor of " Armstrong and Co." and this was paid
to him at the Queen's Bench. _

Catherine Penrice Pugh, the wife of last wit-
ness, deposed that she called on Mr. Dolman,
solicitor in Jermyn-street, as directed by her
husband, about the sth of November to
receive £57. He said he had not received the money
from Mr. Marshall, but would see him about it.
She had several interviews with both Mr. Dolman
and Mr. Marshall, the latter eventually declining
to pay, on the ground that the matter had been
mentioned at the Horse Guards. On the 25th she
went to 2, Russell-court, and saw Capt. Mortimer
(the defendant).
The defendant, Mortimer, said he was not a
captain ; he was in no profession.
Witness represented the case to Mortimer, who
promised to induce Marshall to give up the money.
Addressin4 Mr. Eicke, he said, " This is Mrs.
Pugh." Eicke answered, "We have nothing to do
with it. We did not recognise Pugh in the trans-
action. Our agreement was with Marshall, and
whatever he arranged with Pugh he ought to act
up to, hut we have no power to compel him."
(The witness described several other interviews of
a similar character with Eicke, Marshall, and Mr.
Dolman.)
Mr. Bodkin said, this was all he proposed to
submit to his worship for the present. Mr. Bridson
would attend on a future day, and there being no
object in hurrying the proceedings (which would
eventually be moved into the Court of Queen's
Bench by certiorari), he proposed that there should
be a nominal remand for a week, with the under-
standing that the case should not be gone further
into until a week later.

Mr. Ribton assented to this proposal, although he
did not think there was a tittle of evidence against
his client, Mr. Mortimer, who had reason to corn
plain of the harshness of those proceeding by war-
rant, when every object would have been served if
the usual course of proceeding by summons had
been adopted.
The learned counsel reserved their cross-examina-
tion of the witnesses, and applied that their clients
might be admitted to bail.
Mr. Crridge assured the Court that his client, Mr.
Marshall, was a person of the greatest respectability,
having carried on the business of a military clothier
in Jermyn-street for many years. The very nature
of his business occupations led him into constant
connexion with military gentlemen, and his share
in the transaction could be satisfactorily explained.
Mr. Henry—lt is a bailable offence, and I shall
be prepared to admit both defendants to bail, on
entering into their own recognisances in £5OO, and
providing two sureties of £250 each.
Mr. Humphreys, the Crown solicitor—With the
usual notice, I presume, sir P
Mr. Henry—Yes. The usual notice must be
given to the solicitor for the prosecution.
Shortly before the magistrate left the court bail
on the part of Marshall was put in and accepted.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Andrew Foster,
William Wagner, alias Curtis, a ticket-of-leave
man, described as a law-stationer, Frederick Hum-
phreys, jeweller and engraver, and William Wynn
Bramwell, furniture dealer, were charged with
being equally implicated as putters forth of forged
bankers' cheques, and one upon the Union Branch
Bank of London in particular, and Humphreys
with being found in possession of a large amount
of counterfeit coin, and the full means for manu-
facturing the same.. _ _

The first-named prisoner was apprehended and
remanded on Wednesday, the 23d inst., Wagner on
the 28th, and the last two on the 29th ; but for
obvious reasons it was not considered advisable to
give publicity to the previous short examinations.
No probability of further apprehension now exist-
ing, the case in its entirety, so far as it has been
proceeded with, is here given :
Mr. Mullins, on the part of the Society of
Bankers, attended on each examination, and the
case now gone into was the putting forth a forged
cheque for £265 on the branch bank, Argyle-place.
Mr. E. Lewis, of Ely-place, attended for the de-
fence of Wagner and Humphreys, and Mr. Wontner
for Foster.

George Watkins, 10, Grafton-place, Euston-
square, deposed as follows :—I am a baker out of
employ, and formerly lived at 28, Church-street,
Soho. I use the Three Crowns, Richmond-street,
Haymarket, a house of call for bakers. In February
last J became acquainted with Bramwell there,
where we played at dominoes frequently. Had
told him I was doing nothing, and at the end of
February he asked if I had any objection to pre-
sent a cheque on the cross, and everything should
be made right by advertisement to prove I was in-
nocent if taken. I promised an answer next day. I
was to have £5O in gold as my share, and was to
get the rest in notes for more convenience. It was
planned that these were to be exchanged for fo-
reign money, which could be again changed after-
wards, and then we were to have a bottle of sherry
on the strength of success. He knew I was hard
up, as I was running a score at the bar. The con-
versation was on a Sunday evening. The following
morning I communicated with Inspector Webb, at
Vine-street station. The same day I went to the
Three Crowns, and saw Bramwell again. He asked
if I would agree, and I said " Yes." He said an
advertisement should come out for a baker.
walked away with him, and he said it was desir-
able to get some one not known ! he had been se-
veral times, but could not go again, as he was get-
ting stale and had been stopped. I had only known
him by the name Brown. Another appointment he
made he did not keep, but I saw him on the sth of
March at the same house. I told him I had been
. expecting him, and he replied he had been too busy
and that they were not before prepared. He pro-
mised to bring me the money to advertise the next
evening. I did not, however, see him till the 12th,
and then only for a short time. On Sunday, the
20th, I went again to the Three Crowns, and had a
communication from a man named Lambourn about
Bramwell. In consequence of what I heard from a
landlady where I had lodged, I went to Swinton-
street, Gray's-inn-lane, and met Bramwell, when he
appointed a later hour of the day to see him. I
met him accordingly, and we went together to the
bar of a beerhouse, where ho showed me the copy
advertisement produced :

" Wanted, by a respectable mariicd man, a situation as
light porter of messenger in a mercantile house. Address
G. W., 10, Grafton. place."
He wished me to copy this in my own handwrit-
ing. I did so, and gave it him. While there a
gentleman came in and had a glass of ale, and
looked at me. On his going away Bramwell said,
" We can go now," and I went with him as far as
Harrison-street, where we parted, and the next
day, as had been agreed on, I went to the same
beerhouse, but he did not come. On reaching home
I received a letter which had been sent, in which
was a card, and ten minutes afterwards he came to
my lodgings and gave me a receipt from the Tele-
graph-office for advertisements inserted. He said
he had kept me at a beerhouse on purpose that the
gentleman who came in for the glass of ale might
see me. He appointed another meeting at the
Three Crowns, but did not keep it, but I found a
paper he had left with my wife on going home.
Acting upon this I met him at the corner of Red
Lion•street, Holborn. While I was talking with
him I saw Foster and Humphreys together on the
opposite side of the way. They then parted, and
Foster came over, and Bramwell introduced him to
me. They had some conversation together apart,
and Humphreys passed and repassed me several
times, looking hard at me. Bramwell left me with
Foster, and he took me to a public-house in Red
Lion-street. He said, " Now, I am a very particular
man, and don't let a second person know my busi-
ness, and if you go in the check affair you mist be
as strict." He asked if I had a letter and card, and
on my showing them he said he was not sure they
were from our party, and took them away. Ten
minutes afterwards he returned, and said it was not
from our party. While he was away the door was
pushed open several times, and some persons peeped
in at me. I spoke of this, and he said, " You must ex-
cuse our people, they are so very mistrustful ;
forinstance, they cannot tell but I may have
engaged a wrong man." I was there about
half-an-hour. Foster left twice, and the last time
he came in he said, " You are to do this little affair."
He made an appointment to meet him on the Wed-
nesday, at the Orange Tree, corner of George-street,
New-road. I communicated that same evening with
the officer Joy. I kept the appointment at the
Orange Tree. Outside I met Bramwell, and we
went in together. Foster came at half past 10. Be-
fore going to the house I had received a letter, to
the effect that if I would meet Mr. Curtis at the
Boar and Castle, Oxford-street, at 11, I should hear
of something to suit me ; Foster inquiring if I had
received a letter, I showed him this, and he sub-
stituted another, that " G. W. had better call on
Mr. Curtis at the University Hotel, Grafton-street,
and if references would suit he would hear of a
situation." He said he would walk part of the wa
with me, and on the road remarked, y
" I feel this
affair will come off well, and whenever I do feel so
it's always right." He pointed out the University
Hotel, and I went i
in, and for Mr. Curtis
was directed into the parlour, where I saw a man in
one of the boxes, who had his hat on and a black
bandage over the sides of his face, as though suffer-
ing from face ache. In reply he said he was Mr.
Curtis, and askedif I had not advertised for a situa-
" I had," he said " You are, I
tion. On answering