The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-10 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and Mr. Justice
TALFOURD.)
THE CASE OF EDWARD NAIRNE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The note written by Beeton, the clerk to the pri-
soner, was then put in and read. and from this docu-
ment it appeared that the 1,0001, Exchequer•bill
formed part of the consideration for the cheque fir
2,2001. that was placed to the prisoner's account by
Messrs. Brown and Co.
Mr. BODKIN having called two other witnesses,
intimated that this was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. CLARKSON said, that there was a witness of
the name of 'Kigali on the back of the bill, and as he
considered his evidence was material on the part of
the prisoner, he hoped his Learned Friend would put
him in the box.
Mr. BODKIN intimated that he should not call that
person.
2,1 r. Justice PATTESON observed, that it was cus-
tomary where a witness's name appeared on the back
of an indictment, for the Counsel for the prosecution,
although he did not think it advisable to examine him
himself, to put him in the box, that he might be
examined by the prisoner's Counsel if he thought

proper
Mr. BODKIN said it was, he believed, always con-
sidered a matter of discretion, and it appeared to
him in this case not advisable to call the person
referred to, and he should therefore decline to do so.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said, as this was the case the
Court would call the witness.
Charles Henry Ingall was accordingly called, and
upon Mr: Bodkin declining to put any question to
him, he was examined by Mr. Clarkson. He deposed
that in May and June of last year he was engaged
as clerk to the prisoner, and Beeton was a fellow
clerk, and he used to draw cheques for the prisoner
by procuration. He remembered seeing the cheque
for 2,2001. in the beginning of June, but he could not
say whether it was shown to him by Beeton or not.
He said he knew that Breton sold some Exchequer-
bills that were in the strong box, and that Mr.
Nairne was not in London when the sale took place.
lie wrote Mr. Nairne's name upon the back of the
cheque, and either gave it to Beeton or paid it into
the bankers. Beeton went away the day before the
fiat of bankruptcy was issued against the prisoner on
the 15th August.
By Mr. BODKIN—Mr. Nairne's residence was at
Richmond.
Mr. CLARKSON then addressed the jury, and he
commenced by observing that it was a very painful
duty for him to do so on behalf of a gentleman who
bad for a great number of years borne the highest
character for integrity in the commercial world, and
who now stood before them to answer a charge of the
most serious character; and he could not help ex-
pressing an opinion that the case had been conducted
against him in a most scandalous and infamous
manner. They were not on the present occasion
squabbling in a County Court about a paltry debt of
forty shillings, but the question was, whether or not
a gentleman, who had hitherto borne an unsullied
character, had been guilty of an offence which would
subject him to the punishment of transportation; and
yet his Learned Friend, who he was sure had acted
from the instructions that were forced upon him, and
not from his own judgment, had refused to call a
witness who had been examined on behalf of the
prosecution before the magistrate, and whose name
now appeared on the back of the bill, because,
as it appeared, that his evidence might be favour-
able to the prisoner. He considered that the pri-
soner had been most unfairly dealt with through.
out the transaction. When he became a bankrupt
all his papers were seized, and he was denied acceses
to them, and he was thus prevented from showing
what number of cheques had actually been drawn
by Beeton, although the prosecutors were well aware
that the prisoner's defence had always been that
Becton was the guilty party. Had the jury any
doubt that this person had at all events a guilty share
in the matter, when they saw what his conduct had
been ? With regard to the prisoner it was not enough
to say that his conduct was suspicious, or that it was
very probable he had had some share in the transac-
tion ; but the prosecutors were bound to establish his
guilt by the clearest testimony, and if they left any
doubt of the fact, the prisoner was entitled to the be-
nefit of it. Beeton was authorised to draw cheques—
he had assess to the strong box, and it was for them to
say whether it was not extremely probable that he
had disposed of the property without the knowledge
or sanction of the prisoner ? They had heard that one
cheque had been drawn for 10,0001., and for all they
knew to the contrary this very cheque might have
been drawn by Beeton, but the prosecutors prevented
them from showing 'that fact by retaining all the
cheques in their possession.
Mr. Justice PATTESON here interfered, and said
that before the Learned Counsel proceeded any further
with his address, he should wish to ask the witness
Ingall another question or two.
Ingall was accordingly recalled, and, in answer to
questions put by his Lordship, he said that the
prisoner was at Boulogne when the fiat of bank -
ruptcy issued against him, but he said he only knew
this from what Beeton told him. The prisoner did
not come to the office for a month before the bank-
ruotcy, but he was seen a week before at his house
at Richmond.
By Mr. BODKlN—Witness saw the prisoner at
Boulogne.
Mr. 13werem then wished the witness to be asked
where he had last seen Beeton, but
The Learned JTJDGE said that as the question did
not arise out of any of those which he had himself
put, he did not think it ought to be asked.
Mr. CLARKSON, in continuing his address, com-
plained of the conduct of Mr. Bodkin, in endeavour.
ing to screw out a verdict by getting evidence from
a witness whom he had before rejected as unworthy
of belief.
Mr. BODKIN said he was surprised that his Learned
Friend should apply such observations to him. They
were both ungentlemanly and uncalled for.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said he certainly considered
they were uncalled for, and it would have been better
if they had not been made.
Mr. CLARKSON said he could not help expressing
his opinion that the prosecution had been most scan-
dalously and unfairly conducted.
Mr. BODKIN said he was in the hands of the Court,
and he would put it to them whether this was proper
language to be made use of? He could only say in
reply to what was stated by Mr. Clarkson, that he
considered the case had been conducted ;in a most
proper manner, and if' he had to prosecute in a similar
case the next day he should do it in precisely the
same way.
Mr. CLARKSON then concluded his address, by
repeating some of the former assertions, tending to
show that Beeton was actually the guilty party,
and that he was alone responsible; and he argued
that, as there was no clear evidence that the prisoner
was cognizant of his proceedings, or had sanctioned
them in any manner, that he was entitled to an
acquittal upon the present charge.
Mr. Justice PATTESON then summed up, and
having referred to the statute and explained to the
jury the precise nature of the charge against the pri-
soner, he said that in order to support the indictment
the jury must be satisfied that the prisoner was a
broker or agent, and that the property in question had
been placed on his premises for a specific purpose, and
that he had without authority afterwards converted
the instrument to his own use. The Learned Judge
then went through the evidence and said that the
material question for the jury to decide was, whether
the Exchequer-bill in question had been disposed of
by the prisoner, or with his sanction. If they believed
it had, the case was made out against him, but if they
entertained any doubt upon the subject, it would be
their duy to acquit him.
The jury, after deliberating for a short time in the
box, retired, and after being absent a quarter of an
hour, they returned into court and gave a verdict of
Guilty.
Mr. CLARKSON requested the Court to inquire
whether the jury were of opinion that the prisoner
had authorised the act of disposing of the property in
the first instance, or whether he merely concurred in
it afterwards, as in one view it might afford a point for
consideration to the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Justice PATTESON having put the question to
the jury, they replied, that they were of opinion that
the prisoner both sanctioned the act in the first in-
stance, and concurred in it afterwards.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE said there were two other in-
dictments against the prisoner of a similar character,
one of them having reference to the other Exchequer-
bills that had been mentioned, and the second was the
case of a clergyman, who had placed 1,9001. in the
prisoner's hands, to invest in Russian bonds, the whole
of which sum hee had appropriated to his own use.
He wished to know whether the Court considered it
necessary to proceed with these indictments ?
The Learned Judges having conferred together,
said they considered it would be more satisfactory
that another indictment should be tried before judg-
ment was pronounced.
Charles Franklin, 18, was convicted upon the
clearest testimony, of an atrocious assault upon his
half sister, a child• nine years old. It was stated that
he was of weak intellect; and the jury recommended
him to mercy on account of his youth and previous
good character.
Mr. Justice TALFOURD sent• need hire -0 be keot to
hard labour for two years.
We

PAUPERISM IS ON THE DECLINE IN THE HENLEY
UNIoN.—At the close of the 3 ear 1848, there were in
tho union 380 persons; at the present time there are
only 210, shooing a decrease of 170, who are classified
as tollowsi—able-bodied men, 14 ; women, 30 ; boys
under 16 years of age, 47; girls do., 61; old men, 36;
(.1d wornkr, 22. Reading Kerenry,

ALP. ;0r Ai7,l!Aj."SurrP:,•, ims made a
deduction of 10 per cent. on the last year's rent of his
estates in Kent.