The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-16 00:00:00

rORGERY.

Joseph Hemingway, a respectably-attired man, was
indicted for forging And uttering a bill of 311. 45., with
intent to defraud Messrs. Wagstaff. The prisoner
pleaded guilty.
Mr. Justice Erle, in passing sentence, said the pri-
soner had for some time carried on business on his own
aocount,j but, to do so, it appeared ho had raised
money upon false and fictitious documents. The bill
-,5F-Ap,,w,hich he had been found guilty was not the first
order to deter others ledial,,,,bftini the case, and in
ner, he should sentence him to penal sertiVatiktr man*

years.
WilliamWilcocks was indicted for forging and uttering
a forged bill for 2601,, with intent, &c.
. ,

From the evidence it appeared that on the sth of
November the prisoner called at the bank of Messrs.
Coutts in the Strand, and produced an order signed by
Messrs. Lewin, who kept an account there, for a cheque
book. The book was delivered to prisoner, and he then
left. Next day he entered the bank and presented a
bill bearing the signature of the Messrs. Lewin for 2501.,
which was cashed by a Bank of England note for 2001.
and fifty sovereigns. The prisoner afterwards proceeded
to the Bank of England, and there presented the note
for which he asked for sovereigns. The clerk at the
bank asked him to write his name upon the note, and
he wrote the name of Brown, 35, Oxford-street. The
London Directory was searched, but the name not ap-
pearing there, suspicion was aroused, and a police-
constable was sent for and the prisoner was given into

custody, and he then said a man for whom be had been
in the habit of executing commissions gave birn the
note to get cashed, and that be was perfectly innocent
of the charge of forgery. The signature to the bill was
a very clever imitation of that of Mr. Lewin.
The prisoner, who was undefended, banded in a
written statement, in which he asserted that he knew
nothing of the forgery, and that he was the dupe of
others.

The jury found the prisoner guilty.
A former conviction was proved.

The prisoner then addressed the Court, and attributed
his present unfortunate position to the loss of character
consequent upon his former conviction. He bad done
everything in his power to regain the position he had
lost, but without success. On account of his first de-
parture from honesty his relatives bad turned their backs
upon him, and although one of his brothers had retired
from business, and the other was worth upwards of
20,0001., not one of them would give him the most
trifling assistance. He had wandered for six nights to-
gether about the streets of London, and frequenty forty-
eight hours elapsed before he tasted food. He had ever
been a respectable member of society, and he trusted hie
lordship would take a merciful view of his case.
Mr. Justiee Erie said he had listened attentively to
all that had been addressed to him, but he could come
to no other conclusion but that the prisoner uttered
the instrument, knowing it to be a forgery. He was
disposed to think that he was not the only party con-
nected with the forgery, and therefore the sentence he
should pass was much more lenient than it otherwise
would have been. Taking all the circumstances into
consideration, he should sentence him to four years'
penal servitude.