The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-07 00:00:00

FORGERY.

John Eaglehurst, a fashionably-dressed German,
pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with
forging and uttering a document with intent to
defraud.

The Recorder sentenced him to 18 months' im-
pthonment.
Charles Smith was indicted for forging a cheque
for £5O, with intent to defraud Sir J. Kirkland and
Co.

The prisoner sent a lad to the bank of Sir J.
Kirkland with a cheque for £5O, purporting to be
signed by C. S. C. Bligh. The cheque was at once
found to be a forgery, and the prisoner was appre-
hended and charged with the felony.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he admitted
writing the cheque, but that he thought it would be
returned with the words " no effects" written across
it. lle wished to get quit of some company he had
taken up with, and amongst whom he had spent
over £4O. lle thought if he put a correct name to
the cheque, and attached some letters, such as V.
C. to it, he was not trangressing the law.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
In reply to the Recorder, the officer who appre-
hended the prisoner said the prisoner had refused
to give any account of himself, but from inquiry at
the War-office he had every reason to believe that
the prisoner's real name was Charles Smith Death,
and that he was formerly an officer in the Turkish
Contingent.
The Recorder said it appeared that the endeavour
of the prisoner had been to keep without the cri-
minal law. He had, however, been guilty of for-
gery, and he therefore sentenced him to 12 months'
imprisonment with hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

UNPROVOKED ASSAULT.—James Williams, a ven-
dor of chickweed and groundsel, was charged be-
fore Mr. Tyrwhitt with assaulting a little boy
named Mandell, living in Marlborough-row, Car-
naby-street.
The complainant said that on the previous even-
ing he was walking along Tyler's-court, having
some tea and sugar in his hand, when. the prisoner
struck him a severe blow on the back of his leg
with a thick stick.

In answer to Mr. Tyrwhitt, the boy said that he
had not said a word to the prisoner, nor taken any
❑otice of him, and that after the prisoner struck him
he asked him what he was crying for.

Mary Ann Howard, of 6, Queen-street, Soho,
gave similar evidence to the boys.
The prisoner said the boys were saucy to him and
annoyed him.

Lazarus Howes, 95 C, who took the prisoner into
custody, [said there were only a few little children
about, and none likely to have annoyed the pri-
soner, who was not sober.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said that he had often observed, at
different places where he had sat, that persons who
went about with chickweed were of the wildest
character. Ihe assault was an unprovoked one, and
the prisoner must go to prison for 14 days with
hard labour.

WILFUL DAMAGE AT A TAVERN. —James M‘lier-
nen, a groom, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt
with being drunk and wilfully breaking a pane of
glass, of the value of £3, the property of Mrs. Ann
White, of the Rose and Crown Tavern, No. 287,
Oxford-street. The prisoner went into Mrs. White's
house in a state of intoxication, was refused to be
served by the barmaid, and on the barman putting
him out of the house he broke a pane of glass of
the value of £3.

Mr. Tyrwhitt ordered the prisoner to pay the
amount of damage and a fine of 2s. 6d.

WESTMINSTER.

WHAT IS BETTING IN A PUBLIC THOROUGH-
FARE ?-A betting man was charged under the 22d
Section, cap. 134, of the 30th and 31st Victoria,
which enacts--" Any three or more persons
assembled together in any part of a street within
the metropolis for the purpose of betting shall be
deemed to be obstructing the street, and each of
such persons shall be liable to a penalty not exceed-
ing £5."

Sergeant George Stevens, 57 A R, said that at
five minutes past four he was on duty at Knights-
bridge-green, and saw a large number of persons
whom he knew to be betting men assembled on the
foot way. The prisoner was there with a book in
his hand ; he was about to enter something in the
book when witness took him into custody and
another man who was
the defendant said he was not betting, he was
<< settling."
liberated. When taken
Mr. Arnold asked if that was all the evidence ?

The sergeant replied it was ; the defendant had
been previously cautioned about betting in the
street.

Mr. Arnold said the evidence did not satisfy the
Act of Parliament ; it must be shown that he was
there for the purpose of betting ; but standing with
a book in his hand is not to be taken that he was
betting, although it might be considered presump-
tive evidence of the fact. The only way would be
to actually stand by and hear a bet directly made,
but that would be exceedingly difficult. He
thought the Act of Parliament a difficult one to
carry out, and he thought the best thing for the
police to do would be to order the parties to move
on, and if on their failing to comply with the order
to take them into custody for resisting the constable
in the execution of his duty. There was no case
against the defendant, who must be discharged.