The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-12 00:00:00

'HE ASSAULT ON THE
QUEEN.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON, Mr. Justice PATTESON,
and Mr. Justice TALFOURD.
TRIAL OF ROBERT PATE.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
William Baker Lea, examined by Mr. ,COCKBURN—I
drive a cab, and I remember I used to drive Mr.
Pate in 1847 regularly every day. I was obliged to be
at his house punctually every day at a quarter past
three. I used to drive him down Brompton-road over
Putney-bridge to Putney-heath, to one particular spot,
where he got out. He then walked through the thickest
of the bushes in the heath. He always went the same way,
and I used to meet him at a pond on the other aide of
the heath. He used to stand at the pond looking in-
tently into it, and suddenly ho would start up, jump into
the cab and tell me to drive off as fast as I could. Soon
afterwards he would tell me to pull up and go at a foot
pace. I drove him along Roehampton-lane to Barnes-
common, where he woull again take a walk
amongst the bushes. He always got down
and got up at two fixed spots. We returned
home over Hammersmith-bridge. He always be-
haved very strangely in the cab, and no matt,er whether
it hailed or rained, he took the same walk. In winter
it was dark before he reached the common; he always
had a small stick with him, wbich he used in a very
strange manner, and people used to stop me and ask if
he was mad. I hare repeatedly been stopped by gen-
tlemen in that way. This lasted from fifteen to
eighteen months every day. At first he paid
MB 10s., but one day he said he would only pay me 9s.
He always paid me in shillings in a row, with
the face of the man upwards, and always looking the
same way. He paid a shilling and a penny for toll-
gates, which ware always laid on the cushion of the cab.
The cabmen on the Piccadilly stand always made ob-
servations about his conduct.
Cross-examined—Sometimes he used to get wet
through, which always pleased him, and after running
over the thicket, he would return and say he had much
enjoyed the hail storm.
By the COURT —lt is now two years ago since I
ceased to drive him.
Sr. Charles Mason, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTONR
—I keep a livery stable. in Park-lane. I know Mr.
Pate. In 1846 he used to hire my horses. On one occa-
sion he had an accident with one of them. Since 1847,
I have seen him three or four times a week, passing
down Piccadilly, and latterly I have observed that he
has been very strange in his manner; indeed, last May,
I told my foreman that I thought he was losing his
senses.

Mr. Jas. Storton, examined by Mr. COCHBURN—I am
a surgeon, living in Sutton-row. In 1849 the sister of
Mr. Pate came to live with my family. Mr. Pate used
then to visit me. In 1848 I met him once in Kensington-
gardens, and as I thought he was insane, I told my wife,
who was with me, not to attract his attention. His look
was always that of a man whose mind was vacant. I
did not know him then, but when he came to see his
sister, after 1849, I had conversations with him which
still induced me to believe that he was insane. On one
occasion when he visited me there were some gentlemen
of classical attainments present. I advised him now;tbat
he had left the army to go to college, and obtain
s classical education to fit him for some other
profession. He said, " Oh! I don't believe there is
a man in England who could teach me or
anybody else the classics." Ultimately I thought it ne-
cessary to communicate with his father, who is a friend
of mine, on the subject of his intellect.
George Feron Gardner, examined by Mr. HUDDLE-.
rresp.—l am one of the Burlington-arcade beadles. I
have frequently seen the prisoner passing up and down
Piccadilly. His manner was always strange and eccen-
tric, so much so that people used to say he was mad.
Ur. Inspector Squire, of the Metropolitan Police,
examined by Mr. COCKBURN—I have known the pri-
soner from his belt's; much about town. He always car-
ried a stick with him, which he used in a very strange
and wild manner, which induced me to give him the
name of " cut and thrust."
Cross-examined—l have known him for some two
years and more. I never directed the police to watch him.
John Murray, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTJNE—I am
keeper of the Buckhill-gate of Kensington-gardens.
About two years ago he passed through the gate every
day at one o'clock. He behaved himself always in a very
extravagant manner, but never spoke to any one.
The O'Gorman Mahon, M.P., examined by Mr.
CLARKSON—I am acquainted with Mr. Pate. I have
known him 10 or 11 months, and I have had repeated
conversations with him. From the first day I ever saw
him I concluded that he was not sane, and subsequent
experience confirmed me in that opinion.
Cross examined—He always behaved as a gentleman.
He had the instinct that naturally guides animals, and I
do not think he would do an ungen.lemanly or dishonest
act.

Re-examined—He is the last man in the world whom
I thought would have been guilty of a disloyal act.
The Rev. Charles Driscoll, Lecturer of Bow Church,
examined by Mr. lIIIDDLESTONE-I have met Mr. Pate
at Mr. Storten's, but before that I knew him in the street
by sight. The conversation I had with him induced me
to think he was not in his sound senses. On the evening
of the 27th of June I was going to dine at the Army
and Navy Club, when I saw Mr. Pate standing at the
west gate of Cambridge House. He appeared more
excited than usual, and his manner was altogether
strangely wild.
Cross-examined—He generally threw his heels up so
high that I was often surprised how he sustained his
equ'librium. It was more his manner than his conver-
sation that induced me to thick him insane.
Dr. Connolly, re-exatnine I Is; Mr. COCKBURN—I am
a physician, and have devoted my attention very much to
insanity. lam physician to the Ilanwell Lunatic Asylum.
I was applied to by his family last Nivember, when
his previous habits were described to me, and thinking he
was improving in them by going jet i society, I recom-
mended that no steps should be taken to irritate him.
I have seen him since he has been in custody, and in my
opinion he is of unsound mind. I form that opinion in
• considerable degree from the conversations I have
had with him. In his present state he presents an ex-
ample of a person of very slender mental power, of no
ambition, and altogether unfit for any occupation of life.
In conversation he is able to distinguish between right
and wrong., but otherwise I think he is not.
Cross-examined—His disposition is frivolous and
idle. Ile is well aware that he has done wrong.
By the COURT—fie has no delusion, such as
_fancying
himself the Emperor of China.
Re-examined—He does not deny having done this,
but he can give no account of it wheeever. He seems to
have acted uncler some strange morbid impulse.
Dr. Munro, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTONE—I have
had five interviews with the prisoner since he has been
in custody, and from my observation of him, and what
I have beard to day, I certainly believe him to be
of unsound mind. From his own lips I have
had an account of how he left Ireland in
1844, and certainly then he was labouring under delusion.
Cross-examined—He was aware, perhaps, that ho was
doing wrong in many things; he certainly is capable of
distinguishing between right and wrong, but he is, never-
theless, suffering from morbid insanity.
Re-examined—His whole history induces me to believe
that he is decidedly insane.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON remarked that that was a
question which must be lest for the jury and Court to
decide. So long as he remained on the bench be would
not allow medical men to take upon themselves the func-
tions of the Court and jury.
Dr. Munro had only given his opinion; he was not
aware that he had done wrong.
This was the defence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, reminding the
jury that if they were of opinion that the prisoner was
incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong,
he would be subjected to imprisonment for life, while, if
they found otherwise, the punishment would be of a more
minor character. Now, it was said that as there was
no motive for this act, it must have resulted from mad-
ness; but if he was not mistaken, from the earliest ages
of which they bad any history or account, persons in
elevated situations had been the subjects of attack and
insult at the hands of parties who were anxious
to obtain a morbid notoriety. It was this
very knowledge, backed by experience of similar oc-
currences in modern times, which induced the Legislature
to pass the Act under which this prisoner was arraigned,
and before the jury could acquit him of the offence with
which he was charged they mustbe satisfied beyond the
possibility of doubt that his mind had been so
impaired that he could not distinguish between
right and wrong. This was no new doctrine.
It was a rule laid down by no less a judge then Lord
Hale himself, and if the jury would just consider for one
moment they would see that the maintenance of this
rule was for the interest of the public. Some short while
ago. hniveierc the rule of law in deciding sanity or
in-
sanity in cases or this nature was settled by the judges
upon questions propounded by the House of Lords
arising out of the doubts which had been created by
kl‘Naughten's case. It was then laid down that if a
party was sensible of doing injury at the time of his
committing an unlawful act he was liable to be punished
for it, and the immediate question for jury now to
decide was this—did the prisoner know and feel that he
was doing wrong when he struck the Queen? if be did,
then they must convict him accordingly, but if, on
the other hand, they did not think he knew what he was
about, they must, acquit him on the ground of insanity.
Well, then, was the eviaence they had to-day incon-
sistent with the existence of a state of mind capable of
discriminating between right and wrong ? Certainly it
• . established ;bat the prisoner was an extra-
ordinary and eccentric man—it did not prove
that he was so mad as to make him an
irresponsible agent. The past conduct of the pri-
soner must convince everybody that be knew he was
doing wrong. For instance, immediately after he was
taken into custody, he was so far alive to his own interest,
that he warned the witnesses to think before they spoke,
while he observed the blow could not have been a hard
one, clearly showing that he knew what he was about
and leboured under no mental delusion or disease which
should excuse him from the consequences of the act.
Mr.-Baron ALDERSON, in summing up the case, told
the jury that there could be no doubt as to the fact that
the prisoner struck her Majesty with some degree of
violence, and therefore the whole question to be decided
turned upon the state of mind he was in at the time the
act was done. Now, it was clear the prisoner
.was in his sound senses to-day, and it was for him to
.1.
. . irhve that-he was of unsound mind when he committed
thik,offence. Now had the evidence proved that? The
jur4 ust take this as the law, that before they could
musteould
' acqdit prisoner on the ground of insanity, they
-fie sit fled that the prioner's insanity induced the cons-
ii:
Inittesi'la the offence. be was charged with. It
vita iticlolusion to suppose that insanity necessarily
_.,/

rendered a man dispunishable for an unlawful act; be-
fore that state of things could exist it must be shown
that the disease of the mind under which the prisoner
laboured rendered him incapable of judging between
right and wrong, or whether at the time he was betrayed
into the act he knew that thb act was a wrong and un-
lawful act fur him to do. Now, did the evidence
adduced for the offence accord with those prin-
ciples ? True, at one period the prisoner appeared to
have laboured under a particular delusion, but although
that delusion might have been a very good defence,
were they trying this unfortunate gentleman for the
murder of the messman, it was no more a defence to
this case than it would have been a defence to
an action had he seduced his neighbour's wife at the
time the delusion prevailed. A man might be insane
on one subject, and sane on every other, and if he com-
mitted an unlawful act, which could have no possible
reference to the particular point of delusion, it by no
means followed that he was irresponsible for it on the
ground of insanity. These were the principles which ought
to guide the jury in disposing of the present defence.
The Learned Judge, after recapitulating the evidence,
commenting upon it as he went along, left it for the jury
to say whether they were clearly satisfied that the pri-
soner was suffering from a disease of the mind, which
incapacitated him from judging whether the act which
he had committed was right or wrong for him to do. If
they were convinced that he was unconscious of what
he was about, they must acquit him ; but, on the
other hand, although they might believe him to be an
eccentric character, which made it a matter of regret
that he had not been taken better care of, yet, if they
thought be was sufficiently sane to distinguish between
right and wrong they must convict him accordingly.
The jury retired at 20 minutes past three, and did
not return into court until five minutes past seven, when
they gave a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was immediately called up for judgment.
Baron ALDERSON addressed him to the following
effect:—Robert Pate, the jury have found you guilty after
a very long and patient inquiry, and there can be no rea-
sonable doubtith at they have come tola right conclusion. At
the same time it is quite clear that you are a person of
very eccentric habits, and in some degree differing from
other men, and it is probable that it has pleased God to
visit yon with some mental affitction, for which you are
to be pitied. The offence you have committed, however,
is one of a very serious and important character. You
have been found guilty of striking a female, which, for
a soldier, is a very shocking thing; but when it is con-
sidered that this female was your Sovereign, that she was
one entitled to the respect of the whole country by her
virtues and her exalted position, that act which, in an
ordinary case would be a very serious offence, under
these circumstances became truly serious. How could
it happen that you, a soldier of the country, could
insult one beloved by all, on account not only of
her exalted station, but by her domestic virtues?
Yet, this was the object of your attack, and whom you
insulted by a blow. Considering the station of your
family and your own position, the Court will not inflict
the disgraceful punishment of whipping upon you. The
Court has some respect for you, thong's you had no re-
spect for others. It will still, however, do its duty, and
pass such a sentence upon you as will prevent you, at
all events for a long period, from doing any further mis-
chief. I would fain believe yon were not in your right
senses at the time you committed this act, and it has
long been the boast of the country that no man of sane
mind could be found capable of committing an attack on
his sovereign, but at the same time I think the jury were
quite right, upon the evidence that was adduced, in not
acquitting you upon the ground of insanity. Under all
the circumstances, the sentence that I feel it my duty to
pronounce upon you is, that you be transported beyond
the seas for the term of seven years.

The prisoner heard the sentence without betraying
the slightest emotion; and when the Learned Judge had
concluded his address, he bowed to the Court, and im-
mediately turned round, and without uttering a word,
retired to the gaol.
The trial lasted nearly nine hours.
FORGERY.—John Jones, a respectably dressed young
man, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with
forging a cheque upon the London and Westminster
Bank for 2501, and was sentenced to ten years' transpor-
tation.

POST-OFFICE ROBBERIES.—Joseph Hillier, aged 35, a
postman, who was indicted for stealing a post letter contain-
ing two half-sovereigns, the property of the Postmaster-
General, having pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to ten
years' transportation.
Eduard Hawker, another postman, aged 39, pleaded
guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing two
post letters, containing two half-sovereigns and a sove-
reign, the property of the Postmaster-General, and was
sentenced to ten years' transportation.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Julyll.
;Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, sitting fur Sir J.
WIGRAM.)
_ _ _ THORNHILL V. THORNHILL.

Mr. LLOYD appeared upon a petition asking leave to
take a ward of the Court (a young lady) to Boulogne.
It was proposed that the lady should be accompanied by
her step-mother.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I will not give her leave to
go to Boulogne ; if she wishes to go to Dieppe she may.
Why does she want to go to Boulogne?
Mr. LLOYD—I am not instructed, Sir.
The Vwn-CHANCELLOR—Leave to go to Boulogne I
positively refuse.
Mr. LLOYD said that last year the Vice-Chancellor
of England MO given leave to the ward to go to Bou•
logne or Dieppe.
The VICE•CHANCELLOR—The Lords Commissioners
may give her leave to go to Boulogne, if they think fit,
but I positively will not.

Itr.-LLorD-IThen perhaps your honour will gran
leave to go to Dieppe.

The VICE CHANCELLOR—No; not unless you give me
a reason.

Mr. LLOYD—She has some step•sisters at Boulogne, I
am informed.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I will not give her leave,
At this time of the year there are a great number of
applications to take wards of the Court abroad.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 11.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BIIIICHELL and a Specia;
Jury.)

RAILWAY COLLISION.-PHILLIPS V. THE LONDON AND

ELACRWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action brought to recover compensation
for injuries received by the plaintiff in consequence of
the negligence of the defendants' servants.
Mr. BEATAN stated the case for the plaintiff, who is
a commercial traveller, in the service of Messrs. Foster,
of Friday-street. It appeared that on the 7th of No-
vember last, about five o'clock in the evening, the
plaintiff was coming up from Blackwell to London by
railway, and when near the junction line at Bow, a col-
lision took place through the negligence of the railway
officers, and the plaintiff and several other gentlemen
Were severely injured.
Mr. CLARKSON, on behalf of the plaintiff, objected to
any statement being made as to accident to others, for
the company had settled with them.

Mr. BEATAN then called witnesses, who proved the
accident, and that the plaintiff had been laid up from the
7th November to the 31st DecembeP, and was still suffer-
ing from a thickening of the skin over one of his legs;
his expenses for medicine, &c.. was 101.
Mr. CLARKSON, for the defendants, said it had been
claimed on behalf of the plaintiff, that he should be
paid for his loss cf time, bat it had been stated, and he
would prove, that as to the loss of time, the plaintiff had
been paid as usual by the respectable firm by whom he
was employed.
Mr. Prince Hoare, one of the firm, was called and
proved this fact, and that they had paid another person
for doing his work.
Mr. BEAVAN replied, and contended that Messrs. Foster
and Co. ought to be reimbursed.
The Learned UNDER•SELERIFF said that it was a
matter of difficulty to say what amount of da-
mages ought to be given fir bodily pain and
injuries, but in such a ease it ought to be taken
into consideration whether the injuries were caused by
wilfulness or wantonness, or whether by sheer accident.
The jury, after retiring, gave a verdict for 70/.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July 11.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN THE HATTER OF FREDERIC HOLDER.
This insolvent, who had been a lieutenant in the 14th
Regiment of Light Dragoons, was opposed by Mr. Hook,
shoemaker, New Bond•street.
Mr. COOKE supported the application for discharge.
since a
e March,uary.
1841849.8,
It appeared that the insolvent had been in prison
sol sold his
nearlyo o 6 commission
i. of
in
thefo
r ,
moneyl9 01.
He
placedand
in the bands of a person named Bloxam to settle with
his creditors, and he had been unable to obtain an ac-
count of its disbursement.
Mr. Hook said he had no desire to
sonment, but thought that efforts prolong the impri-
tain an account from Bloxam should be made to ob-
cred i tors. , the money for the
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER concurred '
cre-
ditor, and adjourned the case fora with the
week for the attend..
ance of Bloxam:
A NOVEL CASE.—IN RE LIEUT. CHARLES ABNEY NOITAT.
This insolvent, a lieutenant in the 50th Regiment, who
had been in the battle of Aliwal and other engagements
in India, was to be heard to day, but was prevented I:t4
his detaining creditor sending his discharge two or three
days ago, and on the case being called the officer of the
Queen's Bench reported that he was out of custody.
Mr. COOKE (with whom was Mr. Sargood) complained
of the trick which had been played to prevent Lieutenant
Monet, who had been some time in prison, from being
heard. The lieutenant, who served in all the late battles
in India, and had been wounded, had unfortunately been
mixed up in bill transactions, and had been annoyed by
the 60 per cent. gentlemen" to make him sell his corn-
mission, which he would not do. Two days before his
hearing his discharge was sent, as it was known his
leave of absence would expire on the 14th inst., and no
doubt it was intended further to harass the applicant.
He (Mr. Cooke) had an affidavit of facts, and his appli-
cation was that the Court would dismiss the petition
and allow one to .be filed under the protection statutes,
by which the lieutenant would be protected when he re-
turned to his regiment. The Learned Counsel spoke
warmly on the case, and said he felt for a man wbo had
been treated in such a manner after the services he had
rendered in India.
Mr. DOWSE appeared for Messrs. Lyon, and stated that
they bad nothing to do with sending. the discharge to the
prison.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER granted the application by
dismissing the petition. The insolvent would take what
course he thought proper.
A petition was immediately filed under the Protection
Act, and protection granted to the Ist August, when the
case will be heard before the Chief Commissioner. It is
the first case of the kind that has occurred.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Hertford, July 11.
The commission for the county of Herts was opened
on Wednesday, and this morning both Courts proceeded
to business, the Chief B'iron presiding on the Civil Side
and Mr. Justice Erie in the Crown Court. The business
is very light, there being only 18 prisoners for trial on
the criminal side. On the civil side eight cases are en-
tered, one of which only is to be tried by a special jury.
The Chief Baron did not sit until twelve o'clock, and he
had nearly got through his list at the rising of the Court.
None of the cases disposed of yesterday contained any
matter of interest to the public.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

William Robins was brought, in the custody of
John Forrester, before Alderman Gibbs, charged with
having stolen a cheque for Sal. 10s., the property of
Mr. Newton, as the secretary to the St. James's Mu-
tual Association, their bankers being the London and
Westminster Bank, in St. James's square.
Mr. Muliens, of the firm of Bush and Mullen; at-
tended for the prosecution.
It appeared that Mr. Newton was in possession of
some cheques for the purposes of the association,
which cheques had been signed by three of the direc-
tors, but which should be countersigned by Mr. New-
ton, as the secretary. These cheques had been placed
by Mr. Newton in his desk, which he had considered
a secure receptac!e, and he considered them safe, in-
asmuch as the additional signature of himself was
required to make them negotiable. The prisoner
had been at work for Mr. Newton in the reom in
which the desk was kept on the Bth and 9th of July,
in the afternoon of which latter day that gentleman
missed the cheque above referred to. The cheque
was presented in the usual course at the bank,
and paid, the omission of the secretary's signa-
ture not having been noticed by the cashier. On as-
certaining his loss, Mr. Newton immediately repaired
to the London and Westminster Bank, and was in-
formed that the cheque had been paid in 4/. and 10/.
bank notes ; in consequence of which steps were
taken to stop the payment of the notes at the Bank of
England, and on Wednesday a man named Kennedy
presented three of the 101. notes in question, for
which he required gold. His answer not being deemed
satisfactory, he was detained and introduced to Mr.
Forrester.
Mr. Mullens stated that after calling this evidence
to substantiate the above facts, he should be com-
pelled to place Kennedy in the box as a witness
against Robins.
Kennedy was accordingly sworn, and he gave the
following account of the matter :—I am a working
upholsterer, and reside in Church-row, Stoke New-
ington. I know the prisoner, and have known him
for nearly 18 or 20 years ; we have worked together.
On Tuesday afternoon I saw him at the Admiral Dun-
can, in Soho. He said he wanted me to assist him in
a job, and was to go with him. I said, " how about the
money for the materials?" He said, "Oh that is all
right enough." He then produced a cheque,
and asked me to go out and get it cashed.
I was tired at first, and stayed a little while, and then
I said well, if he would go with me I would go. He
said it was all perfectly right, but objected to go
himself. The thing appeared filled up in the usual
form, and although I at first hesitated, yet knowing
the man so long, I went and got it cashed. He went
as far as Waterloo-place with me, and said he would
meet me at the Bell, in Pall-mall. I got the notes
and money ,from Mr. Bardmore (a witness), and
went to the outside of the Bell public-house. I saw
the prisoner, and handed him the money, but be did
not take it then ; and we went to a public-house at
the corner, I believe, of Blue Cross-street, and he
took a portion of it, and left 441. 55., exactly one-
half, in my hands. We then went and purchased
some hair-cloth for chairs, and we were together very
late that night, and yesterday morning I took the
three 101. notes produced to the Bank, to be changed,
and I wrote my name and address on them, and was
then detained. I afterwards gave to Mr. Forrester
an account of how I came possessed of the notes,
and gave him up the money remaining in my pos
session.

Cross-examined by the prisoner—You had seen me
four or five days prior ? 'Witness—Yes, several
times.
Did I not say to you what a pity it is that people
should leave their money about, and that I had seen
a cheque, and you said why did you not take it up,
and we would square it ?—I do not recollect any such
words.--(A laugh.) I do not recollect your men-
tioning such a thing to me before.
Did you not take me to a friend to get that friend
to go and get the cheque changed ?—No. I did
not. I went to show it to a friend, because I had
some doubts whether it was right, and I thought it
was too large a cheque for one to pass in my position
of life.

Did you not say that if that party would go
you would give him 201. to get it changed ?—No.
The money did not belong to me, so I could not give
it to him.
Did not you, after you bad got this cheque
changed, when we went to the public-house, put a 51.
note apart for the person who gave you a little bit of
advice how to change it ?—No. That was your doing
altogether.—(A. laugh.) You said there was a third
party in the business, and we had better give him the
Si. to keep him quiet.
Did you not say, after the money had been paid,
" G2t a 101. note changed and give me 51., and I will
give you a Si.note ?"—I might have said that.
The prisoner—One party is as deep in the mud as
the other is in the mire, my Lord, and no mistake.
Did I not give you the five sovereigns and you gave
me the 51. note? Witness—Yes, yes, that is clear.
When we were at Mr. Lloyd's, where we had a
glass of brandy-and-water, you pulled out of your
pocket and gave me three 101. notes, one Si. note, and
six 15/. Had you not in your posfession the same
amount, with the 51. for this same party ?—Yes, that
is right.—(Laughter.)
I never had the whole of this money in my band, if
you recollect ?—I wanted you to take it, but you said
" Put it in your pocket and come on."

The witness answered other questions in such a
manner as clearly proved that his proper place was
the bar of the court.

John Forrester said I took the prisoner into custody
last night, outside the Admiral Duncan public-house,
in Compton-street, Soho, and conveyed him to Mr.
Newton's house, where he was identified as the party
who had been working there. I then told him he was
charged with giving a cheque to a man of the name of
Kennedy. He said he knew nothing at all about it.
I then went to his lodging in Kingsgate-street, Hol-
born, and found a purse containing 23 sovereigns and
a half-sovereign.
The prisoner said the fact was, that he never would
have thought of doing the thing if his co-partner,
Mr. Kennedy, to whom he talked about the cheque,
had not urged him to do it by saying they would
square it. He said they applied to a third party,
who, upon looking at the cheque, did not, being an
experienced hand, like the appearance or date of it at
all, and that they stopped his mouth with 51., but Mr.
Kennedy was the most to blame.
Alderman GIBES said he would send the prisoner
for trial, and ordered the depositions to be made ou
accordingly.