The Sun.
London, England, 1850-10-28 00:00:00

EXTENSIVE SWINDLING.

BATH, SATURDAY.—George Rowland Hill, a man
about 31 years of age, who had succeeded in swind-
ling a large number of the most respectable tradesmen
of this city out of goods to a considerable amount,
was placed upon his trial this morning at the quarter
sessions held at the Guildhall before Mr. Jardine, the
Recorder. The greatest interest has been excited in
the case amongst the trading community, in conse-
quence of which the court was crowded in every part.
Mr. Hodges conducted the prosecution, ,instructed
by Mr. Williams, solicitor, and also by Mr. W. G.
Gray, as solicitor to the Wilts and Somerset Trade
Protection Society. Mr. T. W. Saunders and Mr.
F. T. Allen, instructed by Mr. Cheshire, solicitor, of
Cheltenham, defended the prisoner.
There were four indictments against the prisoner,
each containing several counts, in which he was
charged with obtaining goods by false pretences from
Messrs. Reynolds and Holman, linendrapers, of
Union-street; Mr. Clement, ironmonger, of Burton-
street; Mr. Hayden, cabinetmaker, of Stall-street;
and Messrs. Gully, ironmongers, of New Bond-street.
The first case proceeded with was that of Messrs.
Reynolds and Holman, from whom the prisoner was
charged with fraudulently obtaining carpeting, &c.,
to the value of bet ween 70/. and 80/. The following
are the particulars of the prisoner's transactions, as
gathered from the evidence, which was very volumi-
nous :

Tho prisoner, in the latter part of 1849, came to
Bath, and opened shop as a cabinet maker in I3al-
- where he employed several workmen, and
appeared to be carrying on a flourishing business.
Having thus succeeded in making himself known, in
!he early part of June of the present year he com-
menced his fraudulent proceedings. Going to the
shop of Messrs. Reynolds and Holman, he represented
to them that he had been employed to furnish a house
for the R. v. Mr. Dangerfield, at Stroud, in Giouces-
ter.hire. lie said the job would amount to b,tween
5001. and 600/., and that he was to be paid as soon
as the work was completed, which would be in five or
six weeks' time. He also told the prosecutor that he
should require carpets and druggets. window-cur-
tains, &c., to the amount of 601. or 70/, and asked
to bs allowed to have such goods as he might re-
quire, to be paid for as soon as the Rev. Mr. Dan-
gerfield discharged his acc.iunt. Upon the representa-
tions made by the prisoner Messrs. Reynolds and Hol-
man allowed him to select at that time carpeting to the
value of 22/. In two or three days afterwards a letter
bearing the Stroud post-mark was received from Hill
by the prosecutors, in which he stated that the
carpeting was not sufficient for his purpose,
and that he must have some more of the same
pattern, or, if they had not more of that, he must
have the required quantity in a new pattern, ani he
would send back that first had. Having no snore
carpet of the first pattern, Messrs. Reynolds and
Holman sent a bale of another pattern, but that first
sent was never returned, and subsequently other goods
were obtained by the prisoner, amounting altogether
to between 701. and 801. From Messrs. Gully, Hay-
den, Clement, and other tradesmen, the prisoner suc-
ceeded in obtaining goods to a very large amount
upon the same representation of having to furnish a
house for the Rev. Mr. Dangerfield, and very Inge-
reto-
ofnabiu
roteanisnel
h,c
eobnpytrroi
prop
whiche,rd to m t
yhofeobatehkeee
arms.eSuspicion some
uh
se
po
if his
better
ot
tnesrw victimsaesnaatb le d
length
excited, and in July Inspector Dunne, of the Bath
police-fora,, went to Stroud to make inquiries, and
2twNavNfitvh.voetl
apparent.ereieeroeTlsl
ntlledei
tn.
tradesmen
ne.
sem
,baxgbet oui
several
to
rrera tytteerl
)ipaealN,
eennnranadodqsoraonouttei
,sfodi
nnaxuct
senilhtet
13(
eeihthoeoseni
eraftfnpty:
placesthepd r:oofiri
esiffifocs
edbontt
reeh.fnedasteefi
grordtAfnir rent
Dangerfield,i ashnttth uuheai
tdtrehhße
betweeneidee
in order
prisoner's
railwayfpro.becamedneaednrrloccasionallyevt
o,rpot) ados tbesal.sht
neeacoagfftranni
station
descrip-
tion,
dpercrnde-it
his purpose. It was alsodiscovered that he had had sales
furni-
ture.h
Oo proceeding to Cheltenham the officer disco-
vered
including a great portion of that obtained from
there till called for. A watch was set, and after a
while a cartload of the goods was fetched from the
station. The cart was followed, and the prisoner se-
cured as he was receiving the goods at a place called
Charlton Kings. Here a bale of carpet belonging to
the prosecutor was found in an unoccupied house,
where it had been deposited by a brother-in-law of
the prisoner, named Thomas Window. On the bale
w pd
iniethheoupser,isonneexrt
doorshand-
writing.direction In another to \ V
n unoccupied
c u
in a loft which the prisoner's wife had taken for the
purpose were di-covered two or three waggon loads
of furniture of every description stowed away. On
his way to Bath the prisoner said to the officer, ".I
am glad it is stopped, for I don't know where
It
would bare ended if I had gone on with that Win-
dow." Further discoveries clearly proved that the
prisoner acted upon preconcerted plans, and that his
business in Bath was a colourable affair for promoting
the fraud.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty, whereupon
an arrangement was entered into between the counsel
on each side that judgment should not be pressed for
on the other cases if the prisoner pleaded guilty to
them, and so enabled the property obtained by him to
be returned to the owners.

The Learned Recorder, in passing sentence, re-
ferred to the serious character of the offence of which
the prisoner had been convicted, and said he should
inflict upon him the utmost punishment the law would
allow. The prisoner was then sentenced to be trans-
ported for seven years.
Hid is a native of Gloucestershire, and well
known in Stroud and Cheltenham. At the Gloucester
sessions in 1838 he was convicted of a felony, and
sentenced to nine months' hard labour.
The grand jury has returned a true bill against the
prisoner, his wire, and his brother-in-law, Thomas
Window, for conspiracy•

THE SECRET POLSO.VING CASE NEAR

-ABERYSTWITH.

Tne adjourned inquest was resumed on the 17th
instant. The coroner read the whole of the evidence
from the commencement, and summed up in a most
able manner, especially comrnentigg on that part of
the evidence which bore against the accused. The
jury deliberated for about two hours, and returned a
verdict to the following effect, viz.:—" That the de-
ceased, Ann Jones, met her death through poison,
but that there was not sufficient evidence to show by
whom administered." Upon that fact being made
known, Captain Freeman, chief constable of the
county constabulary force, entered into consultation
with a neighbouring magistrate, the result of which
was that a charge was preferred against the accused