The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-29 00:00:00

S

Stock Exchange;" aead'the two 51. notes 'were, paid in
again en the 6th of July, 1849.
Mr. Bailey, the' ccountent to the railway company,
was recalled to identity the handwriting of the prisoner,
on the back of the 1001. and 54 notes.
Mr. Robert Henry Knight stated that he was a clerk
in the employ of Siessrs. ltoy and Co., the solicitors
to the railway cornperiy, and had had frequent oppor-
tunities of becoming acquainted wife the prisoner's
handwriting. The names at the back of the notes pro-
duced were in his handwriting, as also the entries in
the company's cash-book.
Mr. William Henry Smith, a surgeon, practising at
Peckhem Rye, stated that he attended the prisoner
while he lived at Mr. Neylor's. On the 14th of
August, 1849, the prisoner gave him a 10/. note, and the
following day he paid an account of 271, 19s. to his
brother-in-law, sending as part of the ametnat the 101.
• note he had received from the prisoner.
Cross-examined—He had known the prisoner for
thirteen or fourteen years, and during that time he had
borne an excellent character. His father had retired
from the East Incte. Company's service.
Mr. Samuel Neal Driver, a solicitor, stated that lie
received 271. 19s. in August last from his brother-in-law,
the last witness, which included a 101. note, and he paid
the same money over to Mr. Pooley on the same. day.
Mr. Dooley, the collector to the Mercer's Company,
stated that he received the 27/. 19s. from the last witness
and paid it into the Union Bank to the account of Mr.
Ovey. The 10/. note produced, numbered 58,271,
torzeed part of this money.
Mr. Cowley, of the Dr. Butler's Heal Tavern, in the
City, stated that he changed a Si. note for the prisoner,
upon which he wrote the name of " Harcourt. ' The
note produced, numbered 52,962, was that note.
Several other witnesses were called to prove that they
had received some of the notes from the prisoner which
had been given to him at the bank inchange for the 1001.
and 501. notes.
Mr. A. C. Wilson, a clerk in the service of Mr. Simp-
son of Manchester, stated that on the 19th of December,
1848, he enclosed to the secretary of the %Vhitehaven
and Furness Junction Railway the half of a Bank note,
numbered 93,331, dated the 23d of February, 1848, and
on receiving an acknowledgment for it from Mr. Mayer
he forwarded the other half.
Mr. Bailey, the accountant of the railway company,
identified the handwriting of the prisoner in the letter
acknowledging the receipt of the money, and in the re-
ceipt purporting to have come from the London Joint-
Stock Bank, and representing that they had received
the 501. on account of the railway company.
Similar evidence to that given in reference to the
1001. was produced, with the view of tracing the receipt
and disposal of the note to the prisoner. It was paid
tutu the Bank of England across the counter, and was
endorsed " J. Mayer, 1, Guildhall-chambers." Some of
the notes given in change were traced to the prisoner,
and bore his endorsement.
This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. BALLANTINE then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, contending that the money came fairly into the
prisoner's hands, and that the real culprit was
Mayer, the absconded secretary. It was suggested
by the Learned Gentleman that the prisoner received
the two notes from Mayer, and changed them at the
Bank in the course of his business. He had been the
deputy of Mayer, who had had the whole and sole con-
trol of the.company's affairs, and it was not unreasonatle
to believe that he was sent by him to obtain change fir
ale notes. In fact, it was proved by one of the wit-
❑esses for the prosecution that he was in the habit of
frequently coming to him to get notes changed for the
company or his employers, and it was just possible,
nay it was higbly probable, that Mayer had made use

of him ,to V pat these two notes into circula-
tion. With regard to the two notes—the 51.
and the 101.—which had been traced to him,
through a surgeon and a publican, it was insisted by
the Learned Counsel that it was not at all inconsistent
to suppose that they were paid to him as part of his
salary. They were, indeed, paid away by him at periods
immediately tol;owing the time when his half-year's
salary must have become due, and no sensible man could

resist, the conclusion that they reached him in part pay-
ment of his wages. The prosecution would never have

Leer] heard of had the prisoner abstained from making
certain disclosures to The directors in ref,Tence to some

gross mismanagement of the company's business; but he
brill committed himself so tar, and now he was called upon
to answer for the mslversatious of his superior. The

ury, however, stood between him and his persecutors,

and his friends earnestly hoped that they would resist
this attempt to make the prisoner responsible for Mayer's

wiscunduCt.

Mr. Baron MARTIN, in summing up the evidence, told
the jury that the facts were not disputed, and all they
had to decide was simply, not whether the prisoner had
forged the spurious rec&ints which had been prodaced
in the course of the trial, but whether he had uttered

hem km,wing them to have been forged, or had been
concerned in uttering them, with a guilty knowledge of

their illegality. -
The jury retired to consider their decision, and after
an absence of about three-quarters of: an hour they re-
turned into court with a verdict of Not Guilty.
The other charges eg4inst the prisoner were aban-
doned, and he was discharged.