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

FORGERY.

Joseph Hemingway, a respectably-attired man, was
indicted for forging and uttering a bill of 311. 4s , 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
accnunt,i but, to do so, it appeared he had raised
money upon fal,® and fictitious documents. The bill
upon which be had been found guilty was not the first
or second of its kind, and such being the case, and in
order to deter others from actin; in a similar man
ncr, he should sentence him to penal servitude for six

years.
William Wilcocks was indicted for forging and uttering
a forged bill for 2501., with intent, &c.
From the evidence it appeared that on the sth of
November the prisoner called at the bank of Messrs.
Carats 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 be /bleed for sovereigns. The clerk at the
bank asked him to write his name upon the note, and
ho wrote the name of Brown, 35, Oxford-street. The
Loudon 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 he bad been
in the habit of ex?.cuting commissions gave him the
note to get cashed, and that he 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 WWI 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 pi isooer 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. Oa account of his first de-
parture from honesty his relatives had turned their backs
upon him, and although ono of his brothers had retired
from business, and the other was worth upwards of
20,0001, not one cf 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 his
lordship would take a merciful view of his case.
Mr. Justice Erie said he had listened attentively to
all that had been addressed to him, but be could come
to no other conclusion but that the prisoner uttered
the instrument, knowieg 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 ho
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.