The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-05 00:00:00

sons, could only be negotiable on the endorsement of all
the payees, and that, therefore, the forgery of the name
of one person only was not a forgery of the felonious
character alleged in the indictment. On the case being
argued before the Judges, these objections were unavailing.
The Learned Judge before whom you were tried reports
the objection to those counts which charged the intent to
defraud John Jackson, to be founded on a misapprehension
of the evidence. It was supposed that you had not obtained
money from the bank of which he was the manager. The
Learned Judge reports that you had done so, and therefore
this objection was unavailing. [His Lordship then read the
clause et the statute above referred to, and then proceeded.]
Now the question considered by the Judges was, whether
this endorsement of Ann Magdalene Isherwood was a
forged endorsement on the bill of exchange, within the
meaning of the statute, and after hearing the case elabo-
rately argued by counsel for you, and after discussing it
among themselves, the Judges were unanimously of opinion
that, although the property in the bill of exchange could
not be transferred without the endorsement of the others,
yet that it was necessary that Ann Magdalene Isherwood
should endorse the bill, and that a forgery of her endorse-
ment is a forgery clearly coming within the meaning of the
statute I have quoted. The judgment is that this con-
viction is a valid one, and you must now receive the sen-
tence which the law awards for the offence of which you
have been convicted, and I am sure I need only refer to the
report of the Learned Judge who tried you to show how
serious a case had been made out against you; that it is, in
reality, a forgery committed under circumstances of very
great aggravation. The Learned Baron states, in his report,
that yon were a solicitor at Stockport, in considerable
practice ; that up to this time you had always main-
tained a respectable character ; that you were the con-
fidential adviser of Mr. John Isherwood, of Marple Hall, in
this county, who died in the year 1839, leaving his wife and.
daughters as his executors. Having been employed on some
business after Mr. Isherwood's death, you got possession of
the policy, which, without their knowledge, you presented
to Mr. Tate, agent to the Pelican Life .office. Mr. Tate
proposed to pay you a bill at seven days' sight. These
terms you accepted and obtained the bill, being told at the
time it must be endorsed by every one of the payees. Thee
endorsements you subsequently professed to have obtained,
and then paid it to your credit in the bank at Stockport, and
in the course of a month afterwards you drew out of the
bank upwards of 4,000/. All, this was clearly proved to
have taken place without the knowledge of the executrixes,
while you were amusing them by telling them it was neces-
sary a Canterbury probate should be taken out before the
money could be received, but that the office was pay-
ing interest far it. It appears that you were confidentially
consulted by this family, and it must be apparent to any
one who considers the case, that there is scarcely any class of
men in the country who have more power for good or fir evil
than attorneys. Scarcely any class of men are trusted to such
an extent, and incur such responsibility as they do. If an
estate is to be purchased or sold, an attorney is employed to
transact the buisiness ; if a marriage settlement is to be ex-
ecuted, an attorney is called in; or if a will is to be made,
their professional assistance is generally obtained, and they
are frequently entrusted by the family in arranging the affairs
of the deceased. Such was your employment ; and it is very
painful to find that a man who has hitherto maintained so
respectable a character should so grossly have betrayed the
trust reposed in him. I cannot but regard your case as one
of the most aggravated in its complexion I ever heard of,
and therefore the punishment must be in accordance with
your offence. The sentence of the Court is, that you be trans-
ported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life.
The prisoner was then removed from the bar supported by
two of the assistants in the gaol. He appeared to be deeply
affected, as also did many others in Court.
MALICIOUS SIIOOTING.—James Berry, 23, John Hammond,
30, George Hammond, 22, Thomas Hammond, 28, and Wm.
Webb, 40, were charged with maliciously shooting at John
Eden, with intent to murder, to maim, disable, disfigure, or
do him some grievous bodily harm.
The case arose out of night poaching, with which the pri-
soners were also charged. It appeared that on the night of
Sunday, the sth of January, the prisoners and several others
were out in a cover belonging to Mr. T. Langford Brooke, at
Mere Hall, in this county, when a party of keepers in the
employment of Mr. Brooke came up. A fight commenced,
one of the keepers giving the first blow, and during the affray
the prisoner Berry fired his gun at John Eden, but the latter
being in a stooping position, the shot went over his shoulder
close to his head

The jury found all Guilty of shooting with intent to do
grievous bodily harm, and the Learned Judge sentenced them
to 15 years' transportation.
The remainder of the day was occupied with Mint cases.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSIOIV-HOUSE.

A young woman named Ann Crittle, was brought up
for final examination upon the charge of having com-
mitted a robberyin the house of her master, Mr. Howard,
hemp merchant, of No. 39, Mark-lane.
Mr. Howard stated that the prisoner had been in his
house about nine weeks, that on Thursday, the 27th of
March, he had a small party of young ladies at his house,
and when they were about to depart, all their outer gar
ments were missing. The prisoner was soon afterwards
taken into custody, and witness went to the Giltspur-
street Compter, where she confessed to him, but without
receiving either promise or threat, that she had takF•n all
the things and deposited them in the cockloft of the
house.

Miss Plicebe Asten Howard, niece to the prosecutor,
stated that she was on a visit t') her uncle on the night
in question, and loft her cloak and bonnet on a chair in
a room up-stairs, and when she was about to go home,
she could see nothing at all of the articles. Her sister's
bonnet, fur-cuff, veil, and fur-tippet, had been also taken
away from the same place.
Other witnesses deposed as to the identity of other
articles c f dress which had disappeared from the room
on the same night.
A City policeman stated that as he was taking the
prisoner to the Compter, she said she would tell Mr.
Howard, if she could see him, where the things were,
and she declared that they were in-the cocklott, where
witness immediately afterwards found them.
The prisoner, who cried bitterly during the investi-
gation, was then committed for trial.
John Ashley and William Allen were committed for
trial under the following circumstances :
Mr. Ward is a stove manufacturer in Tottenham-street,
Tottenham-court-road, and the prisoner Allen was an
out-door apprentice of his, and Ashley had been in
Allen's company, A clerk in the house of Mr. Kinnard,
iron merchant, Upper Thames-street, received, in the
afternoon of the 24th of March, an order for six elliptic
stoves, purporting to be the order of Mr. Ward, but im-
mediately discovered it to be a forgery ; and, after hav-
ing questioned the boy who was the bearer of it, deli-
vered to him three stores, in order to detect the con-
trivers of the fraud. The plan succeeded. Allen was
waiting for the boy in Thames-street, and it was ascer-
tained that the two prisoners had c mcocted the plan of
robbery, and had exchanged clothes in order to carry it
more cleverly into effect.

MARKET NEWS.-(YESTERDAY.