The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-15 00:00:00

UNION-HALL.

John Shields, jun., desc ribei as a wire-worker,
carrying on business in the Westminster-road, was
brought before Mr. Cottingham, charged with corn-
mit:ing forgeries on Aaron Smith, ship-owner and
bill discounter, to the- amount of between 6001. and
7001. The prisoner underwent a short examination
on Wednesday, and was remanded in order to give
the complainant an opportunity of producing the ne-
cessary evidence to establish the alleged charges.
The complainant stated that he had been acquainted
with the prisoner's father for some years, when that
person was connected with the (now defunct) West-
minster Loan Society, in the Ade*hi; that he (com-
plainant) employed that person, his ion (the prisoner),
and Sarah Shields (his daughter), in collecting the
money on bills when they became due. In the month
of February last a bill of 151., which he (complainant)
discounted for the prisoner, purporting to have been
drawn by James Dubourk, and accepted by that per-
son's mother, was discovered to be a forgery, and
information of the circumstance being given at the
station-house, the prisoner had since kept out of the
way. The bill in question was here produced., when
the witnesses, Dubourk, proved that their signatures
as drawer and acceptor were forgeries.
The complainant, on his cross-examination by Mr.
Wolff, said that he was in the habit of discounting
bills, and had discounted bills to the amount of be-
tween :30,000/. and 40,0001. for the Westminster
Loan Society. Had brought actions against Tom
Steele, and also against one of Mr. O'Connell's sons,
for money advanced to them on bills. That he had
frequently discounted- bills for the elder Shields, and
received one shilling in the pound for the loan. Never
charged him at the rate of 25/. or 301. per cent.
Never employed Mr. Holmes, the solicitor, of Fen-
church-street, to negotiate with the prisoner on the
subject of the bills now referred to. As soon as he
discovered the bill in question was a forgery he gave
information at the station-house. The bills were not
what is termed accommodation bills. I endeavoured
to find the prisoner's father and sister, but have ascer-
tained they have fled to the continent.
Another bill for 101. was proved, purporting to
have been drawn and accepted by the same person as
in the former case, but upon examination of the sig-
natures, they were also proved to be forgeries. This
bill was also given by the prisoner to the complainant
to discount, the former saying at the time that he
saw the drawer and acceptor sign their names to it.
A third charge was also entered upon against the
prisoner. A bill for 181. was discounted by the com-
plainant, purporting to have been accepted by Henry
King. This bill, the complainant said, he hail no
doubt was in the prisoner's handwriting, bat he
would not undertake to swear whether it was given
to him by the prisoner or his father.
A fourth case was then selected, from which it ap-
peared that the complainant received a bill of 251.155.
of the prisoner, purporting to have been accepted by
John Clarke, a hair-dresser, of Great Suffolk-street.
This bill complainant discounted, and when it became
due it was then ascertained to be a forgery. Clarke
himself attended and proved the fact.
The complainant here produced several other bills,
which he had discounted for the prisoner, and which
he said were also forgeries, but at present he was not
prepared to enter into them, as the witnesses were
not in attendance. He therefore requested that the
prisoner might be further remanded.
Mr. Wolff contended that the prisoner, being
merely the agent of his father in those bill transac-
tions, could not, therefore, be brought within the
scope of the Act relating to the alleged offence. On
a future occasion it would be shown that the elder
Shields and the complainant were connected together
in the discounting of bills, and that the bills in ques-
tion were accommodation bills.
The complainant, however,' contradicted the latter
assertion, saying he discounted them as balm fide
bills, not having the slightest suspicion they were for-
geries until recently.
Mr. COTTINGIIAM said that he should remand the
prisoner until Thursday, refusing, at the same time,
to accept of bail for his appearance.

HAMMERSMITH.

Wm. Preston, a short, thick set 3 oung fellow, well
known to the police as a notorious smasher, was
brought before Mr. G. Clive for re-examination on
the following charge :
It appeared that on Thursday, the 4th inst., the
prisoner went into the shop of Mr. Pummell, fish.
monger, High-street, Kensington, and, in payment
for half a pint of shrimps, gave a good half-sovereign,
receiving 9s. 84d. in change. On the change being
put into his hand he immediately said, " Oh, this is a
bad half-crown," and Mrs. Pummell, being engaged
with other customers, gave him 2s. 6d. for it. After
he had left the shop, she, however, bethought her-
self that he must have " rung the changes," and she
sent the foreman in pursuit of the prisoner, with di-
rections to gi,io him into custody. The foreman
traced him to the Castle beer shop opposite Kensing-
ton Church, and he was instantly transferred to the
station-house, where, while the charge was being
entered, he quietly took up the bad half-crown,
which, with the half sovereign, was lying on the
charge room table, and said here it goes, and threw
it as quick as thought into his mouth, and gulped it
down before any of the officers could prevent him
swallowing it.
Mr. Powell, the Mint solicitor, for whose attend-
ance the prisoner was remanded, said he had before
been convicted of smashing, and had performed a
similar feat only six woeks ago, at Hammersmith.
The case was, however, ineompiete, by reason of his
having swallowed the half- crov% n, and he must be
discharged.—The prisoner was discharged.