The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-10 00:00:00

• ..=.4—.00.
the Hon. Member (Mr. Ward) aas to come before the
House in the shape of an instruction to the Committee.
Mr. HINDLEY said he would wish to know what
course the Hon. Member fur Sheffield intended to
pursue ?

.

Mr. PRENDERGAST, OR behalf of th Amiertded
that the course pursued towards him ewhat birth,
as it was anfair to expect from every arked' is so- ' • ---
critical a profession the consumnia kitlejr
Cooper or a Dr. Conquest, whose frY-he
largely quoted. . ":7" 1-_-'
Justice PATTESON, in summing nal e, tIgIW---
E 14.14
that the question was not whether the defi!! i
removed the parts in question, for no man in his senses
could do that; but it was for the jury to say whether, under
all the circumstances, he had done more than fall into a mis-
take. For a mere error of judgment he did not think that a
medical man ought to be made criminally responsible, unless
he had displayed gross professional ignorance or inattention
to his patient. The nurses all bore testimony to his kindness
and attention, and it would therefore be for the jury to say
whether they thought he had acted with such gross igno-
rance as was imputed to him by this charge.
The jury, without much hesitation, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
With this case terminated these assizes, and a Norfolk
Circuit, which will long live in the memory of those engaged
in it, by reason of the very important criminal trials by
which it has been signalised.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester,. April 8.
(Before Mr. Baron PLArr.?
POST-OFFICE Konafcanis.—Lesain. Clifford, aged 24, a
policeman of the Gloucestershire constabulary, was indicted
for having forged a receipt for money purporting to be
the receipt of William Smart, with intent to defraud Moses
Smart.
Mr. 'Whateley, Queen's Counsel, Mr. Godson, Queen's
Counsel, Mr. Alexander, Queen's Counsel, and Mr. Bros ap-
peared for the Crown ; Mr. Greaves defended the prisoner.
It appeared in the evidence of this singular and interesting
case, that the prisoner was the grandson of Moses Smart, the
surveyor of highways, living at Tetburv, whose son William
had found it convenient several years since, in consequence
of the loss of some pigs by the vicar of the parish, to breathe
"the air of liberty in America." The reasons for his ab-
sence having gradually diminished, lie wrote to his father
for 5/., to enable him to accomplish his voyage to England.
The prisoner, aware of this circumstance, conceived and
executed a scheme to defraud his grandfather of 51. in the
followieg manner:—tie assumed that his uncle, William
Smart, had already landed, forged a letter in his name, ad-
dressed to Moses Smart, Bevorten, near Tetburv, and dated
it from Saddlesworth, near Manchester. This letter he en-
closed to a friend, named Bartlett, at that place, with a re-
quest that it might be there
.posted that any answer to it
might be forwarded to the prisoner, and that the transaction
might be kept a profound secret, as the writer of the letter was for a family reason, that his friends should think.
that he was residing in Manchester. Bartlett complied with
the request, and,posted the letter. Moses Smart read with de-
light the intelligence that his son had reached Liverpool in
safety, and was then residing at Saddlesworth, with a com-
panion of his voyage, and the letter concluded with a request
tbr the sum of 5/., to discharge the liabilities of his journey
to Tetbury. The old man addressed his reply, according to
the instruction contained in the letter, to his son at Mr.
IVilliam Bartlett's, Royal Mills, Saddleswortlf, intimating
that he would forward a post-office order for 54, instead of
bank- note, and requesting to know at what office it should
be made payable. This answer was received by Bartlett,
and by him immediately forwarded to Clifford, who forged
another letter in the name of William Smart, desiring hie
father to remit an order on the Manchester post-office for the
51. This letter was also inclosed to Bartlett, who posted it at
Saddlesworth, whence it was received by Moses Smart, 'who
immediately procured a post-office order, which was duly
received by Bartlett, who had been desired by the prisoner to
open it, and after getting the order cashed to deduct half-a-'
crown for his trouble and remit the remainder to himself'
(Clifford). Bartlett, unwilling to sign the name of William
Smart to the receipt for the money, wrote to the prisoner for
such authority, whereupon the prisoner forged another letter
from William Smart, giving Bartlett full power to receive
the money, who accordingly received the 5/., deducted the
half-crown for himself, and then remitted by another post-
office order on the Cheltenham post-office, the 4/. 17s. 6d to
the prisoner. On the 30th of November William Smart •
really arrived at Liverpool, and immediately proceeded to
his lather's house at Tetbury, in this county. The prisoner,
in ignorance of his arrival, sent a letter of thanks from the.
son to the old gentleman, which Bartlett posted at Sad-,
dlesworth, and which letter was delivered to the father,
after the return of his son. The contents of this letter
naturally produced an inquiry as to the post-office order;
and, on its being discovered that William Smart .had never
heard of the transaction, an investigation took place,
Bartlett was taken into custody, but released on the pro-
duction of his correspondence with the prisoner. On the
11tH of I)ecember, the prisoner was arrested in Cheltenham,
and the letters from Bartlett found in his possession, toge-
ther with the one from Moses Smart. to William Smart,
which inclosed the post-office order. On his apprehension,
the prisoner stated to the police-officer who took him into
custody that lie had received a letter from his uncle, William
Smart, who was at Bristol, directing him to inclose the
letter to Moses Smart, applying for the 51. to Bartlett, and
that he acted only in pursuance of his uncle's instructions.
This statement was sought to he supported by the produc-
tion of a letter, bearing the Bristol stamp, of August 30,
1844, Which stamp proved also to be forged, and it was also
made apparent that, at the period of that date, 'William
Smart was not in a position to correspond with the prisoner.
After a trial which occupied nine hours, the prisoner was
convicted, and sentenced to seven years' transportation.
John Barnard, aged 42, an agricultural labourer, was
charged with stealing from a post-office letter, at Abinghall.,
on the Bth of March, a half-sovereign.
The same counsel appeared as in the last case.
A letter, containing a half-sovereign, had been forwarded
by mistake to a lady at Abinghall, whose, servant employed-
the prisoner to carry it back to the postmaster. On his road
to the office, lie opened the letter and abstracted the money,
which he immediately changed into silver at a neighbouring
beer-house.

He was convicted, by the consent of the counsel for the
Crown, of a common larceny only, and sentenced to one
month's hard labour.