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

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 8.

(Before Mr. Baron PLATT)
POST- OFFICE .1101311ERIES.—Lewin qfford, 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 Tetbury, 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, he wrote to his father
for 51., 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 5/. in the
following manner :—He assumed that his uncle, William
Smart, had already landed, forged a letter in his name, ad-
dressed to Moses Smart, Bevorten, near Tetbury, 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 bekept a profound secret, as the writer of the letter was
desirous, 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 coin-.
panion of his voyage, and the letter concluded with a request
for 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.
William Bartlett's, Royal Mills, Saddlesworth, intimating
that he would forward a post-office order for 5/., 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 his
father to remit an order on the Manchester post-office for the
Si. This letter was also inclosed to Bartlett, who posted it at
Saddlesworth, whence it was received by Moses Smart, who
immediately pro.ared 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
bcClifford). Bartlett, unwilling to sign the name of William
mart 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 41. 17s. 6d to
the prisoner. On the 30th of November William Smart
really arrived at Liverpool, and immediately proceeded to
his father'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 December, the prisoner was arrested in Cheltenham,
and the letters from Bartlett found in his possession6toge,
ther with the one from Moles Snout to sm

which inclosed the poet-oftlee order. On his apprehension,
the prisoner stated to the police-officer who took him into
custody that he 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 be 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 beep 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, he opened the letter and abstracted the money.
which he immediately changed into sifter 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.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
THE MURDER AT HAMPSTEAD.
In the course of the day the Grand Jury came into Court,
and handed to Mr. Straight, the Deputy Clerk of Arraigns,
a true bill against Thomas Henry Hocker for murder, and
also a true bill against the same prisoner for felony.
Mr. BODKIN, who is instructed on behalf of the Crown, ad-
dressed the Court, and said it would be a great convenience,
both to the prosecution and to the defence, if a day were ap-
pointed for the trial of the prisoner, against whom the Grand
Jury had just returned true bills. He suggested that Friday
should be named for the trial.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN said he had no objection.
The Court adjourned at Five o'clock.