The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-09 00:00:00

CROYDON.

At the meeting of the Croydon bench of magistrates
on Saturday, a person of respectable appearance, named
James Tompson, who formerly filled the office of secre-
tary to the Mitcham Block-Printers' Benefit Society,
was charged with having unlawfully embezzled and
secreted 30/., the moneys of the society.
The case caused a great deal of interest on account of
the circumstances connected with it, and also from the
fact of one of the grounds of defence set up being, that
the money had been originally advanced by the Block-
Printers' Seciety to the Bookbinders' Society in London
for an illegal object, viz., to support the men during a
strike against their masters.

Mr. Humphries, the solicitor, appeared in support of
the charge, and Mr. Hill attended on behalf of the de-
fendant.

From the evidence adduced, it appeared that in the
year 1839 the Mitcham Society lent two sums of 20/.
to the Bookbinders' Society, and this loan re-
mained outstanding until the year 1844, when it was
repaid in four sums of 101. each, and at this period
it appeared that the defendant acted as secretary and
treasurer to the association, and it was alleged that he
had only accounted fur one of these sums of 10/., and
had appropriated the remaining 301. to his own use.
Mr. Wade, who acted as secretary at the period when
the sum was advanced, proved that fact, and he likewise
stated that the entries of the advance of the two sums
of 20/. which were made on the books of the Mitcham
Society had both been altered to 10/., and he was unable
to give any conjecture by whom the alteration had been
made.

Mr. Dunning, the secretary to the Bookbinders'
Society, proved that at various periods during the
latter end of the year 1844, and the commencement
of 1845, he made four payments of 101. to the defendant,
as secretary of the Mitcham Club, in repayment of the
money that had been advanced by them.
In cross-examination, the witness said that the money
was advanced to assist the men against their masters
during a strike.
Mr. Hill then made some further inquiries as to
whether a sum of 1,500/. had not been expended for the
same object ? but
Mr. Humphries objected, and contended that an in-
quiry of this description was entirely irrelevant, as the
magistrates had nothing to do with the question whether
the society, or the object for which the money was
advanced, was legal or illegal, but the only point at
issue was, whether the defendant had embezzled
the money or not. The magistrates decided that they
should not go into the question of the legality or ille-
gality of the object for which the money was advanced,
but should confine themselves strictly to the question of
embezzlement.

Mr. Hill then said he should have argued that under
the circumstances the bench had no jurisdiction, and
that the charge ought not to be entertained, but as the
bench were of a contrary opinion, he should not, of
course, argue the point.
The MAGISTRATES, after a short deliberation, said they
thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant them
in sending the case for further fnvestigation, but they
should take the personal recognizance of the defendant
in 401., with two sureties in 201. each, for his appearance
re
at the assizes to answer the charge.