The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-29 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD TRADESMEN.—Edward
John Stevenson, 26, coachmaker, was charged with
conspiring and confederating with another person,
not in custody, by means of divers frauds and de-
vices, to obtain goods and property from different
tradesmen, and to defraud them of the same.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Charnock appeared for tha
prosecution. Mr. Clarkson conducted the case for
the defendant.
It will be recollected that the prisoner was tried at

the last session of this Court for -forgery, arising ou
of the same transactions that were the subject of the
present prosecution. Upon that occasion the prisoner
was charged with uttering a bill of exchange for 691.,
purporting to be accepted by a Captain Cutting, of
Ipswich, to one of the tradesmen from whom he had
obtained goods, and which was dishonoured when it
arrived at maturity. Upon the trial a person was
produced, however, who swore that he was the Cap-
tain Cutting referred to, and that he had accepted the
bill for the prisoner and a person named Williams,
who was now alleged to be his co-defendant, and the
defendant was, in consequence, acquitted.
Mr. John Mallinson, an outfitter, carrying on bu-
siness in the Minories, proved that in the month of
May last, an elderly person, who represented his
name to be Williams, accompanied by the defendant,
who, he said, was his son, came to his warehouse and
told him that he had taker, a shop for the defendant in
the Minories, and they looked out goods to the value
of between 801. and 901., which were sent home, and
201. was paid on account, and no more money could
be obtained. Ultimately, after a good deal of pressing,
a bill of exchange for 691., accepted by Captain Cut-
ting, of Ipswich, was given for the balance, but when
the bill became due, no such person could be found,
and the goods were never paid for, and he found that
the shop in the Minories, occupied by the prisoner
and Williams was shut up, and that the parties had
decamped, leaving nothing behind but " dummies"
(bales filled with saw-dust and shavings). An old
established shop opposite to that occupied by the pri-
soner and his companion was kept by a person named
I Williams.
Mr. Robert Popplewell, an outfitter in St. Mary-
axe, proved that under similar circumstances he fur-
nished goods to the amount of 41/. to the defendant
and Williams. ,He was induced to send the goods in
consequence of the representation that the order came
from Mr. Williams, of 185, Ratcliffe-highway, who
was the person referred to by the last witness, and
who was known to be a respectable tradesman.
John Priest, the porter to Mr. Popplewell, proved
the delivery of the goods, and that the prisoner told
him his name was `Williams.
John Hissev, in the service of Messrs. Flashmen
and Co., of Nlanchester, proved that he saw the
prisoner at the shop occupied by him and Williams,
and in the course of conversation he represented him •
self to be Williams, and said that the shop opposite, to
which he pointed, was also his. Believing the pri-
soner's representations, goods to the amount of 281.
were furnished to him. He gave a reference to Mr.
Popplewell, of Cateaton-street.
Mr. Thomas Williams, the person referred to by
the prisoner and his companion, deposed that he knew
nothing of the prisoner, or the other person. Witness
was acquainted with Mr. Popplewell, Cateaton-street.
Mr. Peter Popplewell deposed, that upon inquiry
being made of him regarding the respectability of Mr.
Williams, of the Minories, he gave his opinion that
he was very respectable, of course at the time imagin-
ing that the inquiry referred to his friend Mr. Thos.
Williams.
Some other evidence of the same description having
been adduced, Mr. CLARK.S.ON addressed the Jury for
the defendant.
The RECORDER then summed up, and a verdict of
guilty was returned.
The RECORDER said there was some reason to sup-
pose that the prisoner had, to a certain extent, been
made the tool of other parties, and therefore the sen-
tence would not be so severe as it would have been
under other circumstances. Where, however, such
offences as these were proved, it was absolutely neces-
sary that adequate punishment should. follow ; and the
sentence, therefore, was, that he be imprisoned in the
Penitentiary for nine calendar months.