The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-20 00:00:00

(Before Mr. Justice EaLit.)
Henry Smith, a little boy of only 9 years of age, was
indicted for having, on the 24th of November last, at the
parish of Strensall, feloniously set fire to a stack of
barley straw, the property of William Lund.
Mr. Dearsley conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Overend defended the prisoner.
It appeared that Mr. Lund is a farmer at Ifaxby, near
York, and on the day in question was gone to the city of
Tork. On his return, in the evening, he found that a
stack of straw had been set fire to. It was so near to
some other stacks as to require some pains to prevent
them from catching fire also. Mrs. Britton, a neighbour,
had seen the boy go into the stack-yard, and stoop down
by the stack, and very shortly atter there was a blaze,
and the boy ran away quickly. Mrs. Lund immediately
went out and met the prisoner in the street. She told
him that the stack was on fire, and he only said "Is it?"
She then told him to go for the " navvies " (some men
working on the railway). He went off and brought
tht m, and they succeeded in putting out the fire, and
preventing the other stacks from catching. The wind
was in an opposite direction, or the other stacks would
have been much damaged.
John Creaser, a constable, asked the boy " how he
came to do it?" He replied that "he took a lucifer-

match from the mantel-piece, drew it across his trousers,
and set fire to the stack."

Mr. OTEREND, for the prisoner, said that it appeared
there had been a quantity of loose straw very nigh to
the stick in question, and no doubt the boy had set that
on fire, not with any felonious intention fur mischief,
but in order to make a bonfire, bonfire-day having been
only a few days before.

His LORDSEIIP, in charging the jury, said, in referring
to the youth of the prisoner, that children under the
age of seven years were presumed by the law to be in-
capable of committing crime, and that between the age
of seven and that of fourteen the presumption would
still remain the same, but that in the case of children
above seven the presumption of innocence might be re-
butted by positive evidence of guilt. They were to say
here, whether they thought there was such cogent evi-
dence against the prisoner as to lead them to the belief
that he had some evil design in setting fire to the stack.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, Acquitted
the prisoner, who was discharged, after a suitable ad-
monition from the Learned Judge as to his conduct for
the future.

Tho ashises terminated at a late hour this evening.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL and Mr. Baron
ALDERSON.)
THE FORGERY ON THE BANK OF NORWAY.—Knut
Bull, 29, described as an artist, and Peter Schmidt, 39.
who was stated to be a merchant, were jointly indicted
under the statute fur having unlawfully in their posses-
sion a block of brass, upon a hich was engraved a por
lion of a promissory note or order for the payment of
money, purporting to be a note of a foreign state—to wit,
the kingdom of Norway.
There were upwards of thirty counts in the indict-
ment, varying in different respects the precise form of
the ch mg., and in some of the counts there was given
an impression from the alleged fraudulent engraving.
Mr. Clarks with Mr. B•Akin, conducted the prose-
cution ; Mr. Doane appeared for the prisoner Bull, and
Mr. Ballantine defended Schmidt.
The trial occupied the Court a great many hours, but
as the facts have very recently been detailed, it will not
br necessary to give the evidence of each witness in
full. It am), ared that the prosecution was instituted by
the Bank of Norway, which corporation, it was alleged,
wcs attempted to be defrauded by the act of forgery
imputed to the prisoners. It would seem that the com-
mencement of the transaction was at Stockholm in August,
in which city the prisoners were seen together, and
Bull was there seen in possession of a Norway bank-
note for one hundred dollars, which, it would appear,
was the amount of the notes that were intended to be
forged; and Bull was then traced from the city of Stock-
holm to London, where he arrived in the beginning of
September, and took an apartment in Gloucester-street,
Queen-square, Bloomsbury. It was then proved, that
immediately after his arrival in England, the prisoner
Bull exerted himself to get paper of a particular descrip-
tion, such as was used fur the genuine Norway bank-
notes, and that he also employed a wire-maker to pro-
vide the necessary apparatus to make the water-mark ;
and, in order to lull the suspicions of those who were
engaged in the transaction, it was cunningly contrived
that the ward " lottery " should be introduced, but in
such a manner that it could be omitted when the plate
was finally worked off. To show the connexion the pri-
soner Schmidt had with the transaction, it was proved
that when he was taken into custody, a letter was found
in his possession, signed Henry Klemford, which very
clearly came from the prisoner Bull, and in which he
addressed him in the most familiar terms, and detailed
all his proceedings in England, of course in ambiguous
terms, but very clearly referring to the particular trans-
action. He expressed himself very anxious to see his
friend, for he said that " London was very dull, and
he could not tell how Englishmen amused themselves,"
and evinced great anxiety for his friend (Schmidt) to
come to England to join him. An answer to this letter
was found in the possession of the prisioner Bull, and it
appeared that, very shortly afterwards, Schmidt arrived I
in London, and took up his abode in another part of the
same house occupied by Bull. It was then shown that
the prisoners went together to the engrayer's, and the
other parties concerned in providing the plates and the
paper, and upon the final proceeding, when Bull ob
tained possession of the plate upon which a portion of
the note was engraved, they were both taken into cus-
tody by John Forrester and his brother, and upon
searching Bull, several portions of a genuine note were
-found in his possession, as well as the plate in question ;
and upon searching the lodgings, a genuine one hundred
dollar note was found, but some portions had been cut
from it, and the omissions were supplied by the pieces of
paper found upon the prisoner Bull.
The Learned Counsel for the prisoners addressed the
jury on their behalf, but did not call any witnesses.
Chief Justice TINDAL summed up, and the jury re-
tired at a quarter to seven o'clock. They were absent
about ten minutes, when they again came into Court,
and returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners.
Mr. DOANE said, on behalf of the prisoner Bull, he
believed the prosecutors would say that he was the least
guilty party in the transaction.

Mr. BODKIN could only say that it was believed that
Schmidt was the principal in the transaction.
Chief Justice Thp ". said he could only look at the

the ethers had sticks. Before
.going spt o the house,
they all, by direction of the prisoner, pulled off their
shirts, and they put them over their other clothes. The
prisoner then blackened all their faces ; that he did with
some soot which he had in his pocket. When they
knocked at the door a person came to open it, and then
Robinson and Thompson rushed into the house. One of
them struck Mr. Marshall as they went in. The pri-
soner did not go in at all, as he said he was known there.
He stayed outside to prevent any one from leaving the
place. Witness seized Mr. Marshall by the throat and
threw him over his knee. He took 225. from one of the
prosecutor's pockets, and three sovereigns from another,
and held him till Batchelor and Thompson
came and helped to secure him. Batehelor held
the man-servant, and he and Thompson tied Mr.
Marshall's legs and hands and those of the man-ser •
vant. Thompson demanded her money from the woman.
She said she bad no money except an American cent,
which she begged him to let her have, and he allowed
her to keep it. The woman asked witness to turn
her master over, as he lay in such a form as not to be
able to breathe. He did accordingly turn him over
on his side. There was a double barrelled gun in the
house, which Robinson took, and told Mr. Marshall it
was a pretty thing he had got there, at the same
time adding that if he (Mr. Marshall) looked in
his face he would blow his brains out. Thompson asked
Mr. Marshall for his money. He replied that he had no
more money, but Thompson said that he had, and would
make him tell where it was. The short gun they had
was broken in beating the man-servant. One of them,
he thinks Thompson, struck him several times with it.
Witness, Thompson, and Batchelor went up stairs. They
there opened a small box. That was done with a small
chisel. They bad five sovereigns and twenty-two shil-
lings from the house, and this money they divided. Wit-
ness carried the broken gun as they came away, threw
the barrel over a bridge of the railway going into
Howden, and threw the rest of the piece into a pond.
They then came to York, and the prisoner went to his
own home. Lonsdale, Debney, Cant, and Williams
have all been transported for this offence. None of them
were engaged in it. It was from a prisoner in gaol at
Beverley that he heard of their being transported, and
that each had been sent for 20 years.
On cross-examination by Mr. BLANCHARD, the wit-
ness said that he was in that gaol on a charge of felony.
Had also been in Northallerton gaol for felony. Had
turned King's evidence several times before. Had been
engaged, not in 20, but in about 12 or 13 robberies, and
was in two robberies at Thirsk. Did not expect to be
better, but rather to be worse, for giving all his evidence
against others. Had informed against the prisoner only
that innocent men should not suffer.
Jane Holden was called for the purpose of corroborat-
ing Haytborn. Her evidence, however, did not connect
the prisoner with the transaction, except so far as re-
lated to the prisoner hauing been at her house, as stated
by the accomplice, and his leaving the house along with
the others, in the manner he had spoken to.
His LORDSHIP expressed his doubt whether this were
sufficient corroborution of the man's testimony. There
appeared to be reason to believe that the roan's account
was not without foundation as to his having been one of
those who had committed the deed. But all that might
be well credited, and yet without sufficient corroboration
of,that part of his evidence which went to connect another
with the transaction. Tho Learned Judge, therefore,
held that there had not been evidence enough to impli-
cate the prisoner in the robbery.
The jury were so directed, for, although his Lordship
told them they might convict if they thought it discreet
to do so, on the unsupported evidence of an accomplice,
it was a thing which juries were never in the habit of
doing.—Acquitted.
The Learned Counsel for the prosecuion informed his
Lordship, that in consequence of the stat-ments made by
the accomplice, the magistrates were anxious that this
case should have full investigation. If what Haythorn
said were the truth, undoubtedly the four other men
transported were innocent of the charge they were tried
upon. The prosecutor, on their trial, had identified
two of them, and his female servant had identified the
two others. They had said, too, that there were but
four men in the house. If what the accomplice now re-
lated were the fact, they must have been wrong. He
said there were himself and four men besides. From
the number of details into which he had entered, and the
particulars connected with the interior of the house, it
appeared there must be truth in his story, if not to con-
vict the prisoner, at least to raise much doubt as to the
conviction of the four men.
His LORDSHIP expressed a view quite in accordance
with Mr. Overend's remarks.