The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-19 00:00:00

Some papers had been found upon the prisoner,
when he was apprehended, which Mr. Curling ob-
jected to allow to be read, as they had nothing to do
with the case.
The LORD MAYOR said if he considered there was
any doubt about the question of the forgery, he cer-
tainly should look at the letters for satisfaction, but
he thought it was quite unnecessary.
The prisoner was then remanded.
KENSINGTON.
Mr. T. PAYNTER, the sitting Magistrate, on Sa-
turday gave his decision in a case respecting the lia-
bility of pleasure-vans to the payment of a larger toll
than that charged for glass-coaches, &c., licensed
under the Post-horse Duties Act, and also to the
payment of a back toll. The case was fully argued
before that Magistrate about a fortnight ago, by Mr.
Ballantyne, the barrister, on the part of the van pro-
prietors, and by Mr. Chambers, the barrister, on the
part of the defendant, Frederick "Wright, toll-col-
lector at the Black Lion gate, Notting-hill ; and the
Magistrate, after quoting and explaining at great
length the clauses of the various Acts of Parliament
bearing on the question, said he was firmly of opinion
that, taking into consideration all the facts of the
case as they had appeared before him, by the evidenCe
of the witnesses, and the arguments of the Learned
Counsel on both sides, he was decidedly of opinion
that the only amount of toll to which such vans were
liable was that of 6d.—a similar toll to that paid for
glass-coaches.
gave notice
of,
an onthapeppeaarltagofaintlslet
the decision.
CROYDON., _ _ _

Mr. James Atkins, jun., a gentleman who has been
carrying on with his father an extensive business as
a lime-burner, at Coulsdon, for many years, was
brought up on a warrant obtained by Mr. C. Smith,
an ironmonger, at Croydon, charged with being con-
cerned in the uttering of a bill of exchange, bearing
a forged acceptance, with intent to defraud the pro-
secutor.
Mr. It. Russell, of Croydon, and a clerk from the
office of Mr. Flower, attended on behalf of the ac-
cused party.
The case, from the respectability of the prisoner,
and his station in life, created a great deal of interest,
and the Court was crowded during the investigation.
Mr. CURRIE when the warrant was produced, ad-
dressed his brother Magistrates,. and explained, that
,
Mr. Smith, the prosecutor, had originally applied to
him for a warrant against the prisoner and his father
upon the charge of forgery. the father was subse-
quently taken into custody,. and underwent an ex-
amination upon that charge before him and another
Magistrate • but, after hearing the evidence that was
adduced, they did not think it was• sufficient to war-
rant them in committing him to prison. At that ex-
amination a bill of exchange, bearing an acceptance'
which was proved to be a forgery, was produced,
and Mr. Atkins, jun., was now brought forward to
answer for his connexion with that bill of exchange.
Mr. C. Smith was then sworn, and Mr. CuaatE
called upon him to produce the forged instrument.
Mr. Smith said he had not got it.
Mr. CURRIE inquired what had become of it ? Mr.
Smith replied that he did not know anything about
it; but he believed it had been destroyed.
Mr. CURRIE asked if the amount had been paid to
him for the bill? Mr. Smith said it had not.
Mr. CURRIE—Then you do not produce the instru-
mith-1 have not got it. I am very
a moment of anger at finding that I
pay Ple bill, owing to the acceptors
not having honoured it, that I got the warrant against
smwoaersrnyt ?obtilliAr.glterdi t 9.
nS
these gentlemen.
Mr. CURRIE, then addressing Mr. Smith, told him
that he' had come forward, in the first instance, to
make a charge of forgery, and he produced an instru-
ment which was sworn to be forged, and now he
thought proper to say that he did not know what had
become of it. In his opinion this amounted to com-
pounding a felony, and he doubtel whether it did not
even make him an accessory after the fact to the felony.
Mr. Smith declared that he never saw the bill after
the examination of Mr. Atkins, sen.
Mr. Sydney Penfold, one of the clerks to the
Bench, said he could contradict this statement, for he
remembered distinctly placing the instrument in his

hands. -- .._
Mr. CURRIE suggested that Mr. Penfold should be
sworn to this fact, and this was accordingly done, and
his deposition was taken. down.
.could not be gone on with.
Mr. Penfoldw,ilslehing.,
tsealpdretdhuateeasthMe rinSstmrhitmhednitd, notthe
said the charge of forgery must of
course be dropped,
chargeap
llp ei
ra
.r
ctoofu 1
forgerytbneiE
but the Bench would go on and
hear what evidence could be adduced, in order to see
compounding a felony. The Bench
whether they ought not to give instructions to indict
Mr. Sniith for
would not allow itself to be trifled with in this manner.
that he and Mr. William Arnold had been in business
then sworn, and he deposed
asnot now partners. They
l‘b
'Luc; dlelres:ry butS talyleyN.Vas were
formerly had transactions with the Messrs. Atkins,
but had ceased to do so for the last three years.
Mr. CURRIE—DO you remember upon the exami-
nation of Mr. Atkins, sell.,
481. was produced, puiporting to be accepted by Henry
Say and William Arnold ? that a bill of exchange for
Mr. CURRIE—Was that acceptance in your hand-
writing or that of your Witness—l do.
partner ? Witness—lt was I
not mine, but I cannot say it was not my partner's.
Mr. CURRIE—Do you mean to swear that you do
not know whether it was written by your partner or
not ? Witness—le,don' t believe it was written by him.
Mr. CtinniE----Ilien,
why did you not say so at
first. It was sworn, positively, at the former exami-
nation, that the acceptance was a forgery.
The Bench then consulted together, after which, the
CHAIRMAN said, that as the alleged forged instrument
was not forthcoming, Mr. Atkins must be discharged,
but heat tht saM.e_time said that copies of all the de-
positions would be forwarded to the Home-office, in
order that the Secretary of State might decide whe-
ther any ulterior Proceedings should be adopted.

ATTEMPT TO MURDER. AT A
the life of
MARRIAGE FEAST.
Guillaume Bourbon was charged with having at-
temptedwhich the prisonerstoodcharged was committed under
extraordinary circumstancesLaborie. :
Jean Laborie, a
relat, in the,
commune of Cussac, with Catherine
Laborie, his sister, and the prisoner, his brother-in-
farmer, aged 25, resided at Nig•
law... Bourbon managed the affairs, and received the
For h
monies. He
Le last two years Jean Laborie had
been paying his had also acted as tutor to his brother-
in-law.addresses to a young woman named
Marguerite Merle ; and it was believed that the union
would combine all the convenances of both age and
fortune. The prisoner, however, did everything in
his power to prevent, or at least to retard the match,
and employed
a person to endeavour to turn Laborie
from his project. In this feeling of opposition it ap-
peared that he b
-all two motives—one of hatred, and
the other of ea
feeling towards merle the girl's father, by whom he
fancied he had been
cupidity. Ile had, in fact, an inimical
wronged; and he feared that 1
father-in-law
after the marriage Laborie would be induced by his
had been heard to gay, .
:‘,. ri reference to the affair—
to ask. for a division of property. He
" If that bete
The Projectecolfmatih•
and on the Cith of' May
marries- 'thie girl Merle I shall have to
bell two c's ; and if he does so he shall pay for it."
The -opposition
futile. was almost concluded,
reiagleirisoner was, however,
by some mutual friends, repaired to Cussac for the
the two families, accompanied
'purpose of concluding the contract. Bourbon went
also, but took no l-It in the business of the day,
keeping by himself, and confining his remarks to ex-
pressions of
public-house, he dashed a glass down upon the table
discontent. In a fit of excitement, at a
" They will marry, will they ? Well, I will give
them nothing; pll
The contract was, however, completed; the two •
families returned home to the village, and assembled
go to law first."

said the omission was an accident, and it should be
rectified. The prisoner returned on the 29th of Au-
gust, and produced the bill, accepted as it new ap-
peared to be, by Gaze and Co. Witness then took
the bill in discharge of the account, and handed over
to him the balance of 1/. 16s. 4d. The bill purported
to be drawn by a person named .Reinhard.
Henry Gage stated that he was a member of the
firm of Gage and Co. The partnership with John
Onions was dissolved on the 17th of June, in the Ga-
zette (which was produced). The prisoner's real name
was Michael Onions. The bill was not accepted by
witness, or by any person authorised by him in the
firm. Witness never saw Reinhard, the drawer, but
understood that he was a potboy at Garland's, in
Sharpe's-buildings, in the Minories. Witness had no
doubt that the name of William Smith on the bill was
the handwriting of the prisoner, whose writing he had
seen.

On cross-examination witness said the prisoner had
made engines for the establishment, and witness had
drawn two bills upon him, which he accepted, as the
demand for the erection of the engines had been over-
drawn. Those demands had been paid in sums of 81.
and 101. at a time. The prisoner had never accepted
any other bills of accommodation or otherwise for
I witness. Ile knew, within a few days, that the pri-
soner was an uncertificated bankrupt and an outlaw.
Witness had received, since the commencement of the
present proceedings, a notice signed by Mr. Curling
and John Onions, stating that the propriety of dis-
solving the partnership was disputed. No one had
been authorised to accept for the firm.
Mr. Curling submitted that there must be proof
not only to negative the signature, but to show that
authority was not given by some one of the partners.
The Loan MAYou said that the defence seemed to
be upon the authority which the prisoner received to
accept the bill. If that were the case; why did he not
write down the words "by procuration ?" Nothing
of the kind was done, but he absolutely signed for the
firm.