The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-04 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

The fourth sessions of the present mayoralty was
opened yesterday with the usual ceremonies, by the
Lord Mayor, the Recorder, and Alderman Hughes
Hughes, &c.
The grand jury having been sworn in, the Recorder
proceeded to address them :—The number of prisoners,
he stated, was 161, but it was more than probable that
an addition would be made to the Calender ere the week
would be over. Among the charges were several of a
very serious nature, not less than three of rape, and in
every case the object of attack did not exceed the age of
fourteen years. Two of those cases, it appeared to him,
required further investigation than the evidence which
would be adduced would afford them. There was, also,
a charge of sending a threatening letter, the circum-
stances of which clearly brought it within the operation
of the statute. The writer threatened, that unless cer-
tain sums of money were given, the house of the person
addressed would be set on fire. There was a very grave
charge against a husband for having administered poison
to his wife. He would not anticipate the case by enter-
ing into particulars, but it was decidedly a misdemeanour,
and it would require their closest attention. It would
be trespassing at too great length upon their time did he
particularise all the charges which he thought of suf-
ficient importance to merit special consideration. On
any point, however, that would arise, the Court would
be happy to give its opinion ; and with these brief re-
marks he would dismiss them to their important duties.
At the conclusion of the Recorder's address the Lord
Mayor left the Court.
The petit juries were then sworn.
William Hunt, 29, was indicted for feloniously forging
an undertaking for the payment of 1,739/. 10s., with in-
tent to defrand Thomas Rogers.
In another count the prisoner was charged with steal-
ing the instrument, well knowing at the time that it was
forged.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Doane conducted the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Uumfrey and Mr. Crouch defended the
prisoner.
The circumstances under which the charge was made
against the prisoner were of rather a complicated cha-
racter, and the case will be much better understood by
the narrative of the Learned Counsel for the prosecution.
Mr. Clarkson, in opening the :case, said that he must
admit that the prosecutor came before the jury with a
character very considerably tainted by suspicion, and he
went on to say that he was the same party who, some
years ago, upon coming, as a bankrupt, before the Court
of Bankruptcy, represented that he had lost a sum of
12,0001. is sovereigns, and his conduct, and the answers
he gave to the Commissioners upon this subject were
considered so unsatisfactory, that he was eventually com-
mitted to Newgate, and he then paid the whole of his
creditors in full. He admitted that this was a very dis-
creditable transaction but he said that if the jury should
be satisfied by the evidence he had to lay before them
that the defendant had committed the offence imputed to
him, that circumstance ought not to influence them in
their verdict ; and he observed at the same time that it
was very possible that a wicked man, being aware of the
former conduct of the prosecutor, might have been in-
duced to set ap this false claim, in the expectation that
the prosecutor would rather pay the amount than have
his name again dragged before the public. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to state the circumstances out of
which the indictment arose. The prisoner, his father
Reuben, and an older brother, also named Reuben,
carried on the business of machinists, and the prose-
cutor had had money transactions with them for a great
many years, and was in the habit of advancing
them money by discounting bills of exchange,
aed they became indebted to him in a very consi-
derable amount. The prisoner's father and his brother
became bankrupt, and in the month of October, 1840,
some proceedings took place in the Court of Bankruptcy
respecting their affairs. The prisoner subsequently
carried on the business, and he eventually also became
bankrupt, having previously had a very considerable sum
of money advanced to him by the prosecutor. Matters
went on in this way until in February, 1844, the prose-
cutor received an application from an attorney, ou behalf
of the prisoner, demanding the sum of 5001. 11s. 4d. al-
leged to be due to him from the prosecutor, and the next
day a writ for that amount was served upon him. The
necessary proceedings were then taken to obtain a bill of_
the particulars of the prisoner's claim, and upon this
being obtained, it was found that instead of 5001. lie. 4d.
the prisoner made out that the prosecutor owed him no
less a sum than 2,9471. 16s. lid. for principal and inte-
rest. The sum was alleged to arise from bills of ex-
change endorsed by the prosecutor, and from an I. 0. U.
for 1,7391. 10s., dated October 6, 1840, and another for
409/. bearing the same date, and the interest made up
the amount. The prosecutor was satisfied that these
documents were all forgeries, and he pleaded to that
effect, and the trial came on at the Kingston Lent
Assizes of 1844, when the bills of exchange and the
L 0. U. for 4001. were produced, but after the trial had
gone to some length, the Lord Chief Justice suggested
that the matter should be referred to arbitration. No
decision, therefore, was come to on that occa-
sion, but after the matter was ordered to
be referred, the prosecutor found great dif-
ficulty in getting the prisoner to go before
the arbitrator; but he at length did so, and in conse-
quence of what then occurred, the arbitrator unfolded
the documents that were produced on behalf of the
prisoner's claim, and it was discovered that the date of
the I. 0. U. for 1,739/. 10s, which originally purported
to bo October 6, 1840, had been altered to the 19th July,
1843, the reason for this alteration, no doubt, being
to avoid the difficulty of having the two I. R U.'s the
same date, it being very improbable that the prosecutor
should have given two separate documents of such a de-
scription on the same day. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to say, that at the time when the prisoner
alleged that he had advanced this large sum of money
to the prosecutor, he should be able to show that he
was in a state of the utmost poverty and distress, and
that he had been in the habit of borrowing small sums
of money from the prosecutor, and upon one occasion
he sent to him for a loan of 305., to enable him to re-
deem some goods that had been seized by the sheriff.
Upon this occasion it appeared the prosecutor wrote to
the prisoner, and during the proceedings connected
with the action this letter was produced on behalf of
the prisoner, and it was made to appear, by the con-
cluding paragraph in it, that the prosecutor had said,
" I will pay you shortly 1" Ho should, however, be able
to prove that the expression really made use of by the
prosecutor in the letter was, " I will see you shortly ; "
but the word "see" had been erased, and the word " pay"
substituted for it. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to state sonic other circumstances in support of the case
for the prosecution, and in the course of his observa-
tions he expressed his opinion that if the charge rested
solely upon the evidence of the prosecutor, be could not
hope to obtain a verdict; but he said he should be able
so far to confirm his testimony, as he apprehended
would leave very little doubt that the prisoner had
really committed the offence imputed to him.
Thomas Rogers, the prosecutor, was then examined.
He described himself as a bill broker, and his residence
No. 19, Gloucester-terrace, Mile-end, Old-town. Ho
said there had been various transactions relative to
money advanced by him to the prisoner and his family,
but he swore positively that he never owed the prisoner
any money, and that all the documents above referred
to were forgeri:s. He also swore positively that the ex-
pression used by him in his letter to the prisoner was—
" I will see you shortly," and that the word " see" had
been altered to " pay." He likewise expressed his opi-
nion that the forged documents were in the handwriting
of the prisoner.
The prosecutor underwent a very severe cress-exami-
nation by Mr. lIUMFREY, and he stated that he was a
bankrupt in 1838, and that he was made a bankrupt by
a " friendly" commission. He declared that his real
debts at that time wore not more than 200/., but the
amount he claimed to be discharged from was 3,000/.,
and he said that he was in a condition at that time to
have paid the amount, and have 20,000/. left. He always
intended, he said, to pay his debts in full, but he did not
pay them until after he was committed to Newgate. It
was quite true that he was robbed of 12,0001., and he
had 20,000/. left after that happened. The Court of
Bankruptcy was not satisfied with his account of the
transaction, or the answers he gave, and committed him
to Newgate ; and, in about 27 or 28 days afterwards, he
paid his debts in full, and the Commission of Bankruptcy
was superseded, and he obtained his liberty. He said
that lie never received any portion of the 12,000 k that
he lost, and he added, that he very much regretted that
transaction, and had done so ever sinee.
millH-etliensaid
that he was concerned in a paper
occu-
pied by the prisoner's father in 1826, which
was burned down in 1829, and 2,3001. were re-
ceived from the insurance-office, but he lost 4,0001. by
the transaction. He also said that his own wife's father
had occupied a mill at Southmolton, which was also
burned down, he believed, in 1839 or 1840. This mill
was not insured by him, but he admitted it was insured
by his father-in law. He had a mortgage of I,oook on
the prisoner's factory at Woburn. It was insured for
2,000/. in the Phu:nix office. That mill was also burned
down, but witness did not get any part of the money.
He had a mortgage of 1,0001. upon another mill occu-
pied by the prisoner in Berner's-street, which was also
burned down; and he a :ded that he had no doubt the
prisoner himself caused the fire. He said he had re-
ceived part of the money for which this last property
was insured, but the fire-office resisted the claim for the
remainder, and be had brought an action to recover the
amount, which now stood for trial. Ile denied that he had
any interest in a mill that was occupied by the prisoner's
other at Bermondsey, or that he had anything to do

with insuring it ; but, on being pressed, he admitted
that he had advanced a sum of 111. to the prisoner's
father, which he understood was to be employed in part
payment of the premium for the insurance, and that this
mill was afterwards destroyed by fire.

In answer to a question from the RECORDER, the wit-
ness positively declared the whole of the documents re-
ferred to to be forgeries; and he said that he never, on any
occasion, put his name to any dooument for the purpose
of giving a fictitious credit to the prisoner.
Evidence was then adduced in confirmation of the
deposition of the prosecutor, and it was proved that the
prisoner was in indigent circumstances, and not likely
to have been able to advance so large a sum of money.
It was also proved by his letters that he had borrowed,
at different times, small sums of money from the prose-
cutor. The fact of the date of the L 0. U. for 1,7391. being
originally Oct. 6, 1840, and that it was afterwards altered
to July 19, 1843, was likewise proved; aiTtl a great num-
ber of respectable witnesses—clerks in different banks—
were called, all of whom expressed a confident opinion
that the signatures to the I. 0. U.'s and the bills of ex-
change were not the handwriting of the prosecutor. In
the course of the case the prosecutor was asked to write
his name on a piece of paper, and he did so. This ge-
nuine signature was shown to one of the witnesses who
was called to speak to the handwriting, and he expressed
his opinion that it was net the prosecutor's writing.
Another witness also made the same statement. Some
of these witnesses, on being cross-examined, admitted
that there was a very great resemblance to the pro-
secutor's writing in the alleged forgery ; and one of
them, a banker's clerk, who had been in the habit of
paying the prosecutor's cheques, said that, with regard
to one or two of the bills of exchange, if he had seen the
same signature to a cheque, he should have passed it.
Mr. HUMFREY made a very able address to the jury.
commenting in strong terms upon the character of the
prosecutor, and contending that inasmuch as there was
very trifling, if any, corroboration of his testimony, the
jury were bound, oven upon the admission of the counsel
for the prosecutor, to acquit the prisoner.
The RECORDER, before he proceeded to sum up, said
he thought it would be as well if he asked the jury to
give an opinion whether the forgery was proved.
The jury deliberated a short time, when the foreman
said that the jury, after a very careful consideration of
the evidence, were nut satisfied that the signatures bad
been clearly proved to be forged, and, as they thought
the evidence not sufficient to make out the fact, they
should give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt that ex-
isted in their minds, and acquit him.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly returned.
Mr. CLARKSON said there was another indictment
against the prisoner for the forgery of the L 0. U. for
4001., but as the facts were precisely the same as in the
last case, he should no; offer any evidence upon that in•
dictment.

The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
Mr. CLARKSON then applied for the expenses.
The RECORDER said that the case was one of a very
serious nature, and involved consequences of great im-
portance to the public. It was a very proper one to be
investigated, and as the prosecutor had shown his sin-
cerity in the matter by placing himself in the witness-
box to be publicly examined, and as the jary had not
gone to the extent of declaring that no forgery had been
committed, but merely that the evidence was not suffi-
cient to warrant them in coming to that conclusion, the
Court would grant the expenses.