The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-07 00:00:00

Mr. HALL remarked that the circumstances of this
case were of a very peculiar nature, differing in an im-
portant respect from those that came b?fore him in the
ordinary way. He sat there to take the side of neither
party, bat merely to discharge:a duty, which he trusted
he should have the firmness to do according to the con-
viction of his mind ; but it should be remembered that
when an ordinary prisoner was brought before him, he
usually proceeded to the investigation of his case in total
ignorance of the particulars of the charge against him,
whilst in the present case he was actually obliged, by the
Act of Parliament, to make himself master of every
fact, as recorded in the depositions, before granting the

warrant.
Mr. Clarkson—ln that respect you have an important
advantage over the prisoner.
Mr. HALL—It might be considered an advantage if it
was the province of the magistrate to connect with his
own the functions of an advocate. Whether he felt dis-
posed, however, to grant a remand, or otherwise, it was
quite clear that in this, as in all other cases, some evi-
dence must be previously taken. The depositions would
be read over to the prisoner, and it would be found thv,
the facts of the case, however massive was the appdai.
ance of the depositions, were comprised in a very narrow

compass.
Mr. Clarkson objected to the admission of the certifi-
cate of the Foreign Secretary of State (before alluded
to) in the absence of proof of Lord Aberdeen's stgna-

ture.
A messenger was consequently dispatched to the pri-
vate secretary of his Lordship, Mr. Dawkins, who at-
tended at a later period of tte afternoon, and identified

the signa,:ure.
Mr. HALL observed that the second clause of the ori-
ginal Act authorised the reception of " copies" of the
depositions, which. it had been held, rendered the pro-
duction of the original copies insufficient. He was net
of this opinion, and Lord Kenyon had held that the
" originals" in such a case were admissible. Still there
were adverse opinions, and he bad, therefore, used both
the copies and the originals for the purposes of this

inquiry.
The depositions, as taken in New York before the Dis-
trict Attorney and Recorder of the City, together with
the certificates accompanying them, were put in and
read. It appeared that on the 15th of April, 1841, a
person, calling himself " Nathaniel Brittain," went to
the prosecutors' office, in Walpole-street, New York,
and produced a certificate of deposit purporting to be
drawn upon the bank of New Orleans for 23,000 Mexi-
can dollars. A cheque for the amount (less 1 per cent.)
was given to him, and afterwards a party, alleged to be
the prisoner, called and received the cash in gold. Other
evidence went to show that a man named Charles Webb,
of Philadelphia, was in concert with him.
John Dieter Poe, clerk to Messrs. Little and Co„ the
prosecutors, deposed that be compared the copies with
the original depositions in the District Attorney's
office at New York. He spoke to the signatnre of the
Recorder to the original certificates, and saw other points
of form.
Cross-examined—Was not present at the examination
of the witness. Was examined himself before the Dis-
tact Attorney (who was the public prosecutor) in his
private office. Witness held no public office in America.
Was not in England in 1843. Came to England in
January, 1845, and gave the documents into the hands
of Mr. Mullins, the solicitor (in England) to the prose-

cutors.
Re-examined—He believed that every effort had been-
since made to apprehend the prisoner.
Mr. Clarkson denied this statement, and expressed his
surprise that such a question should be put to the wit-
ness, who could know nothing at all about it.
The same witness was then examined as to his own
depositions, and repeated the statements made by him
in New York. He recollected cashing the cheque for
23,000 dollars, and identified the prisoner at the bar as-
the person to whom he paid the amount in gold. Tha,!-
prisoner held a bag, into which witness placed the gold-
dropping some sovereigns at the time on the floor. The
prisoner remarked at the time that he (witness) might
.have them if he liked, as he was in a hurry to leave.
Witness thought the prisoner's manner was very extra=
ordinary. •
Cross•examined—Had" not seen the prisoner from
that day (April 15, 1841) up to the present time since
his appearance at the bar. Could positively swear that.
he was the person. He was not altered in his appear-
twee, and talked in a deep tone of voice. No sovereigns
were left upon the floor. Witness picked them all -tp,
and put them in the bag.
Thomas John Sowtow deposed that he was a men-
chant's clerk, living at Bermondsey. He was formerly,..,
in the service of Messrs. Sanders, of the Hull saw-mills.
On the bankruptcy of the firm, in the latter part of 1841,
the premises were taken by the prisoner, Mr. Clinton,
and a Mr. Charles Webb, to whom 1.4 a acted as clerk
until February, 1843. The prisoner was chiefly in
London, but came to Hull when the December balances
were due in 1842. Witness knew the prisoner's hand-
writing. He believed the words in blue ink on the cer-
tificate of deposit were in his handwriting. The signa-
ture " Nathaniel Brittain," written twice at the back of
the document, was in the handwriting of his partner,
Charles Webb.
Cro,s-examined—Had been in one or two situations
since that time as clerk. Mr. Mullins came to witness
upon the subject. Did not expect any remuneration.
Would have scorned to make any such stipulation.
Had never exprecsed a doubt as to the prisoner's hand:
writing upon the document produced. The prisoner
owed witness no money. He always behaved very
honourably to witness.
By Mr. HALL—Clinton never went by any other name
whilst witness knew him.
Mr. Chambers having said that he had no other evi-
dence to offer,
Mr. Clarkson addressed the Bench for the prisoner
declaring that if it was intended that anything like Xis-
tice should be done in this case, a remand must be granted.
lie denounced the species of evidence taken in the Dis-
trict Attorney's private office at New York as of the
most trumpery nature, such as could never be admissi-i
ble in any English court of justice. He concluded, or
again demanding for his client a privilege which would
he conceded to any Englishman—the privilege of clfs-
ptoving the, charges brought thus irregular?), against

him.
Mr. HALL said, although it was not desired of him to
offer an opinion as to the Treaty Act being of a prospective
or retrospective eh.zracter, he could not, as the subject had
been so frequently alluded to, pass it over alto-
gether without remark. lie should not attempt to
decide so grave a question himself, but would
gladly leave in the hands of the Learned Judges, to
whom the case might be submitted, in the event of
ulterior proceedings being taken on behalf of the pri-
soner. Still he was of opinion that there was nuthing in
the clauses of the Act that could be regarded as limiting its
operation to offences occurring after the date thereof;
and he was strengthened in this opinion by the fact Chat
the French treaty contained a clause expressly extending
the operation of the Act to all offences, whether of prior
or subsequent date. With regard to the application
for a remand, he would only say that, looking at the
requisitions of the Treaty Act, and remarking that no
general role could be laid down in such matters (which
must be left to the discretion of the magistrate), he was

bnuad to express himstlf satisfied that such a primci
facie case hail been established by the evidence befoie
him as justified him in taking that course which was
defined by the terms of the treaty between this country
and the United States. It was his duty to allow no'
unnecessary delay to take place, and therefore he shQuld
certify his committal of the prisoner to the Government,
who would act accordingly. It was satisfactory to him
to know that if he had erred his error might be cor-
rected by a higher authority.
Mr. Clarkson applied for a copy of the depositions.
Mr. Ham. said it was unusual to grant such applica-
tions, and therefore refused it.
The case, with its numerous delays, occupied the
whole of the day, to the entire exclusion of all other
business from the court. The other charges were con,
sequently taken by Mr. Twyford in a waiting-room.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A journeyman coppersmith, named Evans,
moned before Mr. Hardwick for breach of
_contractwas u
sum
•
his employer, Mr. Styles, coppersmith, Lisle-street;
Leicester-square.
Mr. Styles proved thU't the defendant entered inttS'
written contract to engage himself for six months, at the
wa :es of 235. weekly. The defendant came to work two
or three days and then left him entirely.
Mr. Pontifex, the coppersmith. said the defendant had
some time previously engaged himself to him for several
months. The railroads made the trade so busy that it
was of importance not to lose the services of even one
man. He hoped the defendant would be obliged to fulfil
his original engagement.
Mr. Styles said he had no vindictive ft cling towards
,he man, who was otherwise a good workman, and when
not drawn away by liquor a steady man. But it was'
important to teach journeymen that they must not, Ator
having engaged themselves to an employer for a st-ifed
'ja', leave their work and upset business with impunity.
Had this been the defendant's first offence of the like
sort he should perhaps have looked over it ; but as the
defendant had done the same before, and had thereby
,et a bad example to others, he had determined to put
the law in force against him.
Mr. Hartnwlcx said, in order to teach him that. he
mast not enter into engagements and break them capri-
ciously, to the great injury of his employers, he would
,end him to prison for one month.
The defendant's solicitor said Mr. Styles would, of
course, pay the man his wages all the time he was in

prison.
Mr. Style-3 said he would do whatever the magistrate
quired.
Mr. ITAnDwicK looked over the Act, and came to the
determination, instead of directing Mr. Styles to pay a
proportionate amount of the wages, of cancelling tile
contract altogether.
The der.ndarit was then committed 0 hard labour for
a month.

TVORS lIIP-STR 6E7'.
Yesterday a young man of the Jewish persuasion,
named JoA,ph Satnuels, was placed at the bar before Mr.
nroughton, charged with having attempted to murder.
Ids brother, Mr. Henry Samuels, a master furrier and
trimming manufacturer, in White Lion-street, Norton!'
folg,ate.
_ _

residence between eleven and twelve o'clock
with siYme
The prosecutor stated, that he returnedtoontdss'
atan
dsy night last, after spriding the evening
frien.ls, and having admitted himself with a latch-key,
the house being entirely closed, observed a candle burn-
ing in the workshop, which was occupied by his brother
as a sleeping apartment, and proceeded there to procure
a light. On entering the room, which was entirely
quiet, ho was astounded at discoverinizdhieszwients wifef and
the prisoner in bed together; they
their appearance, been only just aroused from titseyi; ,Ire
by the abruptness of his entrance. On recovering fr )etit the startling shock produced by ta,•ll Flistressing ,p(if‘
tecle, he ordered them both instantly to. get up and Tali
the house; but his wife objected to leal.snht her
erhobmii3et- a,tt,
such an unseasonable hour, with an in antn at
and requested permission to stay in the kitchen till the