The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-20 00:00:00

CHESTER ASSIZES.-YESTERDAY.

CROWN COURT
EMBEZZLEMENT.

Richard - Blundell was again indicted for embezzling two
sums of money—one of £362, and the other £4B7,—the pro-
perty of Sir T. S. M. Stanley, Bart., his master.
Mr. JERVIS (in the absence of the Attorney-General,)
stated the case. The prisoner had been steward to Sir
Thomas since 1829 the money was received on the account
of his master, and applied to his own use. It was the habit
of the prisoner to go to Congleton or Warford, early in
April, to collect the rents. It had been the practice of Sir
Thomas to direct the prisoner to pay into Messrs. Williams
and Granville's bank £5OO for his use during Chester races.
The prisoner, in the month of May, told Sir Thomas he had
paid this money into the bank ;. but it was afterwards dis-
covered that instead of paying cash into the bank, he bad
only sent £l5 into the bank, and a bill for £487 ; and the
note for this latter sum was drawn on Henry Hayes and Co.,
a fictitious firm, and indorsed " for procuration, Sir Thomas
Stanley." Blundell professed in his book to hive received
the sum of £l,OOO from Congleton, from which £5OO was
deducted under a pretence that it was paid into the bank.
Sir Thomas gave the prisoner a cheque for £362 to pay Mr.
Ridley for three hundred sheep ; but Sir Thomas had for-
gotten tcrsign his name to the cheque ; yet, as the bankers
knew that the cheque was in the handwriting of Sir Thomas,
they paid the prisoner the money. It afterwards turned out
that only a promisory note, in the name of Sir Tjiomas
Stanley, for the payment of the money, was sent to Mr.
Ridley. On Mr. Humberston, solicitor, going to the pri-
soner, and charging him with having defrauded Sir Thomas,
he acknowledged that he had defrauded his master to the
amount of £37,000 ; and he craved the mercy of Sir Thomas
in a letter which he sent to him.

Mr. CorriNGHAisi called the first witness, Thomas Hayes,
who deposed,----I am the son of Sir Thomas Stanley's land
agent. I accompanied the prisoner in April, 1833, to receive
the rents : he received at Warford, about four or five hun-
dred pounds ; and at Congleton about £603. I made the
entries in the tenants' book from Mr. BlUndell's book.

Sir Thomas Stanley deposed.—The prisoner has been my
steward from the year 1829: It was his duty to receive my
rents, and pay nearly all my expenses. Before this transac-
tion I never knew that my accounts were paid in promissory ,
notes. In April last, on the return of the prisoner from
Congleton, I asked him if he had paid as usual £3OO into
the Chester Bank. I meant the money I wanted for my use
at the races. I never heard of the note in the bank until
the 24th of May, and I never gave him authority to indorse
it. I have a large farm in my own hands", and deal largely
in sheep. In 1838 I purchased sheep from Mr. Ridley and
Mr. Scott. I asked the prisoner to write for Mr. Ridley's
account, and he afterwards told me he had got it, £362. I
requested him to remit the same to Mr. Ridley immediately,
and gave him a cheque on the Chester Bank. I filled the
body up in my own handwriting, but forgot to sign it. (It'
was indorsed by the prisoner, per procuration, Sir. Thomas
Stanley.)—A promissory note was produced by Mr. Ridley,
which had been sent by the prisoner to him.—Witness: I
never authorised the prisoner to sign this note, or send it to
Mr. Ridley.
Cross-examined by Mr. TEMME.---The prisoner was the.
receiver of all my rents, and there was an account kept be;
tween us ; there was no final settlement, and it is an open
account now. I have examined the account-book, but can-
not tell what was the state of the accounts on the 4th April.
I did not give any spedific directions tO pay the race account
in the bank last year ; but I asked the prisoner had he paid
it, and he replit,d he had. I have examined my pass-book
with the Chester Bank, from which it appears that some
bills have been paid to my account. Ido not recollect draw-
ing money• orders on the Liverpool Bank. I wrote to Mr.
Ridley, for the sheep, and the cheque I gave was in'
Blundell's name. When I gave Blundell the cheque, I did
not tell him to get a bill for it. After the prisoner was in-
fotmed of the defalcation, he paid about £6OO on niyaccounti
Mr. Jas. Sthith..-1 am clerk to MesSrs.'Williams; Gran:
ville, and Co. I remember the prisoner, on the 12th April
last, presenting a cheque for :C362 for payment. It was not
signed by Sir Thoinas Stanley. The prisoner signed it by
procuration, Sir Thomas. I told Mr. Blundell Sir Thomas
had not signed it,;' he replied, with surprise,'" Indeed !" and
said; " I will sign it." I afterwards gave him the money.
Cross-examined by Mr. WELriV:=-1 think •the prisoner
has paid bills into our bank on former occasions. I did not
beiitati3 to pay the money when Mr. Blundell said he would
sign it.
Mr. John Ridley.—l live at Park-end, near Hexham. I
am A larV breeder of sheep, and have been in the habit of
snpplying' Sit:Thbini's with sheep. In years past he used to
order the 'sbeep", but latterly Mr. Blundell had ordered them.
In October last I received an order for 300 wethers, and sent
an account tO Mr. Blundell. He returned me in April last
a promissory note for £362, which I paid into my bank at
Nerttaitle; it ha's since been dishonoured.
CrosS:examined.—Sir Thomas generally paid me in bank
noteS, 'but the'tw,o last payments made by the prisoner were
in bills.—The bill was read, it was payable at Robarts' and'
Co.
Sir Thomas Stanley.—l have no accounts at Robarts' and
Co., but I keep an account with the Royal Bank, at Liver-
pool. I never authorized the prisoner to draw bills in my
name.

Mr. Thomas Fisher.—l was formerly in the habit of coming
over about once a month to Hooton, to settle Mr. Blundell's
accounts. I find an entry made by the prisoner, on the Bth
April, 1839, " For cheque on Branch Bank, £3OO ; also, paid
John Ridley for w6thers, £362."
, Mr. Roberts.—! am cashier in the bank of Messrs.
Williams and Co., and recollect Mr. Smith asking me about
paying a cheque with Out Sir Thomas Stanley's signature: Sir

Thomas, for many years, (through the prisoner) paid previ-
ous to Chester races £5OO in our bank. On the 4th of May,
I received three £5 notes, and a bill for £487. These ca►ue

in a letter, with an order to place it to the account of Sir
Thomas, who at that time had a balance in his favour of
£llOO.

Cross-examined.—The £5OO had before been paid by bills.
Our bank draws upon Roberts and Co.
Henry Hayes.—l am land agent to Sir Thomas Stanley.

I reside at Piiddington. It is not a commercial place.
Mr. TEMPLE and Mr. WELSBY objected to going into an
inquiry as to the genuineness at the•bill (which was about to
be put into the hands of the witness) signed Hayes and Co. •
The Court overruled the- objection.

The bill was put in, and witness said he never signed it,
but it was an imitation of his signature. • The body of the
bill is in prisoner's writing. •
Cross-examined.—l, do not know that Blundell drew the
bill claiming to be my partner at the time ; and 1 don't know
that he claims to be my partner. My•own.corineiion with
the prisoner was 'he and I 'worked two Mines. I paid £B6;
and' prisoner £50,) for the first mine ; and for the -second We
gave and advanced for work £229. No ore hasbeen raised
from them. I never agreed with the prisoner to the form-
ation of a company styled Henry Hayes and Co.
Mr. Fisher recalled.—On Ist of May there is an entry re-
ceived at -Warford and Congleton, £lO7O. 15s. 11d. May
4th, remitted Williams, Granville & Co. £502, to place to
the account of Sir Thos. Stanley. In the Hcoton book, the
balance on the Bth of April, in favour of, Mr. Blundell
£1402. 6s. 11d. Blundell's .salary was £250.' per annum.
Sir Thos. Stanley's accounts were brought into this book.
Mr. Hurnberston, solicitor, deposed—l am professional
agent of Sir Thos. Stanley. On the 20th-5f May, in conse-
quence of information I received, I- went; after seeing Sir
Thomas, to prisoner's louse. I told 'him that Sir Thomas
had discovered in Liverpool that morning, that he had been
drawing bills in (Sir Thos. Stanley's) name to a considerable
extent. Prisoner said, "It was a fact." I said,—To the
amount of 12 or £15,000. He replied, " About £17.000."

I said,—What. Mr. Blundell, could you do with so much
money? He replied, " Speculation." He said he com-
menced in 1835 ; the panic in 1836 required better security
than his own, and he then began to draw in Sir Thomas's
name. He said the discovery had relieved his mind of a great
burden, and he had often thought of throwing himself on Sir
Thomas's mercy. The prisoner gave me £665. which he
said belonged to Sir T. Stanley. He told me he had some
railway shares, and a property of great value in South Aus-
tralia ' • he farther said, if Sir Thomas would provide for the
bills he would give up his property to him. I asked for his
books, and he gave up two rent books. The prisoner was
taken up in five days afterwards. A letter from the prisonei-,
expressing his deep sorrow for the offence he had committed,
and craving forgiveness, was handed in and read.
The case for the prosecution here closed.
Mr. TEMPLE, in behalf of the prisoner, addressed the jury
at some length, and with great force and ability.
His LORDSHIP summed up the case most minutely, re-
marking on every particular part of the evidence.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
His LORDSHIP in passing sentence, told him that he ap-
peared as guilty a man as ever he saw at the bar. His prose-
cutor had been merciful in not pressing other indictments
against him; had he done so, he should have given him the
utmost punishment allowed by law. The sentence of the
Court was that he be transported for the term of 14 years.

NISI PRIUS COURT. '
(Abridged from the Chester Chronicle.)

This being the day for the trial of the Rev. Mr. Stephens
for sedition, the court was crowded to suffocation. The de-
fendant, who had been at large on bail, was accompanied
into court by a large body of his friends. Mr. Justice Patte-
son entered the court at nine o'clock.
SEDITION.—STEPHENS'S TRIAL. . ,

Joseph Rayner Stephens was charged on an indictment
for a misdemeanour. The first count charged that,'on the
14th November, 1838, he tumultuously met with others at a
torch-light meeting, and defendant attempted to excite dis-
obedience to the laws.

The defendant had pleaded not guilty.
The following Counsel appeared for the prosecution :—The
Queen's Attorney-General; Mr. Hill, Palatinhte Attorney-
General; Mr. Temple,
.Q.C., Mr. Jervis, Q.C., and Mr.
Welsby.
The defendant appeared in person, and conducted his own
defence.
A special jury was then empanelled.
_ _ _

The ATT6RI,7EY-GENERAL; (Sir John Campbell,) in open-
ing the case for the prosecution, said that the defendant was
charged with attending an unlawful meeting, and inciting the
people to riot and a disobedience of the laws. He admitted
the right of free discussion, and the perfect propriety of seek-
a redress of grievances, real or supposed, by constitutional
means ; but said it could not be tolerated in a civilized coun-
try, that persons in seeking the redress of what they believed
to be grievances, should set the laws at defiance. The
Learned Gentleman then defined from Hawkins' Pleas of
the Crown- what were considered as unlawful assemblies.
The indictment did not charge an actual riot and disturbance,
but that he attended and exhorted the people to do what the
law must condemn. The definition was, any meeting what-
soever that threatened disturbance, and raised fears and
jealousies amongst the King's subjects, was an unlaw-
ful assembly, as no one could see what might be the
result of such an assembly. If there were such meetings
attended with circumstances endangering the public peace,
coming' armed, or creating fears and jealousies, it was
au unlawful assembly. To confirm this, he referred to
the law as laid down by Mr. Justice Bayley, at the trial of
Hunt and others in 1820. He said, that meeting in a war-
like manner was by no means essential to constitute an un-
lawful assembly, and then reverting to Hawkins' definition,
he said that of the truth of that position there could be no
doubt. Meetings that endangered the public peace, and
caused terror and alarm, could not be tolerated. The peo-
Pple could meet, discuss matters, petition the Crown and
Parliament, without endangering the peace, or a breach of
the law, or creating terror. It would be for them to say,
whether the case then brought before them did not constitute
a misdemeanour, and of a very aggravated nature. The
meeting was held after dark, on the 14th of November, at
Duckinfield, and was attended by very large numbers of
people, probably by about 5000 persons, nearly all strangers
to the town of Hyde. They had fire-arms, banners with
inflammatory inscriptions, viz., " Tyrants believe and trem-
ble," " Liberty or death," " Ashton deseries universal
suflerence or vengeance," "For liberty and wife man will
lose his life." There were transparencies, on one of which
was the word " Blood." The party met at the Cotton
Tree, Hyde, marched in procession, fired off arms, shouted
loudly, arid thus went to the hustings.; when speaking be-
gan firing of arms continued, awl loud shouts reverberated.
The inhabitants were alarmed. The leader on that occasion
was the defendant (Mr. Stephens.) He mounted the hus-
tings—his sentiments were applauded—and he continued.
Amongst other things he said he had good news for them :
he bad been in the barracks, And the soldiers would not act
against them ; that several clUbs had bought aims with the
funds set apart for the interment of their members; he asked
if they were awned? The answer was a discharge of arms.
He said " J see you are ready," and he wished them good
night. The assembly continued-till midnight, and then it
separated. The night the torches we, e,,seen in the streets of
Hyde, and also in the country,, and e pbpulace left, the -
music died awkron ear, iiiitt-th'6lighVol the 'eye. Could
there be any doubt that the defendant was guilty of the other