The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-04-21 00:00:00

BOROUGH SESSIONS.

John Thomas Huntington, aged 35, lately a clerk employed in
the office of the LIVERPOOL STANDARD, was indicted for hav-
ing feloniously embezzled the sum of £l. 2s. fid., which he had
received for and on account of his empigyer, Richard. Paulsson,
Mr. HENDERSON stated the case on the'part of the proieou-
tion. The learned gentleman said that the prisener at the bar
was a young man lately in the employment of the LIVERPOOL
STANDARD as a clerk. A gentleman, of the name of Claypole,
who-keeps a woollen-draper's shop in Great Charlotte-street,
and who is also a shipowner, some time since had occasion to
avail himself of the columns of the 14YERPOOL STANDARD to
advertiie some ships. In the month Of 'February last the pri-
soner called for the account due to the STANDARD for those ad-
vertisements, and, having-been paid by -Mt. Claypole, it was his
diity to hate handed over such moneys ter his master, Mr::loatT
tison, which from the evidence they would see had not been
done. He was Subsequently dismissed froni the service of the
LIVERPOOL STANDARD, and it was then discovered that he had
appropriated the money so received to his own use. He should
produce evidence to prove the charge, and it would he for the
jury to say whether he had embezzled the money of his em-
ployer. The learned counsel then called • .
Mr. Henry Krebs Claypole, who stated that he was in part-
nership with his father as tailor and woollen-draper in Great
Charlotte-street. His father was also concerned in business as
a ship-owner. Ile had an account with the LIVERPOOL STAN,
DARD for advertising some of his ships, ,and in February last
there was money due to the STA N DA4ED for those,ad.vertise-
ments. Saw the prisoner at their office in Great Charlotte-street
on the 11th February last, who said he had called for the ac-
count for advertiiing in the STANDARD. After looking at the
account, he found there was an error, and the prisoner left the
house, as he (witness) supposed, to get it corrected., The pri-
soner returned, the same day, and he paidhim £l. 2s. 6d., for
which he (the prisoner) gave a receipt.. The witness here pro-
duced the receipt, and identified 'the signature of the prisoner.
Witness' paid the money on account of his father.
. Cross-examined by Mr. HALL on behalf of the prisoner:—
Had known prisoner before ; he. was a long time collecting-
clerk for the Mercury; witness had had no transactions with
him. before on account of the STANDARD. Witness and his
father were in partnership only iu the business of woollen-
drapers and tailors, but not as shipowners.
• Mr. Richard Pattisson was then called.—Witness succeeded
Mr. Samuel Franceys as publisher of the LivEaPooL STAN D-
ARD ; the prisoner was advertising-clerk in February last, and
had never accounted for the £1 2s. 6d. received from the last
witness; prisoner was not now in the employ of the LIVERPOOL
STANDARD, as witness discharged him on the 12th February.
The witness was here cross-examined at considerable length by
the counsel for the prisoner,- in order to ascertain from him
whether any individuals were connected with 'him in the manage-
ment and proprietorship of the paper. Mr. HEsrustisoiN, on
behalf of the prosecution, objected to this line of examination
.4.8 irrelevant to the case, in which the Recorder concurred.
Re-examined.—Witness rents the premises in Castle-street
--trout iho.limsees of Mr- Rigby Wav:.‘n • the
,D:isorisr was em-
ployed in the advertising department and' had no pou'ei- to re-
ceive money without witness's authority;
,he had occasionally
received money with witness's permission, but it was under
peculiar circumstances, where advertisers leaving town were
desirous of paying for their advertisements 'previously to their
insertion ; in such a ease it was the duty of the prisoner to have
given witness the amoivit.
This being the case for the prosecution,
Mr. HALL, for the prisoner, took an objection on the grouud
that .the indictment was not sustainable in law. In the iiist
place it had been proved by the witness Pattisson that he had
not authorised the prisoner to receive money on his account,
and he therefore submitted to the court that they could not
support p. charge of embezzlement unless it had been shown lie
had a general or specific authority to do, so. He would refer
them to the case of the King v. Thorley, tried before Mr. Justice
Parke at Warwick, where the prisoner was indicted for receiv-
..

iug ES 4s. 10d, The prisoner in that case was the servant of a
carrier at Birmingham, and a party supposing him to be trclerk
authorised to receive money on account of the carrier paid hint
that sum, fur which the prisoner gave a receipt, and appropriated
the money to his own use. The iearned judge, who tried the
case under the 7th and Bth George I V., wouldla.ve directed an
acquittal ; but on conferring with Mr. Baron Bayley they con-
sioered the point ought to be left to the decision of all the
judges. It was so left, and they were of opinion that as the
servant had no authority to receive the, money the case did not
come within the meaning of those statutes, and that the convic-
tion was wrong. The present he contended was a similar case,
and he was convinced thatthe court would decide that as no ge-
neral or specific authority had been given to the prisoner he was
entitled to an acquittal.
Mr. Pattisson re-examined by the Recorder.—Witness gave
no authorityto receive this money ; the prisoner has occasionally
received money as previously stated; Mr. Claypole is a trades-
man of the town of Liverpool.
The REOOKOER.—In that case he considered that the indict-
ment did not come within the meaning of the act under which
it had been laid.
Mr. HENDERSON thought that a question for the jury to de-
cide as the prisoner had received the money in questiop by
virtue of his situation, and referred to a case wliere a conviction
had taken place: a clerk having not received orders from, his
master to receive money, but one of his partners.
Mr. HALL.—Here there was no authority froin the master's
partner; and the act stated that there must be general or spe-
cific instructions to receive money to support a charge of em-
bezzlement. _

After some conversation, the Rsconota said that the indict-
ment had not been sustained. Mr. HEN !JERSON concurred with '
the learned Recorder in his view of the law of the case, and the
prisoner was discharged.
CONVICTION OF AN ATTORNEY FOR FELONY.
Charles ill'Hardy, a shabby-genteel looking man, aged 30,
and John Fairclough, aged 24, were indicted for stealing a cop-
per tea-kettle, the property of. an ironnionpr, named Jones.
M'ElArdy pleaded guilty. -ft appeared from the evide,ice.that
the prisoner, on the 2d of March last, went to the shop of the
prosecutor, in Dale-street, and bargained for a copper tea-kettle
of the value of Us. lie requested the prosecutof to send a per-
son with him to his house in Grosvenor-street with the kettle
and he would there receive the money. A shop lad was sent
accordingly and Mg-lardy took him to the house, knocked at
the door, and Fairclough opened it. M`liairly then took the
kettle from the lad and handed it to Fairclough, when the door
was shut. M'llardy then told the lad that his wife was not in
but he would go and fetch the money. As tb.cy were going
along, the prisoner said that if the boy would go back"fiahe
house again his mistress rronbl, by thattilae, beat Imam au.sihe
would get the money. The lad returned, and on his way meet-
ing with Thursby, the officer, they went to the house together,
and having got in at the back door found it quite empty.
Thursby watched the house the night following and appre-
hended both prisoners just as they were playing a similar trick
with a boy who had brought some decanters according to
M'Hardy's order. Fairclough then acknowledged that the
kettle had been pawned the night it was stolen at Perry's, a
pawnbroker, which, on inquiry, proved to be cot rect. These
facts being proved Fairclough was found guilty of receiving.
Mr. RA INCOCK, the barrister, who appeared for. the prosecu-
tion, said that there was another indictment against the -pri-
soners for stealing the decanters.
The RECOItDER thought that the justice of the case would be
met without going into the second charge.
Mr. R A iNcocK coincided in opinion, but at the same time was
bound to inform the court that the two cases were 'selected
amongst numerous others of •fraud and swindling against the
prisoners. M'ilardy was an attorney of the common pleas, re-
sident in the town, who served his time with a Mr. Green, and
there was every reason to suppose that the prisoner Fairclough
had been his dupe.
The prisoner, Mg-lardy, here said, that he felt it his duty to
say that Fairclough was entirely innocent; he had sent him to
pledge the kettle, and other things, but Fairclough was not
aware how he becanie possessed of them.
The Recorder then sentenced Wllardy to seven years trans-
portation, and Fairclough to four months imprisonment.