Police.
The Times, 1824-05-31T00:00:00

GlILDHALL..A very respectable-looking man, named Peter Chdsso!4, was charged, under Sir Thomas Plomer's Act, with hav- ing secreted or converted to his own use, abillof exchangeintrusted to him for the purpose of being discounted. The prosecutorstatedhimselfto be John1Wm.Birmingham,a Lieu- tenant in the army, having served in the 4th, 49th, and 66th Regi- ments, but now residi:ng in Church-street, Lambeth. In the course ef his duty, when on the recraiting service in the country, hehad, he said, become acquainted with thie prisoner's father and family, and through those means was introduced to the prisoner, whom he un- derstood to be a respectable bill-broker; and having in his posses- sion an acceptance of a countryman and friend of his. MIr. Mlartin, o1.P. for Galway, for 2751., he intrusted it to the prisoner for the purpose of negotiating it, taking his receipt, and expected to have had the money in the course of the next day. Six weeks however, had elapsed,and neithermoneynorbillwas forthcoming; tL?e prisonerwas nottobefotind athis lodgings.and he now found that he was connected with Blandford, Kinneer,and others. The prisoner's story put a very different complexion upon the case. Birminghamn, he said, came to him absolutely in razs, stating himselfto be in verv great distress; and asked him whether he could raise money on a bill of M r. Mlarrin's ac- ceptance,ifhe(Birmingham) procuredit. Inconsequence, he(thepri- soner), after consulting with r.Blandford, agreed to try. Ee fumish- ed the money for the sramp out of his own pocket; the bill was drawn up in the hand-writing of IlIr. Blandford: Birmingham put his name to it as the drawer, and subsequently delivered it to him, with DIr. Martin's acceptance, to negotiate. On the e-xeriment, however, nothing could be raised, and the bill never had been ne- gotiated: n proof of this. Mr. Humphreys, who attended for the prisoner, produced the bilL Its amiount was 2751.: the endorse- ments of the prisoner and Blandford bad been upon it; but'were now scratched through. No proof was given that the acceptance was Mr. Martin's, but it appeated to he allowed on both sides that it was; nor was there any thing said as to the value Birmingham had given for the bill. The CITY SOLICITOIL, who was in attendance, asked what objec- tien there was to now delivering up tbebill ? 1ir. HR srpumnys replied, his client had a lien upon it, money having been advanced on it to the prosecutor. Birmingham denied that he had received money or value of any kind upon it, either from the prisoner or Blandford. Chissold, on the other hand declared that he had paid the prosecutor 31., Which Mr. Blandford had advanced for the purpose of relieving his distresses; and added, with-muchapparent indignation, that the very shoes and gaiters, and coat, that Birmingham had on, wvere bought with this identical money; all which Birmingham as resolutely denied. In the result. Chissold was discha,led, with advice to settle the question as to the sum said to have been advanced on the bill by summoning Birmingham to the Court of Requests, and the bill itself was impounded ie.the hands of the magistrate, to await the issue. POLICB.