The Sun. — 1849-12-10 (London, England)

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL.  Mr. Edward Nairne, late of No. 3, Warnfordcourt, stockbroker, was brought before Sir James Duke for final examination, charged with not surrendering to be examined as a bankrupt in the Court of Bankruptcy at the time notified in the London Gazette.  Mr. Lucas appeared on behalf of the creditors ; and Mr. Humphreys, solicitor, defended the prisoner. There were two charges against Mr. Nairne—that of not surrendering; and also his having, as an agent, unlawfully disposed of certain Exchequer-bills which had been intrusted to him for safe custody, and with• out authority to sell or negotiate them. The facts, as proved at the different examinations, are shortly these :--The prisoner carried on the business of a stockbroker in Warnford-court, and while so doing :a Mr. Spurgin, from the neighbourhood of Hounslow, wrs recommended to him by a friend, as a person who could lay out some money for him to advantage. Mr. Spurgin came to London, and was recommended to invest 1.;0001., which he had brought with him, in Exchequer-bills, at 48s. That advice was followed, and the Exchequer bill deposited with Nairne for safe keeping, who said he would place it in his iron safe at the Exchange, where he had property to the amount of thousands of pounds. A few days after Mr. Spurgin placed 7001. more in the prisoner's hands, who purchased two Exchequerbills, one for 5001., the other for 200/. These were likewise left with Nairne to be deposited with the 1,0001. bill, all to be kept safely, and not to be nego • tiated or transferred in any way. However, it appeared that the prisoner suddenly disappeared, and it was then found out that he had resold the Exchequerbills shortly after they were left in his care, to Messrs. Brown and Co., dealers in Exchequer-bills, on the Stock Exchange. A warrant was issued under the Act which lately came into force against absconding bankrupts, and was placed in the hands of Daniel Forrester, who apprehended the prisoner at Boulognesur-Mer, and brought him to London. The two charges were clearly established against the prisoner (who reserved his defence), and ho was fully committed for trial. Mr. Helleary, solicitor, observed to Sir James Duke, that as his client, the Rev. Mr. Muntz, was obliged to return to his duties in the country he could not call any evidence respecting the 1,8001. which that gentleman had sent to, the prisoner to be invested in Russian bonds, and which he had made use of, but should, at the next sitting of the Central Criminal Court, prefer a bill of indictment before the grand jury. Mr. Humphreys was surprised that a respectable solicitor should be so indecent as to advise his client to pu:sue such an objectionable course when he could so easily come before a magistrate and let the prisoner hear all that was said against him, instead of taking him completely by surprise as to the nature of the charge.  Sir J:k'NIES DIDT_E thought the prisoner would get a copy of the depositions. Mr. Humphreys said that was not the case. A person, or a set of persons, might go before a grand jury and prefer a bill of indictment ; notes of the evidence were not taken, or, if taken, were not sent to the court below, but destroyed, so that any one might be sent for trial for murder -.without knowing one word of the evidence he vva* -to be prepared to