Weekly News. — 1891-03-26 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

AND PERJURY.  At Low-street Police-court, on Friday, Sanmet Howe, 49, a farmer, of Woodley, Cheshire, was charged before Sir John Bridge with forging a cheque for £1,375, a promissory note for £2OO. and uttering the same; also with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury during the course of an action (Howe v. Burchardt), in the High Ore of Justice in February and March, before Mr. Justice Wills.—Mr. C. F. Gill prosecuted, on behalf of the Treasury; Mr. Arthur Newton defended.—Mr. (till, in opening the ease, said it arose out of an action, which occupied the High Court for some 12 days. The action was brought by the defendant against Mr. Burchardt, to recover the amount. of a cheque for £1,375. The defence was that the cheyie was a forgery, aud, in the result the jury found a verdict against the prisoner. The case: involved a considerable amount of investigation. and in support of his claim-it became necessary for the prisoner to produce documentary evidence. It appeared that he was acting for a Mr. Ashton in connection with a claim made by a railway company, and the accused took an active part in negotiating the matter. Before it was settled Mr. Ashton died, and the prisoner had re presented that two pr three days before his death Mr. Ashton had given him the cheque in question. Notwithstanding this represmtation, it was alleged that the prisoner had never mentioned to Mr. Burchardt the fact of this cheque having been drawn, although they had had several interviews. The story told by the prisoner in the civil proceedings was that he had been employed by the deceased, (Mr. Ashton ) to negotiate certain advances to a lady, and that Mr. Ashton had borrowed money from him (prisoner). In order to accommodate him, the accused represented that he had borrowed money from relatives. In proof of this, he was alleged to , have manufactured evidence in the form of a promissory note, but it was discovered that. the stamp had been mutilated. Upon examination, however, it was quite obvious that the stamps tore date two years subsequent to that of the promissory note. Mr. Gill drew attention to the fact that the alleged forged cheque was taken ft en a book that had been issued to the accused. The prisoner had also, it was alleged, made a mistake in the signature. The cheque was signed "B. Ashton," whereas Mr. Ashton was in the habit of signing his cheques "Burgh Ashton." The cheque had never been presented for payment, and had only been produced in the civil proceedings in support of the defendant's claim for the amount of the cheque and interest.—Formal evidence only was called, and the prisoner was remanded.  Advices from the Caroline Islands, published by the World, report the attempted pillaging by two robbers of a monastery,on the island of Santa Rosa. The nen murdered two friars, named Loniez and Gonzalez, and a native who acted as porter, while several other friars were wounded. The robbers were captured.  In consequence of some irregularities in the Vienna hospitals, the Austrian Government has forbidden the photographing of the bodies of persons who have died of contagious diseases. In other rases corpses are only to he photographed under restrictions and by special leave of the doctors who have certified to the causes of death. A debt collector, named Frank B. Page. of V. oolwich, has been summoned to the police-court by the Incorporated Law Society for unlawfulW and falsely pretending to be a solicitor. A dispute having arisen about a fixture in a public-house, the defendant wrote to the outgoing tenant, claiming El in respect to the loss which, he alleged, had been sustained in an action, and threatening to take proceedings in the County Court to recover the amount. Mr. Marsham said the defendant had no right to take out summonses for other people, or to threaten to bring actions, and he fined him 40s.