OLD COURT.—Monday, April 8th, 1850.

PRESENT—The Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR; Sir GEORGE CARROLL, Knt. Ald.; Mr. RECORDER; Mr. Ald. CHALLIS; Mr. Ald. FINNIS; and Mr. Ald. CARDEN.

Before Mr. Recorder and the First Jury.

685. RICHARD CHILD WILLIS , was indicted for unlawfully obtaining 2 sovereigns of William Smith, by false pretences.

MR. BALLANTINE conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM SMITH . I am a wine-merchant of 5, Leicester-square—I have known the prisoner for several years. On 12th Feb., 1849, he called at my house, and asked me to cash this check for him(Produced)—I saw him write it—I gave him two sovereigns for it, supposing he had assets at the banker's.

COURT. Q. Do you mean that you believed he had any assets at the banker's at the time you gave it him? A. I thought nothing to the contrary. (The check being read, was on Drummond and Co., Charing-cross, for 2l., and was signed "R.C. Willis:")

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Of course you were under the impression that it was a good check? A. Yes; the prisoner has been in the habit of frequenting my establishment; we were on friendly terms; have occasionally drank wine together—chess is played at my house; some of the first chess-players frequent it—the prisoner has occasionally dined with me at my invitation—if he had asked me to lend him the two sovereigns I should have done so, or I would have given him them if he had said he required it—I gave him the money expecting the check would be paid—I thought it was a legal thing—I have no idea whether he had an account at Drummond's—I have not been paid the money.

GEORGE CHARLES COX . I am one of the cashiers at Messrs. Drummond's—I do not know the prisoner—I have searched our books; they are not here—I have to pay checks over the counter—other gentlemen also pay checks—the ledger contains the account of customers—I do not keep the ledger—I am able to say that no money has been paid into the prisoner's account; not only was there no account, but there were no orders to pay.

Cross-examined. Q. How many other gentlemen pay checks? A. Five others—I have been fifteen years in the bank—this check was presented to me, and the answer I gave was "No account."

WILLIAM SMITH re-examined. The check was written before I gave him the two sovereigns—I went before the Magistrate about six weeks ago, when he was brought up at Marlborough-street—I did not put the matter in motion—I did not see the prisoner in the course of the twelve months from the time this occurred; I think I could have seen him if I had wished.

NOT GUILTY .

686. RICHARD CHILD WILLIS was again indicted for unlawfully obtaining money from Philip Nind, by false pretences.

MESSRS. BALLANTINE and COCKLE conducted the Prosecution.

JEAN FRITZ CHRISTIAN JADEQUET . I am waiter to Mr. Nind, at the Sablonaire Hotel, Leicester-square. On 27th July the prisoner dined there with a lady; his dinner came to 14s. 2d., in payment for which he handed me this cheek(Produced)—I took it to Mr. Nind, and by his authority I gave the prisoner the change—the check was already written when he gave it me.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Had he dined there the day before? A. No—my master did not change the check—it was the housekeeper, my master's sister—Mr. Nind saw it—the prisoner had dined there several times before, at long intervals—his dinner usually came to 4s. or 5s.—when he gave me the check he said, "Give me change out of the bill"—I asked my master, before I gave the prisoner the change, whether the check was good or not—he asked if I knew the gentleman—I said I knew him only by being there three or four times before, and then my master said "Give the change"—I had not then got the money from Miss Nind—I got the money afterwards—I gave him four sovereigns, and the rest in silver.

PHILIP NIND . This check was handed to me on 27th July, by Jadequet—I directed him to point out who had given it to him, and he pointed out the prisoner—I then authorised him to give the prisoner the difference, 4l. 5s. 10d.

Cross-examined. Q. Your waiter told you that he knew him? A. Yes—I knew him before as a customer—I sent the check to my bankers, the London Joint-Stock Bank—I received it back again I think on 2nd Aug.—I have since heard that the prisoner was formerly possessed of an estate of considerable extent, called Ravenhill-hall, near Beverley.

MR. COCKLE. Q. When this money was paid, did you believe this to be a good order? A. I did; it was under that belief that I parted with my money. (This was a check for 5l. on Bower, Dewsbury, and Hall, bankers, at Beverley, payable at Currie and Co.'s, Cornhill; signed, "R. Willis.")

THOMAS VALENTINE HEWITSON . I am a clerk to Currie and Co., of Cornhill. In July and Aug., 1849, there was no credit in favour of R. Willis, from Bower and Co., of Beverley—I have not known any checks drawn in the name of Bower, Dewsbury, and Hall, since I have been in the house, which is eight years—Mr. Dewsbury has been dead many years—we are the agents of that bank—the name is now Bower, Hall, and Co., and has been so more than twelve months.

Cross-examined. Q. Do not you know that Mr. Willis has by letters of credit received money at your place? A. I have never known of anything of the kind—I do not swear that he has not, but it has not come to my knowledge—I am cashier—I was in the country department at the time the check was presented—if we had received a letter of credit from Beverley we should have paid the check, although it has the name of Dewsbury on it; we might have required a draft to make it more legal—I never knew Mr. Dewsbury in the firm—if a single letter of credit was sent it would appear in the advice-book, or the payment-book—I do not remember this check being presented.

MR. COCKLE. Q. Did you examine the advice-book, the payment-book, and ledger? A. I examined the advice and payment-book, but not the ledger—I have found no letter of credit in favour of the prisoner.

CHARLES HENRY PRIESTLY . I am a clerk, in the house of Bower, Hall, Smith, and Barkwith; there are four partners. I do not remember the firm when Mr. Dewsbury was in it—there is no firm at Beverley of the name mentioned in this check; our house represents that form—possibly some of our customers may have a check-book in that form—I have examined the books of our firm—no sum of 5l. was paid in in July or Aug. last for the purpose of being advised to the credit of R. Willis at London, nor at any antecedent time.

Cross-examined. Q. What position do you occupy in the bank? A. I keep the ledger; I am cashier as well, and correspondent—I should have known if any sum was paid in to his credit—I am not the only correspondent; there are one or two others—it would be the correspondents' duty to advise this money to London—it is my duty to keep the ledger—I have looked at the ledger for July and Aug., and back for many years, and forward too; if there was any such entry it ought to appear in the ledger, and in the letterbook there is no such entry—I do not know an estate near Beverley called Ravenhill-hall—I do not know that the prisoner has a nephew, a man of property, residing in Beverley—I have heard that his mother resided near there many years ago—I have been nearly fourteen years in this bank—Scarborough is about thirty-five miles from Beverley.

THOMAS VALENTINE HEWITSON re-examined. We do not issue such checks as this, made payable at our house; this is an order payable at our house, subject to the receipt of a letter of advice—if he had drawn a check on us, if there had been the advice of the money, that would have been sufficient—we should require another check to be signed by the party, it is not a legal draft, as it was drawn more than fifteen miles from Beverley; we should have been liable to a penalty of 100l. if we had paid it.

COURT to PHILIP NIND. Q. Did you look at this check before you took it? A. I merely took it in my hand; and when the gentleman was pointed out to me, thinking that he would not give me a false check, I told the waiter to accept it in payment—I did not examine it—I believed it to be genuine, seeing it was in a banker's form—if I had looked at it I should have seen there was no date on it—I should not have objected because it was drawn on a banker's in the country.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Did you see Currie and Co. on it? A. I did; seeing that it was a country note, I wished to assure myself whether it was made payable in London—I believed that it was—I would not have parted with my money if I had not believed that.

COURT. Q. If it had not had "Payable at Currie and Co.'s" upon it, you would not have taken it? A. I should not.

There being no pretence laid in the indictment to meet this state of facts, the COURT directed the Jury to find the defendant

NOT GUILTY .

687. RICHARD CHILD WILLIS was again indicted for unlawfully obtaining money from Thomas Thomas, by false pretences.

MR. COCKLE conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS THOMAS . I keep Hatchett's Hotel, Piccadilly. The prisoner was staying there—on 11th April, 1849, about nine o'clock in the morning, he sent for me, and said he wished to leave by a train going at ten—he then tendered me this receipt for 14l. 13s. 1d. (Produced)—he said that the office of Mr. Hodgson, the treasurer of Queen Anne's bounty, did not open until eleven o'clock, and that it would be an accommodation to him if I would take my bill out of that receipt, and give him the change—the amount of my bill was 3l. 8s. 6d.—I took it of him, and gave him the difference—there must have been gold and silver among what I gave him—I cannot say what coin it was—it must have been the coin of the realm—I know I gave him even the fractional penny—before twelve I presented it at Mr. Hodson's office, in Dean's-yard, Westminster—I did not get the money—I was told that mine was the seventh application.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. You seem quite positive about the penny? A. I am—I cannot swear it was not two halfpence—he did not write out this receipt in my presence—I took it from him personally—I did not know him before; my porter did—he told me he wished to leave town by a ten o'clock train, that Mr. Hodgson's office did not open until eleven, but that if I would present it at eleven it would be paid without any hesitation.

MR. COCKLE. Q. Are you able to say whether you gave a note? A. I could not swear at this period, because I gave him change out of the bill—my impression would be that I gave him a 5l.-note, because I generally reserve as much gold as I can—I will swear I gave silver—the sum was 11l.—I will swear I gave the change in the current coin of the realm, and there must have been one or two sovereigns—I will swear there were shillings.

CHRISTOPHER HODGSON , Esq. I am treasurer to the Governors of Queen Anne's bounty. Mr. Thomas produced this receipt to me on 11th April, 1849—the incumbent of Minster, in Kent, was at that time entitled to the sum specified in the receipt, as a half-year's dividend—I did not know at that time that the prisoner was not entitled to it—he is incumbent of Minster—any person bringing a receipt signed by the incumbent would receive the money—the prisoner was not entitled to the sum mentioned in the receipt on 11th April, but I did not know it at that time; I know it now, I had a certificate from the Registrar of the diocese of Canterbury—I received a letter from the prisoner about half-past ten o'clock that morning, desiring me not to pay anybody—the writing of the letter is similar to the receipts which I have had from him before—I have never seen him write—I have acted on those receipts, and paid money on them, not to him personally, but to persons who have brought them from him—I have here two receipts in his handwriting—I have had no personal communication with the prisoner on the subject of those receipts, only by writing—he has answered one letter of mine—I have that answer here—that is the only letter I had from him, except the one I received on the morning of 11th April—I can say that money was paid on these receipts—I never had any complaint from the prisoner respecting the money so paid—this letter came by a messenger—there is no envelope to it—my office opens at ten in the morning—that is the usual hour.

Cross-examined. Q. How long has the incumbent of Minster been entitled to this dividend? A. I think from 1847—we have paid him twice, and afterwards the living was under sequestration, and it was paid to the sequestrators.

MR. COCKLE. Q. Has that money actually been paid over to the sequestrators? A. Yes, subsequently, by my cashier.

GEORGE ASTON . I am cashier to the Governors of Queen Anne's bounty. On 11th April the prisoner, for aught we then knew, was entitled to receive the sum named in this receipt—if nothing had occurred to prevent it I should have paid it—we have since paid the money to the sequestrators—I have never paid any of these sums to the prisoner personally—the first payment made to him was in Oct., 1847—he became Incumbent in the July previous—he was paid the half-year, due on 10th Oct., 1847—that was paid to his receipt, which is here—in April, 1848, another half-year became due, and for that half-year three receipts were presented; we paid one of the three, the first that was presented, the other two were rejected; then commenced a correspondence—Mr. Hodgson thought it a case that it was his duty to represent to the Archbishop of Canterbury—he did so, and at the same time he wrote to the Incumbent, and his answer is now in Mr. Hodgson's possession—when letters are sent from our office they are put into the letter-box, and the messenger comes round at the close of the office, seals them, puts a stamp on them, and takes them to the post—that is the daily process—I am not able to say whether the letter addressed to the prisoner was put into the box—it was written by Mr. Hodgson.

MR. HODGSON re-examined. I wrote that letter—this(produced) is a copy of it—after writing the letter I gave it to the clerk to put it into the box.

MR. ASTON re-examined. The answer has not a post-mark on it—it seems to have been enclosed in the envelope, which most likely was put into the waste-basket—I can positively swear that money has been paid on each of these receipts to the parties whose names are written on the back—there is a set form for these things issued by the office—that set form is copied most accurately in these receipts, in every way—they purport to be signed "Richard Child Willis, incumbent," and in the letter to Mr. Hodgson be signs himself R. C. Willis—subsequent to that correspondence, which was in April, 1848, we have paid one receipt to Dr. Willis' signature; that was at Michaelmas, 1848—I can hardly say that in doing so we acted on that letter—that was merely an explanation of why he passed three receipts before, but at the subsequent Michaelmas another half-year became due, and we paid it to his receipt, not with standing he had presented three on the previous Ladyday—we acted upon the letter as coming from him, and we paid one of his receipts afterwards—this is the letter we received from him in April, 1848—(read)—"To C. Hodgson, Esq.,—Vicarage, Minster, 17th April, 1848. Sir,—I was exceedingly grieved to find by your letter, which reached me on Saturday evening, that you should imagine I had done anything by which you should have been the sufferer; I can assure you, Sir, such was very far from being the case, inasmuch as one of the three receipts you mention had been actually paid as the bankers can testify, though the party who banded it in with others was quite unaware of the circumstance before it was presented; the others I was assured would not be presented at all, being, as I told the tradesmen, and positively believing it to be so, wrongly worded; I could be far more minute in this unfortunate affair, but as you require a statement by Tuesday, and I am perfectly overwhelmed with duty, I find it impossible to add more at present. I am, Sir, with the greatest possible regret at what has occurred, your faithful servant, R.C. Willis"—this other letter is the one we received on the Wednesday morning, 11th April—I believe it to be in the prisoner's writing—I also believe these two receipts to be the same handwriting—(letter read—"Tuesday evening, 10th April, 1849. Sir,—As I am a little recovering from a state of mind almost bordering upon insanity, I feel well assured that I have distributed to tradesmen more receipts for Queen Anne's bounty for the parish of Minster, in Kent, than one; I hope therefore that none will be attended to, for I have not been master of my own actions. I write this with the deepest concern, in much agony of mind. I have left Minster, nor will my health permit me to return. I am, Sir, yours, &c., R.C. Willis.")

Q. Was it in consequence of that letter that the receipt on that day was not honoured? A. I can hardly say it was in consequence of that letter—it certainly was in consequence of this that Mr. Thomas's was not paid, only I should explain that before Mr. Thomas's was presented six others had been presented and refused payment by me—I have those receipts in my possession—this letter rather strengthened the information that had before reached us.

MR. PARRY to MR. THOMAS. Q. When you took this receipt did you believe that the prisoner was the Incumbent of Minster, as there represented? A. I had no doubt of it—he told me so—when he asked me to give the change I rather hesitated, and he said, "Why I have known your house some years since, and there is my card;" and he tendered me a card with "Rev. Mr. Willis, Minster," on it, and seeing "Rev." before it, and his appearance, I was induced to give the change—I unquestionably believed that it was his receipt, and that he was entitled to the money; and on the faith of that I gave him the change.

MR. BALLANTINE. Q. Did you consider whether or not it would be paid when it was presented? A. I asked that question—I said, "Will there be any difficulty about this?" and he said, "None at all"—if I had known that he had written a letter to prevent its being paid, I should certainly not have parted with my money.

COURT. Q. Did you read the document which he gave you, through? A. I did—I think it describes him as the incumbent of Minster—I believed it was a genuine instrument in the terms in which it is expressed—he said if I took it, or sent it at eleven o'clock, it would be paid—he specially told me that the office did not open till eleven, and when I presented the receipt six others had been presented—some of the gentlemen were in the office at the time.

GUILTY . Aged 50.— Confined One Year.