+ ~ -
Please report pronunciation problems here. Select and sample other voices. Options Pause Play
Report an Error

It never occurred to the lady to question the authenticity
of this epistle, though she might have observed
that people of education do not generally mix up the
third and first person in the same sentence. Mr.
Farebrother's interference, too, for the reason assigned
—"the circumstance of the bearer making his statement
at the Guildhall"—might have struck a sensible person
as somewhat odd; but the lady was perfectly satisfied,
and handed over her subscription. Two days afterwards
Alderman Farebrother received, to his great astonishment,
the subjoined note:—

Harley Street, Jan. 5.
Misspresents her compliments to Mr. Alderman
Farebrother, and in case Edward Carless Brown should not
have made up the outfit necessary for himself and family, she
begs he will be so good as to send him to her again on Monday
morning, between half-past ten and one o'clock, as she has some
articles of clothing which she could give him, in addition to
her subscription.

Of course Mr. Farebrother knew nothing of Mr. Brown,
and so he informed the ladyone of those benevolent
persons, evidently, whose easy credulity gives so much
encouragement to imposture.

In the Central Criminal Court on the 12th, Lewis
Joel, a jeweller and bill-discounter, was sentenced to
ten years transportation for Forging a Bill of Exchange
for £1000, in the name of Lieut. Clements. Mr.
Clements had previously been the victim of Joel and other
money-lenders, and the case altogether disclosed a very
painful, but only too common picture of extravagance
on one side and extortion on the other. Two affidavits
made by the prisoner were put in as evidence. In these
Joel stated that the prosecutor had given him a blank
acceptance while he was under age, with the
understanding that Joel should fill it up for £1000, when
Mr. Clements had attained his majority in August,
1847. This was the bill now said to be forged. Mr.
Clements was examined. He said he knew Joel in Dublin,
while himself was in the 13th Light Dragoons. Had
many transactions with him, obtaining money and
jewellery for bills of exchange. He never signed a bill
for £1000, never accepted a bill in blank, never authorised
any one to accept a bill. In cross-examination he
admitted he had acted in a most reckless way in raising
money on bills, and getting into debt with tradesmen
during his minority. Two other bills for smaller amounts
now in existence, he declared to be forgeries. Many of
his answers began, "My impression is," and his
recollection of money transactions was very imperfect. He
had taken stones out of the jewellery that he had
bought, and sold them. I cannot say whether I so
disposed of them on the day after I received them from
the prisoner, but I should think it was not so soon. I
took the diamonds out of the settings partly to amuse
myself by weighing them and partly to see how they
looked out of the settings. I don't know what became
of the settings." He gave "jewellery and money to a
woman in Dublin." Mr. Pullman, a barrister, employed
in 1847 to settle the prosecutor's affairs, deposed that
Joel did not state to him that he had the £1000 bill;
he only heard of it last summer. Evidence was adduced
showing how the present holders of the bill, who had
instituted legal proceedings against Mr. Clements upon
it, had received it from Joel in Dublin, in September
last. Several witnesses expressed a belief that the
signature to the bill was not Mr. Clements' writing. The
jury, after considering for an hour and a half, gave a
verdict of "Guilty" of uttering the bill, knowing it to
be forged.

An extraordinary case of obtaining goods, or "Living
on the Public" was disclosed in the Insolvent Debtors'
Court, on the 19th, when Joseph William Williams,
late of Fenchurch Street, ironmonger, was opposed by
various creditors. The insolvent made on the present
occasion his "fourth appearance" before the court,
besides having figured as a bankrupt. In 1831, he was
a bankrupt, owing £1100; in 1834 he petitioned this
court and was relieved from debts to £760; in 1840 he
again petitioned, and was remanded for three months
for a vexatious defence; he then owed £1027. Again, in
1847, he made his third appearance, owing £2300, and
having in his schedule no fewer than 106 creditors. He
now again made his appearance with numerous creditors
and debts to £1300, including bills accepted by a
person named Thomas Thomas, for his accommodation.
The complaint on the part of the creditors was that
their debts had been contracted by means of fraud.
Evidence was given to the effect that the insolvent had
offered iron at £6 a ton, when he was charged £8 15s.
for similar iron; and it was alleged that the exposure
would be advantageous to the public, in order to put the
trading community on their guard against a person of
his plausible manners. For the last eighteen years he
had gone on getting into debt £6400, or living on the
public at the rate of £350 a year. Mr. Commissioner
Phillips, in giving judgment, held that the debts had
been fraudulently contracted. This was the case of a
man now coming for the "fifth time" with accumulated
debts of more than £6000. For the protection of the
public, he was bound to mark such a case by a
judgment of imprisonment for twelve months.

On the 21st, Mr. Alexander Novelli, a merchant of
Manchester, and Mrs. Novelli, his brother's widow,
were found dead under circumstances that immediately
led to a suspicion of Murder and Suicide. Mr. Louis
Novelli died about sixteen months ago, leaving his
widow and two children handsomely provided for. Mr.
Alexander Novelli was one of the executors, and took
up his residence with the widow. They appeared on
good terms. On Sunday, the 20th, they seemed in
ordinary health; at night the servants left them in the
sitting-room. Next morning a servant found Mrs.
Novelli dead, lying on the floor of the sitting-room, and
partly undressed; the body quite cold. On searching
for Mr. Novelli, his body was found suspended to a rail
in his bedroom; the body was still warm, as also was
his bed. An inquest was begun the same day.
Evidences were shown of a struggle in the sitting-room;
there were marks of pressure and scratches on Mrs.
Novelli's throat and head. The state of the heart, blood
vessels, and blood, showed she had died from strangulation.
The inquest was adjourned to the 23rd, for
evidence of Mr. Novelli's mental state, when his solicitor
described his strange conduct on several occasions. He
complained that inspecting the accounts affected his
head. The witness said, that the deceased was a weak,
soft-headed boy, passionate and impulsive. Another
witness stated, that Mr. Novelli's mother had been
insane; two of his brothers died by their own hands; a
sister now living, is insane. The Jury consulted for a
quarter of an hour, and then returned this verdict
"That Mr. Novelli had destroyed the lives first of Mrs.
Novelli, and afterwards of himself, being at the time of
insane mind."

Judgment was given on the 22nd, in the Exchequer
Chamber, on the Braintree Church-rate Case, which
has been several years before the ecclesiastical and
common law courts, and has excited much public interest,
involving the important question, whether the
churchwardens and a minority of the parishioners can make a
valid church-rate. In the month of July, 1841, at a
vestry meeting, called for voting a rate for the repairs of
the parish church of Braintree; a motion was made for
a rate of two shillings in the pound, and duly seconded;
an amendment was then moved, and carried by an
immense majority, denouncing all connexion between
church and state in general, and church-rates in
particular. After this the great majority of the parishioners
left, and then the churchwardens and others of the
rate-payers carried the original resolution without
opposition. When the inhabitants heard of this result
they resolved to oppose the rate, and the churchwardens
having commenced proceedings in the ecclesiastical
courts against the plaintiff in error, the latter moved
the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of prohibition.
The writ was granted, and on the return to it being
argued the court gave judgment, approving of the
proceedings of the churchwardens, thereby affirming the
validity of the rate declared by the minority. From
that decision the case was brought into the Exchequer
Chamber, on a writ in error. The court which now
gave judgment was divided in opinion. Baron Platt,
Justice Cresswell, Justice Maule, and Baron Alderson,
affirmed the doctrine that the repair of the church fabric
is a duty which the parishioners are compellable to
perform, and that the minority can make a rate if the