100 PACTS, FAILrEES, AST) FEAUDS.
prosecutors had some motive or object in laying it before the jury in such a manner, and in excluding all the information which ought to have been given upon the subject. It was the main principle of the criminal law of this country that those who sought to establish the guilt of a party accused were bound to lay all the facts within their knowledge before the jury; but it was idle to say that this had been done in the present case. Why did not the prosecutors give the jury some information upon the subject of this supposed cheque? They had all the books and documents in their possession, and of course had ample means to do so, but, instead of producing such evidence, they contented themselves with merely putting certain facts before the jury, hoping that they might, by some means or other, induce the jury to return a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. With regard to the other charge, of stealing a piece of paper, he submitted that it was trumpery and ridiculous, and he therefore called upon the jury to acquit the prisoner altogether of the charge made against him.
Mr. Justice Cresswell then addressed the jury, and, after observing that the Court was clearly of opinion that the first count which described the instrument as a valuable security, could not be supported, because there was no evidence that such a cheque as the one alleged to have been stolen was ever in the possession of the prosecutors, said that the only point the jury would have to decide was, whether the evidence satisfied them that the prisoner had stolen a piece of paper; and upon that question he should for the present purpose direct them that, if they thought the evidence that the cancelled cheque had come into the possession of the prisoner from the messenger, and that he had converted it to his own use by destroying it, or in any other manner depriving the prosecutors of it, satisfied them of the fact, they would be at liberty to find the prisoner guilty upon this count.
The jury retired at half-past three o'clock. They were in deliberation more than an hour, and then returned into court and gave their verdict, finding the prisoner Guilty of stealing a piece of paper.
Mr. Justice Cresswell said, he should reserve the point as to the sufficiency of the count—a question for consideration by the Court of Appeal.
The Attorney-General said there were several other indictments against the prisoner, but he should not take any further steps regarding them until the present indictment was formally disposed of by thedecision of the Judges upon the point of law.
Central Criminal Court, July 10, 1850.
(Before Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Justice Patreson, and Mr. Justice Talfourd.)
Walter Watts was placed at the bar. It will be remembered that this prisoner, who was formerly a clerk in the Globe Insurance Com-
