Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Tuesday 5 November 1839.

Maidstone Petty Sessions.

Before T. Pybus, T Smith, and T Hyde, Esquires, Justice's.

On Friday last, a youth, not yet arrived at "years of discretion," named Edward Pound, a shoemaker, was charged with having obtained various sums of money, and the false pretences, of Celia Whiffen.

Miss Whiffen, an aged spinster, who is cook at an eating house, stated that she had known the defendant 5-years. During the last 12-months ha had paid his addresses to her. In December last she lent him £20 to pay the rent of the "Walnut Tree" public house, at Loose, which he said he was about to take. In the February following she advanced him £30 more to pay the expenses of evaluation and inventories. In the month of April he came to her again, stating that circumstances had occurred which prevented his taking the house at Loose, and that if she would let him have £40 more he intended to take the "Chequers Inn," at Tunbridge. Witness advanced him the money. On the 9th of the following month she lent him a further sum of £9, and also £5 in each of the months of July and September, and amounting in all to £109. On her expressing her suspicions that all was not right, the defendant said his statements were quite true. However, not being satisfied, and beginning to fear, we suspect, that she had lost her money without getting a husband, the amorous spinster took proceedings against him.

Mr. Skinner, landlord of the "Walnut Tree" public house, and Mr. Mark Milburn, the former landlord, both deposed that the prisoner had never been in treaty with them to take the public house.

Mr. J. Brown, the clerk to the Savings Bank, prove the payment of the different sums of money at the several periods.

Mr. Morgan, who appeared for the defendant, contended that the question was merely a dry point of law. The warrant stated that the defendant had obtained various sums of money under false pretences. In order to constitutes a false pretence there must be an existing fact on which to prove the charge. From the evidence it appeared that there never was an existing fact, as the defendant did not put into execution what he stated to Miss Whiffen he intended to do. He had no doubts that this proceeding was instituted entirely out of revenge at the accused not marrying the complainant.

The defendant was held to bail till this day when the case will again come on.