The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-03-13 00:00:00

clover, bop, and rye grass. The hop was an unusual
grass in hay in this part of the country. There eras also
a little sorrel.—P.C. Dowdel "Add he went with Park to
the Loose of the prisoners' on the lith of January, and
after they bad found the hay George Steel said he should
like to speak about the concern—had he or Emanuel
better speak to him ? He then said" what do you
think about this job ?do you think it will be a bad job l"
and also added that he did'nt think he (witness) wu a Dad
sort of of man—could they nut settle it between them-
selves 7—He did not appear agitated, but he appeared
alarmed. He (witaess) bad not consulted the dictionary,
but he supposed that when a person was alarmed, he
appeared as though "all was not right," and that when
• person was agitated, be was very much alarmed.
(Laughter.) Charles Troop, the foreman to Mr. Hicks
it Bournmouth. had often sold bay to the prisoner :
Emanuel Steel, but had never sold him hay similar to
the samples produced. His Lordship said there was no
evidence against George Steel, and .he jury would there-
fore acquit bins. The following circumstance appeared
to have escaped the DOtalM of the counsel for the prisoner,
before the magistrates the constables stated that they
had takeii the prisoner Emmanuel Steel's shoes to the
bay rick, and they did not correspond with the foot-
'narks. The jury found both the prisoners "Not
Guilty." Mr. Cooke prosecuted, and Mr. Ffooks
deluded the prisoners.
BTIALISO BOTTILL—Jaages Sparks (on bail) was
charged with steeling • quantity of butter and three
shoemaker's tools, the property of his master, Richard
Luxton, at Broadwinsor, on the 28th January last. Mr.
E. Portman prosecuted, and Mr. Edwards appeared for
the defence. The prosecutor said: The prisoner was
four months in his employ, and be discharged bins on
the 28th February. He then asked permission to
examine a bundle, but prisoner refused, and ran away
out of hieback door down the garden and orchard along
by the river side. Hs followed him and saw him throw
things into the river, mid about half • mile down be
threw a beadle into a hedge. He (prosseutor) picked
it lip and told him be might as well stop—that was
enough—it was his leather, and it wee just as he
suspected. He thee returned towards his house and
prisoner followed him, and continued to ask for forgive-
ness. Mrs. Loveridge also pointed out where alm saw
prisoner throw over • wall • bundle of leather. He
went and picked up the bundle, matched the leather
which prisoner had thrown away with some he had in
his shop, and the outs smelly matched. The learned
counsel for the defence here matched the pieces of
leather handed in, and told his Lordship that the
evidence was so overwhelming, that it wss impossible
for him to resist it The learned Judge then put the
owe to the jury, some of whom being connected with
the trade, said the pieces of leather which were said to
match were of very different groin. The prosecutor
subsequeatly admitted that the two pillows said to
match did not belong to the same hide. The prosecu-
tion was then ordered to go on. Ann Loveridge said she
saw the prisoner throw • bundle over Mr. Holt's garden
wall. She told the prosecutor what she bad seen, and
west with him to peck its. The prosecutor said to
"this is too bed," and prisoner said "yes, it
la."—Tbomas Walbrook„ an apprentice to Mr. Lotion,
in his mists,* Aimee asked the prisoner to cut • pair
of tongues for him. Prisoner refused, but he afterwards
out of pies* of leather NA put it in his pocket, saying
it would do for • pair ef slippers he bad at home. It
was similar to • pieee of leather produced,
P.C. Woodrow examined the prisoner's bundle, ad
found in it three tools, among other things, and after
prisoner woe taken into custody be searebed his house
mid found some slipper-uppers, The prolocutor said
that the prisoner lived 12 males distant, and went home
once a forttught. He lent him some tools to work
with for him, and the tools found in the bundle were
his property and bad his mark. Hs never gave the
prisoner leave to carry away tools or leather to work for
him off the premises. The learned counsel for the
defence said that the ems now assumed quite a different
aspect from what it did when he, relying upon the
evidence of the prosecutor, told his Lordship that it
eauld not resist it. The only evidence against the
prisoner was that adduced by the prosecutor himself,
and it would be for them to say whether, after what
had transpired, they could believe him. None of the
leather had actually been identified. The tools were
lent him, and was it not the most likely inference that
as tha prisoner, when he packed up the bundle, as he
never returned when he went home till the following
Tuesday, that he took them to work with and not with
an intention of stealing. The jury returned • verdict of
stealing the tools only.— Sentenced to 4 months' hard
labour.