The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1861-01-10 00:00:00

SAGACITY OF A DETECTIVE OFFICER.-A "NICK."

A tidy, nice-looking, well-dressed female, named
Mary Anne Robinson, alias Brown, and two or three
other aliases, was brought up by detective-officer Patrick
under the following strange circumstances. Patrick
said on Friday evening last a shawl was stolen from the
shop of Mr. Fergie, Islington. He had made every
enquiry possible about it, hut he could find no trace of
it until Tueiday night, when he discovered it after the
following strange manner. There was a man named
Robinson tried at the sessions on Tuesday for stealing
a watch from Mr. Horsfall, son of the M.P. for this
town, and sentenced to 5 years' penal servitude. [A report
of this robbery, which took place at the Post-office a
short time since, appeared in full in our paper.] The
prisoner, after the conviction of Robinson, made an ap-
plication to the Recorder on his behalf, stating that she
was his wife, and asking for a mitigation of his punish-
ment. Her story was so apparently plausible, that the
Recorder referred her to Mr. Superintendent Bello°, in
order to have a report from him, as regarded the prisoner
Robinson and herself. She went to the Detective Police-
office in Dale-street, and whilst making out her case
there, the lynx eye of Mr. Patrick fell on a shawl which
she was then wearing, and on asking her where she
got it, she replied that she purchased it in Dublin
over a year since for £2 10s. This would not do,
and he accordingly arrested her on a charge of having
stolen the shawl from Mr. Fergie's. The prisoner
was subsequently placed along with seven other females,
and she was at once identified by two or three persons
belonging to Mr. Fergie's shop, as the person who was
in the shop at the time the shawl was taken, and the
article was also identified as the one abstracted. In-
spector Carlisle said he wished for a remand, as the
prisoner was well known as one of the most celebrated
thieves between Dublin and Manchester, and he thought
he would be able to show something more against her.
She was accordingly remanded.

ANOTHER CHARGE OF FORGERY
AGAINST MRS. COTTERELL.

Mary Anne Rosa Cotterell, who had been acquitted
on Tuesday before the Recorder, on a charge of having
stolen a quantity of property belonging to Mrs. Harris,
of Berry-street, whose business she conducted, was
brought up before Mr. Raffles yesterday on a charge of
having forged the name of Mrs. Harris to a deposit note
at Messrs. Critchley's, pawnbrokers. Mr. Walter
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Cobb for the
prisoner. It will be remembered that the details of the
former case were published two or three times recently,
and that the present charge arose out of the former
case. Mr. Walter said his worship had recently com-
mitted the prisoner on three charges of felony, and she
was tried on one before the Recorder on the previous
day, and acquitted. The Recorder then advised the
other two charges to be abandoned, and when the
prisoner was discharged she was again given into cus-
tody on a charge of having forged Mrs. Harris's name.
He thought there would be another charge for forging
the name of Mrs. Harris to a Post-office order, but he
would not proceed on that at present. Mr. Cobb : I

want to know first who has given the prisoner in charge ?
Mr. Walter: I appear on the part of the police. Mr.
Cobb : The prisoner has a right to know who the prose-
cutor is. There is no denying that she signed the name
of Mrs. Harris to the paper, but she did so by pro-
curation, and that's not forgery. Mr. Raffles : We
must go on with the case, for I cannot decide it until I
hear the charge. The case was then proceeded with.
Thomas Hughes, an assistant to Messrs. Critchley,
pawnbrokers, was then called, and said he lent the
prisoner £2B on velvets and other goods. Whom did
she represent herself to be ? She represented herself es
Mrs. Cotterell, and said she had authority to sign Mrs.
Harris's name to the deposit note. Mr. Cobb : Did she
tell you what she wanted the money for? Yes; to meet
a bill. For whom ? For Mrs. Harris. At first she had
velvets, and we would only give her £l4, when she took
off her watch and chain and made up the balance. I
did not understand she was Mrs. Harris, but that she
wanted the money for Mrs. Harris's bill. Mrs. Harris
was then examined, and said the signature to the deposit
note was not in her handwriting, nor did she authorise
the prisoner to sign it. Cross-examined by Mr. Cobb :
She never signed my name to my knowledge for any-
thing. Did you ever send her to any one named
M‘Dermott for money ? Yes. Did you get it. No.
Mr. Cobb : Do you mean to swear that you did not get

• the money ? She did not bring it to Me. Mr. Cobb
Did she get the money from Mr. MtDermett: `..!;es-: the:
prisoner took it to the bank. Mr. Cobb For What
For my account. Don't you know that she signed your
name to an I 0 U for that nioney ? I never heard it.
Mr. Cobb : But you had the money ? Yes ; it was
lodged at the bank for me. How much ? £5O. Had
she riot authority to open your letters? No; only le,:ters
with invoices. lioW Was :The to distinguish letters
with invoices ? Oh; Very easily; she *as prohibited
froni opening oilier retters. Did such letters require
answers ? NO. Po ichi knOW PhillipS and Company,
of Manchester ? Yes; and T lia4e done busineSS With
them, and authorised the prisoner to de }insides's and
open an account for me there. She did not sign niy
name there with my authority. She did not sign my name
on opening an account at any place. By Mr. Raffles :
I (lid not think it was necessary to sign a name on open-
ing an wont; on. opening an account at the bank
persons sign their names; but I did not think it was
usual othervrise. The witness, in answer to Mr. Cobb,
proceeded to —I. know Rylands and Co:, and opened
dri account With thenl. The prisoner did not sign my
name there. lz knoW Collin, of Manchester, add some
' one from that honse, called abbilt money to the shop ;' T
do not remember if that persOri addressed the prisoner
as Mrs. Harris. I was_absent occasionally, but she did
not write my letters. I often heard her dictate- letters
to another person, who signed them for me. I got the
£2B from, her, but I don't know where she got it. She
owed me about £4O at the time. Mr. Cobb—That
question was disposed of by the jury yesteday. Mr.
Raffies—l do not see under what statute I can deal with
this case ; but I will commit her for forgery at common
law. Mr. Cobb—Very well, sir ; as you have made up
your mind, I shall not offer any observation ; but I
caa't help saying there is a good deal of vindictive feel-
ing in the case. Mr. Raffles—My opinion is, that Mrs.
Harris has been grossly robbed. Mr. Cobb—l do not
say she was not robbed, but I deny that the prisoner
robbed her. Mr. Raffles—The jury said she did not yes-
terday. I will commit her for trial, but I will take.two
surties in £2O each for bet appearance. Soon after,
Mr. Deighton, who defended the prisoner on Tuesday
before the Recorder, had a consultation with his Wor-
ship; and after a conversation with Mr. Superintendent
Kehoe and some of the detective officers, Mr. Itaffles
said: From what I now ascertain, I find that the Recorder
distinctly put the question to the jury if they believed
Mrs. Harris, and the jury on that acquitted the prisoner,
thereby expressing their opinion that they did not credit
her. Under these circumstances I will take the priso-
ner's husband's bail, in £4O, for her appearance. Mr.
Deighton said he came down not as the advocate of the
prisoner, but to perform a duty that he owed to public
society, and in vindication of the administration of the
law of this country. Mr. Cobb said he felt much
obliged to Mr. Deighton for having acted so, as he had
not spoken to him on the subject, after the jury
had acquitted the prisoner on the previous day. The
prisoner was then discharged on her husband's recog-
nisance.

THE BOILER EXPLOSION AT HALIFAX.
DEATH OF THE INJURED MAN.

The poor man injured by the explosion, died on Fri-
day; and an inquest was held the same afternoon on
his remains. The cause of the accident was then
explained by Mr. Longridge, inspector to a Boiler
Association in Manchester, with whom the boiler in
question was insured. He said he had carefully
inspected the parts of the boiler since the ex-
plosion. Every part was in good working condi-
tion. It would have borne 300tb per inch hydraulic
pressure. He did not think the accident had arisen
from simple pressure. His opinion was that the boiler
had first rent across the bottom, and then the pres-
sure tore up the whole. The first fracture he attributed
to unequal expansion of the boiler from getting up
steam too quickly, owing to the imperfect circulation
of the water in the boiler. It was possible, in boilers
of this construction (two-flued boiler), to get steam up
to 60th or 70th pressure without the water at the bottom
boiling : it would remain cool for a length of time.—
Mr. Bailey, engineer to Messrs. Crossley, Halifax, sub-
stantially agreed with the last witness. The jury
brought in a verdict of " Accidental death," and that
the explosion had arisen from an unequal expansion of
the boiler, from the want of circulation of the water ;
and that such want of circulation might be remedied by
the use of vertical water tubes in the flues.