The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1868-01-07 00:00:00

L

SECOND COURT.

(Before OLIVIS W. PARLEZ, Esq.)
Charles If errison, 30, labourer, was convicted of
stealing • 141 b packet of okra, belonging to Henry
Gill, of Bl•••ford, and • pair of book the property of
William H. Abbott, of the same town. He had
recently been imprisoned for sacrilege. Sentenoed to
12 monthe herd labour.

Cherles Bishop, 49, labourer, was found guilty of
atealing three tuns rabbits, belonging to John Steak
of Milborne St. Andrew. He had been seven times
cenrieted.—Seateneed to 18 months' hard labour.

George Henry Watts. 30, bricklayer, and Jane Waite,
24, were convicted for itiisling a coat, the property ot
Renry R. tnrnott, at Wimborne Minister, Dec. 27,
tad sentenced to three months' hard labour each.

James King, 21, and William Davi., brickmakeni,
pleaded guilty to stealing a pair of boots, the property
of Charles Ilighem, at Blandford, and were each
seutenced to three months' hard labour.

George Critehell, labourer, indicted for stealing ducks
the•property of the Hey. W. Barnes, at Came was
acquitted by the jury, after they had been locked up
for about two hours. In discharging the prisoner, the
Chairman told him he had escaped by • stroke of hick
he would seldom meet with. Had the jury known,.,
the Court did, that be Lad been 18 times convicted, and
aul just completed • term of four years' penal servitude,
they might probably have taken a different view of the
case, the effect of which would have been to send him
back for seven years' penal servitude. H. could not
expect another time to find such a lenient jury. The
prisoner, who was evidently agreeably surprised, thrb
left the dock. _ .

Reniamin Champion, 24 soldier, 13th Regiment, wee
aoquitied of the charge of obtaining by faise Prrtenoes
watch and chain, the property of George Gulliver, at
Weymouth, Oct. 26th.
_ . . _

-. .
George Marsh, Henry Marsh, and Abel Harvey, on :
bail. surrendered, and were indicted for stealing five
ducks, belonging to W. Lock, dairyman, at Lonebredy.
-Harvey pleaded guilty.—Mr. H. Dukes prosecuted. :
George Marsh was defended by Mr. Collins, and Heim
Marsh by Mr. ?looks. The new evidence for the prose- I
ention was given by Abel Harvey, armomplioe, who wse 1
celled. He raid that he was induced to take part in the !
affair through George Marsh, who wrote • line to get I
him out of school. They went to a public house and '
1.4 some beer, and then went to Comb* to get some
rebbitts for, man, but he was gone to bed. As they I
were coming back they heard some ducks "quack," ,
and then at George Marsh's suggestion they went
and stole them. George Marsh had four.
and he one. They pot them in two baskets, and
when they got to Marsh's door he gave his
buket to George Marsh.—Mr. Collins urged that the
identity of the dunks stes not proved—only two heads ,
were prodnoed, and it was professed to identify them by I
a white tuft under the bill of each, but strange],
enough that was not stated before the magistrates, and :
I whoever that had deck, for only three days would take 1
' Inch notice of them u to be able to .wear they had each
a white tuft under the bill ? But, if even that were
done, would not ouch a mark be common to a very large
number of docks? He asked why the rest of the heads
were not produced, and why the prosecution did not
call the old woman who had bad the ducks In
her care for years. Be commented on the
Pi ogular readinins with which Harvey pleaded
guilty to stealing and also receiving the docks.
and then went on to speak as to the swearing to the
footmarks around the pond from which the ducks were
taken by Supt. Underwood, but said he should prove
that on the night in question the boots produced of
George Marsh with which the marks were said to be
made were not worn by Wm. lie called George
On.h, who said he was a shoemaker, of Longbredy,
and had worked for Mr. Henry If t•sh for over
24 years. lie knew both prirons la. They were I
men et good elm-tater and position. He lived I
iii part of Henry M irsh's houre, lad made the i
boots pr .sinced. There was nothing peculiar in the
nailing. Had made mane • pair for Farmer Angina, who
owned the very pond, off the same last.coneequently the
foot would be the same size. Had made reores like :
these produced. He should not he able to distinguish
between the mark made by the boots he made for
George Marsh and thou of the boots be made for
Farmer Atkins, on the night prior to the robbery, about
10 o'clock, he saw • pair of boots like thou produced on 1
Mar.h's stairaue. He said "1 believe thou are Genre', :
boots r and the servant said "I think they are." Cross-
examined t Had made more pairs than one off the same
last for prisoner—Carolina Bartlett, servant to Mr.
Henry Marsh, said she remembered the day before
prisoners were taken Into custody. Between seven and
eight o'clock at night George Marsh took off • pair of
light boot, which she put to dry,and then pat on the land-
ing of the staircase. The hoots prodeoed were the same.
He pat on a pair of heavy nailed boots.— Mr. Honks
wee about to address the Ittrr for lienry Marsh, when
the counsel for the prosecution, at the roggestion of the
Court. withdrew the ease agaimit him, and be wae
acquitted.—Mr. Collins then seamed up the use
for the defence. He said he had no doubt they were
satisfied the footmarks found round the pond were not
George Marsh's, and that being the ease, the evidence
of the approver, which was the only evidence against
George Marsh, wee totally unsupported, and according
to the ruling of the judges, was not tube relied on.—
Mr. Dukes laid before Use jury a summary of the cue
, for the proseoutino.—After every brief eonsultation,the
jar, found George Marsh guilty. Mr. Collins suggested
' that the stealing waadone without premeditation. The
Chairman sentenud Abel Hervey to two months'
hard labour, and George Marsh to four months'. Henry
, Marsh was discharged.

FIRST COURT.—'l4suaanAT.

(More JOHN FLOUR. Fog., Depoty.Chalrman).
George Gale, 21, labourer, and Thomas Vine, 20,
labourer, were indicted for stealing two dunks and two
fowls, belonging to Syderibate Burgh, at Frans St.
Quinton. Mr. Ffooks promacted, and Mr. Collins
defended. They were found guilty. A character was
put in on behalf of Gale, horn the Rector of Frome Ste
Quinton. The prosecutor said he had known nothing
agaimit tbe two men before. Sentenced to three months'
hard labour each. . -

Charles Lovell, 31, Robert Hall, 37, and George Vine,
labourers, were indicted for stealing two haute, the
property of Fanny Kerley, landlady of the Half.moon
Inn, at Blandford ; and, Robert Stickland, landlord of
the White Hone inn, of the same town, an eharged
with receiving the same, well knowing them to have
been stolen. Mr. H. 13ankea prosecuted, and Mr.
Ffooka and Mr. Collins, instrueted by Mr. Atkinson
of Blandford, defended the prisoners. It seems that
on Monday, November 18. Miss Kerley saw two hams
safe in an unlocked pantry, In the taproom of her
mother's pablie-bouse, the Half Moon, and a young
man, now undergoing • sentence of eix months, Im-
prisonment for, ea he says, "buying a coat," who was
employed at the inn, spoke to geeing the hams in the
pantry between 8 and half-past 8 on .Tuesday niorning.
The three prioonere, Lovell, and VlllOO, were at the
house, in and out, from 9 in the morning till 4
o'clock. Shortly before that time, the hams were
mimed. Mies Kerley saked the three prisoners, who
were then in the tap-room, if they knew anything about
the hams, offering a sovereign for information. They
replied in the negative, and Vince said be wished he did
know. Shortly before 2 o'clock that afternoon, P.C.
Snaviour saw Hall and Lovell coming from the direction
of the Half Moon, and going towards the White Horse,
and he notioed something bulky under Hall's coat.
Miss Kerley wail re-eallod, and said that in the morning
she weighed at their weigh-bridge several loads of
Swedes. Hall said be should like to have two or three,
and she replied she did'ut doubt George would give him
one or two if be were to ask him. When before the
rietrates, she heard Hall say, when P.C., Seeviour
inzt
he saw him with something bulky, "that
was three turnips I picked up." Au elder* man,
honied William Clarke was at the White Home
from 2 to 4 o'clock, and the prisoner Stiokland
served him with holf.a-pint of beer. Lovell
brought In something under his arm, in • cloth.
I P.C. Butt about six o'clock found the two hams in
litickland's cellar. They were in • safe, whith was
locked, and Mrs. Stickland gave them to him. She could
give no aooount of bow they sane there. P.C. Hann
apprehended Hall and Lovell at the Half Moon in the
evening; the latter said he had not been out of the
house that day. About eight o'clock he met Stiokland
driving homewards in his cart. He asked him about
the keen, and be said he knew nothing about any.
The conetable took him into enetody, on a charge of
felostouky resolving the hams. This was the OWL
Mr. Ffooks asked the court If they thought there was
any evidence to go to the jury against the three oharpti

with steeling 7—After gone eansult•tion, the chairman
said that the defence had better be made.—Mr. Ffooks
then addressed the jury. As to the three men he urged
there was not evidence enough to make a teas of
sustision against them. With regard to &Ackland he
shoot I be able to show by Mr. Atkinson, a Blandford
solicitor, that he (Stickland) was a man of good pestle in
in the town. bad been a licensed entailer for a long
time, was the Treasurer of a considerable lodge of
Oddfeßows, supplied the rifle corps with provisions
when they went out, we, S MILO in whom the towns.
people generally had eonfidenee, and an 110011111Vely-
signft1 memorial had bees got op on his behalf. He
commented on the circumstance that Slickland was
not proved to have been dealing with the hams in any
way, that be had throughout denied all knowledge of
them, and said be was away from his hopse from two
o'clock to eight out in the country with bin cart in the
prosecution of his business, If he had received them
with a guilty knowledge balers going out, would he
have been likely to have left them in his house? No,
he would have taken them out to sell in this country.
He did not deny but that the stolen hams were found
In fftickland's house, but he was not legally responsible
unless it was shown they were in his possession no that
he had power over them. There was not the slightest
evidence to fthat effect, and therefore he urged that
Slickland must In acquitted.—ln surnmining op the
ease, the Chairman said there could be no doubt two
hams were taken away from the house of Mrs. Fanny
Kerley, on the evening of the 18th or the day of the
89th November. On that pint a witness named
Wanes wee called—and the court saw no reason to
doubt his evidence—who anted that he saw the hams
safe at Mn. Kerley'., on the 19th, about half-past eight
in the morning. If they believed that, the hams must
have been stolen at some subsequent hour. In
the evening, at six o'clock, two hams were found at
Stiokland's house, and lion Kerley swore very con.
fidently to them as belonging to (her mother. If
they believed the witnesses up to that .point, the ease
came within a narrow compass. Then came the
question, who stole the halll4, and who bad • guilty
knowledge of the fact. The three prisoners were in and
out of the house during the day. Lovell was proved
by Clarke to have gone iuto the White Horse, between
two and four, having something in • cloth under his
arm. A policeman spoke to seeing Hall and Lovell
going down the street towards the White Horse, and
from the direction of the Half Moon. This only showed
that they might possibly h•ve come from the Half
Meson, but the presonsngen was strengthened by the
evenes of general witfioniethat the men were •t the
Half Moon during the day. With regard to Vines, the
Court did not en very much against him except that
be was in the companionship of the other two. As to
Hall and Lovell there was no direct evidenee. They
wen in the house from which the property was taken,
and were ,seen going to the home where it was found
the same evening. Hall having something under his
coat. This “something" wes explained by Hall saying
it was turnips. It would be for their consideration
whether that was a true explanation. Lovell did go
into the White Horse with a cloth under his arm, but
It was not shown what there was in ii, and the only
evidence from which it was suggested by the prosecution
they would infer what was in it, was, that a few bourn
after, the hams were found in that particular public-
howse. It appeared to him and the learned justice (the
Rev. C. W. Bingham) assisting him, that the case was
of ',ltch a oaten, that it ought to be submitted to the
ooneideration of the jury : they would, therefore
exercise their lodgment upon it. As to Stickland, the
learned oonnsel had addressed them very ably. He was
not sure, however, that he (Mr. Ffooks) did not go
rather further in his view of what was necessary to
conetitute guilty knowledge in a receiver than the
court was prepared to sooninpanying hits in. They
understood hiss to say it must be shown the receiver
had actually some personal handling or dealing with
the hams. (Mr. Ffooks : I said he must be in such a
position IN to have power over them). No doubt that
was the case, and the question for them would be,
whether the evidence led them to the conclusion that
the landlord of the White Horse had the hams in his
power and under his control, with • knowledge that
they were stolen. fitickland was shown to have been
in his public:l-house, between two and four o'clock, and
during that time Lovell came in with something—
whatever it we,- under his arm. The landlord
wee not shown to take it from Lovell. bet he was at
home. After that they lost sight of the landlord, though
though it did not appear at what time be went out,
If he was at home between 2 and 4 o'clock, supposing
the hams were stolen and tekon to his house in the
course of the afternoon, it was at any rate possible
that they might have been taken to his house when he
was at home. He was seen returning to his house at
8 o'clock, If be bad not had possession of the home
before he went out, he could not have done afterwer is,
for he was taken into custody and the hams were in the
hands of the police. If he received them at all it
must have been previous to his going out. What was
there to lead to such an inference? The hams were
found in his house • few hours after they were stolen,
and that raised a strong presumption against him.
When asked whether be hail bought any, he denied all
knowledn of them. Could they believe that
disclaimer? As a general talc, whim a man was found
in ptemession of property recently stolen, he ought to
be able to account how he came by it, suppoeing, of
course, he knew it was in his house.—After about two
minutes' consultation, the jury returned a verdict of
Dos guilty. In discharging the prisoners, the Chairman
said when stolen property was found In a man's house
so soon after it was stolen grave suspicion was east
upia some members of the household, and Stickland
had better see that those who managed his house did
not permit stolen property to be put there. They
were then discharged.