The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-17 00:00:00

ROBBERY ON TILE WEST DERBY ROAD.

John Copner (35), who was described in the calendar
as imperfectly instructed, and George.Woolridge (40),
also stated to bo imperfectly instructed, were charged
with having, at West Derby, on the 9th of June, 1859,
feloniously broken and entered the dwelling-house of
William Newbold, and stolen therefrom one gold chain,
two seals, two keys, one gold pencil-case, two brooches,
one ring, one silver butter knife, half dozen silver
spoons, and one plated key, of the goods and chattels of
the said William Newbold. Mr. Hopwood appeared
for the prosecution, Mr. Littler defended the prisoner
Copner, and Mr. Russell was counsel for Woolridge.
The circumstances of this case were published in exttnso
in our columns on the examination of the prisoners
before the magistrates. It appeared that on the after-
noon of the day in question, Mrs. Newbold went out,
accompanied by her children and a servant girl, for a
walk, but before proceeding far Mrs. Newbold recol•
-
lected that she had forgotten a letter which she had to
post. She consequently returned, and, having got ,the
letter, again came out, locked the door, and did not
return until about eight o'clock in the evening, when
she discovered that the house had been broken into, and
the things were in a state of great confnsion. The
police were informed of the occurrence, and on making
inquiries they found that the prisoners had been seen at
a public-house at the corner of Berwick-street, kept by
a young female named Hitchen; and also that a person
named Roberts, who resided next to Mr. Newbold's
house, had seen a man go up to the door immediately
after Mrs. Newbold went out. She came out and in-
formed him that Mrs. Newbold was not in, to which be

replied "So I perceive," and went away. Shortly after-
` wards another man returned.; and, after looking through
t th'e kenole, °Oiled the door, apparently with a skeleton
key, arid ent'erickl the house. This man-Mrs. Roberts
swore was the pri'soliefeowier,, . Some days after the
robbery Cowper went up to' Ifi;4 fritcliens, when, in
answer to an observation she triode reletite to the:rob-
bery, he said, "Ah ! what was She atiswbred,
" Some jewellery and plate,"
to which lie wade no
answer. Miss Hitchen also met the prisoner Copner
hseavveirnagl
gtiimveesn
saofmteerni'nafrodrsin,
vt
ol enn to thinec opnoslei (lieu ei
nn cree foe rf e nh ce er
to the met she had seen loitering about the prethises, he
said be had been' to Major Grog about the defamation
she. had ins de 6h bib character. lie was at that time
coming .from the airectiOn or West Derby Y and she
asked him hoW he could be' coming from the police sta-
tion viliehhe Was *coming (rout West tobrhy, and if so,
Ay he did not come up to Berwick-street and dear
himself. He, Made no' answer, but N'irebt away. He
again met her Otte' time afterwards, and she was about
to speak to him, When his Wife came up and knocked
her down and he made' oft The prisoners were also
seen together by a Mrs. lialtfei a neighbour of Mr.
Newbold's, at the back part of the premises, on
the afternoon' ib question ; but Woolridge had not
been seen in Copikes. company at any other time,
but was seen by Miss IlikebetY coming front the back
part of Mr. Newbold's prettisteir on the day of the
robbery. When be saw her he e)sPeared very much
confu'sed, and was wiping his face with 14a pocket hand-
kerchief. Woolridge, on bein,, taken into cnhtodiy and
• charged with the offence, said, " Oh! it it is Aitehen,
I suppose; because my wife knocked her down in Ate
street ;" and also alleged that Copner was making love
to' her, and "it was very hard that she should appear
against there: when Coptic was making it all right for
her. Ar:- Littler; in addressing the jury for the
defence of Copier; ihmigned the conduct of the witness
Hitchen, and suggested that the prosecution resulted
from some petty spite, arising from a blow given
Hitchen by the, prisoner's Wife: His lordship in sum-
• thiftg up the evidence, directed ',be jury to acquit the
prisonei Woolridge, on the ground that there was no
convicting evidence brought forward against him. The
jury returned a verdict of not guilty in both cases.