The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 27, 1862.

taw Intel Useful!.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 26.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster after Michaelmas
Term.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Sprodal Juries.)
MOH V. TIOZP.-111:DUCTION.
The declaration in this case charged the defendant with
debauching end seducing the plaintiff's daughter. The de-
fendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Philbrick were counsel for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Morgan
Lloyd for the defendant.
From the opening statement by Mr. Atkinson, it ap-
pmred that Edward Leigh, the plaintiff, was • journeyman
painter, living at Old Ford, where his wife kept a small
shop for the sale of caps, and that Samuel Thorp was a
b major in the Indian army. Major Thorp brought
his child over to England, and placed bar with iris grand-
mother, the widow of the late Alderman Thorp, of London,
who lived at Walthamstow. The plsintiff's daughter
entered Mrs. Thoep's service as nurse to to child, and
after remaining there some time, left and went to her
father's. In July last, being very much attached to the
child, she went to see her et her former mistress's, and
while walking in the garden the major came up and asked
her if she was in want of a situation. She replied that she
war, mad he said if she would come to his lodgings, at 2,
Regent-square, Gray's-inn-lane, he would give her the ad-
dress of his aunt, who wanted a servant. On 15th July she
went there and saw the defendant, who said be had unfortu-
nately lost the address, but that she had better call on the
following Monday. She called again on that day, and
the seduction we alleged to have taken place on thin °m-
aim in the apartments of the major, and also at several sub-
sermons times when she visited him at the same place. In
the early part of May she became ill and went home, where
she was delivered of • child. She was shortly afterwards
seised with puerperal mania, and for several months re-
mained in a state of insanity. The child in the meantime
died. The learned counsel said that under these circum-
stances the father brought this action to recover damages for
the dishonour of his daughter and for the loss of her services.
Emma Leigh, a modest-looking girl, was then called. She
said—l am the daughter of Edward Leigh, who lives at
Roman-road, Old Ford. Before Jun*, 1861, I bad been in
service at Woodford. Previously I bad been in the service
of Mrs. Thorp at Walthamstow, where Major Thorp had
his daughter. I was engaged to take care of the child.
After I left I assisted in keeping my father's house. In
July, 1861, I went to see the child at Walthamstow. I sew
the major in the garden. He asked me if I was in want of
a situation.l said yes." He said, " I will try and get
you a situation at my aunt's in the country." He gave me
his address at 2, Regent-square,. and saidis if I
twolir cell
uponress.
t Thetuitthdere ho
dress onwstrat
orrave m.e
promised auu 's
to
go
02
the following Wednesday, and I did so. I sew the major; he
said he had received the address of his aunt, and asked me
to cell next day. I said I should not be able to come then,
land it was fixed that I should come on the following Monday.
I went on the Monday, between two and three in the after-
noon. The major opened the door, and be asked me to walk
whim. I did so, and went into the front drawing room.
Folding doors opened into the bedroom. Afterwards he
locked the door opening to the stairs. I asked him for the
address. He said I was in a great hurry, and that I was to
sit down, and take my bonnet and shawl off. I said, why
And he replied, " You look very hot." I did not take them
off, and he arid, " If you do not, I'll take them off for you."
I &chanced to the door, and found it locked. He took off
the bonnet and shawl, and put them in the bedroom. He
asked me to have something to drink, and 1 said no. He
said " You must be faint." He gave me some gin and water,
but nothiog to eat. Afterl dank it he wanted me to go
into the bedroom, and I refused. He pulled the blinds of
the drawing-room dowe,and dragged me almost into the bed-
room. I almost broke the swing looking-glass in resisting
him. He took me up in his srms and put me on the bed. lie
took off his coat and bad intercourse with me. He asked
me if I should like to go back to his mother's to live. I
said I should not mind it. After I began to dregs he re-
peated the act. I never obtained the address of the aunt.
When this happened I was eighteen. He asked me to call
again on the following Wednesday, but I did not until
Monday fortnight. I went altogether four times to Regent-
square between July and September, and the intercourse
was renewed on each occasion. In September I went to •
situation, but was obliged to leave it in consequence of ill-
ness. I then returned to my father. I was confined on the
3rd of May. The child died in August following. Major
Thorp is the father of the child. I navel in my life had in-
tercourse with any other main than Major Thorp.
Crass-examined—l don't remember the date when I first
called. It was about the middle of July. I was nurse of
the major's child, who was about three years old. Mrs.
Thorp, the grandmother. engaged me. 1 left her service in
February, 1852. I gave her notice ; she did not dismiss me.
I was a fortnight out of a situation. I had left Mrs. Thorp
two years before. I went to see the little girl in July.
I bad not been with her more than nine months.
I often saw the major. He bad his meek and slept
at his mother's. I was not dismissed in consequence of my
too great familiarity with Robert Hubble, the defendant's
groom. I left because my mother did not like me to be
where there were so many men about. I did not know
Regent square before this event. I knew Sidmouth-street,
Gray's-inn-lane, before I went to Major Thorp's. I did not
meet Hubble there at a public-house or coffee-house in June,
1861. I recollect meeting him in Sidmouthotreet in July,
after I had called the second time in Regent-square. I met
him between three and four in the afternoon after I first
bad intercourse with Major Thorp. Wright, the gardener,
was with him. I don't think we had any ale or spirits
together. I think I had some ham and tea. Wright slept
at the coffee-house all night. Hubble walked home with
me to Walthamstow. 1 did not get home until ten o'clock
at night. When the first intercourse with the defendant
took place I might have been there half an hour. I went
to see him on the following Monday, and then • fortnight
afterwards. I did not tell my mother what happened ; no one
knew anything about it until after my confinement. I was
not treated for the dropsy by any surgeon. I took no
notice to anyone that I was pregnant. I never saw
the defendant after the 3rd of September until now.
After my confinement I told my mother bow the matter
happened. I did not tell her that Robert Hubble drove me
up to No. 2, Regeut-square, to see the major about •
situation, nor that the major took something out of • bottle
on the chimney-piece and ,pive it me in a wine glass, that
I immediately afterwards became senseless. He gave me
some warm gin and water in • tumbler. There was sugar
in it, but uo lemon. (A laugh.) I did not gay that Thorp
and the groom drove me up to Regent -square under pre-
tence of getting me • situation, nor that Thorp dragged me
into some hovel and violated my person. I remember in
July the major prosecuting • servant at Clerkenwell
Police-
court That was the day 1 met Hubble. I did not call
upon the major of my own accord when I first went. He
asked me if it would not be better for me to learn sewing
by machinery instead of getting another situation.
I said I had no money to pay for learning.
He gave me half -a•overeign, and said be would
lewd me two sovereigns, if that was necessary, to learn the
work. I said if I could learn it I should repay the money.
Oe the first occasion I called at Regent-square the landlady
opened the door ; afterwards the defendant always opened it.
Reexamined—Beyond mere conversation with Hubble,
who was a fellow-servant, nothing improper took place be-
tween us. I never had any issue intercourse with him.
Tbs major kept horses but no carriages at Walthanutow.
Edward Leigh, the father, said his daughter was bred up
carefully, and was • well-conducted girl She assisted her
sisters in cap making. When she came home he saw she was
ill, but he never suspected she was in the family way. He
d'd not know it until she was actually in labour. She kept
be• sense* three or four days, and during that time she
called him into the room and said she hoped he would for-
give her. She also stated that Major Thorp was the father
of the child. She lost her senses for four months, and was
at times nearly raving mad. He had to keep her all that
time, and the doctors' bill amounted to 131. or 141.
Cross-examined—She never told me that the groom drove
her to Regent-square, and that there Major Thorp dragged
her into a place and violated her person. 1 believe toy
brother-in-law wrote • letter to the major, bat without my
authority ; and Ido not know what it contained. I was
away from home at work at the time. 1 did not authorise
my brother-in-law to say that the villain had dragged her
into a hovel and effected her ruin.
Ann Leigh, the mother, said her daughter was very well
behaved, and that she never in her life saw any harm in
her. She asked her several times if she was pregnant,
but she never received any answer.
Croce-examined—My daughter never said that Robert
Hubble drove her to Regentoquare. She did say that the
major gave her a cake and something to drink, and that
she came over stupid. I might have mentioned to Mn.
Hubble that her son took her to Major Thorp's. That was
my impression at the time ; but my daughter was out of
her mind and did not know what she was saying.
By the Judge—She talked a good deal while she was
insane, and I repeated to Mrs. Hubble what I gathered
from her.

of the whole oirounistaness Knowing, however, that the
young woman's story was a fabrication from begiening to
end, as • gentleman and • man of honour be was deter-
mined not to enter into say settlement of that kind, but to
have the matter full investigated. The learned counsel
then said that the d t was between 35 and 40 years
of age, and had nerved with the army during the mutiny in
India. He was • widower, and having obtained
leave of abeam* be came back to this country,
end had resided • part of the time with his
mother at Walthamstow. He would have returned to India
before this, but be asked for additional leave of absence
in order to be present at the trial of the action. Mr. Ser-
joint Parry then commented on some of the discrepancies
in the young woman's narrative, and said it was impossible
to believe that two or three hours after she, ► chaste girl,
bad been seduced for the first time in her life, she went, its
she herself represented, dangling about the streets with the
groom Hubble until a late hour at night. He stated that
he should call Hubble, and also the defendant himself, and
he believed their evidence would satisfy the jury that there
was no ground whatever for the action.
Mr. Baron Martin, said as it was an important ore and
they bad arrived at an advanced hoar, he thought it better
to adjourn the trial.
The cam was then adjourned until to-morrow (this day).

COURT OP PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 26.
Woe Vas Judo Ordinary.)

WALLA= fik WALLACI, aoma, MID MACINAMAILL
The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Pritchard for the peti-
tioner ; Dr. Spinks for the co-respondent Macnamara.
The petitioner was the ion of a retired banker
in Scotland. He married his cousin, Mir Mary
Catherine Threw Macdonald, on the 7th of
August, 1849. The lady was a Roman catholic, and the
ceremony was performed in a church of that persumion in St.
Marylebone. After the marriage the parties lived at various
places in England and Ireland, principally on an &Bowan°e
which was made them by the petitioner's father. They bad
three children, of whom one survived. The fist adultery
was charged to have been committed in Boulogne with a
lieutenant in the 15th Regiment of the French army. In
the spring of 1855 the respondent addressed a letter to her
husband, of which the following an the more material
portions :
" 11, Bedfoedutrest, Bedforduquare, London,
April, 11355.
"My dear Friend,—l have received your kind letter, and
for which I thank you. My dear William, I have been to
find the good priest who married us. I held with his good
opinion, and meanwhile God has given me strength to tell
him what I had in my heart. I had the happiness of re-
ceiving the sacrament on Paster Sunday, and as God has
Md*Olas the privet has pronounced the words of absoln-
vt me, do thou also pardon me, my friend. Alas,
how many fall before God every day. I am not infallible,
and my temptations have been very great. • • *—Your
repentant and devoted wife, MinT WALL CL'
• •••

After this letter the petitioner ceased to cohabit with
her; and evidence (taken by a commissioner in Paris) was
now read, showing that she was expelled from several lodg-
brzzaccount of her imprudent behaviour towards French
The respondent, subsequently to the separation,
went to Paris, and was charged with having committed
adultery with a fellow-ledger named Macnamara at an hotel
in Rue Grillon.
Sir C. Cromwell said be bad never known a came in which
the evidence was more slender, but he would adjourn the
further hearing to permit additional witnesses to be called.

COURT OF BANICROFTOY.—Nov. 26.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Hokoyd.)
Dr BZ PIABCT.
The bankrupt was a tailor, of Prinoes-etreet, Hanover-
square. This was the sitting for examination and dis-
charge. The accounts, prepared by Mews. Bart and Co.,
show liabilities of 2,0471. ; 'meta returned at about 6801.
Mr. FILM', for the assignees, required the bankrupt to
furnish cash and goods accounts, and an adjournment was
ordered for that purpose.
Mr. A. Mayhew appeared for the bankrupt.
(Before Mr. Registrar Hiatt.)
LY ILL T. wtowwAs.
The bankrupt was a canvas factor, of Barge-yard, Buck-
lersbury. This was the sitting for examination and dis-
charge. The aconsuita, prepared by Messrs. Johnstone and
Co., show liabilities of 2,8401., with assets of nearly.equal
amount.
Mr. Nicholson appeared for the assignees, and Mr. Hack-
wood for the bankrupt.
There was no opposition, and the order was granted.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Ryles.)

In the case of Henry King, 38, es;penter. indicted for
the wilful murder of Sarah Anne Day by stabbing her with
• chisel, the jury found the ;Messier Rot Guilty.
George Robert Kilaby, 40, clerk, was indicted for felo-
niously shooting at Hoary Cooks, with intent to murder
him, and in other counts the intent was laid to be to do the
prosecutor grievous bodily harm, end to maim and disable
Hr. Ribton prosecuted ; the prisoner was defended by
Mr. Longford.
The learned counsel for the prosecution briefly opened the
facts of the use, and said he believed that the act of which
the prisoner was alleged to have been guilty. was committed
under the impression, for which, as be was instructed, there
was not the slightest foundation, that an improper intimacy
existed between his wife and the prosecutor. The only
question, therefore, they would have to decide was with
what intent the injury wee inflicted.
Henry Cooke, the prosecutor, said—l reside at No. 1,
Thuraley.place, Battersea-fields, and am a groper. I
have known the prisoner for two years, and he had lived
in m, house until the Saturday before he shot me. I had
previously heard something about what the prisoner had
stated, and I asked him bow he came to say he had heard
me kiss his wife. He said he was under the impression
that I had done so. I told him there was no ground for it,
and he mast leave my house. An altercation took Owe
between us, and the prisoner ordered his wife, who was
present, to go to bed. She refused to do so, and the pri-
soner assaulted her, and seized her round the seek, and she
appealed to me for protection, and I interfered and pushed
the prisoner away, and told them both to go to bed, and
added that they should leave my boom on the
following day. The prisoner and his wife did
leave on that day, and I saw no more of
the prisoner until the Monday following, the Bth of
September, about ten o'clock at night. I WAS engaged in
putting up the shutters of my shop at the time, when I
saw the prisoner coming across the fields toward@ me, ac-
companied by his brother and his brother's wife. The
prisoner came up to me and said to me, " Well, sir, what
have you done with my wife r I told him that I had a
wife of my own, and that I did not want to have anything
to do with his wife. Directly I said that the prisoner ex-
claimed " There, " end at the same moment I beard the
report of a pistol, and felt that I was wounded in the ode,
and I became very faint, and was assisted into the shop, and
the prisoner went away. He was not more than two yards
from me when be fired.
Cross-examined—The altercation that I have referred to
took place on Friday night, and the prisoner and his wife
' left my house on the following day. We had always been
' on very good terms down to that time, and no quarrel had
ever taken place between us. The pistol belonged so the
prisoner, and I had seen it in his possession before he left.
John 800, • labouring man living in the neighbourhood,
proved that he was sitting outside a public.house near the
prosecutor's residence on the night the affair happeoed,
and he saw the prisoner walking backwards and forwards in
; front of the house before the prosecutor came out. He
afterwards saw the prosecutor engaged in putting up the
shutters of his shop. and the prisoner went op to him and
, pointed the pistol deliberately at his side and fired, and
when he bad done so he went into the Prince of Wales
public-house.
Mr. W. Austin, the landlord of the Prince of Wales, dr
posed that the prisoner came into his house about ten o'clock,
i and he showed lam a pistol, and said, " This is what we
poison or kill rats with. I have done for him." Witness
had heard the report of • pistol just before the prisoner
, I made this statement. . . .

A police-constable who took the !prisoner into custody
deposed, that from information he received he went to the
Prince of Wake public-house, and !inquired if the man was
there who had just shot another man, and the prisoner came
forward and said he was the person. and be took him into
custody. As they were going to the police-station the pri-
soner made some observation relating to it being a flee night,
and the harvest moon. and that the labourers would be able
to work all night, and he added that he would not be able to
work all night.
Mr. W. IL Kempeter, • surgeon, proved that he was
called to to examine the prosecutor shortly after the occur-
rence, and be found him lying on the bed in a state of great
exhaustion, and discovered that he had received a pistol
shot wound in the side. The injury was of a serious cha-
racter, and there were still some shots in the body, and he '
had no doubt that a portion of one of the lungs was de- '
strayed, and it was impossible to say, although the prose-
cutor appeared at present to have partially recovered, what
would be the ultimate result of the iojnry he bad received.
Mr. Langford addressed the jury for the prisoner at some
length, and having called their attention to the fact that the
prisoner and the prosecutor bad always been on good terms
down to the time when this transaction took place, he
argued that the prisoner had, no doubt, been incited to
commit the act by a feeling of Inalouey ; but he contended
that the evidence was not sufficient to support the allega-
tion that he intended to commit the crime of wilful murder,
and that the justice of the case would be eetialled by • con-
viction for unlawfully wounding.
Several respectable witnesses were called to speak to the
prisoner's character, and it appeared that he bad for some
years bees employed as • clerk at the Westminster Bride-
well, and they all described him as being a kind hearted,
humane man.
Mr. Justine Byles having summed up,
The jury returned their verdict, finding the prisoner
Guilty upon the second count, of wounding the prosecutor
with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
Sentence we. deferred.
James Howard Percy. 23, a gentlemaaly•looking young
man, described in the calendar aa labourer, was indicted

for feloniously and maliciously setting in to a stack of bay,
the property of William Baker.
Yr. Daly peoseonted.
This was a rather peculiar case. The mementor is • farmer
at Hammy, and on the night of the 25th of October a stack
of hay beta him, and which °Detained about 50 loads
of hay, w , was set on fire, no doubt by an incen-
diary, an whole was consumed. On the mine morning,
and while the fire was still raging. the prisoner premiered
himself at the Highgate bathos station mid said that be
wished to give himself up for having wilfully caused the fire
that was then burning. The police sergeant told him that
it was a veil serious offence and he bad better be eareful,
but he persisted in the charge against himself, and on his
being asked how he had set the stack on fire, he mid that he,
in the first place, set fire to his handkerchief, and then with
the handkerchief set fire to the stack, and he described the
part of the stack that he had set fire to. The prisoner, it ap-
peared, at first gave the name under which he was now in-
dicted, but he subsequently stated to the constable that it
yam not his real name, but he refused to state who he was
or where he came from, and notwithstanding all the inqui-
ries that had been made, no information whatever could be
obtained respecting him.
The prisons; when now called upon for his defence, de-
clared that all he bad before stated was false, and that he
had nothing to do with causing the fire. The fact was, he
said, that he bad beim drinking, and hadspent all his money,
and when he saw tho fire he thought that if he gave him-
self up on the charge of having caused it, be should obtain
food and shelter, and this was his only object when he gave
himself up to the police.
In answer to question, which were put to the polioe ser-
geant by the learned judge, be stated that when the pri-
soner was searched only one halfpenny was found upon
but he was wearing gold studs and a gold pin. It was also
elicited that the fire did not appear to have broken out at
that part of the stack stated by the prisoner.
The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
CABO= ROBBERIZB.

John Redwood, 22, brace-maker, was placed at the
her, charged with having, in company with divers others,
feloniously swanned one John Roper, with intent to rob
him.
Mr. Clerk and Mr. Cook appeared for the prosecution, in-
'tracts& by Mr. Pollard, from the office of the Solicitor of
the Treasury.
The circumstances of this case lay in a very small com-
pass. It appeared that the prosecutor, Mr. John Roper,
who was a commission-agent, residing in Argyll.place, was
proceeding homewards along Holborn when an active po-
lioe-constable, named Deacon, observed that he was fol-
lowed by • uumber of men whose operations the officer no-
ticed. He Moaned that the primer mme out from the
body of his companions, and seized the prosecutor by the
throat with great violence, and threw him to the ground.
The net of the gang threw themselves upon the prosecutor,
but were interrupted in their spoliation by the arrival of the
witness, who, singling out the prisoner, pursued and took
him into custody, when he was fully identified by the pro-
secutor es having been his principal assailant.
The jury in this case, after some deliberation, returned •
verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Baron Bramwell wished to be informed of the antece-
dents of the prisoner.
It was then proved by a police-constable that he bad
known the prisoner as • thief from the year 1855 to 1858.
In the year 1837 the prisoner had been summarily convicted
at Bow-street, for attempting to 'rob • gentleman in the
Strand. He had since been convicted of • burglary; but in
1858 he had enlisted ea a soldier, and bad gone out to India,
whence he returned in June last.
A City police-constable proved that in October, 1858 the
prisoner had been convicted at .Guildhall of an assault on
a gentleman with intent to steal, and had been then seu-
' tamed to three months' imprisonment. Since his return
from India it was proved that the prisoner had been the con-
stant associate of the wont of thieves.
By direction of the learned Judge the prosecutor, Mr.
Roper, was recalled, and in answer to interrogations from
the bench, stated that when he was mined by the throat by
, the primmer, of whose identity he was certain, he felt him-
self nearly strangled, so tight was his throat squeezed. He
was unable to speak or to call out, and the violence he suf-
fered bad occasioned • spitting of blood, to which he had
never before been subject, but which had continued to the
present time.
The prisoner protested his innocence of the present charge.
He admitted that he had been previously convicted, but
that after he had served his time he had enlisted, and had
served his Queen and country in India, and had been dis-
Merged from the service in consequence of consumptive &p-
-reviewed. He submitted that hie state of health was such
as to incapacitate him from the violence now laid to his
charge, and protested that be was innocent.
James Ilfountt, 31, smith, John Allen, 30, tailor, and
/etyma Sherri),, 27, tailor, all well-dressed men, were
indicted for feloniously assaulting William John Northcott,
with intent to rob him.
Mr. Clerk and Mr. Cooke appeared for the prosecution,
and the prisoner Mowatt was defended by Mr. Idoldsworth,
and Mr. Edward Beasley defended the prisoner Allen.
This case formed another of the garottuig character, and
it appeared from the evidence that the prosecutor, while
returning home from a friend's house in Pimlico, on the
morning of the 13th Nov., was proceeding along Long-
acre to his abode in Chaplet/est, Lamb's Conduit-street,
when he observed three persona approaching him. He
stepped aside to give them room to pass, when he was
instantly struck at the back of the head, between the neck
and shoulder., and felled to the ground. The prosecutor
identified as his principal assailants the prisoners Mowatt
and Allen, but he could not speak to the identity of the
prisoner Sherriff as the third party:in the attack. In a future
stage the evidence failed to fix complicity upon Sherrill, and
by the advice of Mr. Baron Bramwell a verdict of acquittal
was taken with regard to him.
The evidence to fix the offence imputed upon the
other two prisoners rested upon the evidence of the prose-
cutor and the police, the former distinctly swearing that
the two men were his asseilauts on the night in question,
and that he was enabled to swear to their identity by the
gas light under which the outrage had taken place. The
prosecutor unhesitatingly proved that Mowatt knocked him
down, and that when down Allen knelt upon him, while
the third man who escaped attempted without success to
rifle his pockets.
The evidence of Police-constable M'Gowan, F 40, and of
Sergeant Matthew., went to establish the fact that both the
prisoners had been seen together very shortly before the
robbery or attempted robbery was committed.
' Police-constable Ackrell, of the F division, proved that
in consequence of information he received of this robbery
he apprehended the prisoner Mowatt on the following day
between ten and eleven O'clock. On telling him the charge
the prisoner said he would go quietly if he witness would
not show him up along the streets. The prisoner was
I then conveyed to the police.station. Following the in-
formation he had received he (witness) subsequently took
the prisoner Allen into custody, at • public-house known as
the Spies. On telling him the charge, Allen said, "All
right !" The witness added that he had seen all the three
' prisoners together in Great Comm-street, Russell-square,
shortly before the robbery.
I William Gordon, another police-oonstable, proved that the
two prisoners and a third man were together very shortly
before the attack had been made on the prosecutor. They
were then in St. Martin's-lane, in company with a prostitute
wined Mitchell.
Mr. ifoldaworth addressed the jury on behalf of his client,
the,priemer Mowatt, and urged upon their consideration the
fact that the darkness of the night prevented the pi-fume-
, tor speaking with certainty as to the identity of the prisoner.
Mr. Beasley followed on the part of the prisoner Allen,
suggesting to the jury that it was not because • man was
seen in • particular locality at an unseemly hour he was
thereby to be implicated in a criminal offence of so serious
a character as that upon which he now stood arraigned.
The identity was not made out, and therefore the prisoner
was entitled to an acquittal.
Mr. Baron Bramwell summed up the evidence with
great minuteness, and the jury, after • brief consultation,
returned • verdict of Guilty against both the prisoners.
The learned Judge, as in the previous uses, asked to be
informed what had previously been known of the prisoners.
The officer Ackrell was then recalled, and proved that
when be apprehended the prisoner Mowatt he found
secreted between the bed and mattress a jemmy, a life-pre-
server, and • bunch of well-finished skeleton keys. It was
further proved that Mowatt had not only been convicted of
burglary and had suffered six year.' penal servitude, but that
since he had returned from that conviction be bad been
summarily disposed of for attempts at robbery in the streets
and for burglary in • dwelling-house.
With respect to the prisoner Allen, four convictions for
felony were proved against him so recently as September,
1860, and since then he had served several terms under sum-
mary convictions.
Mr. Baron Bramwell ordered the prisoners to be removed,
as, as in the former eases, he should take some time to con-
sider the sentence.
Charles Jones, 18, labourer, was indicted for robbery with
violence on David Mondell, and stealing from his person a
watch.
Mr. Clerk and Mr. Cooke appeared for the prostitution ;
and the prisoner was undefended by counsel.
The prosecutor stated that about half-past 8 o'clock on the
evening of the 20th October last be was in reek
Clerkenwell, when he was attacked by the prisoner and
several other men, one of whom seized him by the throat,
and threw him to the ground, when hie watch was taken
from him. The other assailants effected their escape, but
in the end the prisoner was secured.
The jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict of
Guilty.
A police-constable, in answer to the court, said that he
had known the prisoner as the constant easociate of thisves
for the last five years, and proved that be had several times
been summarily convicted.
Sentence deferred.
Sum Thompson, 21, spinster, was indicted. together
with a person unknown, with feloniously assaulting Philip
Levan., with intent to rob him.
Mr. /lorry tad.
The facts rnictschiu cue were very simple. The prisoner
was a prostitute, and on the night is question met the pro-
secutor in the Whitec.hapel.ro and after some conversa-
tion with her be became aware that a man was following
them, when he wanted to leave her, not wishing to come in
contact with her follower. The prisoner suddenly seized hold
of the prosecutor, who at the moment received a violent
blow, but whether from the prisoner or • confederate he
could not state, and on this point the evidence was not clear.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

Mr. Barre Bramwell is weer sentence, said that this
ore was unlike tks others which had preceded it. It had
not been clearly shown to kis mind that she was acting in
eoesert with a man. If it bad been so be should have
pored upon her a sentenos of penal servitude for a long
term of years. Uncle, the circumstances of the OWN how-
ever, the sentries was that she be imprisoced and kept
to hard labour for the term of twelve calendar months.
THIRD COURT.

(Before Thomas Chambers, Esq., Q. 0., Common Sernint.)
Acacia Hear*, 21, cabinet maker, John Simpson, 30,
labourer, Henry Austin, 32, blase caster, and Charles Ken.
bell. 29, faker, were indicted for stealing a gold chain and
other articles, value 51., the property of James White, in
his dwelling house.
The prisoners Hearn and Simpson were further indicted for
stealing a watch and other snides, value 51. and upwards,
the property of Ron. Kenyon Bowry, in his dwelling-house.
A third indictment charged the prisoners Austin, Ken.
bell, and Simpson with stealing, in the county of Essex, a
bracelet sod other undo, value 51., the property'of George
Henry Polyplank, in his dwelling-house.
There was a fourth indictment against Kembell and Slum-
son for stealinuold watch and other articles, the property
of Thomas Me
Mr. Clerk (with whom was Mr. Cook), instructed by the
solicitor to the Treasury, conducted the prosecution • and
Mr. Cooper appeared an counsel for the prisoner Kembell.
The circumstances of this case have been very recently
before the public in the police reports, sod it appeared
from the opening statement of counsel and the evident*
adduced, that the primers Kembell and Austin
had hired from the stables of a jobmaster in
the City • horse and gig. They gave the
name of Yates when entering on the engagement, who was
stated to be a boatman,. The address was found to be
erroneous, but on subsequent inquiries it was found by the
exertions of inspector Booed, of the P division of the metro-
politan police, aided by Sergeant Leonard, of the City
detective force, and the prisoners were taken into custody.
The mode of operation adopted by the penmen woos to
drive round the suburban districts, and, under pretence of
selling goods or obtaining orders for goods, obtain
access to the plate chests or select apartments of
the house. in which valuable property was deposited.
The moment that approach was attained, either
by the area or the Nikon* of the upper story windows,
the property was placed in the waiting vehicle, which was
driven off at too rapid a pace for the police on the moment
to pursue. The evidence adduced proved that the prisoners
Austin and Kembell were the princi Is in the felony, and
the other two prisocers.had disposed of the property on the
same day by pledging it, and in some cane- selling the du-
plicates.
At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr.
Clerk said that as far as the prisoner Simpson was con-
cerned, the con was only one of mere suspicion, and there-
fore be should withdraw his case from the consideration of
the jury
on behalf of the prisoner Kimbell, mid be
should not offer any defence, as he could not combat the
evidence which had been adduced.
The jury returned • verdict of Guilty against Austin,
Hearn, and KeinbelL
Jane Yates, 32, married, was indicted for feloniously
receiving • portion of the property which had been stolen by
the prisons" in the preceding one. Mr. Montagu Williams
defended the prisoner.
It appeared that she was the wife of the man Yates, in
whose name the vehicle and horse had been hired, and who
had since absconded, and the evidence against the prisoner
merely went to show that she was in company with the
prisoners who were pawning and belling the duplicates, and
was seen in possession of some portion of the stolen

Pretwirtup Acquitted the prisoner.
Xr. Clerk then stated to the court that the case had been
taken up by the government authorities, io consequence el
the alarm which these suburban robberies had =tunny
created. They had been going on from August down to the
time when Austin and Kembell were apprehended. Kembell,
it appeared, bad been before convicted and sentenced to a
term of penal servitude, and also to imprisonment since the
expiration of that term. The other prisoners had also been
formerly convicted.
The Common Serjeant sentenced the prisoner Hearn to
five years, Kembell to 15 years, and Austin to four yaws'
penal servitude.