The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-07 00:00:00

THE LATE GREAT SILK ROBBERY.

In the month of March last ten bales of silk,
valued at 2,0001., were stolen from • barge on the river on
its way from the West India Dock to the St. Katherine
Dock, or in the last-named dock, after the arrival of the
silk at that place. The stolen silk was concealed for • few
hours in the house of • man named Barker, • shoemaker, of
Hope-street, Bethnal-green, and removed by rail to Derby,
where it was found by the police of that town in the mill of
a silk throwster named Newton. After several examinations
at the Thames Police Court three men, named Barker,
Debock, and Crane, wereemismitted for trial for stealing the
silk, and John Newton, of Derby, was committed at the same
time for feloniously receiving it, knowing it to be stolen.
The trial at the OM Bailey lasted two days, and terminated
in the conviction of Debook, and the acquittal of the other
prisoners. The names of two persoas named Agg and
Hunter, both licensed victualler', the one keeping the
Clown public-house in the St. John's-street-road, opposite
Sadler. Wells Theatre, and the other the Red Deer in the
Cambridge-heath-road, Bethnal-green, were frequently men-
tioned during the investigations which took place. Both ab-
sconded, and rewards were offered for their apprehension.
Agg's name was appended to the receipt for money paid by
Newton for the silk, and Hunter wee stated to have been in
company with Agg in Derby. At the time Newton
rJfor the silk, Debock exhibited three 1001.
k of England notes to en innkeeper named Rowbothani,
and asked if they were genuine, at the same time he pre-
tended to be • Frenchman who could only speak English
imperfectly. Debock acted io clumsily, and gave such a
curious account of the manner in which he became pommeled
of the notes, that Mr. Itowbotham gave information to the
Derby police. Debock and his brother-in-law, Barker, who
was in his company at the time, were immediately arrested,
• communication was made to the London polke, the silk
in Newton's mill was seized, Newton was taken intocustody,
and a man named Crane, in the employ of Dmkeford and
Co., silk morass in the City, was also appre-
hended. Cruse engaged the van which conveyed the
stolen silk from Barker's house to the railway station the
night before it was conveyed to Derby. After the trial at
the Central Criminal Court, the three NM. notes foiled
upon Debock were ordered to be returned to Newton. who
had paid them away to Agg. The licensee of the Clown
and the Red Deer were transferred to other persons after
the flight of Agg sad Hester, and no tidings wen heard of
either until yesterday afternooe, when Hunter surrendered
himself at the Thames Police Court, Stepney, which in •
few minutes became crowded.

""if;7li;mpiWy;,llll3..of the firm of Humphreys, Son, sod
Morgan, solicitors, conducted the pruecutioo for the
St. Katheriue Dock Company ; Mr. Leech, solicitor, of
Derby, defended Hunter.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., stated at some length the facts of
thin cue. and several witnesses were then called to prove
the unshipmeut of 411 bales of raw silk from the Solent,
their delivery into the barge Dixville, and to the deficiency
of 10 bales on the arrival of the Domino in the St. Kathe-
rine Dock.

Mr. William Morris, of No. 45, Hall-street. City-road,
said he was formerly landlord of the Crown and Cushion
public-house, in London-walL Mr. Newton, of Derby, was
in the practice of coming to that house when he came to
London on business, and the prisoner Hunter and Agg had
frequently visited him previous to the 18th of March. He
knew a person named Crane, is the employ of Drakeford
and Co., the silk mercers. Crane was an occasional visitor
at the Crown and Cushion.

--JosephlarTif7r,-sl;;;;Mtker, of Hopestreet, Bethnal-
green, said that 10 bales of silk were deposited in hie prw
muss oa the 15th al March last, taken away three days
afterwards, and sent by train to Derby. He accompruded
his brother•in-law Debock to Derby on the night of the
18th of March. He did not see the prisoner Hunter in
Derby. He could not recognise him. He did not see him
at all on that journey. He and his brother.in.law met two
gentlemen in Derby. He could not swear that Hunter was
one of them. Debock mentioned the name■ of the two
gentlemen after he parted with them, and said one of them
was Heater. - . . . ._ . . . .

11;:reeci; objected, and aid that what Debock bad
Meted was not evidence.

Mr. Woolrych— You are right.
In cross.examination by Mr. leech the witness said—Mr.
Newton was not with me in the railway carriage from Lon-
don to Derby, as sworn to by some of the witnesses on the
trial. He did not see Newton at Rowbothant's public.
house, in Derby. He did not know Mr. Hunter at all.
Mr. J. P. Mumford, superintendent of the St. Katherine-
' dock police, said—l have had a conversation with the pri-
soner this day in the elerk's-otfice here. He said, " I have
had nothing to do with this transaction. I can challenge
the world. and have told Mr. Leech to say so. No one can
say anything against my character." The prisoner also
said, "I was a fool to go down to Derby ; Barker saw me
there, and came up and shook hands with me, and said I
knew his father." Since the robbery was committed and
the stolen silk discovered, I have sought everywhere for
Hunter. A reward has been offered for his apprehension,
and large posting-bills have been issued.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., asked fora remand, as be had
further evidence to produce against the prisoner at a future
time.
Mr. Leech had no objection to a remand, and his client,
Mr. Hurter, courted the fullest inquiry. He submitted the
prisoner ought to be hailed.
Mr. Woolrych—l will take bail for the prisoner to appear
on Wedni•sday next, himself in 5001., and two sureties in
25(Y. each. I must have good hail.
A number of persons tendered themselves as bail. Two
were accepted, and the prisoner was liberated.