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

THE FXPRESS, THURSDAY VEINING, NOVEMBER 7, 1861.

He raid to this with his own money. The lease was taken
in the lame of the Nos now in .lustralis. It was now held
by Mr. Wulff, a creditor. Bantrupt was still carrying on
the house. The stock and nature.. had Wen bought by his
loother•ia-law, Mr. Hart, of Thames-street.
By Mr. Linklater—Some of the creditors had in their
posseesion polieko on the gaols that wen: shipped. All the
goods he bought were shipped by the creditors themselves,
except hOf. worth.
His Honour said it was mite clear, from the course of
that etamieation, that the certitioite could not go on.
liern was a man, whose sow Lad owed him SOUL fur years,
giving to that moo property worth 5,000 f. without any
seeunty.. . .

Mr. Linklater paid the court was entitled to know what
the assignees had doue towards recovering the property, and
for that purpose the inquiry ought to be proceeded with.
I innately the hearing was adjourned for a mouth.
A creditor complained that the lamelrupt iu paring Lail
pushed him. and tattled him a •• d--- d mut, wlrel.
dlu Hower mutably reprimanded the bAukrupt, and told
bias ho was liable to be comiontod.

LN RE CUL %BETH COPICLARI).
The haiskrupt, a grocer and druggist, of March, in the
Isle of Ely, applied for Ler certificate. Debt*, unsecured,
3,300 f. ; meets, about Illy.
Mr. Lawrence opposed fur the univiees ; Mr. Law-
rence supported.
Th., grounds of oppusitioe were that the bankrupt, a
widow, had not accounted fur the whole of her property,
h:1.1 acted her books, had put forenrd fictitious debts se
du• to her relatives, and had nude fictitious entries in her
Looks.

in the part of the bankrupt it was admitted that there
hail been great imprudence. but nothing which would sus-
tain the allegation of baud. The bankrupt had only kept
back a few spoons, and those she had given up before pan-
her last en'llloll3Bioll.
His Honour said he had very seldom even accounts and
examitistems wheh dl.cl,anal matter so iim.atisfsetory.. He
had *ea a little of the bankrupt while under examination,
and he must state with reluctsnce that he had scarcely ever
aeon any ;winos' iu that boa who avowed so utterly regard-
lei.. of the obligations of truth. The titillate (third dew)
...Id par Puspeuded for 18 months from the Mae of the but

strata at Bow-street, for stealing books from the shops of
Mr. Carter and Mr. Lacy, booksellers in the Strand. Mr.
Humphries, who appeared for the prisoners, made a strong
appeal to the magistrate to deal with the case in • summary
manner. The young ladies, he said, were the daughters of
a gentleman of affluence and high position in society, and
had been educated in India ; and be could only account for
the unfortunate position in which his clients had placed them-
selves by imagining that they were suffering from a sort of
monomania, as their position placed them high above want,
and their means of purchasing all they required were ample.
Mr. Henry refused to accede to the proposition of the
learned gentleman, saying his duty compelled him to send
themboth for trial, as the offence was not confined to one
act, but, on the contrary, appeared to have been moat art-
fully isintrived. The prisoners, it appeared from the
evidence, entered several booksellers' shops on the pretence
of purchasing books for school prizes. and whilst they were
being shown the articles they contrived to secrete several
of them iu a black leather bug, which they carried under-
neath their shawls ; and, in order to get out of the shop
without making a purchase, they directed the books they
selectedto be sent to • fictitious address.

The counsel engaged for the two prisoners this morning
mentioned their case to the learned judge.
Mr. Bodkin said a great deal of unnecessary embellish-
ment had been given to the case ; about the position the
girls previously occupied iu society, and the affluent circum-
stances of the father, who it was said was a gentleman much
higher in position than any person present in the police
court when the girls were committed for trial. He wished to
know whether the father was now present?
The learned counsel said he was not. With respect to
the statements in the newspapers he was not accountable
for that.

Mr. Bodkin thought when he postponed paving sentence
yesterday some explanation would have been given that
morning. With respect to their position in society he
should not let that have the slightest influence with him, as
he should deal with the case precisely in the same way as if
it had been that of the lowest person who swept the streets.
With respect to the reports in the newspapers, Mr. Hum-
phylas must have made some observations of the nature he
had referred to. As the father was not in attendance, he
should like to know if he would come supposing he again
deferred pausing sentence until to-morrow.
The learned counsel said he did not think it was at all
likely be would attend. His appearance would only be
attended with great pain, and would lead to still greater
publicity.
Mr. Bodkin thought something ought to be known about
the prisoners for their own oaks. He would either pass
sentence now or defer it till he was put in possession of
the circumstances connected with the prisoners.
The learned counsel said he would rather the caw was
dim used of Dow ; the required information should be sent to
the bench.

Mr. Bodkin would at once do so ; and if, after sentence
was pawed, from what was communicated to him, he should
feel inclined to alter the punishment, he would make the
necessary application to the proper quarter.
The two young girls were then pot in front of the dock.
Mr. Bodkin, addressing them, said they had both pleaded
guilty to an indictment charging them with purloining
books, and both had declined to give the slightest in-
formation that might enable the court to make inquiries
about them. It was not the case of pemons destitute
of the means of subsistence, but they were placed in
• position much above that. They appeared to have
been well educated, and to have been taught the dif-
ference between good and evil, so position rather aggravated
the offence than otherwise. If he was satisfied by the in-
formation that was to be forwarded to him that both of
them were to be sent out of England or to the colonies,
which he thought was the best thing that could be done to
enable them to retrieve their character, or that secure steps
would be taken to protect the public against • repetition of
the offence, he would communicate with the government
with a view ti obtaining a remission or alteration of the
punishment be felt it his duty now to inflict. The sentence
of the court was that they both be imprisoned and kept to
hard labour for the space of aims months.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Henry Sharpe, an Ivory polisher, was indicted for steal-
ing two pieces of Ivory, the property of Thomas Davies,
ivory turner, of 6, Watts-buildings, liingsland-road, his
master.

Kemp prosecuted; Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Mr.
Bend defended.
• • - • •

•
This was an ordinary came, but • confession, which was
made by the prisoner under • promise of his not being given
in charge if he would tell what be had done with the
ivory, nut being admissible as evidence, he was found Nut

PLATE

John Mayfield and James uellen, were indicted for steal-
ing 10 silver spoons and other articles, the property of
Joseph Ridge, in his dwelling-house. Mansfield pleaded
guilty.
Mr. Poland appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Cooper de-
fended Gellen.

On the morning of the Ath of October, the prisoners were
met by Doble, 147 D, in Marylebone-lane. carrying a basket,
which on seeing him they threw down. Mayfield was taken ;
Oellen escaped. The basket, which ooutained plate, had
been stolen from 39, Dorset-square on the same morning.
Gillen was taken some time afterwards by Serjeaut Cole,
Ci C, at the Three Tuns, Moor-street, when he
most poiutively protested that he was innocent, and wee not
with Mayfield at the time, u was alleged. The officer,
however, new him well, and ea positively stated that he
was the person whom he saw with Mayfield. They were
known as companions.
The jury found them both Guilty, and Sergeants Cole and
Potter proved former convictions against them. The latter
proved about ten against Mayfield, all for plate robberies
and attempts. His first conviction was in 1855, when be
had 12 months, and since then he had been seetemed to
various smaller terms of imprisonment on summary work.
Lion. Gallen wee convicted of a plate robbery to January
last.

The learned Judge said there was only one course to be
taken with such characters, and that was to remove them
for a long period from society. Upon Mayfield the sen-
tence was six years' penal servitude, and upon Gellen three
years.
Mr. Poland mid it had been communicated to his by the
police officers that in ►bout 12 months 1,000(. worth of plate
hati been stolen from residences on the I) and 0 divisions,
and in consequence groat vigilance bad been exerted, and
that led to the detectiou of the prisoners, who there was no
doubt were commented with a regular gang of area thieves.
The learned Judge said they would be thacounected from
them for some time now.

The applicant stated that he bad received the double
sovereign in the way of trule. A stranger came to his shop
and bought a pair of boots, tendering the double sovereign
iu payment. He war struck with the unusual circumstance
of such a coin being in circulation, and received the answer,
"Oh, we have bad it a long time, and were very unwilling
to part with it, but poverty compels us to do so." This
answer satisfied him, and he received the coin, giving the
full change. Afterwards he heard that such a coin had
been stolen, and he at once communicated with the police,
and give it up to Sergeant Robinson.
Sergeant Robinson said he was instructed to inquire into
the case upon Mr. Judkin's complaint that a double sove-
reign had been stolen, it was suspected by some workmen
engaged in his house. Mr. Ellis saw all the workmen, but
was not able to identify either as being the man from whom
he bad received the coin. As there was no evidence to
show that the coin was the same which Mr. Judkin had
lost, be (Robinson) was about to return it to Mr. Ellis,
when the latter observed that as Mr. Judkin appeared de-
sirous to have the coin he would willingly give it up on re-
ceiving ill nominal value-2/., being what be had given for
it, and some reasonable compensation for his loss of time in
the matter. He (Robinson) proposed these terms to Mr.
Judkin, who assented, and he (Robinson) then gave him
the double sovereign. He now, however, refused to pay
the money or return the coin.

Mr. Henry said the officer had acted indiscreetly in giving
the coin to Mr. Judkin.
Robinson—l am aware of that, your worship. and I should
not have given it to him, but I trusted to his word as •
gentleman, and especially as a clergyman. I hesitated to
do it, sod he said, "Do you doubt my word!" I did not
doubt his word, so I gave him the coin. I fully relied upon
his paying Mr. Ellin
Mr. Henry directed the officer to go with Mr. Ellis to Mr.
Judkin, and tell him that if he did not give up the coin a
summons would issue.

Subsequently, Mr. Judkin attended to explain the matter
to the magistrate. He began by complaining of the con-
duct of Robinson, whom he accused of telling lies through-
out the transaction. Robinson had come to his house at
one o'clock in the morning to demand the return of the
coin, and, after disturbing the whole establishment at that
unseasonable hour, stated that be was sent down by his
superior officer. On inquiring of Superintendent O'Brien
be (Mr. Judkin) ascertained that this was Lot true. Ro-
binson had also appealed to him to give up the coin, as he
(Robinson) had infringed the rules in letting him have it,
and might perhaps be dismissed from his employment, and
deprived of the means of supporting his wife and children.
Mr. Hoary bad nothing to do with that matter at pre-
sent. If Mr. Judkin had any complaint against the officer,
he must make it to the police authorities.
Mr. Judkin—But listen to me, sir. He told me that it
was shown to a dealer in curiosities, who said it was worth
8/. I believe that statement was made to induce me to give
money for it.
Mr. Henry said the officer had acted indiscreetly in giving
the coin to Mr. Judkin, who had no right to retain it unless
he could identify it as his property.
Mr. Judkin —Robinson told me he had traced it to Mr.
Ellis.

Mr. Henry—lt is of no consequence what be told you.
It is quite clear that the coin which Mr. Ellis !gave to the
°Mom was delivered by him to you, and unless you can
prove that it is your property, you are bound to give it
up to Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Judkiu—l could swear that I am certain the coin is
mine.

Mr. Henry—lf you will undertake to swear that it is, I
will order it to be left in your possession.
Mr. Judkin would not swear that, but it was • very im-
probable story that some person bad had it for many yeses,
and was compelled to part with it from necessity.
Mr. Henry thought that quite possible.
Robinson—There was one offered to a pawnbroker the
very day of the loss.
Mr. Judlda—ltolinsou told me that was the same.

Robinson—l said nothing of the sort.
Mr. Judkin—Oh! are you Robinson? I did not know
you in your uniform, Whv, I out show that you have
told me at least laalf.a-domon lies ; your conduct Is die.
graceful.
The magistrate, addressing Mr. Judkin, said—lf the
officer had done what he was bound to do, returned the
coin to Mr. Ellin, then your remedy would be to summon
him for detaining the coin, which you allege to be your
stolen double sovereign ; but the onus of proof would rest
on you. Now, if you decline to give it up I will issues
summons against you. and unless you can prove that it is
the one you lOSI I shall order you to give it up.
Mr. Judkin said he was willing to place the coin in the
hands of Superintendent O'Brien until the question was
settled.

Mr. Henry had no objection to that. If Mr. Judkin
wished the question to be tried by a summons the super-
intendent might hold the property in the meantime.
After much further discussion, Mr. Judkin said he did
not want to be summoned. He wished the coin to remain
in the hands of the superintendent till some time bad
elapsed. If after that no discovery was made, and the
magistrate remained of the saws opinion as at present, be
might order it to be given up to Mr. Ellis.
This was agreed to on all hands.

WESTMINSTER.
Mr. Arnold gave his decision upon an adjourned cue
under the Hackney Carriage Act. He mid the question he
was called upon to determine was whether when two adulta
and a child under ten years of age were eneaveyed in a cab
the driver was entitled to charge for loggap. He (Mr.
Arnold) had given the matter his fullest comidecation. and
had bad much difficulty in coming to his present conclusion,
with which he was by no means satisfied. The present
summons was taken out by a cab-driver against •
gentleman far 10d. for the carriage of five parings,
and it bad been urged by the driver that Mr. Daynuin
magistrate at Wandsworth, had recently delided that where
the third person carried was an infant in arms the tabu=
was entitled to charge for the luggage. He (Mr. Arnold)
bad since communicated with Mr. Delman on the subject,
and found that that gentleman had now changed his
opinion, and upon giving the cue mature consideration
thought he was wrong in the decision quoted, which had
been given without sufficient consideration. He (Mr.
Arnold) had also consulted his eolleague, Mr. Paynter,
who was strongly of opinion that the driver was
entitled to charge. There was no distinction in
the act of parliament between an infant In
arms and a child who occupied a seat. By the 16th and
17th Viet., cap. 12, sec. 14. It was enacted. "That two
children under ten years of age shall he considered sa one
adult person for the purposes of this clause," and he there-
fore thought that that definition of a person for the pur-
poses of fare was limited to that clause. Turning to UN
schedule of the previous act it stated " That where more
than two persons shall be carried inside any hackney car-
riage with more luggage than ma be carried inside the
carriage, a further sum of twopence for every
package carried outside is to be paid by she
hirer. The whole question, therefore, he repeated,
turned upon whether a child was • person. and the clause
regulating the fare for the conveyance of passengers used
the word "adult," while the schedule relating to the
charge for luggage omitted it, having the word "person"
to be treated with its general significancy, and therefore he
thought it must mean a person, no matter of what age. By
another section of the act cab drivers were liable to • penalty
for refusing to take • fare, and if a person under 10 years
of age—a hoe of 9—wanted to be driven anywhere, and
called • cab, be driver would incur a penalty, and there-
fore it must be fairly argued he would be a " person,"
and would be liable to the usual fare for his conveyance.
The law did not draw any distinction between the child of
nine months and nine years, dal he (Mr. Arnold) therefore
thought that an infant came within the definition of •
penou.
Au order was then made upon the defendant for 10a. and
coats, which his footman paid.

THE SUSPECTED MURDER AND SUICIDE
NEAR PRESTON.

On Tuesday afternoon Mr. Myres, coroner, held
an inquiry at the Plough Inn, Ashton, touching the
deaths of Ann Wright and Charles Wright, her illegitimate
sou, the particulars of whose deaths have already appeared
in our columns. The finding of the bodies in a pit near
the footpath leading from Ashton to Preston Marsh having
been proved, other witnesses stated that the woman had
tried in vain to affiliate her illegitimate child, and had been
much depressed in spirit..
Mn. Jones, of Blackpool, said the deceased formerly
lived with her as her servant. She had a child about twelve
months ago. The infant was the one taken out of the pit.
She was much put out of the way in consequence of her
having failed to father the child. In July last she became
very melancholy, and laid on two or three occasions that
she would drown herself and the child. She afterwards
told witness not to mind what she had said, as she would
be sorry to injure the child. She was afraid, however, that
she would go out of her mind. She left witness's service
in September last.
Mary Woods, of Graveston, deposed to seeing • person
like the deceased sitting at the side of the pit in question a
fortnight ago. The woman had a child with her. She ap-
peared to be in a very low suite, and was taking its hat off
and pinning a string to it. Saw the woman shortly before
walking towards the pit. No ODO was near her at the pit
side.
Charlotte, wife of Stephen Preston, of Preston, deposed
theta fortnight that day the deceased and her child were
at witness's house. She was without a situation, and had
been so for a month, ever since she left Mrs. Smith's. A
fortnight ago deceased also called on witness,and wanted her to
take charge of her child. Witness told her she could not do
so as her husband sou unwilling. On the following morn-
ing the deceased was singing in witness's house. She
afterwards said next time witness heard of her it would be
something strange. Witness recommended her to put the
child in the workhouse. The deceased came direct to wit-
ness's house from Blackpool, and had not been to her
parents' house at Wurtin since last May.
Other evidence having been adduced, the Coroner summed
up, and the jury returned an open verdict that both the de-
ceased were found drowned.