The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-18 00:00:00

HOTEL ROBBERIES AT MANCHESTER

On Wednesday. Mr. Oscar Kingston, a ge,:lemanly-looking
man, was charged at the City Police Court with a robbery at

the Royal Hotel, Manchester, under t

wine circum-

stances

alleged ti

hat Mr. Kingston entered the bedroom

of lir.-Edden, of the firm of Langton, Scott, and Edden,
chemists, of London, who is staying at the Ro3al Hotel, and

stole from the fob pocket of his

425 in notes.—

trousers sZ, 4

Inspector Maybury) of the detective force, stated that he was
sent for between three and four o'clock on Wednesday
morning, to go to the Royal Hotel. On arriving there, he
was informed by Mr. Allen, the proprietor, that a robbery
had been committed in the house. From; enquiries which he

made there, he suspected that the prisoner committed the
robbery, as every other gentleman was known. He ascer-

tamed that the prisoner was sleeping in No. 40 bedroom,
and that he had left word with the chambermaid to be called
at half-past five o'clock. At that time the chambermaid
went to the door, it was opened, and he (witness) then walked
in: He told the prisoner who he was, showed him his warrant,
and told him that a robbery had been committed, and that he
was suspected. Ho then asked him if he could give a reference,
for if he could do that it would be more satisfactory. He
(witness) expressed his regret that he, should trouble him
in the manner he had done. The prisoner said he was a
merchant carrying on business in America. He then asked
the prisoner if any person in Manchester knew him, and he
said, " No, I am a stranger here," and further, that he had
come from London. Maybury then asked him if he knew
anybody in London, and he then said he should not answer
any more questions. Mr. Allen was then sent for, and
the prisoner was given into custody. On searching him
£6O in notes, and some American gold was found upon
him. Mr. Edward Edden said he was disturbed on
Wednesday morning, about half-past two o'clock, by find-
ing a man in' his room. He could see the man distinctly,
as it was a French bed on which he was sleeping, and
there was a light in the passage, which showed a light into
the bedroom. The man. was dressed in a pair of drawers and
flannel shirt, and he thought looked like a skeleton in that

dress, at the foot of the bed. As soon as the man saw he was
observed, he bounded out of the room in an instant. He then
quickly rang the bell, and called out for the chambermaid and
boots. He lost sight of the man at once, but he felt
convinced that the man went along the right passage. (It
was afterwards explained that the prisoner's bed room was in
that direction.) The chambermaid came up, and on searching
his pockets, he found that £25 in notes had been taken
from his fob. The prisoner answered the description of the
man who stood at the foot of his bed. • After the man
left the room, he heard a door close on the first tier
on the next landing.—Mary Cuuliffe, chambermaid at
the Royal Hotel, said the prisoner came to their house
about half-past nine o'clock on Tuesday morning. They
were very full of commercial gentlemen, and she showed
hini temporarily into one room until she could prepare
another for his receptien during the day: He was then taken
to No. 40. On going upstairs the prisoner would have
to pass the room in which the prosecutor slept. She found
the lost notes on the mat at the door of the prosecutor's room.
Ellen Waters, a young woman employed in the kitchen at
the hotel, said she was awoke about half-past two o'clock
by the alarm given by Mr. Edden. She got up, and looking over
the balusters to see what was going on below, she saw a tall man
standing on the same flight on which the prisoner slept. As
soon as she saw the man she called out to him, but as soon
as ho saw her he bounced into a room and bolted the door.
She heard the bolt go in the plainest manner. Mr. Allen, the
landlord, produced a" sweet" little screw-driver (a new one),
which he found, wrapped up in a piece of paper, between the
rooms in which the prisoner and Mr. Eiden slept. The pri-
soner said that all ho had to say was that he was a stranger in
Manchester, and happened to be at the Royal Hotel in the
same way as any other stranger might be. He said : That gen-
tleman (alluding to Inspector Maybnry) came into my bedroom
after the chambermaid had called me up, at half-past five
o'clock, and asked me who I was ? I said I wanted to
know who ho was ? He said I was a thief ; that a gentleman
had been robbed in the house, and that they knew every-

body in the house except me. He talked rough to me, and
I talked rough to him, and told him I would not give him any
satisfaction. All that I have to say is, that lam a stranger in
Manchester, and in England. lam an American, and I don't
know any person who knows me well enough to vouch satis-
factorily who I am. I have been in London, Liverpool, and
Southampton. I merely came here to see the country. In
answer to questions from Mr. Maude, he said he had last been
in Liverpool, and was going back to Liverpool this morning,
as he intended to make arrangements to go home. When he
was in London he stayed at Morley's-hotel, in Trafalgar-
square. Inspector Maybury said that the prisoner had only
two shirts and po,:ket handkerchiefs as luggage. He asked for
a remand until Monday next. After some consideration the
prisoner was remanded until next Saturday.
As a pendant to this extraordinary case we may mention
that two robberies of money, £9 and £l3, belonging to two
gentlemen staying at the Albion Hotel, and some coins
belonging to the landlord, were also stolen in the course of
Tuesday night. In the course of the night the rooms were
entered, and the money and coin severally taken. A gentle_
man, who was staving at the hotel, a stranger, and who was
called at half-past five o'clock, Is suspected. He left the hotel
shortly after that hour, and has been traced to the Palatine
Hotel, where he waited in the smoking room for a short time
for a friend, who did not arrive. He then went to the
Victoria Station, and took a first-class ticket to Liverpool.
The money and coins were missed after his departure, and
before any other person had left the hotel. The detective
force are in full pursuit, r.nd we may expect to hear of some
satisfactory result in both cases.

COUNTY COURT .-YESTERDAY

(BEFORE JosEPH POLLOCK, ESQ , JUDGE.)
ROLFE V. HALLAM,—CHARGE AGAINST OFFICERS CON
NECTED WITH THE COURT.—A. complaint was made some
time since, against Mr. Hallam, the auctioneer of the
court, by Mr. Rolfe, the effect of which was, that in an
execution issued by Mr. Rolfe against a person named
Kelly, the goods had been sold for less than they should
have been ; and also that Mr. Goode, chief clerk of the
high bailiff, had given inaccurate information respecting
the sale. His Honour said he had given the case his
fullest consideration, and the conclusion he had come
to was, that the complaint was not such as lie was
enabled to deal with by the powers which the act of
parliament delegated to him, The evidence showed
that the goods were sold in the ordinary manner, and he
had not been able to discover anything improper in the
conduct of the auctioneer. Unquestionably, Mr. Rolfe
did not obtain the information he ought to have bad,
but this was not an offence within the meaning
of the act of parliament, and therefore not one
with which he could deal. It was the duty of the
high bailiff to serve and execute all processes within the
time appointed by law, and to make a return within a
given time. The creditor always had access to that
return, or should have, and if he wanted any further
particulars he might apply to the Judge of the court,
who could order that such further information or better
return should be given. It was quite proper that the
high bailiff should afford information with respect to
the proceeds of an execution entrusted to him, but he
was not compelled by law to do so, and if a mistake
occurred, it did not, in his Honour's opinion, make him
liable. Mr. Rolfe had been. undoubtedly, misled by
certain information which had been givento him, and
in the first return, six chairs were not accounted for.
bat the reason given was, that they were supposed to
belong to another person, an execution against
whom was also at the same time in the auctioneers hands
In regard to the information afforded by Mr. Goode, the
latter had undoubtedly given Mr. Rolfe different infor•
mation from that which he had received from Mr. Hal-
lam, but if Mr. Goode was mistaken in the information
he gave, it was not an offence which the court could deal
with as coming within the meaning of the act of parlia-
ment. Mr. Rolfe did not seem to have lost any money
by the mistake, because the proceeds of the execution
would not in any case have met the necessary expenses.
All of which Mr. Rolfe had to complain was the loss of
time which had been occasioned to him by his acting
upon the improper information afforded to him in the
first instance. As his Honour did not think the incor-
rectness of the information thus given constituted an
offence within the meaning of the act, he did not think
the high bailiff was under any liability to repay Mr.
Rolfe, but, inasmuch, as he was naturally led to institute
the enquiries in consequence of the incorrect informa-
tion which had been afforded to him, the case should be
dismissed without costs.
CATO, MILLER & Co. V. GIBSON &- CO.—This was an
action brought by Messrs. Cato, Miller and Co., to re-
cover compensation for the breaking of an anchor
supplied to them by Messrs. Gibson and Son,
anchor manufacturers and chain makers of Liverpool.
Mr. Almond represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. Aspinall
the defendants. The evidence of one witness, a ship
captain, had been taken separately in this case a few
weeks previous. The case for the plaintiffs was, that
about the middle of the year 1854, the plaintiffs gave the
defendants an order for two anchors, to be sent out to
St. John's, New Brunswick. They were intended for a
new vessel called the Anglesea, which was being built
there. The anchors were sent out, and, before the launch,
were suspended at the ship's side in the usual way, and
when the vessel had touched the water, one of the
anchors were let down, but before it fastened in the
ground, one of the arms broke off. The plaintiff bad to
Procure another anchor at a cost of £59, and to pay
about £lO for the cost of raising the broken anchor. The
action was brought to recover £57 16s 6d, some deduction
being made from the entire expense. The defence was,
that the anchor was made with all the usual care, and
with proper materials, and that the defendants were not
responsible for accidents which might occur, unless in
cases where a special warrant was given. Several wit-
nesses were called for the defence to establish the fact
that the defendants were not liable for such an accident.
Mr. Gibson, junior, deposed that he told Mr. Miller dis•
tinctly, before receiving the order for the anchors, that he