The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-29 00:00:00

NORRIS V. LERMITTT..-TROVIER.

This wu an action brought by the plaintiff, who ao a cre-
ditor is administrator of the estate of the late John Sadleir,
M.P., who committed suicide, to recover from the defendant
the value of three hones alleged to have been wrongfully
converted by the defendant to his use.
Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. J. Brown were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Aspland represented
the defendant.

As the plaintiff's case had not concluded when the court
rose we reserve our report.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

James Thomas, alias Prttrick Bowling, a well-dressed
young man, who was brought up by habessfromelerkenwell
Prison, the case having been removed by certiorari from the
Middlesex Sessions, was charged with feloniously breaking
and entering the dwelling-home of Margaret, Dowager
Baroness Talbot de Malahide, and stealing a diamond neck-
lace, value 6601., three brooches, value 3001., two diamond
rings, value 4001., and other articles of jewellery, stated to
be of the value of 2,000/., her property.
Mr. Metcalf and Mr. Poland conducted the prosecution ;
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. F. IL Lewis were counsel for the
prisoner.
This case occupied the attention of the court for several
bourn, and a great number of witnesses were examined in
support of the charge, but as they mostly deposed to
isolated facts, the nature of the case will be better under-
stood by the material portions of the evidence being given
is the form of a narrative. The prosecutrix, lady Talbot de
Malaktide, resides at No. 3 Lowndesaquare, Chelsea, and
she is very well known and popular among all classes in
the neighbourhood from her charitable and kind conduct.
She went to the Open, about half-past seven o'clock at
night, on the 30th of November, and about two hours
afterwards, vOllOllO of the female servants going up to
her ladyship's bedroom, she discovered that the place was
all in confusion, the wardrobe bad been forced open, as was
also the jewel case, and a large quantity of valuable
jewellery stolen. The investigation that was made by
Inspector Rolls and Sergeant Potter of the Metropolitan
Police, who appeared to have exhibited a good deal
of intelligence and activity in the matter, left no
doubt ss to the mode by which the robbery had been
effected. At No. 7, Lowndesequare, some repairs were
going on, and ladders, reaching from the grouud to the
top of the house, were placed in front of it, and there was
no doubt that the thieves, whoever they were, had as-
cended to the top of No. 7, and from thence walked along
the parapet to the attic window of her ladyship's house,
which they forced open, and having by this means obtained
acme to the premises, they proceeded to the room where
the jewels were deposited, and effected the robbery, re-
treating and making their escape by the same route by
which they had entered. The thieves got clear off with
their booty, and in all probability no discovery would ever
have taken place but for • rather singular incident. The
night on which the robbery was committed was a very
wet and stormy one, and while the robbers were retreating
it appeared that the hat of one of them was blown
off, and it lodged in such • position that be
was unable to regale possession of it. This hat was picked
up a few days after the robbery, and one of the officers,
Sergeant l'otter, it appeared, at once entertained an im-
pression that he had seen it worn by the prisoner. Appli-
cation was made to a 31r. Fleet, a hatter, in Bialtopsgate-
street, whose name appeared in the hat; but he was un-
able at first to give any information about it. He happened,
however, accidently to turn down the lining of the hat,
and he there saw the name and address of the prisoner
upon a piece of paper, which, it appeare,l, bad been left
there by chance at the time thohat was loft at his shop by
the prisoner to be cleaned, and it uppeared that the pri-
soner at the same time purchased a new hat. The address
upon the paper was No. 40, Great Ciunbridgeatreet,
Hackney, but upon the officers going to that house
to make inquiries, they discovered that the prisoner
had resided there, but he had left, and although
search was made after hint, they were unable
to trace him until the 'pith of December, when he was
taken into custody. At the lodging be then occupied,
which was at Hoxton, • quantity of new furniture and
clothing, • portion of the latter not being made up, was
discovered ; and upon the officers making • search in •
cupboard, the prisoner said be supposed they were looking
for " tools," meaning, as they supposed, homebreaking
implements, but they would not find any, as he had given
IT " that business " for some time ; and, as they were
going to the station-house, the prisoner said that if they
bed got him "to rights " (a slang term made use of by
thieves to indicate that the evidence is conclusive against
them) be should have gives them " • warming " be-
fore they took him. In addition to these facts, it was
proved that on the night of the robbery three men, one of
whom had no hat on, hired a cab in the neighbourhood of
Lowndesaquare, and directed the driver to take
them to the Great Northern Railway ; and on the
way the cab was stopped in the Haymarket, and the
man who had no hat, purchased one at a chop there, and
the cab was eventually discharged in Bedford-row. There
was also evidence that shortly before the robbery the pri-
soner was not in good circumstances, and that he had
pawned several articles, but • few days after the 30th of
November the prisoner opened a deposit account with the
London and Westminster Bank in a fictitious name, and
paid in a hundred pounds in gold, and received a deposit
note for that amount. It also appeared that soon after the
commission of the rubbery the prisoner was found dealing
with a diamond of considerable value, which he desired to
have set into a ring, and Lady Talbot's lady's-maid expressed
a confident opinion that this jewel was one of those that
were stolen under the circumstances above narrated.

The jury without any hesitation found the prisoner
and a certificate was put in by which it appeared
that he was convicted of burglary in this court in I 5.'54, and
sentenced to four years' penal servitude. The offence of
which the prisoner was convicted on that occasion was of the
same descnptioo as the present, access to the premises having
been obtained through the attic window.
Mr. Metcalf said that an officer was in court who was in •
position to give some further information respecting the
prisoner if his lordship considered it necessary.
Coombe, a constable, formerly belonging to the L division
of police, was then sworn, and he stated that he had known
the prisoner as a thief for twenty years, and he read a long
list of convictions for almost every conceivable offence to
which he had been subjected during that period, coding
with that of 18.14, when he was ordered to be kept in penal
servitude fur four years.
Sergeant Putter also stated that he believed the prisoner
had latterly been concerned in several jewel robberies, and
be was the companion of a man who was convicted in this
court a short time back of stealiog jewels belonging to Lady
(leech, and who was sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude.
The prisoner was originally • bricklayers' labourer, and wee
accustomed to climbing ladders, and this gave him a facility
to enter houses and commit robberies such as the one now
under inquiry.
The Recorder, in passing sentence upon the prisoner, said
there could be no doubt that he was • most expert and dea-
-1 gerous thief, and he ordered him to be kept in penal eery'.
ludo for ten years.
Thomas Holloway and Samuel Cole were charged with

—Mt.Hert«ioducted the prosecution.
The prosecutor in this case was Mr. Protheroe, the land-
lord of the Adam and Eve public house, York-street, West.
minder, and it appeared that on the evening of the kith of
January the prisoner* went to his house and called for some
refreshment, the price of which was threepence, and Hollo-
way put down a half sovereign in payment. The prosecutor
had some suspicion of the prhoners in consequence of their
conduct, and be counted out the :hinge carefully, and
placed it on the counter. The prisoners did not take up
the money, and Mr. Protheroe watched them furtively, and
he observed Holloway take one of the shillings from the
heap of change, and, as he expressed himself, pas it as
quick as thought to his ccenpanioo, whose hand woe reedy
le evasive it. Maloney then minted the dross end de

clued that it was a shilling short, and upon Mr. Prothcroe
telling them that he knew better, and that he should chugs
them with stealing the shilling, or with endeavouring
to obtain one by false pretences, they said that
this was what they wanted, and that if ho made
any chuge spinet them, they would set Mr. Lewis, the
lawyer, on him, and have his house about his head.
The prosecutor upon this sent for a policeman, but before
he arrived the prisoners forced their way out of the house,
but they were pursued and taken into custody.
The jury returned a verdict of Gs illy.
Waterman, the officer who apprehended the prisoners,
said that he had known them for several years, and they
never did any work, but got their living by card and skittle
'harping.
The Recorder sentenced them to be imprisoned and kept
to bard labour for nine mouths.

Mr. Best applied to the court to allow the expense of the
prosecution, but his lordship maid he had no power to do so,
and he was sorry it was so, as it was a very proper case for
inquiry.
NEW COURT.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)

William Ruins 28, labourer, use indicted for feloniously
assaulting John New, and causing him grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Beasley prosecuted, end Mr. Orridge
defended. _ .

The facts of the case were of an exceedingly painful
nature, owing to the fearful injury done to the prosecutor,
who at the time of its being committed was an officer
of the D division of the police. He is a fine young men,
25 years of age, but now so crippled that he had to be lifted
into court, and it was with great difficulty that he gave
evidence. _ _

It appeared that on the Ist of September last the pri-
soner, who is a navigator, was drunk at a public-house in
the Barrow-read, the Running Horse, and the police were
Galled in to put hint out. The prisoner, who was very
violent, refused to go, and throwing himself upon the ground
began kicking at the officers, and the prosecutor received
one of the kicks upon the lower part of his person, which
caused him to fall over one of the seats and injured his
spine. The prosecutor was for six weeks in the hospital,
and not expected to live, and the medical gentleman who
gavo evidence to-day said that be was not now out of
danger, and that if he did recover he wculd be a cripple for

The jury found the prisoner(3xilfv.
The Common &rjeant, in passing sentence, said that,
lamentable as the result of the prisoner's violence had bees,
he did not think there was any intention on his part to in-
jure the prosecutor, and he should therefore sentence him
to nine months' imprisonment.
Walter Sn>tt Mathis, who had pleaded guilty last session
to embezzlement from his master, Mr. Coupil, engraver, of
Southampton-street, Strand, was brought up for sentence.
Mr. Orridge prosecuted, and Mr. Sleigh was for the pri-
soner.

Sentence, twelve months' imprisonment.
William Edmonds, a man between 60 and 70 years of
age, surrender to take his trial for indecently assaulting
Sarah Jones, a girl about 14 years of age.
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. (bridge prosecuted; and Mr. Ribton
and Mr. Holdsworth defended.
The prisoner is a plumber, in business at Sydenham, and
is auditor to the board of work., Lewisham, and it was
alleged that the offence was committed at a neighbour's
house. . .

A number of witnesses were called, who gave the prisoner
a high character fur morality and decency.
The jury returned a verdict of Not