The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-06 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

RESTITUTION or - TOIITAIXED UNDZI FALBI
PNETENCES.—Mr. J. Reeve, pawnbroker, Snow-hill, appeared
on summons yesterday, before Mr. Alderman MAONAT, to show
cause why he refused to deliver up certain property, which had
been unlawfully obtained, and illegally pawced with hint, without
the privity or authority of the owner, agreeably to the directions
of the nth and 10th Geo. 111. cap. 219, couanionly called the
" Pa* n hokers' Act."

Mr. DIME,. jun. solicitor, who attended upon the part of the
complainant, Mr. %Voolfit, upholsterer, St. Paul's Churchyard,
opened the case by stating, that property to a considerable amount
had been obtained from hts client, by a young man of the name of
Ritchie, shout lie had subsequently prosecuted to conviction at the
Old Bailey. and he had been sentenced to transportation. Part
of this property was in the hands of several pawnbrokers, but as it
was uneasiood that the case of Mr. Reeve would decide that of the
ethers, lie bad not applied fur summonses against them. lie was
proceeding to prove that the property in question--a tea chest, bad
been fraudulently obtained, &e. when—
Mr. 'Louses (who appeared for Mr. Reeve) mail, I admit all
the facia of your case. 1 allow that Mr. Reeve has the prorerty ;
that it was oetained from you under false pretences, and that you
have convicted the party for the fraud. But I contend that the Ma-
gistrate has no jurisdiction in the present case. The words of the
statute are, " if the owner or owners of any goods or chattels shall
make out to the satisfaction of any Justice that the same shell have
been unlawfully obtained or taken, and ui,lawfully pawned or
pledged, such Justice shall thereupon cause such goods and chattels
forthwith to be reetored to the owner or owners thereof." :Sow I
contend, that the complainant is not the enure of this property,
and that he ceased to be so the moment he parted with it to Ritchie.
In a case of felony, thou,,,,h possession be parted with, the right of
property still remains in the orieitial owner. This is the distinvion
between felony and fraud the latter case, the right of proper-
ty as well as the possession must be parted with ; in felony, the
possession only In order to convict Ritchie of the fraud, the right
of property must have been parted with ; otherwise the man's of-
fence would have been felony. Mr. Ilarmet then referred to the
case Parkerv. Patrick. in the Term Reports, Easter Term, 1793.
• The defendant, Patrick, had prosecuted to conviction a prisoner
who had obtained goods wider false pretences from him, and
pledged them with Parker, a pawnbroker. The property being
produced on the trial, l'atrick got possession of it, and the pawn.
broker subsequently brought his action tor the recovery of it, and
obtained a verdict. Upon a motion for a new trial, the Court said,
"'this case is distinguishable from the cue of felony, fur there, by
positive statute, (21 Hen. V 1 11. cap. 11.,) the owner, in case he
prosecutes the offaider to CU3I% ic:ion, is entitled to restiaution ; but
that does nut extend to this C3SC, where the goods were obtained
from the defendant by fraud," aid the motion was refused. This
case, air. Homer conteisded, was decisive of the present.
ltir. LIMES asked what was the date of that decision, and finding
it to be before the passing of the present Pawnbroker'. Act, argued
st die clause in that Act upon which he was proceeding was made
expresdy to alter the law as thus laid down. lie then quoted the
clause, !lying groat stress upon the words " unlawfully obtained."
and insisted that this property must be decided to be unlawfully
obtained. and not feloniously.
Mr. Ilakeema--Certainly so. or you could have had no convic-
tion. The case I have quoted being before the passing of the
Pawnbrokers' /let, can make ditlirence in the question. The clause
in the presei:t Act expressly says, " the owner or owners." lily
point is, that your client is not the owner of this property ; if he
had been the owner, he could not have convicted Ritchie of the
fraud.

Mr. nti ttrevoßD. the Chief Clerk, said; that, tithe question was
very important, he would submit to the Alderman the propriety of
taking the opinion of the City Solicitor, who wss accorAiggly sent
for, and on hearilig the state of the question, said, that in Um judg-
ment the use alluded to was precisely in point. The question wen
nut as to mho anlawlul taking ; but whether or no the present coin-

plainant was the owner of the property, and, after the ease quoted.
there seemed to be no doubt, the principle decided being the same
as must govern the present ease—the distinction between fraud and
felony. Such was his present opinion; but he would look into
I the subject; and if he found any reason to alter that opinion. Mr.
Dimes should be made acquainted with lt. By this decision, the
property remains with the pawnbroker.
Il A TTON-GA RDEN.
DELIVERY or PARC? Lll.--YOStrlllSy Mr. Thomas Jackson,
of Chichewer-place, Battic-hridge, appeared before the Magis-
trates of this office. to prefer a complaint against the proprietor of
the Angel Inn, Angel-street, St. Martin's.k-Orantl, for the late
delivery of a parcel lett by coach at Its office on Surday last.
Mr. HUMPHRIES, who appeared to the summons on behalf of
the proprietor, who was unavoidably absent, took an objection its
hedge to the general wording of the summons, being contrary to
the form laid down in the Act of Parliament.
The Magistrates, however, held, that as the parties appeared
the objection wu not tenable; the case was therefore gone into.
Mr. Jackson stated, that a parcel was brought to his house on
Wedneseay, the 3tl of November, with the direction torn off, and
by the hooking-office ticket it was evident that it should have been
delivered on the Monday before.
. . . _ .

On referring to the A:3 of Parliament regulating the time of de-
livery in such cases, it appeared that the prcprittors of all such
inns er booking-houses are compelled to deliver, within six hours,
all gdods or parcels left in their charge, to the direction, prattled
it be within the lights, or unless the time of arrival be after four
ciao& in the afternoon, or before seven in the morning.
urn itiEs, in defence, produced the porter whose duty
it ass to deliver such parcels, and he stated that he took out Mr.
Jackson's parcel on Monday; it was directed to No. 18, Chaehes.
ter.place, Battlebridge, towards which he (witness) proceeded at an
early hour ; but, notwithstanding the strictest inquiry at every place
likely to obtain the necessary information, he could not make out
the street, and vas therefore obliged to take it back to the office
again. On the next day (Tueaday) inquiry was made about it, but
without eniet ; and on Wednesday a lad was sent off to Battle-
bridge, with instruction to ask everywhere unt:l it was found, who
succeeded only by mere accident, as it was only a newly-built
street, corsirting of three or four houses, without any street-board
or other designation affixed to it, and that circumstance accounted
foe the non.delivery of the parcel within the allotted time.
Mr. ROGERS observed, it appeared to him that the porter bad
used all due diligence to find mu the place, and, if the name thereof
was not set up, he was certainly not to blame for not making the
delivery.

The 'complaint was therefore dismissed. The penalty, under the
Act, is not less than lOs. nor more than 20s.
EXTENSIVE ROBBERY—In consequence of information re-
eeived at this office, of a robbery to a large amount hating been
committed in the house of K. H. Sugden, Esq. (King's Counsel),
in Guildford-street, Read, jun. was appointed to make the necessary
inquiries'. It appears that the family being out of town, the care
of the house was entrusted to the wife of one of the footmen,
and this woman, and a char-woman, who occasionally looked in
about the time of the robbery being committed, were taken into
custody, but nothing was elicited from either, likely to lead to a
discovery of the property, which was mostly taken front drawers
and other lock-up places, and consisted of valuable articles in
gold and jewellery, coral and pearl necklaces, several dresses,
composed solely of French late, besides other wearing apparel of
considerable value. The drawers and presses were all locked,
and it is therefore presumed that they were opened by means of
pick-lock keys, the manufacture 01 which has attained such en
extraordinary degree of excellence, that nothing can be termed
secure, when they are applied, no matter how intricate the wards of
the lock. _ .

1141WEE16.—C. Berry, a vender of dell and
earthen ware, was brought up under the Unlicensed Hawkers'
Act, for selling or offering for sale, in Paradise-place, St. Mary,
Islington, various articles of merchandise, he not having a licence;
the complaint was made by Charles Hutchins, an inspector, and
the offence ears proved by Pibollard, an informer.
The defendant ;admitted the fact, but said that he only sold
Worn on account of Mr. Perkins, who is a manufacturer.
The Magistrate said he was answerable for the offence, and asked
him if he could pay a penalty of 101. ?
The defendant, who was not more than abut 16 or 17 years old,
said he had not tett pence in the world, and bunt into tears.
He was committed to the House of Correction for one month.
QUEEN-SQUARE.
RINGING TIFF CHANG E ..—Yesterday Sarah Evans, who gave
her residence as No. 5, King-street, 11 estininater, was brought
before W. A. A. IV HITE. Eaq. for passing bad coin.
Martha Harding, of the Alnionry, Westminster, stated that she
kept a coal shed, and between six and seven o'clock lass night the
prisoner carnet* bee shop to purchase a peck of coals, which came
to 4 d.; ahe tendeted a hall-crown in payment. Before witness
delivered the change, she sounded the tan shillings, and then put
them Into her (the primmer's) hands. The prisoner noticed it and
said, " Give me leave to try whether tbey are good myself." She
then turned aside and threw two pieces of money on the ground.
Witness immediately discovered by the sound that one of them was
bad, and very different to those she had
.given her. Witness has
no doubt the prisoner took the opportunity to change it when she
turned aside. The prisoner asked witness to give her halfpence
instead, but she refused, saying she had given her two good ones.
Witness then took the shillings and the coals from her, and called
her husband down, who went instantly for an officer. The prisoner
was the same woman that tried to pass a bad sixpence last Satur.
day.
A constable. took her Into custody, but found no other money
about her upon being searched. .
The prisoner vehemently asserted her innocence. She denied
ever having been in the shop before, but gave a very. unsatisfactory
and contradictory account of herself, and behaved with the greatest
effrontery. She said, " God pays debts without money, and I hope
she (the prosecutria) will be paid that way ;" and as she was being
taken out of the office, she broke forth in a volley of abuse and
most disgusting language.
She was remanded.
Inquiries have since been made, and it turns out that there are
three Nos. 5 in King-street, but no such person as the prisoner lives
at either of the houses.