The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-31 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

Charles Felix Lavers, 18, son of a lieutenant in ti:e
navy, was indicted for having stolen the sum of 11/., the
money of the Rev. Fredk. Oakley, in the Inman Catho-
lic chapel in Duncan-terrace, Islington.
Mr. Gent appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Metcalfe
for the prisoner.

The prisoner had been engaged as one of the persons
officiating at Mr. Oakley's chapel. Mr. Oakley, for some
reason which did not transpire, intimated to him that he
was not to officiate any longer, but on the 21st he again
attended at the chapel. Mr. Oakley again told him that
he was not to officiate. The afternoon service on the
21st was brought to a close about a quarter past four
o'clock, and Mr. Oakley passed from the chapel to his
house adjoining. There is in the chapel an inner and an
outer sacristy, adjoining one of which is a reading room,
and in the inner sacristy there are two small rooms, in
one of which was kept the treasurer's box. About five
is the afternoon a youth named Mullins was in the
reading room, and hearing the sound of footsteps in the
inner sacristy he opened the door and looked in, but saw
no one. He closed the door and listened, and soon
heard footsteps again, and on looking in saw the pri-
soner advancing towards the door, and when he saw
Mullins, he said, " Holloa, is the reading-room open ?"
Mullins said it was, and asked him why he hid himself,
and he replied that he thought it was one of the priests.
They then left together and went to Davonshire•street.
When in the inner sacristy the prisoner had access to the
room the box was in. Shortly after prisoner and Mul-
lins left it was found that the box had been broken open
and nearly all the money taken. Suspicion having fallen
upon the prisoner, probably from Mullings having re-
lated what had occurred, he was given into custody. He
denied the charge, and wont with them to Mr. Oakley's
house, where he was left alunelor a few minutes while the
treasurer went to speak to Mr. Oakley on the matter.
On his return the prisoner was searchei, but ls. Bd. only
was found on him, besides a handkerchief and a pair of
gloves.
It occurred to the treasurer, however, that as the
prisoner Illad been left alone in the library for some
minztes, he might have secreted something, and in look-
ing, about he found an oyster knife, which Mr. Oakley
Bali was not his. The prisoner at the time made no re-
mark, but soon after said be had seen the knife about 6
weeks before with some other tools in the library. A
further search was made, and a chisel and a gimlet were
found. On comparison the knife was found to corres-
pond exactly with marks on the door where it had been
forced. The place where the knife was found was dusty,
but there was no dust on the knife, and it did not ap-
pear to have lain their long. The prisoner admitted the
knife was his.

Mr. Metcalfe contended that there was no tangible
proof against the prisoner. When on the 21st Mr. Oak-
ley told him per.emptorily that he was not to assist, he
remained during the service and waited in the sacristy
to speak to Mr. Oakley, in the hope of hearing from him
the reason of his (prisoner's) being discharged. lie was
therefore in the sacristy for a legitimate purpose, and if he
had committed therobbery, what had become of the money
—none of it had been traced, and the prisoner was
actually in custody before he had time to dispose of it.
As to the knife, was there any evidence to show that no
one else had an opportunity of using it to open the door?
Tue Assistant-Judge having summed up,
The jury retired, and, after a very short consultation,
they returned a verdict of acquittal. The announce-
ment of the verdict was received with some applause,
which, however, was speedily silenced.