The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-28 00:00:00

a case of misplacement of figures, as Mr Atkinson resided
at 71, instead of 17.

The Barrister—That may be, but I cannot alter it, because
of the objection, 71 being an entirely different qualification
from number 17. The object of publishing the lists on the
church doors is to afford persons an opportunity of objecting
to parties they may think improperly placed on them ; and
here the objection being taken, I must sustain it unless
withdrawn, as there is no such party at No. 17.
Mr Chappell contended that the act of Parliament never
contemplated such objections being taken, It was true that
there was no such party at 17 ; but it was well known there
was such a party at 71, and as it was evident it was simply
a transposition of figures, he thought such an objection
ought not to be persisted in.

The Barrister—lf that be so 1 think it ought not to be
persisted in; but until it is withdrawn I have no power to
alter the qualification.
Ultimately the objection was withdrawn and the voter's
name retained on the register, the qualification being altered
to 71 in place of 17.

In the parish of St. James's, Mr John William Howell,
who is on the register as the occupier of premises at 53,
Great Windmill-street, was objected to on tho ground that
he was dead.

Mr John William Howell appeared, and said he was still
alive, and had occupied the premises in question and paid
rates and taxes for them for the past 14 years.
Mr Oldershaw—On inquiring at the houso in question he
was told that William Howell died on the 12th of last March.
Mr Howell—But that is not me—that was my father,
and he has not resided on the premises for 14 years. He
died in the country.
The Barrister—lt is a clear case of mistake. I shall re-
tain the name on the register.

Mr Howell—And I claim costs. I have been obliged to
leave my business and come here to answer a frivolous and
unfounded objection, and I claim remuneration.
The Barrister—Yea, I think you are entitled to it, and I
allow you a sovereign.

ti. Mr Oldershaw contended that the objection was perfectly
justified. They had been distinctly told at the house that
the party was dead, and even the day of his death was spe-
cified, and that he considered sufficient ground fur the ob-
jection.

The Revising Barrister thought otherwise, and wrote an
order to Mr Howell for payment cf the amount, refusing to
hear any more of Mr Oldershaw's objections until the
amount was paid to the party or deposited in his hands.
The sovereign was accordingly deposited in the barris-
ter's hands axd the revision was proceeded with.
IR the parish of St. Margaret's, Mr J. Jones, who is on
the register as the occupier of premises at 15, Broadway,
was objected to on the ground of non-residence at that
number. It appeared that same time ago the numbers in
the street were altered by order of the Board of 'Works, so
that Mr Jones's premises, which were formerly 15, are now
No. 17, and the overseers, having failed to correct the num-
ber in the rate books or the register, and he having failed
to lodge a new claim to have it corrected, the barrister held
he had no power to make the alteration in the faco of Mr
Oldershaw's objection, and the name was expunged,

_ .
A number of other objections in this and the other
parishes were taken on tho same grounds, and being per-
sisted in wore sustained, and the parties struck off' the re-
gister.

With the exceptions mentioned, and a few which were
withdrawn, the greater portion of Mr Oldershaw's objec-
tions, to the number of at least, 400, were sustained.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—Sept. 27,

(Before Mr Sergeant Gaselee.)
_ . ...

James Carles, 18, and Joseph Robson, 21, were severally
indicted, the said James Carlos for stealing 41bs of wool,
value 7s, the property of Joseph Baxendale and others;
and Joseph Robson for receiving the same, well knowing it
to have been stolen.

Mr Metcalfe (instructed by Mr T. Board) prosecuted ;
Mr Best defended Robson (instructed by Mr B. J. Abbott,
of Worship-street); the prisoner Caries was undefended.
Although the amount of wool laid in the indictment as
stolen was small, yet it formed part of a series of robberies
which had been carried on for a considerable time past, and
entailing a loss of several hundreds of pounds in value
every year to the dilerent wool merchants of London.
There are but four pieces in London at which Australian
wool can be legally received, via , Messrs Gooch and Cez 3ns,
Messrs Browne and Eagle, the London Dock Company and
Mr J. Cooper, but notwithstanding, those firms and public
body have found other persons dealing in wool to a large
extent and underselling them in the market. There was
little doubt that the wool so obtained was the produce of dif-
ferent robberies,

Mr Metcalfe opened the case, from which it appeared that
this prosecution was instituted by Messrs Gooch and Cou-
zens, and the prisoners were charged respectively with
stealing and receiving 41bs of wool only, the property of
Baxendale and Co., who were the members of the old firm
of " Pickford anti C 0.," and were employed in carting the
wool from the docks to the different warehouses, and it was
during such transit that the robberies were committed, and
that to a very great extent, The process was a ♦ery simple
one. Large numbers of boys and others go behind the vans,
rip open the bales, and having got out a handful of wool de
camped with it to their homes, then filch more, keeping it
until it accumulated to three or four pounds, when it was

taken to Cohen's shop in Royal Mint-street, Robson being
his son-in-law, and Robson giving as his address, No. 2,
Royal Mint-street, No, 4 in the same street was also oc-
cupied by Cohen as a wool warehouse, When the wool
was received at No, 2 it was passed over Co wall to No. 4,
where it was mixed with other wool, and thus detection
was defied. The facts of the case, as would be proved in
evidence, were that a witnees named Blanchard was watch-
ing Caries, and saw him steal some wool from one of Pick-
ford's vans, and he went home with it. On the same day
he saw Caries leave his house with a bundle of wool and
take it to Cohen's shop. A detective officer named Under-
wood had been also watching him, and saw him go into the
shop, and afterwards Robson was seen to be in the act of
putting the wool into a scale and weighing it. Sergeant
Foulger also went into the shop, and the prisoners
were taken into custody and charged with the
offence. Sergeant Foulger, on searching the shop, found a
piece of wool amongst some rags, and at the house No. 4 he
found a largo quantity cf wool of the sumo description, and
having heard the evidence it would be fur the jury to say
whether the prisoners were or were not guilty of the
charge.

Mr Best, on the part of Robson, submitted that the in-
dictment could not bo sustained against him, and urged that
the case of" The Queen v Wylie," decided by the Court of
Criminal Appeal, was " all fours" with this case, and he
contended that the mere act of putting the wool in the scale
was not a dealing, for no dealing had taken place. Even
had it been contemplated there might be a locus penitentice
at the last moment;

Mr Metcalfe said that an unlawful possession was quite
sufficient. The wool was actually taken out of the wrapper
in which it was taken to the shop, and put into the buyer's
scale. The wool was in the buyer's scale, and there was
abundant evidence that he knew the wool had been iccpro..
perly come by for the case to go to a jury.
Mr Sergeant Gaseleo said the prisoner Caries had the
right to take tho wool out of the scale again it the price
offered for it was not considered sua;ient. It did not givo
Robson possession of it by its being merely put into the
scale.

Mr Metcalfe said some of the wool found on the ledge in
the shop was a portion of that taken in by Caries.
Mr Best said that was evidence against him, but it ought
not to be imported into the case.
Mr Sergeant Gaselee said Mr Metcalfe had given no evi-
dence of Robson being the owner of the shop, or of its
being his scale that the wool was put into.
Mr Metcalfe said that Robson was the only person found
there, and he was weighing the wool. _

Mr Serjeant Gaseleo said he had shown no ownership of
the shop,:but, on the contrary, had carefully avoided
doing so.
Mr Metcalfe—But still there is abundant evidence to go
to a jury,

lkfr Sergeant Gaselee—But if you go to the jury you will
gain nothing by that, as I tell you candidly, if you do so, I
shall recommend the jury to acquit Robson.
Mr Metcalfe suggested that, as the case of "The Queen
v. Wylie" had been decided after a previous appeal, in
which case a contrary
decision was given, the point should
be reserved for the further consideration of the Court of
Criminal Appeal.
Mr Sergeant Gaselee said he did not see any necessity for
sending the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. His
opinion was very strong that there was no case for the jury
to consider. He might be wrong, but he would advise the
jury not to convict, and
juries generally took the law from
the judge. He then told the jury that there was not suffi-
cient evidence of possession with respect to Robson, but it
was quite different as regarded Caries.
The jury found Caries Guilty, and Robson Not Guilty.
A juryman wished to remark that, had it net been for
the strong ruling of his lordship, they considered there was
a very strong case against Robson, and they should have
found him guilty.
Mr Sergeant Gasclee (address'ng Robson) said—You
hear what the jury think of you, and I advise you to be
very cautious for the future.
Mr Sergeant Gaselee said although Carlos had avoided
detection he did not think this was his first offence, and
sentenced him to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for
nine months.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr Payne•)

_ -
George Smith, 17, described as a seaman, was indicted
for stealing a horse, the property of Samuel Trindall.
Samuel Trindall said he was a cowkeeper, residing at
Homerton, and on the 9th instant ho saw the prisoner put
a halter on the horse. Witness wont up to him, and stopped
him, The prisoner said he waa going to take it to Mr
Scott, of Old Ford.

John Farrow, police•contable 393 N, said he took the
prisoner into custody, when he said he was ordered to go
and fetch the horse.
The jury found him Guilty, and he was sentenced to
12 calendar months' hard labour.
Joseph Morris was placed at the bar charged with steal-
ing three coats, four pairs of trousers, and other articles,
value £B, the property of George Jarvis.
Goorgo Jarvis, a coachman, of No, 6, Bristol-mews, Pad-