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

WESTMINSTER.

Yesterday Mr T. H. Tyrrell, the barrister appointed to
revise the list of voters for the City and Liberty of West-
minster, held a court for that purpose in the Lords Justices
Court, Westminster Hall.
Mr 8.. P. Oldershaw appeared on behalf of the Westmin-
ster Conservative Registration Association, but there was
no appearance entered on the part of the Liberal party, Mr
Geo. Huggett, who for so many years past, in fact over
since the passing of the Reform Bill, has attended on be-
half of that body, being on this occasion unable to be pre•
sent.

The consequence is that no objections have been taken this
year on the part of the Liberals, and no claims lodged by
them, with the exception of a few by parties themselves.
On the other side, the Conservative Association has taken
420 objections to parties at present on the register, while
they have made some 30 claims on the part of persons wish-
ing to be placed on it, but these have chiefly arisen on ac-
count of oversight on the part of the overseers, change of
residence, or wrong description as to residency.
In the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square, Mr Wm.
Atkinson, who is on the register for premises at 17, West-
bourne-cdreet, was objected to on the ground that he had no
residence at that number.

Mr Chappell, the vestry clerk, stated that it was simply

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 objeot 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withdrawn, as there is no such party at No. 17.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persisted in ; but until it is withdrawn I have no power to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Ultimately the objection was withdrawn and the voter's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 the 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 house in question ho
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 preu.ises for 14 years. Ho
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— Yes, I think you are entitled to it, and I
allow you a sovereign.

c;. 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 for 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 and the revision was proceeded with.
In 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 some 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 face of Mr
Oldershaw's objection, and the name was expunged.
A number of other objections in this and the other
parishes were taken on the same grounds, and being per-
sisted in were 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 Gaseice.)

James Carles, 18, and Joseph Robson, 21, were severally
indicted, the said James Carlos for stealing 4lbs of wool,
value 7s, the property of Joseph Baxondale and others;
and Joseph Robson for receiving the same, well knowing it
to have been stolen,

Mr Metcalfe (instructed by Mr T. Beard) 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 different wool merchants of London.
There are but four places in London at which Australian
wool can be legally received, viz ,Iti essrs Gooch and Cozens,
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 Con-
zenp, and the prisoners were charged respectively with
stealing and receiving 4lbs of wool only, the property of
Basendale and Co., who were the members of the old firm
of " Pickford and 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 very 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 the wall to No. 4,
where it was mixed with other wool, and thus detection
was defied. The facts of the case, as would be prived in
evidence, were that a witness 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 Cartes 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 Rt bson 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 large quantity of wool of the snme description, and
having heard the evidence it would be for the jury to say
whether the prisoners were or were not guilty of the
charge.

Mr Beat, on the part of Robson, submitted that the in-
dictment could not be sustained against him, and urged that
the case of '• The Queen v Wylie," decided by the Court of
Criminal Appeal, was " all fonta" 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. Tho 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 impro-
perly come by for the case to go to a jury.
Mr Sergeant Gaselee said the prisoner Caries had the
right to take the wool out of the scale again it the price
offered for it was not considered 'Sufficient. It did not give
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 limper' ed 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 scallf that the wool was put into.
Mr Metcalfe said that Robson was the only person found
there, and he was weighing the wool.
Mr Serjrant Gaselee 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.
Mr 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 jut), 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 •
dent evidence of possession with respect to Robson, but it
was quite different as regarded Caries.
The jury found Carlea Guilty, and Robson Not Guilty.
A juryman wished to remark that, had it not been for
the strong ruling of his lordship, they considered there was
averystrognugiletay.se against Robson, and they should have
found him
Mr Sergeant Gaselee (addressing 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 Caries had avoided
detection he did not think this was his first offence, and
sentenced him to be impriscned and kept to hard labour for
nine months.
SECOND COURT.
(Before Ur 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
Houaerton, and on the 9ch instant he saw the prisoner put
a halter on the horse. Witness went up to him, and stopped
him, The prisoner said he was 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 Guilf y, and he was sentenced to
12 calendar months' hard labour.
_ _

Joseph Morris was placed at the bar charged with steal-
ing three coats,
George Jarvis, a coachman, of No, Gf Brietoi-mows, Pad-
four pairs of trousers, and other articles,
value £B, the property of George Jarvis.

dington, said he left the prisoner in charge of a stable, and
when he returned he found the prisoner had absconded
with three coats, four pairs of trousers, and other articles,
value £B.

Several pawnbrokers' assistants were examined, whe
proved that the prisoner pledged several articles which the
prosecutor identified as his property.
The prisoner here said he was very hard up, or ho would
not have done it. He then pleaded guilty.

Mr Payne sentenced him to 12 months' hard labour.
James Johnson, 57, was indicted for stealing a coat, value
£3 108., the property of John Haynes, to which he pleaded
not guilty.
The prosecutor said he was a coachman, living at Bromp-
ton. On the 12th instant the coat was safe in a stable, and
from what he was told he went after the prisoner and found
him with the coat on his shoulder.

Patrick O'Connor, 58 B, said he took the prisoner into
custody, and he denied the charge.
The Jury found him guilty, and
Mr Payne sentenced him to two years' hard labour.
John Reynolds, 19, a labourer, was indicted for stealing
a silver watch, the property of Charles Nichol], from his
person.

The prosecutor in this case said he was looking at a man
selling money—(laughter)—when he felt a tug, and ho
looked down and saw his chain in the prisoner's hand. He
seized bold of him and gave him into custody.
The Jury found him guilty.
A previous conviction having been proved against him,
Mr Payne sentenced him to two years' hard labour.