The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-19 00:00:00

(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and Mr. Baron ROLFE.)

THE ROBBERY AT HOWELL AND JAMES'S.

William Frederick Bar, a genteel looking young
man, was indicted for steali' g a ruby pin, value I
the property of John Howell James and others.
The prisorer pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Doane conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Clarkson defended the prisoner.
The circumstances of the case, which have recently
been fully detailed in the police reports. were then de-
posed to by the shopman of
_Messrs. Howell and James.

Mr. CLARKSON contended that it was evident from
the fact of the pin being included in the bill sent into
the prisoner's mother, that the transaction was a debt
merely.
Mr. Justice PATTESON, in summing up, said there
could be no doubt that the prisoner had taken the
pin, and it was for the Jury to determine whether he
had taken it with a felonious intent or not.

The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a ver-
dict of Not Guilty. After the verdict had been re-
corded, the Foreman of the Jury said that if he were
not stepping out of his province, he should wish to make
a few observations on the circumstances of the case in
relation to both parties. With regard to the prisoner
the Jury were of opinion that he ought to feel that he
stood in a very awkward situation, which they hoped
would make a strong impres.ion on him—they trusted
his Lordship would admonish the prisoner on the sub-
ject,and they hoped that what had happend would produce
a complete revolution in the prisoner's character. With
respect to Messrs. Howell and James, the Jury felt that
those gentlemen ought to be more circumspect in their
mode of doing business. If they laid down a rule of
doing business, they ought to adhere to that rule rigidly.
A premium was held out to vice by the lax mode of
doing business of certain houses at the west end of the
town.

Mr. Justice PATTESON said the prisoner had heard
what the foreman of the Jury had said—he had indeed
had a narrow escape. From the conduct he had pur-
sued, that he had defrauded Messrs. Howell and
James there could be no doubt, and he suspected
that he never had any intention of paying for what
he had taken. From the company he was in, and from
other circumstances, he feared, that whatever he might
say, would have very little effect on the prisoner, but he
hoped it would operate as a warning to others. Ile
agreed in what the foreman of the Jury said with
regard to the lax mode of conducting business
adopted by Messrs. Howell and James. He must sly
they ought to have produced the person who sold the
other articles, and it was very wrong in them not to
have done so.—The prisoner was then discharged.
George Johnson, alias Wells, alias Thomas Jackson,
was charged with being at large before the expiration Of
a term for which he had been transported.
Mr. RYLAND conducted the prosecution.
1 L
George Cherry—ls beadle of the ward of Cheap,
Knows prisoner. Had him the .st (h.
prisoner'sw as sentenced
eon.
March, 1837, fora burglary in the house of Leaf and
Co. He then went by the name of Thomas Jack-
son. He was committed to Newgate for trial. He
bobwy
in
nMiriis left leg.
Court Court,
of.
the
ed
was tried and convictei!l.,:inhtehis
Witness produced a certifi-
cateto
Clerk for
anhita from
viction. Has no doubt the pprAisyoNnEer_isKteheewme
his
fe a t Cross-examinedareeand a
J. Needle is in the service of MOSSrs. Leaf. On the
Ist of Maer's rch, 1837, sand the prisoner in the passage of
his employ house, and gave him over to the beadle.
Has no doubt the prisoner is the man.
Thomas Woodruffe---Was a turnkey in Newgate in
March, 1837. Prisoner vva
s at that time in custody
on a charge of burglary
; he was after N rd sent '
a s to
the hulks in executionof his .
sentence.
Henry Charles Barker I s a policeman. Remem-
bers the conviction of I ' • t its prisoner in April, 1837.
Philip Parish, aCity policeman, gave similar tes-
timony.

G. Teacie, a policeman, apprehended the prisoner on
the 14
eeernber last. Prisoner said his name was not
Wells, but George Johnson. When they got to the
station-house
he told him he was accused of returning
MITI transportation, and prisoner made no reply.

EVEN TIVG PITION.

bv Mr. P.‘• had

L

!ii.• 1,,..•!•0thee, and ti
ai.,l.(y. 01 L:1, LA:apc of such oonvict.
„,; Mr. PAYNE contended that there was not sufficient
proof of identity to warrant the Jury in cdnvieting the
prisoner.
Mr. Baron ROLFE summed up, and the Jury found
the prisoner guilty
Mr. 13,tron Rot.YE having addressud the prisoner in a
very imprc,ive tmuoner on the nature of the offence of
;vhieb he had been convicted, sentenced him to be im-
prisoned in the Penitentiary, and kept to hard. labour for
one year, and at the expiration of that time to be trans-
ported for life.
Having disposed of the only remaining case, which
presented no features of any pnblic interest; the Court
adjourned to the 6th of January next.