The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-04 00:00:00

CRNTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

THIS DAY.

OLD COURT.

Mr. Justice Park, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr.
Justice Pattison, are the Learned Judges named in the
Commission for the present month, and at 10 o'clock took
their seats on the bench.

Wm. Primer was indicted for stealing one sovereign,
three half-sovereigns, two sixpences, with violence from the
person of Peter Ludwell.
The prosecutor said he resided in Bermondsey ; on the
10th of December he was going home ; he was not drunk,
though he had been drinking. Two men met him in Nel-
son-street ; one held him, while the prisoner put his hAnd
in his trowsers pocket, and stole a sovereign and other
monies which were in a purse. Witness said, " You ras-
cals, you are robbing me." The prisoner struck him, and
knocked him down. There were three gaslights near, and
he was quite certain that the prisoner was the man.
Mr. John Nichols was in Nelson-street on the night in
question, and saw the scuffle, and the last witness knocked
down. In consequence of what the prosecutor told him,
he pursued the prisoner, who was running away. He over-
took him, and took him into custody. He bad then some
money in his hand, which he dropped. A policeman came
up, end witness gave him into custody.
The policeman corroborated this testimony, and picked
up three half-crowns and two sixpences on the spot. The
sovereign was not found.
The prosecutor identified the purse ; he had no doubt
of it.

The prisoner contented himself with denying the whole
statement made against him. He had been in a public-
house where there was a row. Two men had been taken
away, and he was running up to the station-house to see if
they had been detained.

Mr. Baron ALDTRSON, in summing up, passed a high
eulogium upon the conduct of Mr. Nichols upon the
occasion.

The Jury instantly found the prisoner Guilty.
Two mere boys, named Barthwith and Thomas Sher-
win, were indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling-
house of Charles Colliner, on the night of the 31st July last.
The prosecutor's daughter said, on the night in question
she and her father went to church, and left the house, on
Deptford-green, well fastened up. On their return they
found a pane of glass had been taken out, and a watch, value
21., two gold rings, a pair of earrings, and 21. I Is. Gd. in
money, had been stolen.

James Wiley, policeman, went and examined the pre-
mises. He was certain that the pane of glass had been
taken out by a person of very light weight. He appre-
hended Sherwin.

Sergeant Ludwell also assisted in taking Sherwin for this
and another robbery. On going to the station-house he
said he had nothing to do with the robbery himself. Barth-
with got in at the window, and took all the money and
things, and only gave him 2s. Bd. out of it. He had not
made either threat or promise.
The constable of Deptford took Barthwith on the 6th
of August. He said always, " Take Sherwin—it was him
who did it."

A little boy, named John Dooly, only 11 years of age,
was sworn, and deposed that he was near the prosecutor's
louse ; he was playing with some other children, and Barth-
with gave him two cherries to go away, and take the chil-
dren with him. He went away, but saw Barthwith getting
over a wall to Mr. Colliner's house. Sherwin was with
Barthwith. He did not see them after.

Mr. Justice PATTISON recapitulated the evidence, and
the jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty against
both prisoners, whose ages were stated to be only 14
John Charles Hackney,a very respectable-looking young
man, was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering an
order for the payment of the sum of 8/. 11s., with intent to
defraud Mr. Miskin, a surgeon in Newington.
Mr. Bennet, a wine and spirit merchant of the Walworth
Road, said he had known the prisoner as an assistant to
Mr. Miskin. On the Bth December prisoner called upon
him with a letter, purporting to have been written by Mr.
Miskin, and enclosing a cheque for which he was in want of
money. The prisoner said Mr. Miskin was attending a
lady, and might be long engaged. He gave him Si. 1 ls.,
as he thought the cheque was genuine.

Mr. William Miskin said the prisoner was in his employ-
ment for about six months previous to last July, when he
left him. The letter produced was not in his handwriting,
nor was the cheque. They were both in the handwriting
of the prisoner. Witness had never given him leave to
write for him, or to sign any cheque.
Cross-examined—While in his service he had conducted
himself much to his satisfaction, and was most respectably
connected in Staffordshire. Witness was aware that the
prisoner had got involved in difficulties, and was pressed
for money.

Mr. DOANB, for the prisoner, said the case was so clear
that the verdict must go against him. In fact, the unfor-
tunate young man wished to have pleaded guilty, but he
had been advised to take another course, in order to see if
there were any extenuating circumstances. He trusted,
that if the jury found there were any such, they would ac-
company their verdict with such a recommendation as
might be useful to the prisoner hereafter.
The jury found a verdict of guilty, -and were about to
recommend the prisoner to the mercy of the Court, when
Mr. Justice PARK said it was his duty to inform them
that there was another case of a similar nature against the
prisoner. As there was a disposition to recommend, the
other case must be proceoded with. As a Judge, it was his
duty to forward the whole of a case to his Majesty, when
he forwarded the recommendation of a Jury.
The prisoner was again indicted for uttering another
forged cheque for W. 6s. 6d. to Mr. Punalove, of Oxford-
street. The circumstances were the same as in the pre-
ceding case, only that the prisoner represented himself as
the nephew of Mr. Miskin, and that the money was wanted
to take him to Oxford. Verdict—Guilty.
Mr. CHAMBERS was instructed by the prosecutor to re-
commend the prisoner to mercy, on the ground of his pre-
vious good character, and as he had good reason to believe
that the young man had been made a dupe of by older
persons.
Mr. Justice PARK said the law was imperative—the
crime of forgery must receive the sentence of transportation
for life. By an old statute, however, the Judge had the
power to award previous imprisonment. He intended to
take that course here, and would instruct the Recorder to
give two years imprisonment in the Penitentiary, and then
transportation for life. If his conduct was good while
under confinement, it was then in his Majesty's power to
remit the transportation.