The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-06 00:00:00

VESTMINSTER SF:SS

Thomas Mosey was -indicted for obtaining newApap, rs
under false orders from Jan Hutton. The prosecutor is a pub-
lication vender, arid the prisoner, who was in the employ of
Mr. Hicks, a customer, who was a newsvender, brought an
order in the usual manner for ccrtain papers, which were
given to him. The prisoner asked for the order, which
was returned to him, went away, and returned, and pro-
duced another order, which was for a less number of
papers than the former one; the original order was frr
twenty-nine _Dispatches, and the returnee k.,rdcr for nine-
teen Dispatches. Prosecutor chaized him with having
cheated him, and the prisoner altered the list to twenty-
nine, and told him what he had done with the other order,
which the prosecutor procured. Prisoner said that was all
the alteration he had made. On comparing the two lists
he found that be had put down six Satirists instead of
eight, which he had bad. He took away the ten Dis-
patches from the prisoner.
R. Hicks--The prisoner is in his employ, and he had
sent him with an order for nineteen Dispatches to the
prosecutor. The hand-writing of the orders produced he
does not think is the hand-writing of the order h e sent ;
thinks they are in the hand-writing of pris,m‘r ; he had
nineteen Dispatch customers and six Satirist customers.
The prisoner made no defence.

J. Rowland, Rho stated the prisoner had married his
daughter the 9 h May, one thousand nine hundred and
thirty-two, gave the prisoner a good character. The pe-
culiar manner in which this witness chanted, rather than
said, his evidence, produced some mirth in the Court.
Mr. Hicks, in whose service the prisoner had lived, said
he had suspected him of dishonesty for some time.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. He was sentenced
to three months' imprisonment and hard labour.
The CHAIRMAN said, should a similar case come before
the Court, it would meet with severe punishment.
Benjamin Gent was charged with obtaining certain quan-
tities of of pork, the property of William Bell, from Ro-
bert Bell, under false pretences.
Robert Bell is in the employ of his brother, a pork
butcher. The prisoner had lived with a Mr. Giblet, a
customer, and had come to the shop since he had left Mr.
Giblet's service, and obtained pork in his name.
Mr. Giblet's servant proved that the prisoner had no
authority.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he had been driven to
to do as he had done by distress.
The Jury found him Guilty, but recommended him to
mercy, and he was sentenced to three months' imprison.
ment with hard labour.

Susan Downs and Ann Ellen Brown were indicted for
stealing a bed and other articles, the property of Stephen
Cooper. The prisoners lodged with the prosecutor, and
on their leaving their lodgings, the prosecutor's wife missed
from their room the articles in question.
The policeman, who took them into custody, deposed to
Brown having conf,:ssed the theft, after having been
cautioned by him.
The pawnbroker produced certain of the articles which
had been pledged by both prisoners together, and which
were sworn to by the prosecutrix. The prisoners made no
defence. The prisoner, Brown, called one witness to
character, but the witness had lost sight of her for some
years.

The CHAIRMAN in summoning up, animadverted on the
conduct of one of the jury, who was reading the Calendar,
instead of attending to the summing up.
Th• Jury found the prisoners Guilty, and they were
each sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard
labour.

Sarah Collins was indicted for stealing a table cloth,
the property of Louis Coquerel.
The prosecutor keeps an hotel, and his waiter found the
prisoner concealed behind the door of the hotel with the
table-cloth in her possession.
The prisoner made no defence, and the Jury found her
Guilty ; and having been before the Court previously she
was sentenced to four months' imprisonment and hard la-
bour.

Elizabeth Pelett was indicted for stealing a knife and
fork, the property of William Hodson.
The prosecutor is an eating-house keeper, and the pri-
soner stole the knife and fork from his shop ; they were
found on her.

She made no deferce. The Jury found her Guilty, but
thought the case so frivolous that it ought not to have been
brought forward.
The prosecutor said he had wisLed to have the case dealt
with summarily.

She war( sentenced to one month's imprisonment and hard
labour.

Patrick Murray was indicted for having assaulted Mary
Hogan, on the 25th March last.

The parties in this case were all Irish, and the assault
complained of was the consequence of a regular Irish row.
The Jury stopped the case, and acquitted the defendant,
as they could not believe the testimony of the prosecutrix.
This being the last case, 64 prisoners were discharged by
proclamation, and the Court adjourned.