The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-21 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER.

ROBBERIES BY SHOMEIC—Edward Haycock, about 23
years of age, was placed at the bar charged with systematic
and continual robbery of his master, Mr. William Watts, a
chemist, at 71, Fulham-road.
Prosecutor said that the prisoner entered his employment
as assistant on the 26th of last month. In two or three
days afterwards prosecutor had occasion to leave town for
four or five days, the prisoner having charge of the business.
On the prosecutor's return he found the takings in the shop
to be very small, and spoke to prisoner about it, who said
he was not aware that he had sent any customers away.
Immediately after this prosecutor accompanied his wife for
three or four days on a visit to Hertfordshire, and on his re-
turn again was so struck with the smallness of the takings,
and having consulted with the Superintendent of Police
at the Cottage-road station, it was determined that some
money should be marked and paid to prisoner. This was
acordingly done, and on Saturday a small sum was missed
from the till, and prisoner was asked to produce the money
he had in his pocket, when a marked shilling and some
halfpence were found after some concealment, The pri-
soners portmanteau was then arched, when some more
marked money was found, and several bottles of scent,
which prosecutor had very little doubt belonged to him.
Prisoner did not say anything in answer to the charge,
and was ccnveyed to the station. Prisoner was remanded
for a week.

Prosecutor requested a warrant to search the apartments
of a young woman with whom the prisoner is intimate.
She had been to the house, and about that time a florin and
other property was missed.

Mr. Arnold—There is nothing to show that she had the
property, and I cannot, under such circumstances, grant a
search warrant.

THAMES.

TILE THIEF AND RECEIVER,—CONVICTION OF A
MARINE STORE DEALER.—Arthur Gates, a labourer, and
Jonas Lyons, a marine store dealer, were brought before Mr.
Partridge, the former with stealing a bag containing rags,
the property of his employer, and the other with feloniously
receiving the property, well knowing it to be stolen.
Mr. Stoddart, solicitor, defended Lyons.
Mr. John Taylor, rag merchant, of No. 37, Green-street,
Stepney, stated that on Saturday, the 12th inst., about
mid-day ho sent his man Gates with 41 bags of rags to the
South-Eastern Railway. He subsequently ascert,tined one
bag of rice had been stolen. It had not been recovered.
On Saturday morning last he asked Gates what
ho had done with the missing bag of rags.
After some hesitation, the prisoner said ho had
lost the bag. He then said to him, " How came you to
take a pass from the South Eastern Railway Company to
go out at the gates with the bag—they let you out with a
portion of the load you ought to have delivered there." The
prisoner said nothing to that. He then touched the feelings
of the prisoner, and again asked him what he had done with
the bag of rags. " Gates replied, I have sold it ; I will take
you to the man's house." He proceeded with police-con-
stable Dunaway, a detective officer, No. 129 H, to the
house of the prisoner Lyons, in North-street, Batty-street,
Commercial-road. He asked Lyons if he had bought any
rags of gates. Lyons said he had bought nothing of the
kind. On the way to the station-house Lyons told Duna-
way that ho had purchased a sack full of rags, such as
those described. He asked Lyons to show him
the rags, and he said "No, I cannot do that;
I have sold rags of that character since then, last
Saturday." Lyons then offered to pay him for the rags
He refused to accede to those terms. After Lyons was
looked up he went with Dunaway to his premises in
North-street, and searched the place. The rags could not
be found. The value of the bag of rags was £1 138. Gates
said that Lyons gave him 17a. for the, rags, only a little
more than half the value.
In cross-examination by Mr. Stoddart, the prosecutor said
he first discovered a deficiency a day or two after he sent
Gates to the South Eastern Railway. The rags censistt.d
of new linen cuttings. Porter William Dunaway, an in-
telligent detective officer, confirmed all the material parts
of Mr. Taylor's evidence, and produced a book of entries,
and said there was no entry in that book of the put,
chase of rags. Lyons admitted to him that he gave
the prisoner Gates 17s. for the rags, and that he
had made no entry of the purchase in his book. In answer
to Mr. Stoddart, the officer said he had known Lyons five
years, and believed he had never been in trouble before.
He never heard any complaint against Lyons.
Gates, on being called on for his defence, said--I plead
guilty.
Mr. Stoddart admitted that his client had incautiously
purchased the rags of Gates, and hoped the magistrate
would take into consideration the fact that Lyons had a
large famil3 to maintain, and had been in business five
years without a complaint being made against him.
Mr. Partridge said this was a bad case—a robbery of an
employer by his servant. He sentenced Gates to two
months' imprisonment and hard labour, He advised Lyons
to be more careful in future, and fined him £5.
The penalty was instantly paid.