The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-26 00:00:00

LAIVBETH-STREET.

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY OF PLATE AT A FIRE.—John
Dowling and Mary, his wife, were placed at the bar,
before Messrs. Combe and Hardwick, for fnrther exa-
mination on a charge of being concerned in an extensive
robbery of watches and plate at the late fire at the
house of Mr. Menders, a pawnbroker, in East Smith-
field ; anti Samuel Hart, a Jew, was also charged with
purchasing a part of the property, well knowing it to
have been stolen.

It appeared that, on Sunday night last, the female
prisoner was taken to the station-house on a charge of
felony, and while there she confessed that on the night
upon which the fire was at Mr. Manders', the 15th of
last month: her husband brought home twelve watches,
one of which was sold, and a silver mug and three fish
slices, and that she and her husband disposed of the
property. The husband was taken into custody, and a
duplicate for one of the stolen watches was found upon
him. The fcmalc prisoner also informed the police that
she offered one of the watches for. sale to the prisoner
Hart, who told her he would give 16s. for it. This she
refused, and pawned it at the shop of Mr. Annis, in the
Minories, for 11, and as she came out she found Hart,
who, it appeared, had followed her, outside, and he
purchased the duplicate for Is.
Mr. Manders observed that on looking over his stock
he had missed other watches, and requested that the
prisoner might be remanded to a future day, to give time
to the officers to trace them out. Mr. Manders added
that he found his stock had been plundered to a
very considerable extent, in the confusion incidental to
the fire on his premises.
William Smith, a shopman in the employment of the
prosecutor, identified the watch, the duplicate of which
had been found on the male prisoner, Dowling, as be-
longing to his master's stock at the time of the fire.

James Henry Williamson, a shopman to Mr. Annis,
in the Minories, said that on the 16th of last month, the
day after the fire, a silver watch was pledged with him
by the female prisoner, who was accompanied at the time
by another woman, and in about an hour afterwards the
prisoner Hart called with the duplicate and redeemed
the property.
Mr. COOMBE—Did he say anything about the watch
when he redeemed it ? Witness—No, Sir ; nothing
more than the usual conversation took place.
Mr. COOMBE—Did he say anything about having
seen the property before? Witness—No, Sir, he did
not.

Foy, H. 98, and another constable, distinctly swore
that on calling on the last witness to make inquiries
about the watch, he distinctly stated that when Hart
redeemed the watch he said he had seen it before. This
the witness at first denied, and repeated, on the question
being put to him by Mr. Coombe, that he bad not said
so.

Mr. COOMBE told the witness he would give him time
to refresh his memory, as he would remand the prisoners
until Friday next.

A person, named Jacobs, a Jew, who represented him-
self as a clerk to Mr. Hadwin, solicitor, of Mark-lane,
City, though there is no solicitor of that name living
there, and who attended on behalf of Hart, admitted
that his client had purchased the duplicate of a watch
from the female prisoner, and that, after redeeming the
property, he sold it to a person named Harris, residing
in Gravel-lane, Houndsditch, for 2.55.
Mr. COOMBE asked if Harris was in attendance ?
Jacobs replied, that he was not, that he had been sent
for, but the answer given was that he was in the coun-
try.
Mr. COOMBE said he should remand all the prisoners
to Friday next, and they were remanded accordingly.
Ann Morgan, a blind Irishwoman, 64 years of age,
was brought before the Magistrates by Brown, the
beadle of Whitechapel, in order to her being examined
by them and passed in the usual way to the country of
her nativity. On being asked the usual question by
the Magistrates, as to whether she had any objection to
be passed to Ireland, the poor old creature replied that
she had every objection. She said that having left
Ireland upwards of 40 years ago, she had not, as she
was aware, a single relation, friend, or even an acquain-
tance there to recognise or do anything for her ; that
she had resided in the parishes of Spitalfields and
Whitechapel, upwards of thirty years, and never until
three weeks ago had she made an application to
either of the parishes, or received a farthing relief.
Being wholly deprived of sight, and sixty-four years of
age, she was quite unable to do anything for her sup-
port, and was reluctantly obliged to go to the work-
house. The poor old woman, in conclusion, begged
the Magistrates would not transport her, as she called
it, in her old days, and stone blind, among those who
were perfect strangers to her, and who could not be ex-
pected to pay any attention to her for the few years
l however
had to live.
The
.Magistrates asked by whose orders it was that
the
replied by order of the Board of
.Guardians. The Ma-
gistrates,omowanevwcra,s
poor. old woman back to the work-
house,about to be removed, and Brown
d refusedwas
t the
eo
proper
hpel
aocredefor ,r ahnedr. told
Brown to take the
which they said

NIO.IY- HAL L.
"—Jane Gee, a sma U
rtly-dressed young girl, was charged
with robbing Mr. Robert Chamberlain, a ship-owner of
Ipswich, in Suffolk, of six sovereigns. The prosecu-
tor had been to Vauxhall with a friend, whom he had
lost in the Gardens, and was returning to town in a
state of intoxication, when he was induced by the pri-
soner to accompany her to a house in Fishmonger's
Alley. While seated in the room he felt an attempt
to deprive him of his watch, but the girl could not get

it on account of the guard-chain ; but feeling in the
other waistcoat pocket, he found that she had stolen six
sovereigns. The prosecutor called up the people of the
house, who advised him to put up with the loss if he
were a gentleman, rather than incur the disgrace of
Laving his name in The papers ; he, however, charged the
police with the girl. The prisoner, who had only three
days before been discharged on a similar accusation, was
fully committed for trial.
ASSAULT BY A SCHOOLMASTER.—Edivard Boyle,
a schoolmaster at Wandsworth, was charged with as-
saulting Richard Snape, a broker's man. The com-
plainant stated that he was put in possession at " Tons-
ley Hall," at Wandsworth, under a distress for rent,
and had not been long in the house before the defendant
began to threaten him with the consequences if he re-
mained there. Having occasion to go out on the lawn,
the moment the defendant got him there he knocked
him down, and kicked him while he was down. Mr.
Andrews, of Dulwich, stated that Mr. E. Boyle was
his tenant, and that, in consequence of his being in ar-
rear of rent, he was compelled to levy a distress, and
put the complainant into possession. The defendant
was held to bail.

CONVICTION FOR ALLOWING A DOG TO GO UN-
MUZZLED.—A market gardener, named Holmes, was
charged under the New Police Act, with allowing a
ferocious dog to go unmuzzled, whereby he had iucurred
a penalty of 40s. Waubey, the street-keeper of Black-
man-street, stated that as be was walking along the street
that morning, defendant's dog flew at him, and seized him
by the calf of the leg. Had not his leg been protected
by boots, and a thick pair of worsted stockings, there
was no doubt the animal's teeth would have penetrated
the flesh, and inflicted a serious wound. He added
that he afterwards saw the same dog fly at two persons
who were passing by the inn yard from whence the de-
fendant was about to start with his chaise-cart. The
defendant said that the dog had not the hydrophobia,
and that he never knew it to have attempted to bite
any person before ; he therefore hoped, as it was a first
offence, it would be overlooked. The Magistrate said,
that a clause in the New Police Bill gave Magistrates
the power of inflicting a fine not exceeding 40s. on any
person who suffered a ferocious dog to go about the
streets without being properly muzzled. In this instance
it was proved that the animal was a dangerous one, and
therefore should have either been kept at home, or pro-
perly secured from biting people. The defendant was
adjudged to pay a fine of 20s.
James Barrett and Robert Claridge, two draymen in
Whitbread's brewery, were charged with stealing corn,
the property of their employers, and John Jarvis, ostler
at the Five Bells, in the Kent-road, was charged as the
receiver. On the preceding afternoon one of Whit-
bread's drays pulled up at the Five BA, and a police-
man, who was on the watch, saw the two first named
prisoners, and also the ostler, very busily engaged in
emptying the contents of three nose-bags, which were
taken from the drays. The ostler took the contents
into the stable-yard, and after that, he and the other
prisoners all sat down in front of the alehouse, and began
to drink and smoke. When the prisoners found that they
had been noticed, they inv;ted the policeman to drink
something, but be refused, and having taken possession
of the bag he found it filled with corn.
A Clerk in the brewery proved that the prisoners
had taken away with them two bushels of corn more
than they had a right to do, and that robberies to a very
considerable extent were practised, but that they were
difficult of detection.
The prisoners were committed.