The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-19 00:00:00

SURREY SESSIONS—Feb. 18.

NEW COURT.
(Before J. E. Johnson, Esq., Chairman.)
Mary Cormick, 61, Daniel Cormick, her son,
Henry Pritchard, Samuel Pritchard, and Matthew
Haywood surrendered to take their trial on indict-
ment charging them with unlawfully, with strong
force of arms, and strong hand, entering certain
messuages situate Nos. 1,2, 3,5, 19, 20, and 23,
Stamford-street, in the parish of Christchurch,
Southwark, and keeping out Miss Cordelia Ange-
lica Read, the owner thereof.
Mr. Robinson, instructed by Mr. J. C. Meymott,
appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Oppenheim,
instructed by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, for the male
defendants. The female was undefended. The court
was densely crowded by persons anxious to hear
the proceedings.
The prisoners on being arraigned pleaded guilty,
when

Mr. Oppenheim, who appeared for the two Prit-
chards and Haywood, said that by his advice they
had pleaded guilty, and on their behalf he wished to
address the court in a few words. Those defendants for
whom he appeared had,unfortunately for themselves,
hired themselves to another party, but he was in-
structed that they did not enter any of the houses
until after Mrs. Cormick and her son. He (the
learned counsel) was well aware that although they
were acting in ignorance of the law there was no
excuse, and that they were equally liable with the
other parties. They were hired by them, and only
acted under instructions given them, thinking that
they were doing no harm by getting into those
houses. They now admitted having committed a
breach of the law, and trusted that the court would
consider the ends of justice satisfied by their enter-
ing into their own recognisances to appear and
receive sentence when called upon.
Mr. Robinson, on behalf of the prosecution, ob-
served that no doubt it was, as his learned friend
had stated, that the defendants had been hired by
one who was their head in committing this serious
breaeh of the law. Who that party was they best
knew. There was no difference between the defen-
dants, which was shown by the evidence of wit-
nesses, but which was not disclosed in the deposi-
tions, as the magistrate (Mr. Combe) did not con-
sider it necessary to go into all the facts when
committing them foi• trial. Nothing was mentioned
of the riot and breaking into the other houses on
the second day. On the first day all the defendants
went to 19, Stamford-street with a hatchet, crow-
bar, and other implements, and with force of arms
broke into that house. That same evening Miss
Read regained possession, but at a later hour the
house was again broken into by the defendants and
entered by them in an unruly manner, and Miss
Read, the prosecutrix, was compelled to seek safety
by flight from the roof. The following day the de-
fendants, with a like mob, broke into six other
houses mentioned in the indictment (which does not
appear on the depositions), and held possession for
some time. The whole neighbourhood was by their
acts kept in a state of terror and excitement
for some days, and application was made
to Mr. Combe, under an old Act of Parlia-
ment, to assist her by his attendance to turn out
the defendants and other rioters. The magistrate
did not like to act under the provisions of such an
old act, but Sir Richard Mayne, chief commissioner
of police, sent a sufficient force to prevent resist-
ance, and the prosecutrix gained possession of her
houses again. With respect to the claim of Miss
Read to these houses, all he had to say was that
she had held possession of them for 18 years since
her father's death, and that he purchased the free-
holds 40 years previously, and had always held in-
disputable possession. It was a strange notion of
Mrs. Cormick, such an old lady, to suddenly come
forward to claim property in the manner she had.
Whatever was the nature of her claim Miss Read
could not imagine. He (Mr. Robinson) had placed
all the facts before the Court, and all Miss Read
asked was for protection for herself and property
against such lawless persons, who had struck terror
into the neighbourhood, and put the owner in jeo-
pardy of her life. Not only that, but property of
hers had been Post and destroyed of the value of
about £7O, but he did not mean to charge the de-
fendants with larceny. Miss Read would be per-
fectly satisfied with the decision of the Court, and
leave the matter in their hands.
The Chairman observed that the only object the
Court could have in the present instance was to
prevent a recurrence of such unseemly and riotous
conduct, and especially with regard to this pro-
pert) , and to show that persons could not be allowed
to act in such au illegal manner. Some of the de-
fendants might suppose that they had a sort of
claim to the property, but this was not the way to
show it by collecting aeiotous mob and committing
serious havoc in the neighbourhood. The law pro-
vided a means, if they had any title to it, and that
they ought to have appealed to. With respect to
the defendants, he should order each of them to
enter into recognisances to come up for judgment
when called upon, and he hoped he should never
hear of such unseemly conduct again.
The recognisances being entered into, the defen-
dants left the court with their friends

THE ROBBERY OF MESSRS. NEGRETTI, AT THE
CRYSTAL PALACE.—Late in the afternoon George
Restall, late manager at the Crystal Palace for
Messrs. Negretti and Co., who was found guilty on
Monday of stealing 13 valuable lenses, their pro-
perty, was called up tor judgment.
Mr. Sleigh, on behalf of the prisoner, said he had
intended to have asked the Court for a case for the
Court of Criminal Appeal, but understanding that
Mr. Negretti had strongly recommended his client
to mercy, be had withdrawn that question, He now
trusted that, for the sake of the prisoner's young
wife and family and his previous good character,
and consistent with the ends of justice, that the
court would temper the sentence with mercy.
Mr. Robinson, who appeared for Mr. Negretti,
said that the most valuable lenses were still missing,
and the prosecutors, in recommending the prisoner
for mercy, believed that he would have given them
such information as to show what ho had done with
them.

The Chairman observed that early in the morning
Mr. Negretti had been before the court and strongly
recommended the prisoner to mercy; but he had a
strong feeling on the subject, believing that the
prisoner would confess as to what had become of the
more valuable lenses. Were the prisoner to do that
most likely great leniency would be shown to him.
Mr. Robinson here urged for a postponement of
the sentence until next session, and in the meantime
the prisoner might think it advisable to give the
required information.
The Chairman thought that would be the best
course to adopt, therefore he postponed passing sen-
tence until the next session, on the 24th of March.
The prisoner, who persisted that he knew nothing
whatever of the other lenses, was then removed.

A very respectable-looking young man named
George Mold was indicted for stealing a large
quantity of brass fittings, the property of an en-
gineering firm at West Croydon.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted, and Mr. Lilley de-
fended the prisoner.
The prisoner had been for a short time engaged
by the prosecutors, and a large quantity of brass
fittings were missed. The evidence went to show
that the prisoner offered large quantities for sale at
a marine-store dealer's at Croydon, and some of it
was traced to him. After a very lengthy trial, the
Jury found him Guilty and recommended him to
mercy.
The Chairman sentenced him to six months' hard
labour.

William Harris, a very respectable-looking young
man, was indicted for embezziing various sums of
money the property of his master, Mr. Judah Davis,
at 202, High-street, Southwark.
Mr. Green
the accused. prosecuted, and Mr. Lilley defended

The prosecutor in this case is an extensive clothier,
carrying on business at 178 and 202, High-street,