The Sun.
London, England, 1863-10-20 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

STEALING A IVATut.—Thomas Cody, a well-known
thief; was placed at the bar before Mr. Corrie, charged with
stealing a watch, the property of a gentleman unknown.
George Johnston said, about 10 o'clock on the night of
October 16 he saw the prisoner near a cab at the corner of
Exeter-street. Two persons were getting out, one of whom
appeared to be very much intoxicated. In a short time after
he saw the prisoner make a snatch at the•drunken man's
watch, and ,run away, when the person who was with
the gentleman whose watch had been stolen immediately
pursued the prisoner.

Joseph Groves said he met the gentleman by accident in
a publichouse in the Strand. They afterwards drove in a
cab to another publichouse at the corner of Exeter-street.
Ile was certain his companion had a gold watch, because he
saw him take it from his pocket two or three times whilst
he was with him. The last witness after the robbery came
up and told him a man had taken away his friend's watch,
and pointed out the prisoner, who was running away, as the
person. He (witness) pursued him through a lot of courts,
but finally came up with him in Russell-court and seized
him by the collar. He asked him for the watch, when he
said he had not it, but upon being told he should not let
him go till he had satisfied himself of that, prisoner pointed
to one of the areas near him, and said the watch was down
there. Witness upon this looked, and there be saw the
watch lying; he still held him, upon which the
prisoner said, "You've got the watch, why don't you let
me go ?" A policeman came up, and just at that
moment a person came to the door of the house and gave
the watch into the constable's hand.

Police-constable, 112 F, said he went to Russell-court
and then took the prisoner into custody for stealing a gold
watch. When he (prisoner) saw the watch in his hand,
he said, " What's the use of making a row, you've got the
watch, why don't you let me go." He, however, took him
to the station-house, and charged him with the robbery.
He also took the gentleman who had been robbed into cus-
tody for being drunk. On that occasion the name and
address he gave had proved fictitious, and he could not find
him.

Mr. Corrie asked if the prisoner was known ?
Detective Ackrill said he had known the prisoner for years
as a thief. He had been sentenced to four years' penal
servitude by Judge Payne at the Middlesex Sessions, upon
which occasion the j adge informed the prisoner that if he
came there again he would give him 10 years' penal servi-
tude. Since that the prisoner had been summarily con-
victed for stealing a watch at the Epsora races.
On being asked what he had to say to the charge,
The Prisoner repeated it was no good saying anything.
There was a mistake somewhere this time, as he did not
steal the gentleman's watch.

Mr. Corrie fully committed the prisoner for trial.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CAUTION TO HOUSEHOLDERS—AN ARTFUL TRICK,---
A gentleman applied to Mr. Knox this morning for advice
in regard to a claim which had been brought against him
by a house agent, and respecting which he wished to put
persons who had houses or apartments to let on their guard.
The applicant went on to say that about a year ago an ad-
vertisement appeared in the Times newspaper as follows :
" Furnished Apartments,—Wanted, for a permanency, by
a gentleman, between Piccadilly ancl Oxford-street. Good
sitting-room and bed•room. Terms, from £l2O to £l5O for
a year. Apply, &3." The advertisement, apparently com-
ing from a gentleman seeking apartments, his (applicant's)
wife answered, he having, like many other professional men,
a larger house than he required. Two or three days after
a person called to see the rooms (a second floor), and after
seeing them, and when upon the point of leaving he said
to his wife, " Will you be kind enough to put the right
name and address, and perhaps you will add the date."
The person said the last few words in a callous off-hand
manner, at the same time handing applicant's wife a paper.
His wife thought there could be no objection to do so, and
wrote as desired, and would make an affidavit that there
was nothing on the paper respecting any agreement
or contract—at least as presented to her, for it
might have been doubled ; nothing was said either
respecting any "commission," because his wife did not
when writing know the person was not seeking the rooms
for himself; and that she did not intend to sign any engage-
ment was evident, because she wrote his (applicant's) name
and not her own, and gave him the distinction certainly
unnecessary under the circumstances, of " Esq." after his
name. After the person had obtained the writing on the
paper, he admitted, to his (applicant's) wife's surprise, that
he did not require the rooms for himself, but had been sent
by the house-agent, or as his (applicant's) wife thought the
gentleman to whom she had written, and he added they
might suit the gentleman named in the advertisement, or,
if not, some other they would send. The person then left.
No one came, however, from the agent for some months
after, and then no arrangement was made ; and later a
person, evidently drunk, called, but was not admitted
Meanwhile the rooms had been let more than once, not,
however, to any one sent by this agent, who was not in-
formed of the fact, as he had never in any way been et.-
ployed. A few days ago the same person called to know if
the rooms were let. and finding they were he demanded the
name of the occupant. He was supplied with it, so that he
might know he bad not sent the gentleman(as the gentleman
would prove it necessary). To his (applicant's) astonish-
ment he received a day or two later a claim for £5 108.
for so-called " commission" as per "signed terms."
Having requested an explanation, he received in answer
what proposed to be a " copy " of the paper with his name,
address, and date, as before mentioned, given by his wile,
but with, to the best of her belief, some printed " terms"
added at the head of the paper. These " terms " were
printed in very small characters (the applicant handed the
paper to Mr. Knox for his inspection), and very artfully
concocted, and concluded with the words " I assent to these
terms respecting"—then follows the written particulars.
One of these "terms," however, would be sufficient to
make the most reckless portion pause if seen at all, for it
makes the percentage payable on the whole period for
which the property is let or disposed of by any one or with-
drawn. This being his (applicant's) case he wished to know
what tie could do, as he considered it a most extortionate
demand, and whether he could not prosecute the agent for
obtaining a signature under false pretences, with a view to
extract money or obtain some indemnification for the
annoyance and loss of time. He asked the question on
behalf of many persons, who, from fear or other motives—
especially females—might not resist such a claim, especially
as his wife had seen a number of the persons at the agent's
office with postage stamps, and then when she called to
know what was meant by " signed terms," the applicant
was threatened to be served with a writ.

Mr. Knox said there was no possible claim against the
applicant, and if he resisted payment and an action was
brought, the judge would laugh at the plaintiff and order
him to pay the costs. The applicant, however, might be
pretty sure that steps would not be taken, and need not
tear action. He (Mr. Knox) felt sure that publicity being
given to the matter, would meet the end the applicant had
in view, and put persons on their guard.