The Sun.
London, England, 1801-10-29 00:00:00

would find the Prisoners guilty, ir they saw any
reason to doubtit, theyAvould acquit them.
Guilty.—beath.
There was another charge against them for a si-
milar offence ; but the Counsel for the Prosecution
said, he should give the Court no trouble upon that,
and therefore they were not tried upon it.

Michael Deashy, ind I),;nnis Ilurity, were charged
with a capital offence, in bArglatiously entering the
house of John Corker, and stealing therein an iron
poker, two aprons,. and two handkerchiefs, his pro-
perty. .
This case, which exhibited nothing either curious
or important, took up the attention: of the Court
for ' a considerable time, on account
.of the great
number of '.Witnesses who were examined, as well
for the DefenCe as the 'Prosecution. The jet of
the evidence was, that the wife of the Prosecutor
had locked up her house in Penton.street, in which

there was only one person, an infirm man, confin,ll
to his bed, on the evening of the 27th of Septem-
ber. She was accompanied by a young woman,
one of the WitnesseS ; they returned in about 'a
quarter of an hour, when they found the door open,
and in a parlour where the. articles.laid in the In-,
diament were deposited, they found the Prisoner'
Deashy. .He h'ad the poker in his hand : the other
Prisoner wa's outside -the door. 'The women gave
an alarm; several wornen,came to their assistance,
and an; elderly man. In endeavouring to secure the
Prisoners a scuffle ensued ; 'Hurley struck several
of the parties, as did also Deashy, from-Whom the
poker was at length forced. He 'got away when
the Officers came ; they.found him under his bed in
.his lodgings, which were in the sat& street where
the Prosecutor resided. The ProsecutOr's wife•stat-
ed, 'that she was offered money by a man on the part
of Prisoner, not to apPear. She also stated some
collateral circumstances, which were not substan-
tiated by the testimony of the other Witnesses.
In their defence, theyrisoner Deashy alledged,
that lw had been very c:Bunk, and going to the door
of the Prosecutor's house, to enquire after a person
who he imagined to be there, the wife came out
and abused him, and was going to strike him : he
.took up some dirt to throw at her, when she ran
in for a poker, , in order to give him a blow with
it: at seeing this, he wrenched the poker from her
hand, and in cousequence a scuffle ensued. The
Prisoner Hurley asserted, that 'he was not.near the
Prosecutor's house at a 11...

To support - this defence a number of Witnesses
were bro,ight forward--they all swore positively
to one, general effed, which was, that stated by the
Prisoner Deashy, as above, in his defence, and 'in
exculpation of the second Prisoner.
The Learned Judge, HEATH, who tried the case,
as the charge was capital, and the case appearing
by the Evidence rather questicinable; entered some-
what into detail in his charge to the ,Jury. His
Lordship seemed to think the story told in defence
of the Prisoners, rather improbable and inconsistent,
and that told by the•Prosecutrix, saving one or two
circumstances, more likely to be founded in faa.
He then detailed the Evidence, and-observed, that
the charge of burglary was done away by an ad-
mission of the Prosecutrix.
The Jury took some time to consider of their ver.
dia, which was an Acquittal of both the Prisoners.

Elizabeth Murphy was also tried for a capital
offence, being charged with stealing on the 7th of
Sept. one straw bonnet, value 2 is. the goods of
James Mayne and Henrietta Worcester, privately
in their shop.
The shop of the Prosecutors is in Middle row,
Lower Holborn : on the above day the Prisoner,
who was in the habit of buying trifling articles it
the shop, came for a yard of twist, for which she
paid. In a few minutes she came a second time, and
had the same quantity of twist, and tendered a
suspicious' ooking shilling to change for it. The
shop-woman, the only- person in the shop at each
time, went up stairs to the' Prosecutors, who were
at tea, to know about the shilling ; she had orders
.to change it. On her coming down she gave
the change to the Prisoner, who, of course,
went away. In a few minutes the bonnet, was
missed : no account could be obtained of it until
the 26th of .September, when the Prisoner was seen
go by the shop with the bonnet on her head. The
Prosecutor instantly recognized it, and followed
her ; she was brought back, and given, into the
custody of an Offi.ce'r.• The suspicions of the Prose-
cutor, as to the bonnet, were realized, and he duly
idetitified it in Court. A quantity of bad money, it
appeared, was found on the Prisoner. •
In her defence she asserted she boUght tbe bonnet
from a woman in the street for ten shillings, that a
few days after, passing by Mr. Mayne's shop, he
charged•her with stealing it, but offered to Com-
promise the matter-for a guinea, and, that on her
telling him she had not one, he bid her pawn her
cloak for. it.
On the Prosecutor being applied to as to the truth
of the latter part of the Prisoner's defence, he of
course diselaiTed it. The charge seemed fully
established against the Prisoner, but the Jury found
means to obviate thecapital part of it, by finding
hei- guilty of 'stealing to the value of 4s. I id.