The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-20 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY, JAN. 10.

Henry Turner Harrington, a smartly-dressed and
rather well-looking young man (described in the
calendar as a surgeon),was capitally indicted for steal-
ing from Madame Sophie Riquice, in the house of
M. Polack, five sovereigns, a gold chain, seven rings
(one of them set with brilliants), a gold eyeglass,
and other articles of jewellery.
The prosecutrix, a well-dressed handsome French
woman, gave her evidence through the medium of
an interpreter. She had resided for five months in
the house of M. Polack, in Charlotte-street, Mary-
lebone, and knew the prisoner very well, having met
him at the theatres, and other places of public
amusements. On the 23d of November the pri-
soner accompanied her to her lodgings, and re-
mained with her three days and nights. On the
morning of the 26th, the prisoner requested her to
leave the bedchamber, as he was about to dress him-
self. She left the room, and the prisoner having
locked the door, remained in the room two hours
and a half. He then opened the door, and the pro-
secutrix accompanied him to the street door, where
he slipped a bundle of papers into her bosom, which
he described as bank-notes, to the amount of 251.
She declined to accept the present, saying she was
not in the habit of accepting money He howe7er
pressed her to accept of the notes, and then went
away. Almost immediately after she discovered that
the notes were what is termed " flash" notes, and
upon going up to her room, she found that her
et:nu-node bad been forced open, and a box, in
which she had deposited a purse containing five
sovereigns and the aricles of jewellery named in the
indictment, stolen. The box lay upon the mantel-
shelf quite empty. She afterwards saw two of the
rings at a pawnbroker's in Prince's-street.
The prisoner, in his defence, offered a few un-
connected observations upon the evidence.
Mr. Justice J. PARKE summed up the evidence,
and the Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Samuel Pratt, a respectable-looking man, de-
scribed as a drysalter, was indicted for stealing four
casks of bristles, value 1981. 165., the property of
Henry Robert Plaw, merchant.
The Jury without hesitation found the prisoner
Guilty.
NEW COURT.

James Hook, aged 34, John Wakeley, 44, and
Samuel Goddard, 40, were indicted, [look for steal-
itig a large quantity of rope and twine, the property
of Edward Newman, and Wakeley and Goddard for
receiving the same, knowing it to have ben stolen.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against all
the prisoners.
Henry Saunders, aged 32, was indicted for steal-
ing 19s. 6d., the property of Charles Garrett.
'1 he prosecutor, a simple-looking country fellow,
clad in bumpkin costume, deposed that he lived in
Hampshire. On the afternoon of the last day of
the last year, he was walking in Whitechape], when
he met a man who said he was a countryman of his,
and claimed acquaintance with him, and invited him
to take a glass of ale, which temptation he could not
resist.—(Laughter.)—They went together to a
public-house, and soon after another man came in,
and that man was the prisoner, who said to the first
man," I have been to the Bank and received 800/,"
and pulled out a roll of what appeared to be notes.
Witness said, " There are some strange chaps
about these parts, you had better take care of your
money.",—(BurstS of laughter.)—Prisoner then
said, " Have you any money ?" I said " Aye,
sure," and pulled out 19s. 6d. and put it on the
table; the prisoner took np the money, and put it
in his hat, and the other man called him opt of the
room, and they went away together; the other man
said, " You will not lose your money." Wit-
ness thanked him, and returned again to the room,
when the prisoner was gone; lie then went to the
doOr, and the other cyan was gone too.
Mr. CLARKSON—And so you lost your money?—
Witness—Yes, bad luck to 'em, but it will do 'em
no good.
Mr. CurtfisoN—You say the other man, who
gave you such good advice, was gone when you
went to the door ?—Witness (weeping and scratch-
ing his head.)—Ay, sure; but they " says as how"
he will be" catched" before this day twelvemonth.—
(Laughter.)
Mr. CLARKSON—Then he was too cunning for
you ?—Witness—Ay, sure; I thought I had a tidyish

headpiece, but they chaps were too much for me;
it's the last time, though, I'll take care of that.—
(A laugh.)—Turning round to the gallery, " Ay,
you may laugh; you won't catch me here again."--
(Continued laughter, in which the Court and Jury
joined heartily.)—Verdict, Guilty.

SURREY SESSIONS, JAN. 19.

IMPORTANT TO BAKERS AND THE PUBLIC.

This was an appeal from the decision of the Ma-
gistrates of Union-hall upon a conviction made by
them, under an act passed in the reign of his present
Majesty, which enforced the weighing bread at the
time sold, for the purposes of protecting the public
against short weight.
Mr. THESIGER appeared on behalf of the appel-
lant, and argued that the conviction could not stand.
Mr. CHAMBERS, for the respondent, called his
witness, John Edmonds, who deposed that he knew
the appellant, Mr. James Glasscock, who was by
trade a baker, and lived in Bermondsey-street. On
the day named in the conviction he went into Mr.
Glasscock's shop, and asked for a twopenny loaf.
A person came out of the shop-parlour and said they
had not one, but had two penny loaves. Wit-
ness replied, they would do quite as well. There
were no scales in the shop, and the bread was deli-
vered to him without being weighed in his presence.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—Witness is
an inspector of hawkers' and pedlars' licences, and
was formerly a master-baker, but from circumstances
he left that trade, and entered into the grocery
business, in which he failed. A man named Thomas
Chalks Morley, was the informer, and he (Ed-
monds) was witness in all his informations, for
which he received stipulated wages to the amount
of 3s. 6d. per day, Sundays included. He (wit-
ness) did not expect any moiety of the penalty, in
the event of the present conviction being confirmed.
He received his wages fro:n Morley. No informa-
tions had been laid against any bakers for baking
dinners on a Sunday for the public, but perhaps it
would yet be done. On the day that the appellant
was informed against, there were also eighteen other
informations laid against bakers, for similar offences
to the present, at Union-hall. Will net swear there
were not any scales in Mr. Glasscock's shop, for the
purpose of weighing bread, if it had been required;
nor did he ask to have the bread weighed at the
time of purchase.
Mr. THESIGER, in reply, said it was clear that the
Act of Parliament requiring bread to be weighed,
whether demanded by the purchaser or not, was
merely an experimental Act. The provisions only
extended to two years, and that period of time had
elapsed when the conviction was made, and which
was now the subject of appeal. The statute in force
subsequent to that Act required that bread should
be weighed, but did not specify at what time, or in
what manner; the enactment merely expressed the
loaf should be weighed, whether in its state of
dough before baking, or as bread baked, was not
specified. He (Mr. Thesiger) should like to be
informed the difference in the weight of a loaf before
and after baking.
Mr. FLORANCE YOUNG, a Magistrate, observed
that if there was a difference in the weight, there
should be a difference in the price.
Mr. THESIGER would admit the Learned Magi-
strate's observation, for the sake of argument, but
what coin was there of the realm that could com-
pensate or allow any deficiency in the weight of the
twopenny loaf? Under the statute then in force,
it was required that bread should be weighed if de-
manded by the purchaser; but, as he had before
stated, the experimental nct, enacting that bread
should he weighed when sold, whether required or
not, had expired previous to the alleged offence,
upon which act the conviction was founded.
The CHAIRMAN (Serjeant Scriven) said the
Court agreed with the Learned Counsel (Mr,
Thesiger) that the information could not be sup.
parted. The act which imperatively called for the
weighing of bread, whether demanded or not, (and
there could be no doubt, from its operation being
extended to two years, that it was an experimental
act), had expired before the conviction appealed
against had been made. Had the appellant refused
to weigh the bread, or if there had not been scales
provided for the purpose in his shop, the presump-
tion under the statute would have been against
him, and conviction must have followed. The case,
however, before them was different, and the Court
decided that the conviction should be quashed.