The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-19 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Nov, 17,

(Before the Assistant-Judge.)
Philip Beeson, 22, and John linwin, who pleaded guilty
on Monday to an indictment on which they were charged
with stealing three jugs and other articles, the property of
G. R. Cheshire, their master, was brought up for judgment.
Although the amount of property laid in the indictment
was small, yet a robbery to a great amount had been com-
mitted. The prosecutor is a glass and earthenware mu.

chant, his depot being at 3, Wharf, York-road, City-road,
and on Monday, Oct. 19, he told the prisoner Unwin to
pack up an order that was going to Camberwell, and to put
the goods into a van. The van was driven away in the
charge of Beeson and Unwin, but they were accompanied
by a man named Berry. When they got to the Angel Berry
went away, and the van was watched to Bagnigge-wells-
pulled up at a brushmaker's shop;
took three jugs from a cart, and took
eArsfter the van was gone Mr. Cheshire
when Mr. Birheck, who kept the
rtßwho
eeaeendmst, wtni
onhgt
teoohr t
the
hdt
brush
r\esuv
haps
hor
api prisoners ohdno p
shop, handed to him three jugs which had been left by
Beeson, and they bore his private mark. Beeson was taken
into custody, and afterwards on going to his lodgings, No.
20, Lever-street, two hampers full of china and glass were
found, which he identified as his property. The prisoner
Unwin was subsequently taken into custody, and a quantity
of property belonging to the prosecutor was found in his

possession.
Mr. F. H. Lewis having been heard on behalf of the
prisoners, _ _

- Mr. Metcalfe said this was a most extensive robbery, and
the prosecutor hardly knew the amount of which he had

been robbed.

The Assistant-Judge sentenced 13e€son to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for 12 months, and Unwin for nine

months.

Henry Wrench, 21, who was convicted on Tuesday of
embezzling divers sums of money received by him for and
on account of Stevens's Patent Bread Machinery Company
(limited), was brought up for judgment.
The prisoner at the time of the trial stated that Mrs.
Riley, wife of the manager of the company, was in the habit
of helping herself out of the till for ths purpose of meeting
the expenses of housekeeping, aad she was ordered to be this

day in attendance to answer such questions as might be phi
to her.

This day Mrs. Riley accordingly attended, and she posi-
tively denied all that the prisoner had alleged.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced the prisoner to be im-
prisoned and kept to hard labour for 12 months.
George Gibbs, 22, late a police• constable in the S division
stationed at Hampstead, and Mary Gibbs, 21, his wife, were
indicted for stealing a gun, value 205., the property of Wil-
liam Hodge. There were further indictments against them

for stealing 12 blankets, two table covers, and one counter-
pane, value VS, the property of George Stinton, and with
stealing a lamp, value 58., the property of Maurice Drum•
mond, the Receiver-General of the Metropolitan Police.
Mr. Rowden and Mr. F. H. Lewis prosecuted ; Mr. Met-
calfe (instructed by Mr. Charles Young) defended the pri-
soners.

Mr. Inspector Webb, of the S division, was in attendance
to watch the case on behalf of the Commissioners of the
Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Itowden having briefly opened the case, called the
following witnesses :

Thomas Foster, police-constable 28 S, said he knew the
male prisoner, who was formerly a constable in the metro-
politan police, and the female prisoner was his wife, He
remembered the constable joining the Hampstead division
about two months ago. Witness showed him round his beat,
and also round the premises of Mr. Mills, at West-end. He
had the key to go round the premises, and he saw him twice
on his beat in a night.
William Hodge said he was gardener to Mr. Mills, of
West-end, Hampstead, and had been so for five years. The
gun produced he brought with him. to Hampstead five yeas s
ago last June. He knew it by the ramrod, which he made
himself. The gun was kept in a toolhouse in the kitchen
garden, lie had also a saw there. The saw produced be-
longed to him, and it was with the gun in the same abed.
lie saw them last about the Bth of October, when they were
safe in the shed. The police made a communication to him,
and he went to the prisoner's house on the 29th of October
in company with a man named Castle. Castle said to the
female prisoner, " What about that gun ?" She said she
knew nothing about any gun, and that she had never had
a gun in her hands in her lite
othhHhffoaeeudt In
ghshneuat codnrcto
used
b. s.
sews-tpee hissi
dens
tefiahohi,
possession
he
i The gun
dugal,
inut
kept
noip in September.
a netsbhdehytep.
osatArkade
the
urny.
bo.
werew
elTprll. eeh tc e
nrepl
tloloiotel
sehfckee h
e.
keew,
odgoafutsue said he ha
d
the keeping
birds
p
in
tea nos toolhousesatihnn egy t)noi
r.
Castle's shop, and he saw his gun in the window.
throughN Theo.
7
i en i
andt ig
a Castle
a t o
man
could
windows.
he
lgivete
rived
at ln answer to questions by the Assistant-Judge, he said
there were windows in the toolhouse, but there were no
a
wi, Fl
were two feet
twide,
stead, and was a marine store dealer. He bought a gun of
them.
lease ask-walk, Hemp-
Mrs. Gibbs on the Bth of October, and gave her Ss for it.
On the 29th of October he went to the prisoner's house and
saw the female prisoner. He said to her, " What about that
gun ?" She replied she knew nothing about any gun, and
had never had one in her possession. She went away, and
witness waited outside the house, The female prisoner went
away and up to the town, and was absent about 10 minutes,
and when she returned he again asked her what was to be
done about the gun. She said she wished him to see her
husband, who came home some time afterwards. He then
told witness that he had better come up with him to his
room. 'Witness went, when the male prisoner said he had
had the gun in his possession for three or four years. He
said that it was his gun, and that he could bring witnesses
to prove that it was his. He said he would take back the
gun if they would give him the 8s he had got for it.
Mrs. Castle, wife of the last witness, said she bought the
saw produced by Mrs. Gibbs, and gave her 6d for it. That
was on the 10th of October. Her husband had bought a gun
of her on the same day,
Charles Kemp, police constable 22 S, said the male pri-
soner was a constable under him. He saw him on Friday
morning, the 30th October. He said to him, " Gibbs, did
you see a man last night respecting a gun ?" and he said he
did. Witness told him that he should detain him until the
question as to the property was cleared up. He said it was
his gun, and ho had had it for five years. Witness showed
him a gun, and he said it was like it, and that ho had offered
on the night before to give the man the money back that it
was sold for. At 6 o'clock the same morning witness waited
upon Hodge, and received the gun from him. He after-
wards went to a man named Garrett and got the saw, which
had been sold to him by Castle, in Flask-walk.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Metcalfe asked his lordship if he thought there was
any case against the woman.
After a short discussion, the Assistant-Judge directed
the learned counsel for the defence to confine his observa-
tions to the male prisoner only,
Mr. Metcalfe made a most able and eloquent address on
behalf of the male prisoner, contending that the identity of
the gun had not been clearly established, and called upon
the jury, as it was a most doubtful case, to give him the
benefit of the doubt and acquit him.
The Assistant-Judge very carefully summed up the evi-
dence, and
The jury found the male prisoner guilty and the woman
not guilty.
Mr. Rowden said there were two other indictments
against the prisoners, and one of them was for breaking into
a house on Haverstock-hill, and taking therefrom twelve
blankets, two tablecovers, a counterpane, and various other
articles. Some of the articles had been recovered, but a
large quantity was still missing.
Mr, F. H. Lewis said this was really a weak ease, and
rested on a counterpane which had been pawned ; but the
woman who was said to have washed it did not identify it.
Mr. Rowden said the woman was seen on the night near
to the place where the robbery was committed with a large
bundle in her possession, which she did not have when she
went there.
The Assistant-Judgo said there was, no doubt, a good
deal of suspicion about it.
Mr. Rowden said there was some of this property thrown
over a hedge, and a good deal more had not been found.
Mr. F. H. Lewis remarked that there was no evidence
whatever that the woman had acted independently of her
husband in the commission of the robbery.
Mr. Rowden said he was informed by Mr. Inspector
Webb that this man had only been 7 months in the force,
and during that time he had been tht ice reported for being
drunk, once being taken before a magistrate and fined 108.
The Assistant-Judge said the prisoner had been convicted
on the clearest evidenco,and his offence was so much greater
as he was an officer of the police, to whom the protection of
the property and lives of the Queen's subjects was in-
trusted, and it was the duty of the Court when such
things occurred to make an example of the offender, so that
others might be taught that if they wore convicted such
matters would not be lightly passed over. Notwithstanding
the able defence which had been made for him by the
learned counsel, it seemed that he not only stole these
things, but he used his wife as the instrument of getting rid
of them. He would be separated from her for a considerable
period, and the sentence of the Court upon him was that he
be kept in penal servitude for three years.
The female prisoner was then charged on the other two