The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-06 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Nov, 5,

(Before the Assistant-Judge.)
Henry Palmer appealed against a conviction by Mr. Leigh
under which he was sentenced to three months' hard labour
as a rogue and vagabond, under the Vagrant Act, 5 Geo.
IV., c. 83.
Mr. Besley appeared for the appellant—Mr. Poland was
counsel in support of the conviction.
Mr. Poland, in opening the case, said the facts lay in a
very narrow compass, and were substantially these—On
July 20 last the prisoner was in the City-road with another
person about 9 in the evening, when he was watched by two
officers in plain clothes, who knew him as a reputed thief.
They saw him go up to the door of 17, City-road, and try
the door with a key or something similar, and failing in his
evident object, he went back from the door, and looked up
at the windows, as if to see if there were any lights, and
then re-crossed the road and walked to Finsbury-square,
and then he againicrossed the road, joined a companion, and
was taken into custody. In his possession were found a
number of filed keys, which were, or were intended to be,
used as skeleton ones. The prisoner was known as a reputed
thief, and evidence was given before the convicting magis-
trate of his being a reputed thief, which was necessary ac-
cording to the statute. lie (the learned counsel) should
submit to the Court that he could now adduce evidence as to
the prisoner's antecedents.
Mr. Besley here objected to such evidence being put in on
appeal against a conviction founded upon evidence which
did not prove that the appellant was in the terms of the act;
" a reputed thief," and submitted that, before the magistrate
could convict, such evidence should have been before him.
After some discussion.
His Lordship said he thought he could not exclude the
proffered evidence, and that they could and ought to receive
and evidencewh;
they watched him. of the police as to the prisoner being a reputed thief,
Harry Short was then called, and deposed that ho was a
constable of the N division of police, and on the evening of
the 20th July ho was in the City-road, in plain clothes, with
another constable named Miller also in plain clothes, when
he saw the appellant with another man,
and knowing him he
watched his movements. He deliberately went up to the
door of No. 17 and triad the door with a key, or something
like one, and failing, he re-crossed the road and joined the
other man, They were followed to Finsbury. square and then
turned back, when the appellant and the person he was with
were taken, and a dozen keys were found on Palmer of
different shapes and patterns, and sonic filed out of their
original forms, so that they might fit different locks. In 1819
the prisoner was sentenced to ten years' transportation, but
he escaped, and witness took him in 1855, when he was
sentenced at the Old Bailey to four years' penal servitude ;
and since his discharge he has been a constant associate of
thieves, both convicted and unconvicted, and that was the
reason he was taken when he was seen trying the door in
company with the other man.
Cross-examined—He knew the other man. He pushed
against a gentleman and lady. There was a crowd, and
Miller showed his warrant card as a police officer. That
was an accidental push, caused by his following Palmer,
and Miller showed his card to satisfy them that they were
police constables. No one was examined at the police court
but himself; but a statement was made in reference to the
prisoner by Sergeant Evans, 22 G.
The constable Miller said he was with Short, and saw the
appellant try the door of 17, City-road. Having corrobo-
rated the evidence of Short, he said that when he took the
other one ho said he did not know " Harry Palmer." Wit-
ness asked him if he had anything in his pockets, and he
said he had not. He had nothing about hint, and the wit-
ness said if he was a respectable person he would not object
to follow him to the station, and he did so. He was dis-
charged, and did not object to give his address. He did not
know Palmer before.
Mr. Besley addressed the Court in support of the appeal,
and admitting that in former years the appellant had been
no doubt properly convicted of criminal offences, for which
he had suffered his punishment, there was not, he sub-
mitted, such evidence before the Court to justify his con-

viction. The appellant had come into possession of £4OO
since his release, he had for four years been earning an
honest living as a cabinetmaker, lived in his own house,
and it was scarcely likely.he would risk his restored cha-
racter by an offence of this kind. In 1855, when the appel-
lant was apprehended, there was an order made for the de-
livery N his brother of a watch and chain ; the watch was
given up but not the chain, and there had ever since been
an animosity against Palmer because ho had asserted that

the policeman had it, though that had been denied. In such
a case he hoped the Court would adopt a clement and lenient
view, and not consign this man to a punishment for an
offence of which the evidence did not clearly prove.

Evidence was then given as to the appellant's character
since his release, and to the effect that he was by accident
in the City-road at the time ; that the person he was with
was a stranger ; and that the keys were ordinary ones, tot
skeleton.

After some consideration the Court said the conviction
must be confirmed, as the evidence could leave no doubt
that the appellant was a reputed thief, and had tried the
door in question.
Conviction affirmed with costs.
The appellant was then removed in custody to undergo
the punishment adjudicated.
James Hayes, 21, seaman, was indicted for feloniously
assaulting and stealing from the person of Charles Jelland,
a watch, value £5, his property.
Charles Jelland, the prosecutor, said he lived at No. 37,
Pelham-street, Spitalfields, and was a bricklayer. On
Saturday evening, the 24th of October, he was in White-
chapel, when two labourers knocked his hat off. He turned
round and saw his watch in the prisoner's hand. He seized
him, when the prisoner struck him a violent blow in the
mouth and knocked him to the ground. A crowd collected,
and some of them held his arms, while the prisoner kicked
him several times. Two gentlemen came to his assistance
while he was on the ground. The watch was broken from
the guard, and was worth £5.

Samuel Gibbons said he lived at No. 12, William-terrace,
Globe-street, Poplar. On the Saturday night in question,
at about nine:o'clock ho was iuthe Whitechapel-ruad, when
he saw two men knock the,.prosecutor's hat off, The pro-
secutor turned round as if to look for a policeman, and at
that moment the prisoner snatched his watch. Ho saw it
in hls hand, and when the prosecutor seized him he tried
very hard to get him down. He saw the !prisoner pull him
down, and he heard the guard snap.
Police-constable John Panther, 19 C, said on Saturday
night, about nine o'clock, he saw a mob of people in the
Whitechapel•road. The prisoner was there, being held by
the prosecutor and others. The prisoner was kicking and
trying to get away. He seized the prisoner, the prosecutor
saying, " I charge him with taking my watch," to which
he said nothing, and was taken to the station-house.
The prisoner was found guilty.
Mr. Lockyer, officer of the House of Correction, Cold-
bath- fields, recognised him as an old offender.

The Assistant-Judge sentenced him to be kept in penal
servitude for Jour years.
Elizabeth Hensley, 30, servant, was indicted for fraudu-
lent by obtaining, by false pretences, from George Hub-
bard, 305., his money, with intent to defraud.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
The prisoner in this case went to the shop of Messrs.
Sewell and Cross, 41, Old Compton-street, on the 9th of
ee
pri o nr
June, and said she was the housekeeper of Mr. Spode, of
Ittauignesi,
Fia.j.tiluddn ewand was desired to look out some curtains. She
Thomas Sharratt
car-
riage, and asked them to advance her £l. The sum of £1
given, and afterwards 10s. more. She selected 14 mu-
lch were forwarded at her request to Mr. Spode,
Bethhleeayshtwatde:l.Deen robbed of her purse in the railway ear-
Hautyard park, A returned._sa!ol he was steward to Mr. Spode, of
She was for eight yearswZ
'''''''litage, near Rugeley, and on the 9th
not housekeeper to Mr. Spode.
was discharged in c_ his employ as housekeeper, but
vase queue, of allowing irregularities