The Sun.
London, England, 1801-09-22 00:00:00

enough that you suspe&, but you should be fully,
satisfied, that this is the property of Messrs.
,Austin.—Now supposing you to be satisfied that
the Pri,oner, Thomas Pollard, stole these goods,
the next question would be, whether the other Pri-
soner, William, received them, knowing them to be
stolen ?—They have alluded to a confession Which
was made before a worthy Msgistrate of this City,
that confession would have been strong evidence ;
and, could I with propriety receive it, perhaps it
would clear the matter up ; but I cannot, for the sake
of punishing any individual, whatever I may think
of him; infringe upon the Law, the rule of which
is, that when any thing is reduced to writing, no
Parole Evidence can be received concerning it ; the
• thing itself must be produced, for there is a cer.
tainry in a written document which does not belong
to Parole-Evidence, and the Law always requires
the hest evidence which the nature of the thing
admits.—l cannot read to you that confession,
, because the person who is a Witness to it is not
• here. It is a rule that when a deed is produced, it
must b 2 proved by the subscribing Witness, if
living.. Mr. Newman- is absent, ro.:froniany de_
sire of screening a culprit from Justice ; but because
he has not received notice to attend. On the whole
case, I 'ha've only to say;'thatthowever I. may sus.
-pelt the guilt cat the Prisoners at the. Bat, it is in'.
eutnhent on me to state to you there is not sufficien't
'E'Vidence against them to convia,"and that there-
fore they are entitled to their aCquittal.".e—Both Not
• . •
The COMMON ScR irANT then obserked, that as
they were very young men they might, in the course
-of nature, have. many days to live, unless they
diminished their number by a course oFvice; which
be admonished them to shun for the- future, and
iike a warning from this narrow escape.
Job,' Bowles, a little and very deformed man,
was incliCled for stealing, on the zist of July, an
iron vice, the property of Francis Styles.
The Prisoner, it appeared, was seen by one of
the Witnesses to take the vice from the place where
it lay near the Prosecutor's door,' who keeps a
broker's shop ; he 'put it on his shoulder, and was
proceedizg off with it. The Witness seeing the.
transa&ion to be clearly a theft, followed and
brought him back. The article was duly identified
by the Prosecutor's wife.
The Prisoner in his defence stated, that the vice
was lying against the side of the gateway, appa_
rently without an owner; that he asked several
-persons, who all said they knew nothing about it,
and in consequence, and as having a large family,
lie took away the vice, when the Witness alluded
to came up and stopped him.---The Jury, however,
being more inclined to credit the evidence for the
prosecution,, found the Prisoner Guilty.
Bryan Carol!, alias John Downey, was indiaed
for feloniously stealing on the 15th of August, z6B
Tbs. weight of soap, value 51. ss. the goods of
James and John Howland.
It appeared that the Prisoner came to the shopof
the Prosecutors, who are extensive dealers in soap,
on the above mentioned day, and presented a Note,
purporting to he an order from Mr. Caroll, with
whom the Prosecutors had dealings, to let the bearer
have a cwt. and a half of soap on his account.—
From the Prisoner's manner, as well as from some-
thing which Mr. Nowland observed in the note,
114 suspicions with respeCl to the fairness of the
transaEtion were strongly excited., While the soap
was getting ready, he stepped to Mr. Caroll's
which was.in his neighbourhood, in order to be sa_
tisfied. lle there learned that Mr. Caroll was out
of Town. When he returned the Prisoner had gone
out of the step with the soap, but he was soon
overtaken. The Prosecutor acknowledged that he
certainly would not have let the bearer hate the
soap, were it not for the general impression upon
his mind, at the moment, that it was for Mr. Ca-
roll.

The COMMON SE R JEANT observed, that a positive
Aft of Parliament stood in the way of the-Prison-
er's convi'tion upon the present Indietment, name-
ly, that of the 3oth of the King, which provided
for cases of obtaining money or goods under false
pretences, by, making the offence a misdemeanour,
and for its punishment accordingly. The' circum-
stances of the case in question, placed it under the
purview of this ACI, but which, if it did not exist,
would clearly have been a felony. He ,observed,
upon the conduct" and the acknowledgement of the
Prosecutor, which made for that conclusion, and as
the Law stood, the Prisoner must necessarily he
acquitted. The' Jury accordingly found him Not
Guilty.'
The Prosecutor, on his inquiring -relative to the
point, was informed by the Court, that the Law
was still open with respeet to the punishment of the
Prisoner; and that in a subsequent Session he was
indittable for the offence as a misdemeanour.
Barab Glatimatz was charged with,stealing ablack
silk cloak, value s 33. the property of Jonathan
Baker.-