The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-14 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—June 13.

(Before Mr. Bodkin, Assistant-Judge.)

Arthur Simmonds, 19, jeweller, was indicted for
stealing 27 gold watches and other articles, of the
value of £4OO, the property of H. Simmonds, his
father; and Noah Dupree, 25, surrendered to take
his trial on an indictment charging him with felo-
niously receiving part of the property, knowing it
to have been stolen.
Simmonds pleaded guilty, and was admitted as
Queens evidence against Dupree.
Mr. Ribton was counsel for the prosecution; Mr.
H. Giffard defended Dupree, and Mr. Poland ap-
peared on behalf of Simmonds.
Mr. Ribton having opened the case and detailed
the circumstances, called
The prosecutor, who said he was a watchmaker
and jeweller, No. 3, Ledbury-road, Kensington, and
the prisoner Simmonds had assisted him in his busi-
ness, On the Ist of May, in consequence of infor-
mation he had received, he examined the shop, and
found the beat part of his stock gone, 27 gold
watches, 20 silver watches, 20 gold chains, 30 gold
lockets, 30 gold rings, 25 gold pins, 30 brooches,
&c. ; altogether value £4OO or more. They were
all safe the night previous. The prisoner (his son)
had absconded. The usual course was for him to
go to his (prosecutor's) bedroom every morning for
the keg, and he did .so, it appeared, on the morning
he went off. He gave information to the police,
and on the 7th he saw his son in custody, and part
of the stolen property was in the possession of the
police. The prisoner had no authority whatever to
take any one of the articles.
An officer of the Liverpool police force, named
Wm. Cox, said he received some information on the
sth of May, and acting upon it, he went to No. 16,
Laughton-street. There he found the prisoner
Simmonds. He told him he was charged with
having absconded from London with a large quan-
tity of jewellery, and asked his name, which he
said was George May. When told that his trunks
must be searched, he wanted to know by what
authority, and the witness told him he was a police
officer. The prisoner then said he had nothing
but what belonged to himself. In a trunk in the
room he was occupying there were found 11 gold
watches, 3 silver ones, 2 guards, 2 chains, and other
jewellery, which he now produced. The prisoner
was taken before a magistrate at Liverpool, when
the prisoner said his name was Simmonds, and
that the property was his father's. In his box
the officer found 19 duplicates relating to watches,
pawned in London and 13 in Liverpool, and the
landlord of the house where the prisoner lodged
gave up a watch, 2 chains, 2 rings, and 2 lockets.
On the prisoner he found £lO is. and a deposit
ticket of .£5 for a passage to Australia, whither he
said he was about to proceed.
- -

From other evidence it appeared that some of the
property had been pledged by Dupree at various
pawnbrokers in London, in the names of George
May, James Weston, George Graham, and others.
On the morning of the robbery, about half-past
five o'clock, the prisoner Simmonds was seen to go
up the Ledbury-road, and then towards 'West-
bourne-gardens. He rang the bell at No. 12, and
the other prisoner, Dupree, came out, and went on,
Simmonds following, and they joined, and went
away together up the Grove towards London. Sim-
monds was carrying two bags, and they went away
side by side. On the 30th of April they were seen
together near Dupree's house in deep conversation,
and also at a public-house, late in the evening.
Dupree asked a barman not to mention it. On the
Ist of May, in the morning, the prisoners were in a
public-house in the Edgware-road, between six and
eight. They had two bags with them, and Dupree
asked the barman if he could take any farthings,
and one or two shillings' worth were taken from
him. On the Ist of May the prosecutor met
Dupree, and asked him if he had seen his son. He
said he had not ; but on being told of the loss he
said he had seen him, and nod& d to him, and
that he rang his, Dupree's, bell. On being eked
if he knew anything of Simmonds' whereabouts,
as he had absconded with a great deal of pro-
perty, he said he did not, and had not seen him,
to speak to him, for a fortnight, and that he
thought of "cutting him." A day or two after-
wards, Dupree, on being asked if he could throw
any light upon it, said he could not, and knew no-
thing at all of the matter. The value of the pro-
perty recovered was about £300; about £lOO worth
was still missing. Dupree was sworn to as having
carried one of the bags to the Crown. When I.e
taken by the police, and charged with being con-
cerned in the robbery with young Simmonds upon
his father, he said he knew nothing of it, and that
Mr. Simmonds must be cautious as to what he was
about. The officer asked him if he knew where
Simmonds was. lie said he did not, he had no
idea ; but that he rang his bell, upon which he
looked out of window, and as he was but half
dressed he only nodded to •him. Having finished
rtressing, he went out at about half-past six to go
the Exhibition, when he saw Simmonds standing
by No. 28, but did not speak to him at all, nor go
ncar hLw, but turned tts. •vl
wards the Royal Oak. Dupree's house was searched,
but nothing relating to the robbery was found, and
all the proceeds of it which could be traced to Du-
pree was about £B. Simmonds confessed, but threw
all the blame upon Dupree, who, he said, had led
him into it, and that his intention was to proceed
to the colonies. It was planned between them.
Mr. Giffard, in his address to the jury, animad-
verted in strong terms upon the animus on the part
of Simmonds' parents to screen their son and throw
all the criminality upon Dupree. He reviewed at
some length the facts of the case, and arged the
jury not to convict upon the testimony principally
of a thief, convicted on his own confession of rob-
bing his father, and then hypocritically, with pious
expressions, wanting to make it eppear that he was
the victim and not the victimiser, so as to put
upon other shoulders that which properly ought to
be borne by hie own.
Dupree, it appeared, was connected with a very
respectable family, and had borne a good character.
So was Simmonds.

—His Lordship summed up the case with great care
and, minuteness, and asked the jury to well consider
the evidence, and say whether or not it satisfied
them that in this serious robbery Dupree was or
was not an accomplice with Simonds, who had
confessed his guilt.
The jury found Dupree guilty.
His Lordship said ho could see no reason for
making any distinction between the prisoners in the
sentence it was the duty of the Court to pass upon
them. It was, indeed, a most serious case, and no
one could doubt that the verdict was' a correct one.
The sentence upon each of the prisoners was three
years' penal servitude.