The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-08 00:00:00

among the women employed upon the establishment
in the laundry was one named Mary Lawton, who
up to the time of the occurrence out of which these
pioceethegs ereee heel beer, so for about seven
ietentbs. The womee. W 45 nUowed to heve broken
vie+u is g:.'een to her to take home, and upon the
evening of the 10fli o: January she at cps quitting tile
establishment by the lodge gate, having with her a
basin containing some dripping, and also some cold
meat and a piece of bread, which were wrapped up
in a piece of paper. As Lawton was just quitting,
defendant came up and said, " What have you got
there?' Lawton said, "My supper;" upon which
the defendant added, " That is all! want;" and tak-
ing the parcel from Lawton, went into the house.
Lawton then went back to the kitchen, and waited
there for about three-quarters of an hour, and corn-
, plained that the defendant did not come back and
give her some reason why she had taken her supper
from her. Defendant, however, did not come to
her, and Lawton went home, and shortly after-
wards the police inspector came and took her into
custody apon a charge of stealing three half-quay=
tern loaves and 21b. of uncooked meat. Lawton
was then taken by the police to the Asylum, and
there the defendant, produced, tied up in an old
apron, not belonging to Lawton, three loaves, 21b.
of uncooked meat, and the cooked meat which .had
been given to her, and said that was the bundle
which she had taken from Lawton and was in the
same shape as when she (the defendant) took it from
her. This Lawton strictly denied at the time, and
and protested that all the defendant took from her
was the cold meat and the dripping. Upon Law-
ton's trial at the sessions she repeated the same
story and called two witnesses,—one the cook,
whom she had the cold meat from, and the other a
fellow laundrymaid, who swore that she was with
Lawton up to the time of her being stopped by the
defendant, and that she had no bundle then in her
pessession. The jury, notwithstanding, found
Lawton guilty, and she was sentenced to 12 months'
imprisonment.
The evidence this day bore out the facts above
given, and the woman Lawton was brought up by
habeas to give evidence, and she most positively
swore that all the defendant took from her was
some cold meat in a piece of paper and some drip-
ping.
The witnesses were very closely cross-examined,
but nothing was elicited tending to show that the
defendant had any motive for making a false charge.
She had always thought well of the woman Law-
ton, and upon one occasion when she had missed
some trifling article, and suspected one of the
women, and found she was wrong, she at once told
the other servants to let their fellow-servant know
that she was in error.
Mr. Ribton, upon the part of the defendant, said
the charge was a most monstrous ono, and, if sue
cessful; no prosecutor would be safe. His client had
only done her duty to the institution she had to
manage. The learned gentleman then most dis-
passionately reviewed the whole case, and expressed
his gratification that his client's acquittal could not
be given by the jury as the result of any doubt in
their mind, but as an opinion of her entire innocence
of the charge.
Several clergymen gave the defendant a high
character of many years standing.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty,
The Common Sergeant—And with that verdict
I most heartily concur.