The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-07 00:00:00

THE sure, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 7, 1865.

'his day.

(This Day),

Steward.

The Jewellery Robbery in Manchester,

Yesterday, at the City Sessions, before the Recorder
(R. B. Armstrong, Esq.), the trial of the four prisoners,
Daly, Barker, Hartley, and Elizabeth Moores, for breaking
into the shop of Mr. Howard, jeweller, Market-street, and
stealing property valued at £3,000 was resumed and con-
cluded.—Mr. Leresche and Mr. Edwards appeared for the
prosecution; the male prisoners being defended by Mr.
Earnest Jones, Mr. Torr, and Mr. Hopwood.—Evidence
was called to show that at half-past three o'clock on Sun-
day the sth of February, Daly, Barker, and three other
men were seen near the promises which were broken
into, that Daly and Barker were at a public-house on
the Monday morning, again in the evening, and again
on Tuesday, and on the last occasion the landlord's
daughter remarked that between his second and third
visits Daly had shaved off his beard. Sutcliffe, a police
constable, produced the housebreaking tools which he found
in the possession of the prisoner Elizabeth Moores ; two of
the jemmies were found to correspond with the marks on
Mr. Monie's door, and a portion of the floor of one of the
rooms occupied by Mr. Monie was produced to show that
the marks found thereon corresponded with one of the
bracebits. Some of the drills fitted the holes which had
been made in the door of the iron safe. When the case for
the prosecution was finished, Mr. Ernest Jones addressed
the jury on behalf of the prisoner Daly. He said that where
a robbery of such magnitude had been committed, and where
the sufferer was a respectable and respected fellow-towns-
man, it was impossible to conceal from themselves that a
certain amount of prejudice must exist in all their minds.
He should endeavour to show that the evidence against
the prisoners rested entirely, as his friends for the prosecu-
tion admitted almost entirely, upon the statements of four
approvers and accomplices. A number of recent decisions
had laid it down as a rule of law that it was not suffi-
cient for accomplices to be corroborated only as to cir-
cumstances ; they must also be confirmed as to the per-
sons of the prisoners charged. All the jemmies, drills,
and other tools which had been produced could not con-
nect Daly with the indictment. He was a working man,
and for 18 months had been in the employment of a
most respectable firm, at wages of 18s. per week. The
personal corroboration relied upon was the evidence of
Mr. Thompson, who said he saw Daly among a group of
about five persons examining the shutters of the prose-
cutor's shop, but that was at a time when the Cheatham
Hill omnibus was waiting on the same side of the -street,
and within a few yards of the place, and in such a position
that all the passengers could see all that took place. The
story told by Lucy Moores was utterly improbable, and was
contradicted by another approver ; she came fresh from the
dock on this charge to screen the guilty and accuse the
innocent. The evidence of Mr. Thompson and Esther
Robinson was at variance as to the hat which Daly wore,
and while Mr. Thompson said he saw Daly in Corporation-
street at half-past three, Esther Robinson proved that he
was in Sheffield-street, London-road, at 20 minutes past
three, and she noticed the clock when he entered the house.
The prosecution had been duped by their witnesses, and
had placed before the jury the wrong men. Who were
the likeliest persons to be the perpetrators of such a
robbery ? John Moores was a mechanic's labourer, well
accustomed to ironwork. Mrs. Sutherland's husband was
a joiner, and accustomed to the use of such tools ; and, ac-
cording to their admission, the property was found in their
houses. No doubt they had told a true story in many par-
ticulars, but the law required them to be corroborated as to
the persons of the prisoners, and that, he contended, had
not been done ; and he wished to impress upon them that of
all the stolen property not a single jewel, watch, or ring had
been traced to any one of the prisoners. Mr. Torr, on behalf
of the prisoner Hartley, read the opinions of several judges as
to the reception of evidence given by accomplices and ap-
provers, and cautioned them against acting upon the evi-
dence which had been given in this case, seeing that it was
uncorroborated as against Hartley. There was not a tittle
of evidence except that which was given by people who
were deeply dyed with the crime with which the prisoners
wore charged. For a case of such magnitude the getting
up was most slovenly ; it bore marks of haste even in
the hands of the counsel who conducted it, and was little
creditable to some people who had been engaged in
the prosecution. He believed that if a conviction fol-
lowed there would be a greater number of robberies
of the same kind, as the real perpetrators would
be encouraged by the failure of justice to make
other attempts.—Mr. Hopwood, on behalf of Barker,
said that in this case the police, who also were on
their trial, had got hold of witnesses on whom, as accom-
plices, the fear of the law had acted. There was a contra-
diction in the evidence of Lucy Moores and her husband as
to there being a light in the room in which the five men
were stated to have been examining the bundles. As
to the broken implements, the jury, before convicting,
must be satisfied that the two parts came from opposite
directions, for if they came from the same place they did
not affect the prisoners. Among the thousands of broken
drills which could be found it was possible to discover
two pieces which exactly corresponded and yet had not
formed one drill. One favourable circumstance was that
on Mr. Howard's premises two broken drills were found,
the corresponding parts of which were not among the
tools taken from the house of Elizabeth Moores. The
only corroborative evidence was that of Mr. Stanley Thomp-
son. Occurences like the robbery worked on the minds of
tho community. Did not tho jury know tattling friends,
who, after a strange occurrence, would say, " I saw this ;
I was cleverer than the rest of the world?" The police
heard of Mr. Thomson, and asked him whether he could
identify the prisoners. He had identified Daly and
Barker, but they would remember that at first he iden-
tified a man, named Kay, and afterwards thought he was
not one of the men he had seen. A few days after the
robbery Barker was apprehended by the police, but was
discharged. After keeping a woman in custody five weeks
they came to the conclusion that he must be taken again.
The Recorder occupied more than an hour in summing up
the case. He told the jury that the amount of property stolen
must in no way affect the manner of dealing with the case,
and that the evidence of accomplices ought to be confirmed
by other persons. The jury retired, and in about half an hour
returned a verdict of guilty against Daly and Barker. They
acquitted Hartley and Elizabeth Moores. The Recorder
said that he concurred in the acquittal of Hartley, because
there was no confirmation of the evidence against him.
The sentence on Daly, who had been previously convicted,
was that he be kept in penal servitude for seven years.
Barker had been four times previously convicted, and on
the last occasion was sentenced to four years' penal servi-
tude. He must be kept in penal servitude for 14 years. A
second charge against Daly, of stealing a watch in Decem-
ber, was not proceeded with. This case brought the
business of the sessions to a close.

Alleged Defalcations of Lord Shaftesbury's

S RERBORNE, Thursday.
This morning Mr. Robert Short Waters surrendered to
his bail at the Petty Sessions held here, on the charge of
embezzling two sums of money—viz., £27 13s. 7d. and £25.
Mr. Cole, barrister, instructed by Mr. Humphreys, soli-
citor, of Newgate-street, appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
George H. Lewis (Lewis and Lewis), Ely-place, Holborn,
represented the defendant.

Mr. Cole recapitulated the facts of the charge. Mr.
Humphreys, he said, had at the first hearing given the
bench a very good notion of the state of the case with regard
to the charge against the prisoner, namely, that of embez-
zling the respective sums of £27 and £25 when acting as
steward for Lord Shaftesbury. His lordship came into his
estates in 1851, at which time the prisoner was managing
the estates for his lordship's late father. Ho was, however,
kept in the same employment by the present earl till 1863,
when he received notice that if he did not resign he would
be dismissed. In 1855 three accounts were opened by his
lordship at the Blandford Bank, and subsequently an ar-
rangement was made by which one of his lordship's private
solicitors audited the accounts kept by the prisoner. In 1860
the prisoner became connected with the turf, about which
Lord Shaftesbury spoke to him, and he promised to give up
his turf connexions. In 1862 some irregularities were dis-
covered in his accounts, but they were passed over by Lord
Shaftesbury, believing they were only irregularities. In
1863, however, matters assumed.a more serious aspect, and
the•prisoner was requested to resign. He did so, and since
then it had been ascertained that the defendant owed his
lordship between £ll,OOO and £12,000, and this he accom-
plished by paying moneys into the bank to what was called
an estate account with one hand, and drawing it out with
the other. He (the learned counsel) would show that the
prisonerhadbeen keeping hunters, and having an elegantly-
furnished establishment ; in short, he had been living at the
rate of £2,000 a-year with an income of £5OO. Ho, however,
believed that he would be able to show that the prisoner
had done all this out of his lordship's money.
Mr. Cole then called Lord Shaftesbury, and examined
him at considerable length. His lordship's depositions,
which were grounded mainly upon the representations of
his solicitor and accountant, tended to strengthen the points
laid down by Mr. Cole.
His lordship was afterwards subjected to a most rigid
cross examination of nearly four hours by Mr. Lewis, in the
course of which it was elicited that while there were errors
in the accounts in favour of the defendant, he had also
committed errors against himself. Letters were also put
in showing the pecuniary embarrassment of Lord Shaftes-
bury, and also that his son, Lord Ashley, borrowed money
from the defendant. The accounts, which were of a most
complicated nature, were gone into at great length, and at
5 o'clock the case was adjourned till next morning, the same
bail for the defendant being accepted.

THE MURDER AT HATCHAM.—A man named
Richard Havelin, or Havedan, about 50 years of age, for-
merly a private in the Grenadier or Scots Fusilier Guards,
but for some time past getting his livelihood as an exca-
vator, is now in custody of the police on the charge of
murdering John Davis, of No. 5, Britannia-terrace,
Hatcham, a few months ago, by smashing his head with
a poker. It appears that Havelin called at the Magazine
Barracks, Hyde-park, and a soldier, knowing that a war-
rant was out for his apprehension, gave information, and
Havelin was then handed over to the custody of Jenkins,
one of the park-constables. Havelin, in the course of the
morning, was taken to the station of the district where
the murder was committed.