The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 9, 1865.

Housebreaking in Birmingham.

On Thursday there were no fewer than eight cases
of housebreaking reported in Birmingham. It is

well known that in the science of housebreaking
there are three ordinary ways of gaining entrance—

by the cellar grating, by the window, and by the
skylight. The cases we have to report illustrate
the three methods. Five out of the eight could

not have taken place if there had been suitable
means of ventilation apart from the opening of the
skylight. Somewhere between eight o'clock on
W ednesday evening and the same hour on the fol-
lowing morning, a housebreaker got upon the

roofs of the warehouses in Union Passage, on the
left hand side going from New-street, at the Bull-

street end. Notwithstanding the fact of police-
men being on duty in every street in the locality,
and that a private watchman was parading the

passage at the expense of some of the very persons
who were robbed, yet the robber deliberately en-

tered and robbed five warehouses in succession. In

Cherry-street there is a court which adjoins one of
the places entered, a room in the occupation of Mr.

Williams, immediately over, and forming part of
the warehouses of Messrs. Buckland, the woollen

drapers. The principal entrance to this warehouse
is in Union-passage ; but two shops, those of Mr.

Adams and Mr. Macefield, separate it from the
other four premises which were entered. In the
room referred to nothing was carried off, and the
thief must have been excessively disappointed at

not being able to get down on to the floor occupied
by Messrs. Buckland. Returning to the roof, he
then passed over the intermediate shops, and got
upon the roof of Messrs. Heaton and Taylor, haber-
dashers. Here he broke a small corner of glass,
then raised the skylight, stepped on to a heap of
skirt canes, conveniently placed below the frame, as
though to afford him an easy descent to the floor,
and was "at home" at once. Descending the stairs

he searched every room, opened all the drawers,
found nothing that he wanted—which was evidently
cash—and returned the same way he came. Next

to these premises is the establishment of Mr. T. B.
Sowter, linendraper, whose upper rooms were oc-
cupied by his neighbour ; and as there was no com-
munication with the lower rooms, he escaped a
visit. Next to him is Mr. R. T. Abbott, tea dealer.
His skylight was left open, and the place was,
therefore, at the mercy of any nocturnal visitor.
All the drawers in his shop were opened, the
counting-house door forced, and the drawers there
examined ; but all that was obtained was about
16s. Next door were the premises known
as the " Penny Bank ;" and it is hardly necessary
to remark that no entrance was made there. The
adjoining premises lower down were occupied by
Messrs. Wallis and Linnell, wholesale clothiers. In
this case a small piece of glass was broken in the
corner of the skylight; the string was then cut, the
frame raised, and the thief stepped down. TLis was
the most successful entrance of the whole in Union-
passage. The drawers, which were fastened, were
prized open with a jemmy, and altogether £5 in
money was obtained, besides some stamps. Next
door, again, was the shop of Mr. Wiley, stationer,
and entrance was effected here by breaking the sky-
light the same way as his neighbour's was treated.
In these premises the housebreaker broken open about
26 drawers, examined the most valuable portion of
the stock, and was rewarded by finding about 20s.
altogether. All the warehouses entered were about
four stories in height. Another establishment—that
of Mr. Benjamin Hall, stationer, High-street, was
visited the same night. His premises stretch back
almost into Union-street, and there is a passagefrom
that street to his back premises, and those occupied
by Mr. Fowler, draper. In the back yard of the lat-
ter a high step ladder is reared against the wall. By
means of this, it is surmised, the man climbed upon
the yard wall, walked on to a little gallery outside
Mr. Hall's warehouse, raised the window of his count-
ing-house, which was not fastened, and enterer' the
place. Drawers here were searched, the papers they
contained turned out, and about £2 worth of pro-
perty carried away. This consisted chiefly of gold
pens. The man who entered these premises may have
committed the others in Union-passage. Oi possibly
he may have had a companion and the labour was
divided between them, the one taking Mr. Hall's
and Mr. Williams's premises, and the other the re-
maining four premises in Union-passage. A great
deal of work was done in the night ; no time was
wasted in trying to break open safes; no more mis-
chief committed than seemed necessary in the eyes
of the plunderer; and nothing taken but what he
could easily conceal in his pockets. From the amount
of trouble, however, we should think the thief
hardly considers himself remunerated, as the total
sum realised in the six premises would not
reach £7. Just as daring a robbery as any one of
those mentioned occurred the same night, between
half-past 7 and 10 o'clock. This was at the house
of Mrs. Walsh, Lodge-road, next door to the glass-
works. Here, by climbing a tree, the thief reached
a bed-room, which he entered by quietly raising the
window, and succeeded in carrying off £2O in money,
some stamps, documents (of no use to him at all),
a gold brooch, a gold watch, with a portrait of the
Duke of Wellington on the face ; and some cloth-
ing. No one in the house heard the slightest sound,
and the fellow got clear off with his booty. The
eighth and last case also occurred last night at the
White Swan beerhouse, Holloway Head. The cellar
grating was raised, and a cwt. and a half of lead
piping cut off, valued at about £3, and carried
away. These cases illustrate the three most com-
mon methods of entering houses. In Birmingham,
as in every large town, we have had a large number
of people whose training has either rendered them
too indolent to work, or whose viciousness has made
thieving a necessity. Men and women with tickets
of leave are continually returning to the town.
There are now resident amongst us 59 males and 10
females who hold unexpired tickets of leave ; and
since those numbers were ascertained, some 10 or 15
more have come. This may seem a small number,
but added to these there are 113 males, and 32
females, under 16 years of age, who are " known
thieves ;" and there are 523 males, and 246 females
above that age, who are also " known thieves." So
that, in the aggregate, there are about 998 men,
women, and young people whose proclivities are of
such a description as to make it rather desirable to
keep skylights, windows, and cellar-gratings se-
curely fast.--Birmingham Daily Post.

FOREIGN CATTLE.—According to an 'official
document just issued, there has been a large increase
(owing to the cattle disease) in the importation of oxen and
cows in the three quarters of this year, compared with
1861. To Oct. 31 this year tho number imported was
170,008, against 120,568 in the preceding year.

ADVERTISEMENT.). -Avoid medicines: they always aggra-
vate chronic complaints, but Du Barry's Delicious Ilealtl.-
Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, which yields three times
the nourishment of the best meat, saves fltty times its cost
in other remedies, and invariably restores perfect digestion,
strong nerves, sound lungs, healthy liver, pure blood. re-
freshing sleep, functional regularity, and energy to the most
disordered or enfeebled. We extract a few out of 60,000
Cures :—Cure No. 58,216, or the Marchioness de Brehan,
of seven years' liver complaint, wasiin.; away, debility,
nervousness, with a nervous palpitation all over, bad diges-
tion, constant sleeplessness, and the most intolerable nervous
agitation.—Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies. Lord
Lieutenant of Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia.—No.
19,832. "Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia,
nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency,
spasms, sickness, and vomiting.—Maria Jolly."—Cure No.
-16,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Frimley, Surrey, of thirty
years' diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derange-
ment, and partial deafness.—Cure No. 47,121. Miss Elizabetl,
Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherizsgs, low
spirits, and nervous fancies. —Cure No. 54,h16. The Rev. Jas.
T. Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk, "of indigestion and torpi-
dity of the liver, which had resiste all medical treatment."
In tins, 1 lb., Is. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. fid ; 51b., 11s. ; 121 b., 225. ; !41b.
ICs.—Barry ..)11 Barry and Co., N 0.77, Regent-street, London;
also Phillips, tea dealers, S, King William-street ; likewi e
at 61, (I!•aceettureit-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 49, Bishopsgate-
slrea Within ; 63, 150, and 298, Oxford-street ; 330, Strand ;
J .s rceoed,. Islington,Ld
54, Upper Baker-street ; 103, Tottenham-court-road ; 96,
Upper-street,
-wt t;lirae:pveecyt,abNleotgtrinuege-rhsilain;dClose
(I Brothers, .., High-street and Stubbs. Queen's-terrace,- St.
John's on; N.
all
and
che-
mists.--Beware of spurious imitations.

'sdePatihllss.shoTuilidnel
Yo not Warn_
spread
ingLA.2TvreTilnscErmeEasNirn.rnul-The
alarm, yet it should beget caution. With the falling
the aged and delicate are apt to succumb unless the leaf
faulty action be corrected and the first failing function firstbe
invigorated by some such purifying and regulating medi-
cine as Holloway's pills. The prudent, for the security of
themselves and their households, should resort to this fine
alterative medicine when the digestion grows weak or the
circulation becomes irregular, the former state being
evinced by eructations, flatulency, and distension; the
latter by giddiness, dimness, or drowsiness. These fore-
tokens of impending peril will instantly urge the provident
to dispel it by these pills, taken conformably to their ac-
companying instructions.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 8.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Mr.
Justice Byles and a Common Jury.)
SENELE V. KENDALL.-BREACII OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.
This was an action to recover damages for breach
of a promise of marriage, and the defendant among
other things pleaded that the plaintiff had released

him from his promise.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Butler Rigby
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Digby Seymour,
Q.C., and Mr. Lewers for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said that the plaintiff was
a young lady between 20 and 21 years of age, and
was possessed be understood of considerable personal
attractions ; she was a lady of unimpeached honour
and respectability and well educated. She felt obliged
to bring this action against the defendant, who he
(the learned sergeant) was bound to say, down to
the time of his breaking his promise, was a man who
appeared to be every way qualified to become the
husband of a young lady like the plaintiff. He was

extremely well connected, and was working his way
in the world in a highly honourable career, the press.

_
He had been engaged upon one of the principal pro-
vincial papers, and afterwards became.a parliamen-
tary reporter for a London journal, a position, it
might be said, not only of usefulness but of high
honour. The parties made the acquaintance of each
other at the latter end of 1863, and shortly after a
correspondence commenced between them. He would
refer to some of those letters, and he would say that,
in his opinion, no living being could entertain a doubt
that a contract of marriage existed between the
parties. The first letter commenced "My dear
Madam," but subsequently warmer terms were used.

The defendant also wrote a letter of considerable

length (which the learned counsel read) to the
plaintiff's brother, in which he requested his sanc-
tion to his becoming a suitor for the plaintiff's
hand, setting forth his present position and future
prospects. He then filled the post of sub-editor
of a Hull paper, but expected shortly to obtain an
appointment on the parliamentary staff of one of
the London papers. The defendant talked of the
plaintiff's " future prospects ;" but she had no
prospects but those of a penniless girl, with a mother
who had to work hard to support her family; in-
deed the plaintiff's only prospect was in forming a
good connexion. The style of address of the de-
fendant soon became " Dear Minnie ;" and the jury

would not be surprised to hear that by the end of
the year they had arrived at the stage of " Dearest." '
(A laugh.) Amongst the letters read was the fol-
lowing :—" Dear Minnie,—You have written three
letters to me about my long silence. The reason is,
that very extraordinary circumstances have oc-
curred which may cause us never to see each other
again. I have already left London, perhaps never
to return. You may as well know the reason.
When in Hull, and since, during a career of dissi-
pation, vice, and what is called fast life, I incurred
debts to the amount of £l,OOO. I left Hull be-
cause of differences at home ; those differences have
since been trebled. My father has been in London
some days, and refuses to accept the responsibility
of those debts unless I will leave England. The
debts I am pledged shall be paid, and the only
means for this to be done is for me to quit these
shores. I intend, if I remain in the same mind, to
go to India, via Mai seilles, but my plans are not in
any way settled. I know not what to do. I have
left London, and when 'shall return I do not know.
It is in reference to you that I feel the most. I
told you always I was btd, but I had no idea things
would come to this pass. lam glad, however, you
have been saved from the precipice, and that you
may get some one worthy of you. I cannot dwell
upon the subject. You may address letters to the
London address still; they will be forwarded, no
doubt.—Yours, in great trouble, " DENNIS."
The learned serjeant stated that he was instructed
that there was no truth in the statements in this
letter ; no rumour of any dissipation or quarrel with
his family had ever reached the plaintiff's family,
and as to the defendant leaving this • country, he
had been continuously, and was still in this country,
and it was believed in respectable employment at
that very time. In conclusion he asked the jury,
not by their verdict to inflict ruin on this young
. man, but still to award proper damages to the lady
who had had her feelings so cruelly trifled with.
Mrs. Elizabeth de la Hunt, the plaintiff's mother,
said—ln 1863 I was residing at Groombridge, near
Tunbridge-wells. The plaintiff will be 23 next
; March. I first saw the defendant when he visited
. my house in March, 1864. He came as my daugh-
ter's suitor. He continued visiting my house until
July or August in the same year. At one period
he remained at my house for ten days. My son
was an auctioneer at Tunbridge-wells, and my
• family were well known in the neighbourhood. My
daughter's engagement was well known in the
_ _

neighbourhood. The defendant never gave me any
reason for breaking off the engagement.
Cross-examined—l heard my daughter speak of
the defendant's letter, in which he said she was
saved "from the precipice." I don't know of any-
body replying to that letter, but I presume it must
have been answered. I have no recollection of any
subsequent correspondence, but my daughter kept
the correspondence to herself.
Mr. Seymour—Did not the plaintiff object to
any proceedings against the defendant?
Witness—l do not know of any objection. No
doubt she would much rather the defendant had
performed his contract. (A laugh.) She wanted
to clear her character, for such a thing casts a slur
upon a young lady. He returned the plaintiff's
letters. Ido not know when it was. It must have
been after the letter in which the " precipice " is
mentioned, but I have no recollection.
Mr. Seymour—Did the plaintiff object to bring
the action upon the ground that it would be a
breach of faith after the letters had been returned ?
Witness—l do not know; I have no recollection.
I do not know exactly how they became acquainted.
I did not know of a previous affection of my daugh-
ter for Mr. Oswald, of Hull. Ido not know that
they made one another's acquaintance by means of
correspondence with Mr. Oswald, and exchanging
photographs. Ido not know whether the first in-
terview with my daughter and the defendant was by
appointment at a railway station.
Re-examined—My son has been unfortunate in
consequence of not having sufficient capital to carry
on the business. The plaintiff and a second son,
who is ill, reside with me.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Seymour, in
actionsa ddresfsoi nrgbrtehaechjuoryf for the
promisede-
fendant, of
marriage differed very materially ; in some no
jrS
damages would.be too high, whilst in others rea-
sonable men would think that it was better that the
promise should be broken rather than in after-life
the bitter consequences of an imprudent match
should be experienced. The defendant in this case
was a young man, who had plainly tumbled over
head and ears in love ; and so far now from breath-
ing any imputation upon fhe plaintiff, he (Mr. Sey-
mour) was instructed to repeat what the defendant
himself had said, that he hopes that the plaintiff
would find some one more worthy of her. This was
a love which had commenced in romance, which had
been carried on for long before the parties had seen
each other through the medium of her Majesty's
post, and which was hardly to be expected to come
to any satisfactory conclusion. There was a letter
of the 17th Oct., 1863, which detailed the circum-
stances under which the parties met. It was
arranged that they should meet at a railway sta-
tion, and he said, " I shall travel in the centre com-
partment of a first class carriage. On my arrival
you will easily recognise me by being tall. I shall
be dressed in a black hat, a tight fitting blue coat,
and perhaps dark trousers." This was how sub-
editors dressed when going to see their lady loves.
(Great laughter.) " I will only wear one kid
glove, and that on the left hand, and on the fourth
finger of the right hand you will see a diamond ring.
(A laugh). I will also carry in my right hand a n
umbrella. This description with the carte de visite
will, I think, enable you to recognise me." Then the
learned counsel, after referring to various passages
in the correspondence, said that his case was this :
the last letter of the defendant was a breaking off
of the engagement, and he should contend that the
fact that there was no answer to it, either by the
plaintiff herself or by any of her family, strongly
tended to show that they acquiesced in this course.
This view of the case was also supported by the. fact
that the defendant had returned the plaintiff's
letters, which letters, if they had not been destroyed,
would probably show that the plaintiff had released
the defendant from his promise. There was, how-
ever, in existence one letter from the plaintiff to the
defendant, which, he suggested, was in answer to
one from the defendant asking for his letters back ;
but unfortunately it bore no date. It was in these
terms :—" My dear Dennis,—Having left all my
papers at Peterborough I am unable to forward you
the parcel which you asked me for, until I go back
again, which will not be for a week or two.—With
love, yours affectionately, MINNIE." He (Mr.
Seymour) added that he would calle Mr. Summers,
who'would show that the statements in the defend-
ant's letter from Bristol were true.
Mr. Summers--I am a solicitor at Hull. The
defendant's father is a cab proprietor, and keeps a
small public-house. He has two, or perhaps three
cabs. I know the defendant was in Bristol ; I think
about September, 1864. (The witness asked as to
a proposition having been made to the defendant
about that time to go to Bombay ; but on technical
grounds the evidence was not admitted.) The de-
fendant had no means except what he earned as a
IParli▪
amentary reporter.
H is▪ lordship, in summing up, said there was no

doubt the promise to marry had been made, and the
jury would therefore have to consider whether the
defendant had been released from performing it. If
they thought not then the only question would be
one of damages, and the amount which the plaintiff
would be entitled to would be such a sum as would
compensate her for the loss which she had sustained
by not having become the wife of the defendant,
the mother of his children, and the head of his
household.

A juror inquired what the cost of this trial
would be.

His lordship said that they were not entitled to
receive information on that point.
The jury, after considering the matter for a short
time, found for the plaintiff—damages £7O.