The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-10 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—JAN. a

The January general quarter sessions of the peace for
the county of Middlesex commenced this morning at
Clerkenwell, before Mr. Serjeant Adams, assistant judge
Mr. Witham, and other justices. The calendar was a
very heavy one, owing to the period that has elapsed
since the last session. The number of prisoners for trial
was 101, of whom 94 were charged with felony and 7
with misdemeanor.
The Assistant Judge briefly charged the grand jury.
John Barton, 41, was indicted for stealing 7 pounds of
pepper, the property of the St. Katherine's Dock Com-
pany, from their dock.
On the 16th of December, and at the time that the
Dock labourers were at dinner, James Potts, foreman of
warehouse F, observed the prisoner coming out from one
of the floors ; and as he was not in the service of the
Dock Company, and had no business at all to be there,
Pott's suspicion was excited, and was increased by the
fact of his trying to avoid him, and the appearance of
something bulky about his person. Potts followed and
laid hold of him, upon which the prisoner said, " I
hope you will not be hard upon me, and on his
pockets being examined, about seven pounds of
pepper were turned out of them. This pepper
corresponded in appearance and quality with pepper
stored in the F warehouse, though not on the floor from
which the prisoner had been seen coming. The prisoner
was taken to the police superintendent of the dock, and
on being confronted with him, he said, "I want to speak
to you. This is what I told you about twelve months
ago." The superintendent, who had never had any pre-
vious communication with the prisoner, expressed his
surprise at this, to him, mysterious speech, but the pri-
soner continued, "I was going to bring it to you, and
if you will take me to the warehouse I will tell you
where I got it." The superintendent took him there,
and on the way he told him a story about his having re-
ceived the pepper from some men, making out that he
merely received it, in order to bring it to the officers, so
as to lead it to the detection of the men, and mentioned
the name of one of the regular labourers of the dock as
one of the delinquents, but afterwards that individual
strenuously denied the imputation. The prisoner then
tried to fix the guilt on some one else, but could not re-
cognise any one as the right person.
In answer to Mr. Ribton, the superintendent said that
the pepper had not been missed by the Dock Company.
There was such a large quantity stored in the ware-
house, both in bags and loose on the floor, that it would
be impossible to tell whether so small a portion as that
found on the prisoner had been taken therefrom.
Mr. Ribton then submitted that there was no case to go
to the jury, and in support of his argument quoted the
case of the " Queen v. Dredge," which was tried before
Mr. Justice Erie at the summer assizes for Wiltshire, in
1345, and reported in Cox's " Criminal Cases," vol. 1.,
p. 235, which he thought fully established his view of
the law, and was, further, a stronger case even than the
one before the court. In the case referred to, the
prisoner, a little boy, was indicted for stealing a doll
and other toys. It was proved, on the part of the pro-
secution, that the prosecutor kept a large toy shop at
Tunbridge, and that the prisoner came into his shop
dressed in a smock frock, and after remaining for some
time, from suspicion that was excited, he was searched
and under his smock frock, they found concealed a doll
and six toy horses. The prosecutor swore that he be-
lieved the toys to be his, property as they exactly resem-
bled others which he had in the shop. With respect to
the doll his evidence went still further, as he swore the
doll had been his, because his private shop mark was on
it, but he could not say it had not been sold in the regu-
lar way of business, and he had not missed, and from the
peculiar nature of his stock and the business he carried
on could not miss any of the articles with stealing which
the boy stood charged. Mr. Justice Erle remarked,
"It appears to me that you have failed to establish
in this case the corpus delicti. It is true that the pro-
secutor swears that the doll was once his, . but he
cannot state that it was taken from him, and for aught
that appears to the contrary, the prisoner may have come
by it in an honest manner." The learned counsel for
the prosecution contended that it must be presumed that
the prisoner had taken the articles. From the mode in
which the prosecutor kept his stock it was impossible for
him to miss them, but looking at the circumstances of
the prisoner, and the discovery of the property upon
him, it became a natural presumption that he had stolen
them.' Mr. Justice Erle, however, said--"I can make
no other presumption in that case than I should be jus-
tified in doing if the most respectable person were charged
with its offence. I think you have failed to make out
your case." His lordship then directed an acquittal of
the prisoner.
The Assistant-Judge said he should not direct an ac-
quittal on the authority of a case which contravened all
his opinion of the law, and which he thought must have
been misreported, but if the jury returned a verdict of
guilty, he would give the learned counsel a case for the
Court of Criminal Appeal.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
Judgment was respited until the point submitted by
Mr. Ribton is disposed of in the Court of Appeal.
ROBBERY OF GAS.
George Strutt, 31, a hairdresser, was indicted for having
stolen 700 cubic feet of gas, the, property of the London
Gas Company. When called on to plead, he said—l am
guilty of burning the gas, but not in the way of stealing
it. I intended to pay for it at the proper time.
The Assistant Judge—Very well, that is a plea of not
guilty.
This was a prosecution of a novel nature, and the facts
upon which the charge against the prisoner rested were
shortly as follows :—The prisoner was a hairdresser,
carrying on business at No 10, York-street, Camden-
town, and had a contract with the London Gas Company
to supply him with gas for one bat's-wing burner for his
shop. On the 23d of December two inspectors in the
company's service went there in consequence of some
suspicion that all was not right, and on lifting up a pot
which was used for the hot shaving water, and was fixed
to the window-board, they found a burner under it alight
which was supplied with gas by a smell pipe, surrepti-
tiously introduced into the pipe which supplied the
burner for which the contract was made. Some play-
bills were pasted about the board to conceal the pipe
from observation, and when the pot was in its place
nothing calculated to show that a gas burner was under
it could be detected. Newman (one of the inspectors)
asked what this was for, and the prisoner in reply said
he supposed he could get over it by paying for it, and
that it had been done in his absence in the country by a
person whom he left in charge of the business, about
three weeks before. Evidence was given to show that
anterior to that time the pot had been seen in the
same place, with water boiling iu it, but no one had ever
seen either the pipe or the gas light by means of which
the water was heated. Newman even said that he had
seen the pot there as much as twelve months previously,
before he went into the company's service, having re-
peatedly been there to be shaved.
In answer to questions put by the Assistant-Judge, it
was admitted that there was some confusion in the
neighbourhood of Camden-town between the Imperial,
Equitable and London Gas Companies, and that by mis-
take one company occasionally tapped a main belonging
to another, and actions were now pending in reference
to sueh matters. This introduced some doubt as to the
right of the prosecuting company to the gas consumed
by the extra burner in question, but it was cleared up by
a statement of Inspector Larkin, to the effect that
means were taken to ascertain the fact, and the service
pipe in+the street, from which the pipe. was laid into the
prisoner's shop, followed up to a main which he knew to
belong to the London Company, as it was of a different
size to the main of the Imperial. The main was plugged
up, and the gas in the shop was extinguished, thus
proving that the supply was from the London Coin
pangs pipes.

The Assistant Judge, in summing up, said he thought
the jury might take it as proved that the gas was the gas
of the London Company, and that it was used by the
prisoner ; but the question for them to determine was
whether, on the evidence, they were satisfied that he
used it with the intention of stealing it. If they were
satisfied that he had the pipe put up, or put it there
himself, and that it had been in use some time before he
said it had, then he thought they should return a verdict
of guilty ; but if they were of opinion that the pipe was
fixed in his absence, as he had himself said, and that he
burned the gas without the felonious intention charged
against him, then they must undoubtedly acquit him.
After the jurymen had conferred together some little
time,

1 The Foreman abruptly turned round, and said, "Guilty,
my lord, without the felonious intention."
The Assistant Judge—Gentlemen, that is nonsense.
That is a verdict of not guilty, though you say guilty.
It is the felonious intent that makes the guilt ; and that
verdict is like a jury finding a man guilty of murder
without wilful design.
A juryman said they had not all agreed, and they
were locked up in charge of Mr. Sawyer, the beadle.
After being absent some time, they returned into court,
and found the prisoner guilty.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced the prisoner to hard
labour for one calendar month.