The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-22 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT-TUESDAY.

OLD CO UR T.
John Ebbs, a middle-aged man, described in the calendar
as a carpenter, but having the appearance of an agricultural
labourer, was indicted for stealing a black bag, containing a
bunch of keys and upwards of 171. in gold and silver, the pro-
perty of Mr. John Sheppard.
It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses that the
prosecutor and his wife were in their carriage at Lee Races,
and when driving along the course the prisoner was observed
by a gentleman of the name of Wallis to jump up behind the
carriage and snatch the bag, with which he ran off; he was
pursued, and upon being apprehended he threw the bag and

contents on the ground. -
Mr. PHILLIPS addressed the Jury on behalf of the prisoner,
and called several witn,.sses, who gave him an excellent cha-

racter.

Verdict Guilty, but with a recommendation to mercy.
William Miller and Charles Ross were indicted for steal
ing a cask of oil, the property of Sir Charles Price and
others, their masters.
Mr. Payne prosecuted, Mr. Clarkson defended the pri-
soner Miller, and Mr. Chambers appeared for Ross.
It appeared that Miller was in the employ of the prosecutors
as master cooper, and Ross as journeyman. On the 27th of
July the gate-keeper at Scobel's wharf, where a quantity of
oil had been landed, saw Miller roll a cask of oil out of the
wharf, which was afterwards put upon a truck by him and Ross.
Information was given to the police.
Henry Smith, a labourer, stated, that he met Miller in
Stoney-lane, Tooley-street, who told him that if he would
take the truck and oil to his (Miller's) house, he would give
him a glass of ale. On going down Tooley-street the pri-
soner Ross went up to him and desired him to take the oil back
again. A policeman came up at the moment, and took them
both into custody.
After hearing speeches from the Learned Counsel on be-
half of the prisoners, the Jury found Miller Guilty, and ac-
quitted Ross.
John Kinq, a lad sixteen years of age, pleaded guilty to
an indictment charging him with stealing, on the 10th May,
several shawls, handkerchiefs, and numerous other articles,
the property of his master, George Lowe ; and Sarah King,
his mother, also pleaded guilty to receiving the same, know-
ing them to be stolen.
The prosecutor stated that he was a linendraper, and the
male prisoner was in his employ ; he had missed goods to the
amount of between 301. and 401.
The COURT intimated that the male prisoner would be sent
to a ship, and the female would be transported. The offence
was a very serious one.
James Warwick, a man of very respectable appearance, aged
40, was indicted for stealing a cart, of the value of 151., the
property of Mr. Samuel Jutsum.
Alfred S. Nash, a youth residing in Castle-street, White-
chapel, stated that on the morning of Sunday, the 22d July,
he got up about five o'clock for the purpose of going to bathe.
He went into an adjoining street to call up a companion, and
on returning through Castle-street saw a cart standing close
by his residence, which was not there when he left a few mi-
nutes previously. He and his companion looked into the cart
and there observed a chisel, a steel spring, and a sliding-
board. The name of " Samuel Jutsum, butcher, 64, Ald-
gate High-street," was painted on the back. They soon after-
wards saw the prisoner and another man come from 'Whitecha-
pel and move the cart away.
Mr. CHAMBERS addressed the Jury on behalf of the pri-
soner, and contended that the cart was not found on the pre-
mises of the prisoner, any more than on the premises of the
other persons keeping trucks in the same shed, and before
they could pronounce a verdict of guilty it must be clearly
proved that the prisoner was engaged in removing the cart
from the premises of Mr. Jutsum, as well as removing it from
Castle-street. With respect to the removal of the cart from
the prosecutor's premises, no evidence whatever had been
given ; and with regard to the removal from Castle-street, the
prisoner's defence was, that he was not a party concerned, in-
asmuch as he was at home and in bed at the time the trans-
action took place. He should prove these facts by several re-
spectable witnesses, and he had no doubt that the prisoner
would have the benefit of their verdict. He then called three
witnesses. Several other persons also were called, who gave
the prisoner an excellent character.
Mr. CLARKSON replied, and
The COMMON- SERGEANT having summed up,
The Jury, after some hesitation, returned a verdict of
Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, in which the prose-
cutor also joined.
The COMMON- SERGEANNT said, in consequence of the re-
commendation of the Jury and the prosecutor, the prisoner
would not be sent out of the country, though his case had been
much aggravated by the defence set up—a defence which he
thought no person could believe.
The prisoner in the most solemn manner asserted his in-
nocence.

Henry Milberry, a simple-looking country youth, was
charged upon three indictments with stealing-1. A bed, bed-
tick, sundry knives and forks, and divers other articles, the
property of the Guardians of the Poor of the parish of Lam-
beth; 2. a workbox, a pair of ear-rings, and other articles, the
property of Robert White ; and, 3, a watch of the value of
31., the property of William Maltwood. To the two first in-
dictments the prisoner pleaded Guilty, but to the third be
denied his guilt.
It appeared that the prisoner had fallen in love with a
young girl, and matrimony was talked about ; and wishing to
furnish a domicile for his intended, he stole the articles for
that purpose. A watch, however, not being considered very
necessary to the furnishing of a house, he pleaded Not Guilty
to that charge.
The COMMON-SERGEANT said he would take time to con.
sider whether he would put him upon his trial for the latter
offence.
The remainder of the day was occupied with trials on
charges of stealing from the person; and in almost every case
the delinquents did not exceed the age of sixteen years. They
were sentenced to transportation, with the understanding that
they would be sent to a ship.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, AUG. 2

The Sessions for the county commenced yesterday at
Hick's-hall, Clerkenwell-green.
The Grand Jury having been sworn, were shortly addressed
by the Learned Chairman.
A number of cases of pot-stealing and picking pockets were
disposed of without either one of the charges presenting any
feature of novelty.
ALLEGED FALSE RETURNS OF WHEAT.—In the course of
the morning a gentleman having made an application to the
Court, which was not generally heard.
The CHAIRMAN said, that this was an application by a pro-
secutor, a person of the name of Murray, who had been bound
over by the Magistrates to prosecute a person of the name of
Thomas Wright for a misdemeanour, for having made false
returns in respect to particular quantities of wheat which he
had purchased. The ground of the present application was,
that the party might not be called on to go on with the pro-
ceedings, and thereby prosecute the defendant ; and the rea-
son on which that application was made was, that he had re-
ceived a copy of what was denominated in the papers before
the Court an order of the Lords Commissioners—the Com-
missioners of the Board of Trade in Council assembled, to
stay all proceedings against the defendant for the said offence
or for penalties, and then went on to direct to the effect that
no indictment should be preferred. Now, that Council had no
more authority to make such an order as the one he had re-
ferred to, than they had to make certain others which it was
not at that moment necessary for him to mention. The Lords
Commissioners in Council, it was perfectly true, in a case
where a Magistrate had inflicted a penalty on a party for not
having made a proper retui n, bad the power of remitting
such fine or penalty. Of that there was no doubt; but it was
at the same time equally clear that they possessed no legal
power whatever to interpose an order where an indictment
was pending, and say thereby that all further proceedings
should be stayed. Such a step would be to arrest the
due progress of justice. He entertained the greatest re-
spect for the Lords Commissioners and the Council,
but inasmuch as they had no legal authority or power
to adopt this step, he should decline to act upon and to carry
out their order by staying the proceedings. Not only had the
order been illegally issued, but the solicitor for the defendante
did not even condescend or deem it necessary to c!nne d
and apply to the Court for the arrest of the proceed was done
ings. Inn-
stead of that course having been adopted, all that
which the "or-
was to tend a letter by the twopenny ost in
possible that the Court
der" was fully set out. It was
could pay any attention to such imp
couldan order. In the first
place, the order itself was illegal, and in the next there
was no evidence that it was a correct copy of an order by the
Lords of the Council. The Court could not, even though
he Lords Commissioners had possessed the legal right to
t make the order, act upon an unauthenticated copy. There
ought to have been, at all events, an affidavit from the solici-
tor stating that it was a true copy of the order. With regard
to the prosecutor, be had nothing to do bet at once to go be-
fore the Grand Jury and prefer his bill of indictment against
the riefandant.
Mr. Mills, a Magistrate, said, that at the present moment
it was of the highest importance, especially when it was con-
sidered in how particular and peculiar a position affairs stood in
regard to the supply and price of corn, that the matter should
be properly understood and treated, because it was impossible
to say to how great an extent the six weeks' averages might
be affected were false returns to be made. It was, as he had
said, of the first consideration, because no one could tell the in.
jury which might be sustained throughout all parts of the
country. No one could for a moment contemplate the preju-
dicial effects to which a system of false returns might lead.
The CHAIRMAN then directed the prosecutor to go before
the Grand Jury with his bill.
At a later period of' the day,

Mr. Rogers (the defendant's solicitor) appeared, and in
reply to a question from the Chairman, said that he had known
of a similar order having been acted upon.