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

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.--JAN: 9.

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 gTand jury.
John Barton, 41, was indicted fur 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 bard 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 y„ Will take me to the warehouse I will tell you
where I got it. The superintendent took him there,
and on the way be 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.
Thera was such a large quantity stored in the ware-
house, both in bags and loose on the floor, that it would
he impassible 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 Tn-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 Erie 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 iu an honest manner." The.learned counsel for
the prosecution contended that it must be presumed that
the prisoner had taken the articleA. 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 ease." 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.