The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-05 00:00:00

UNION-HALL.

Yesterday John Sharp, a printer, residing in Kent-street,
was summoned on an information at the instance of the so-
licitor of stamps, for vending two numbers of the un-
stamped publication called the Weekly Times.
Mr. Sercombe, of the Stamp Office, attended to con-
duct the case ; and Mr. Wooler on the behalf of the de-
fendant.

Mr. John Stomeil, an officer of stamp duties, laid the in-
formation, and called
John Simpson, who stated that on Sunday, the 13th ult.
he went to the defendant's shop, and purchased the paper
called the Weekly Times, (now prGduced.) On the 20th
of the same month, the witness again called at the defen-
dant's shop, and purchased another paper of a similar title.
The witness added that the defendant was in the shop on
each occasion.

Mr. Wooler said that on looking at the two papers pro-
duced, both bearing the same title, he found that they were
published by different persons, from one of whom his client
never purchased ; and therefore the informer's witness could
not have bought it at his shop.
The witness was recalled, and he said that he purchased
both of the papers at Mr. Sharp's shop, in the presence of
Mr. Stowell ; a fact which was verified by the latter officer.

Mr. WEDGWOOD said that the case was complete against
the defendant. He was not like some of those ignorant
and unfortunate persons who went about the streets vend-
ing papers of that description, many of whom had the plea
of poverty to assign for their illegal acts. The defendant
must have been fully aware that he was acting in defiance
of the law, and therefore committed the offence with his
eyes open.
Mr. Wooler said that the question relative to the stamp
duties would soon be set at rest ; that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had intimated that the stamp duty was about
to be reduced to one penny on each paper, and that in con-
sequence of that announcement the defendant thought that,
as the matter would be so soon decided, the Stamp-office
authorities would not have proceeded against him. He
(Mr. Wooler) was aware that Magistrates still retained the
power of adjudicating in such cases ; but as the defendant
was summoned under a highly penal clause of the Act,
which if carried into operation would have the effect of con-
signing him to a gaol, he trusted that, under all the circum-
stances, the fines would be remitted, on his promise not to
offend in future.
Mr. SERCOMBE said that this was not7a solitary instance
of the defendant's having broken the law ; he had been
convicted twice of the offence before ; upon the first occa-
sion he had been committed for two months to Kingston,
and the second time he was also convicted and sentenced
to three months' imprisonment, but that in consequence of
Mr. Wooler's interference, and the defendant's promise not
to sell any more unstamped publications, the punishnwt
was not inflicted.

Mr. WEDGWOOD said that the defendant had warnings
enough on the subject, and that as long as the law re-
mained as it was, he was bound to obey it. The magi-
strate then inflicted a fine of 401. on the defendant for sell-
ing these unstamped papers, and in default of payment
committed him for three months to Kingston gaol.
In the course of the day, a man named Whiteman at
for the purpose of giving information of his having been
robbed of eighty-eight sovereigns, and applied for the assis-
tance of an officer to trace, if possible, his money.
The applicant excited some laughter during the detail of
his loss. He said that he was acquainted with a certain
"lady," for whom he entertained a very high respect until
of late. Some time ago he was left a sum of money by a
relative, and this fact was known to the lady to whom he
alluded, who on a recent occasion told him that she had
some very dreadful and alarming dreams about him. He
inquired the nature of the dreams, and she told him that
one night he appeared before with his throat cut, and said
that she was sure something would happen to him, and im-
plored him not to be out in bye-places, for so sure as he
did the dream would be realized. After this warning he
always left his money at home, and a few days ago his fe-
male friend, who lives in the Kent-road, invited him to her
house, and kept him there until very late ; in fact he did not
get home until two o'clock the next day, he having rambled
about until that hour ; and when he got home, he disco-
vered that eighty-eight sovereigns were gone.
Mr. JEREMY asked the applicant the grounds of his sus-
picion against the " certain lady" he spoke about ? The
applicant replied, that he suspected that she and his land-
lady were colleaguing together ; and that his female friend
made up the story herself of her dream about his throat
being cut, with a view to make him leave his money at
home, and then watched him out, to give an opportunity to
her colleague to rob him.
Mr. JEREMY inquired where the money was kept before
it was stolen ?—The applicant said that he placed it in a
bowl on a shelf, behind his bedstead, and that the thief did
not leave him a " feather to fly with ;" in fact, he was left
pennyless.
Diller, the officer, said that he had made`some inquiries
about the robbery, when he was first apprized of it by the ap-
plicant, and that it was involved in such mystery that it
was impossible to make any discovery as yet, particularly
as the applicant had blabbed it everywhere, and given the
parties suspected an opportunity of getting rid of te money
if they pleased.
In answer to another question, the applicant said that his
" female friend" was in ,the habit of " diving into futurity,"
and being possessed of the gift, he was induced to leave his
money at home, instead of taking it about him, after she
told him that he would have his throat cut.

Mr. JEREMY said that the applicant's suspicion was not
sufficiently strong against either of the parties he mentioned
to justify search warrants being granted to examine their
premises. He had better allow things to remain as they
were for a few days, and probably some clue would be dis-
covered which would lead to the recovery of his money.
Diller, the officer, was then directed to make further in-
quiries on the subject.