The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-14 00:00:00

The details of the case recently appeared under the
head of police. The prisoner said he was innocent.
The CommoN SERGEANT sentenced him- to six months'
imprisonment.:_

Mary Ann Margaret Langham, aged 25, described as
married, was convicted of stealing a pair of stays, valued
..tt ten shillings, the property of Mary Ann Bridgeman,
a stayrnaker, living, at Woolwich. There was also an-
other indictment for stealing 20 handkerchiefs from an-
other shop i❑ the same town.
The prisoner, a respectable-looking young country-
woman, who had an infant in her arms. banded in a
written statement, in which she stated that distress had
driven her to the act, and that an officer in the army was
the father of her child.

In answer to the Court, the officer said the prisoner
was a known character; she had been apprehended with
the property on her. Shortly after _taking it, on her
road to the station, she was taken with the pains of la-
bour, and delivered of the child she then bad in her
arms as soon as she got there.
She was sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment.
Samuel Brown, aged 27, a servant, was indicted for
stealing a quantity of plate, valued at 1302, the property
of Mary Buchanan Mansfield, his mistress, from her
dwelling-house.

Mr. Prendergast prosecuted, and Mr. William Cooper
defended.

Mr. Horatian Mansfield, a student at law, living with
his mother at 51, Grosvenor-street, said that the prisoner
*as their butler, having been so five months, and on the
17th of May be received notice to leave the house and
and give up the plate, upon which he left the house and
sent two letters, when it was discovered that the plate
had been pawned. •

Inspector Gray said that when he apprehended the
prisoner, and told him the charge' he replied, " It is
quite right. I have only borrowed it, and mean to re-
turn it."

The pawnbrokers who had taken in the property said
that the prisoner used to come to them either on horse-
back or in a dog cart, with a livery servant. by his side,
and upon one occasion,• when redeeming some knives,
~aid he wanted them, as he was about giving a dinner
party.
Mr. Cooper said, that however wrongly the prisoner
had acted, still there was not any evidence that the pri-
soner at the time of taking the plate did not honestly in-
tend to redeem it, and if they thought so they must acquit
him of a felony; but whatever speculation he might have
engaged in must, at a subsequent period, have prevented
him carrying out his original intention.
The COMMON SERGEANT said he had thought the old
theory that counsel put to juries about servants when
found out talking of redeeming property, was exploded,
but now found otherwise; therefore he must tell the
jury that the very moment a servant removed an em-
ployer's property for the purpose of parting with it, that
moment was the larceny complete, otherwise no employer
would be safe, for any servant might speculate in rail.
way shares, &c., on his master's property, which, if
successful, would be returned, and if not, the muster
would be told it was intended to be redeemed and then
all redress would be gone.

The jury found him Guilty.
The COMMON SERGEANT said there were two other
cases against him.
Gray said he had robbed Lady Capel, with whom he
had lived, under similar circumstances; but she forgave
him. He had obtained his situation with prosecutrix by
means of a false character, and there was also a case of
forgery against him.
He was ordered to be transported for ten years.
The COMnMON SERGEANT said no blame attached to
the pawnbrokers, and it was therefore hard on them;
but they' must give up the property in all the cases,
amounting to consid”rably above 1001. lent.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
James Ross was brought before the Lord Mayor upon
the charge of embezzling money, the property of Mr.
ro.ecution, stated that the Abrahams, of Eastcheap, what.....te grocer.
pri-
soner'his clients employment 15 or 16
r .
Rodb I er,
been tb r the r
months ur-,a a salary of 3/, p per week, and had hcn au-
thori..ed to receive money for the house as well as to do
,
general business ; that the prisoner had received the
sum of 131. I Is. 6d. from a Mr. Scales for goods sold
and delivered, and never accounted for it; and called Mr.
Scales as a witness to the fact.
Upon his cross-examination by Mr. Pelham, who de-
fended the prisoner, Mr. Scales said, he had never been
given to understand that the prisoner was a partner in
the firm, that the invoice was sent by the carman who
brought the goods, and that the money was paid, as ap-
peared from the receipt, to the prisoner, who had
nothing to do with the establishment except as a mere
clerk.

Mr. Pelham said he was instructed that defendant was
a partner in the house, and that he supplied brains and
knowledge, while Mr. Abrahams was bound to furnish
the neee.sary cash to carry on the business. Under
these circumstances the defendant was justified in re-
ceiving the amount without bring obliged to account for
its disposal, as would be the duty of an ordinary clerk.
The LORD MAYOR—But Mr. Abrahams denies that
there was any partnership connexion.
Mr. Nobler—Certainly; the statement to that effect is
the result of a complete misconstruction.
Mr. Abrahams—He never had any share in my busi-
ness, but was a mere servant.
Mr. Hobler called Mr. Scales again, and asked him
whether he considered the prisoner to be a partner in
the house ? Mr. Scales—No. I never knew anybody
as a principal in the house but Mr. Abrahams.
Tne prisoner—Did I not sign the warrants?
Mr. Nobler—Everyone knows that the Mincing-lane
business is constantly done in that way.
The LORD MAYOR—Did Mr. Scales send the amount
of the invoice to the house or take it himself to the pri-
soner? Mr. Scales—l paid the prisoner myself.
The LORD MAYOR could not suppose, in the teeth of
such evidence as had been brought forward, that the
prisoner was a partner, and observed that it would be a
most mischievous course to presume such a connexion in
answer to the charge of defalcation upon the part of a
responsible servant.
The prisoner, for whose appearance his Lordship re-
fused to take bail, was then remanded.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Joeeph Johnson Colvetel, alias Smith, and William Hall
Brown, alias Clarke, alias hill, wore placed at the bar
before Mr. Arnold, charged with having uttered two
forged bills of exchange for 221. Bs. and 211. 75., with in-
tent to defraud Mr. Henry Dymond, wholesala gutta
percha hoot and shoe manufacturer, in Regent-street.
City road ; and, also, with having obtained goods under
false pretences, from the same prosecutor, to the amount
of 1121. tBs.
' Mr. Vann, who attended for the prisoners, said
that he should reserve the derence, as he presumed
that it was the magistrate's intention to remand thorn,
but trusted that he would accept bail for their future ap-
pearance.
' Mr. ARNOLD, however, refused to accede to the ap-
plication, and ordered the prisoners to he remanded
for a week.