The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-11 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY, JULY 8.

James .ill'Ariej; a journeyman tailor, was indicted
for stealing some new silver lace and some silver
ornaments, the property of his master, Mr. Burgess,
a respectable master tailor, residing in Woodstock-
street; and Mr. Benjamin Stuart, one of the most
minent refiners in London, was indicted for pur-
chasing the same, with a guilty knowledge of its
having been stolen.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Burgess, the
prosecutor, that the prisoner, M‘Nieff,was in his em-
ployment. On the day named in the indictment he
had occasion to go out, and left the prisoner a mili-
tary coat to embroider. Upon his return home he
was surprised to find that the prisoner had left his
work, and had taken with him the whole of the
silver lace and ornaments which the prosecutor had
given him in the morning. The prisoner was sub-
sequently traced to a public-house in Windmill-
street, where he was found regaling himself with
good eating and drinking. He was taken into cus-
tody, and while being conveyed to the station, he
informed the constable who apprehended him that
he had sold the property which he had stolen from
his master to a Mr. Smart, a refiner, in Princes-street.
The officer, accompanied by the prosecutor, wpal
with a search warrant to Mr. Smart's shop, and
showing Mr. Smart some patterns, asked him if he
had purchased any silver lace or ornaments of a
similar description. Mr. Smart replied that he had,
but the articles had, according to the custom of the
trade, been melted as soon as purchased. The pro-
secutor, however, not satisfied with this answer,
proceeded to search the premises, arid in a chest in
a back parlour was found, under a quantity of old
lace, the property stolen from the prosecutor. When
the property
was found, Mr. Smart voluntarily ac-
cA,mpanied the officer to the office in Bow-street, and
he was there held to bal to answer the charge then
preferred against them at the Sessions. Many per-
sons in the same lire of business with Mr. Smart
were called to give evidence respecting the price
given for the lace and ornaments by the prisoner;
they were unanimously of opinion that the utmost
value had been given for them.
The Jury remained in consultation upwards of
seven hours ; and at half-past nine returned a ver-
dict—Guilty against both the prisoners.
The Court immediately sentenced M‘Nieff to be
imprisoned twelve months in Newgate, and Mr.
Smart to be imprisoned twelve months in Giltspur-
street Compter.
The verdict against Mr. Smart appeared to
astonish every person in Court as well as himself.
The oldest officers did riot remember ever to have
',cen so many persons come forward to testify to a
prisoner's character. Amongst the 150 witnesses
who attended were the Rev. Dr. M‘Leod, Rector

of St. Ann's Soho, Rev. Mr. Vicary, Messrs. Han-
ley and Hamlet, his Majesty's jewellers, Locket,
Esq., who had known the prisoner from his child-
hood, and declared him to be a pattern of excellence.
Many persons of great respectability stated that Mr.
Smart had on many occasions detected fraud, and
keen the means of restoring stolen property to its
rightful owner. The unfor unate gentleman's case
appeared to excite very general sympathy.