The Sun.
London, England, 1822-01-15 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY.

Yesterday, John Hargraves was indicted for stealing a
-quantity of cloth, the property of .Mr. Wetherell, a cloth-
merchant, of Providence-row.
The prisoner was shopman to the prosecutor, and it was
proved had been in the habit of pawning cloths at different •
periods, which he had taken from his master's shop.
The prisoner being called upon for his defence,--said that his
master had- ernplayed him to pawn the goods. This -the mas-
ter most positively denied.
The Jury found a verdict—Guilty.
Charles Steel was indicted for a similar offence. He was
porter in the slion, of Mr. Wetherell. The; prisoner declared
that he had been led into it by Ilargraves. He imagined he
was, in obeying the orders o Hargraves, acting consistently
with the directions of his master.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. The prosecutor
begged to recommend the prisoner to mercy on account of his
large family.
The prosecutor had,' by these successive robberies, lost pro-
perty worth some hundred pounds. The pawnbrokers with
whom the' property was pledged were compelled to produce it
in Court.
William Moulder was indicted for embezzling, on the 29th
July, a 101. note, the property of Messrs. Tribe and Cole, wine
mcrcha.ita.
The prisoner was the clerk of the prosecutors, and it was
proved had embezzled the property. It could not, however, be
satisfactorily identified, and the prisoner was Acquitted.
There were three other indictments against him ; but they
all failed on the same grounds.

StIRREY SESSION:i

Yestarday the first General Quarter Sessioris for the County
of Surrey was held at the Sessions-house, Newington, be-
fore C. IiARRisoN, Esq., Chairman, and a full Beilch• Of Al::.-
giNtrates,
. . . _ .

The CHAIRMAN, in charging the Grand Jury, congratulated
them that the number of prisoners set down fbr was much
smaller than the usual number presented to them at this sea-
son of the year. The occasion of this diminution,• he con-
sidered, was the new and excellent _regulations of the House
of Correction at Brixton4lill, which was now managed on
principleS far superior to those on which tl)e gaol had hitherto
been managed--than those bn which any other House of COr:
rection was conducted.

After some consuluition, the Court gave some instructions,
upon the matter to the Clerk of the Peace.

THE COUNTY JAIL-

..The Report Of the Visiters of the Comty jail was presented;
to the Court by the Clerk of the Peace.
Mr. TROTTER rose, and moved that the Court shOuld ad.;
journ from the public Court-house in which they now sat, to
the room above, to hear the report before them.
Mr. P. Young said, with great pleasure, lie accorded the mo._
don. There were many things in this report. with the
public had nothing :o do.
ellet;it opposed the motion. They lived in an age
when they wee more peculiarly subject to public opinion, and
acted more under public suspicion than at any period, end they
ought not to furnish any matter for distrust, by doing that pri-
vately which the public conceived they had a rig;it to expect
shoUld.be done openly. Although he certainly thought that
there were many matters in that report, .which in tenderness, or
from delicacy towards the individuals. he could wisic.to have
discussed priVately ; yet he thought that An much public incor-
Venience would be occasioned by forming such a precedent
(" Hear, hear," from several of the ,agistrates on the bench),
which he considered so highly impolitic, that`he felt it his duty
to oppose the motion.
Mr. Yoteer ci declared that his only motives for serending it
were-those of delicacy towards the individual ; but he thomeht
that the public part of the report might, Undoubtedly, be dis-
seeted from the private, and be publicly read. •
Mr. TROTTER conceived that the Magistrates for Surrey
never could do any thing that rendered than liable to suspicion.
He was actuated solely by motives of delicacy towards the indi-
vidual ; but as the word suspicion". had been associated With
the motion, he could not for a moment. persevere injt.
The motion was accordingly immediately'diseliarged.
The report of- the
.visiting Magistrates . was then read. It
was signed by the Chairman, • Mr. Harrison, Mr. H. Sumner;
Mr. Trotter, Mr. Young, and- the- remainder of the visiting
Magistrates. _ _

The first part of the report relative to an increase of the sal-
aries pf the surgeon and the chaplain was agreed to. That part
.relative to the keeper of the gaol gave rise to discussion.
Mr. H. SUMNER, -in moving that the keeper of .the county
geolshould be dismissed from his office, was an::ious that it
should be understood that it was not for any fraud on his part
that this course was taken. These was not the slightest im-
. .
ea pchment of his moral character;
.but that it was on'account
of his not having sufficient capScity of mind that the visiting
Magistrates thought his removal necessary.
Mr. R. JACKSON argued with much force, that the charac-
ter of no man should be committed 'upon the bare report of a
.treneral Committee : it should haire.the benefit of a greater or-.
deal. He concluded by suggesting that a Special Committee
should he appointedto.inquire into the character and conduct
of Mr. SpradbUry, the present Governor of .the
-Mr. SWAN conceived that the opposition of tie worthy Ma-
gistrate:paid but an ill compliment to the Committee who had
so laboriously investigated the case. He opposed the proposi-
tion. Two other Magistrates also spoke against it. The
ginal motion that the Gaoler should be dismissed was then put
and carried, without opposition. The baker was alsoOismisiud
1 for furnishing bad bread, and under weight.