The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-03 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 3, 1831.

mon Carriers. if any accident, however inevitable, happen,
,hrough the intervention of human means, a carrier be.
comes responsible. The fact of this case heirg new does
not make any distinction. This case falls into the general
principle, and if we were to make an alteration, it would
establish a precedent injurious to the interests of society.
The principle of the common law is, that innkeepers
shall he answerable for the goods of their guests, in order
that they may take care who they receive into their houses,
and prevent collusion. In the case of innkeepers and com-
mon carriers, the responsibility is the same. A lady at
an inn takes a valuable shawl from her shoulders—she
leaves it, and on her return the shawl is stolen—Can it be
void. she shall not recover the value ? That case is .not
distinguishable from the lnss of any other article usually
lost. It is right that the innkeeper should be responsible
to prevent frauds. I think the verdict should stand.
Mr. Justice PARE was of the same opinion. He had
never beard any distinction made between money and goods.
The principle must be the same.
Judges FAUNTON and PATTESON were of the same opi-
nion.—Rule refused.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

On:Tuesday a fashionably dressed fellow, who for
many years has been known to the police as an ac-
'ice member of the " swell mob," and who gave
he name of William Murray, was charge() with
having robbed a gentleman of his watch on Monday,
'he 3d ult., near the London Tavern, Gracechurch-
street:

Thomas. Took deposed that be was by trade a
shoemaker, and resided in Hatfield-street, S'. Luke's.
On :Monday, the 3d of October, he was standing it.
Gracechur•ch-street, opposite the L3ndmi Tavern,
and saw Mr. Nicholas, now present, surrounded by
a gang of five or six men, who held his arms Ma
the prisoner drew the watch from his fob, and,
putting it into his coat-pocket, walked to the other
side,of the street. Witness followed the prisoner,
and, seizing him by the collar, put his hand into hiS
pocket and drew nut the watch. He then gave the
prisoner in charge to a beadle named Shepherd, to
whom he also gave the watch, and in a minute of two
after he saw the prisoner rescued from the custody
of the beadle by the men whom he had previously
observ.ll hustl'ng Mr. Nicholas. Witness saw no
more of the prisoner until Monday last, when In
recognised him in the crowd which on that day wa•
assembled in Lincoln's Inn-fields, and gave him into
the custody of a policeman. The witness here
identified the watch produced by Mr. Nicholas as
the same which he took from the prisoner's pocket
on the day already mentioned.
Shepherd, the beadle, corroborated the evidence.ol
Took, and added that he retained possession of the
watch until about a week ago, when the Lord
Mayor directed that it should be delivered up to Mr.
Neholas, that gentleman having claimed' it at the
Man sion-house.

The persecutor, Mr. Joseph Nicholas, an elderly
gentleman, stated that he was a merchant, and
that his counting-house was at No. 5, Church-
court, Church-lane, Lombard-street. On the stay
mentioned by the witnesses he was standing
in Graceehurch-street, looking at a placard re-
' lating to the contest for the office of Lord Mayor.
when he was suddenly hustled in the manner de-
scribed, and robbed of his watch in an instant. S'
skilfully was the robbery effected, that he was no
aware of his loss until some person told him of it,
nor was he aware for some weeks after that the
watch had been recovered. Mr. Nicholas adder!,
that he had already been put to considerable trouble
and same expense, and expressed his reluctance to
appear as prosecutor.
Mr. HALLS remarked, that as Mr. Nicholas had
recovered his property, the least he could do was t,
perform his duty to the public, by prosecuting one
of the most notorious street robbers in the metropolis.
Mr. Nicholas observed, that he might have beet.
spared all trouble had the match been delivered to
him at the time of the robbery. In his opinion, th,
whole affair %yds a tuick from beginning to end, and
he could not see why he should be put to any fur-
ther inconvenience.

Mr. HALLS directed that the beadle should take
possession of the watch to produce at the trial, and
directed that the evidence of another witness should
he taken in order to make the case complete against
the prisoner,—a precaution which appeared neces-
sary, owing to the reluctance expressed by Mr. Ni-
cholas to prosecute.

The prisoner on being asked if he bad any thing
to say, denied all knowledge of the robbery. He
persisted in saying that his name was William Mur-
ray, but admitted that he was sometimes called Wil-
liam Moody, but the latter, he said, was a sort of
nick-name.

He was then fully committed for trial, and Mr.
Nicholas and the other witnesses were bound over
to prosecute.
The prisoner was dressed in the most fashionable
style, arid exhibited a black wig which appeared to
have just come from the hands of the friseur. He
has long been known as a desperate thief, and on
one occasion he nearly killed one of the officers of
Worship-street who held a warrant for his appre-
hension.