The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-26 00:00:00

AY, OCTOBER, 26, 1836.

SURREY SE

SSIONS.-(T„.IIIS DAY.)

Ekazei. and Frances Lctscelles ..sere indicted for stealing.
two pillows, a set of fire-irons, ar.d other articles, the pro-
perty of William Perry, of Oalr',ey-street, Lambeth.
Police constable Li 162 was sent for to the house of the
prosecutor 04 .‘"ne Sd October, where the prisoners lodged.

He 66't taw the female, who said at once that she had
pledged the property. The man was in a room on the
ground floor ; he said, whatever of the things were pledged
was done by his order. He searched the prisoners, and
found eight duplicates upon the female.
Cross-examined by Mr. DuNean.—The woman told him
she had pledged the property without his saying a word to
her, nor did he ask what property she meant. There were
evident marks of poverty and distress about their lodgings.
Mrs. Perry said the prisoners lodged in her house for a
year up till the day in question. On the Saturday before
the :).(-1 October, the woman went out for some money which
she went for weekly. She locked the old man in the back
parlour. As she did not return till the Monday, they were
obliged to give him his meals on the Sunday through a
window, When she was doing so she thought the room
looked very bare. On the Monday when Mrs. Lascelles
returned, witness followed her into the room, and found it
stripped of two pillows and cases, blankets, fire-irons, a
candlestick, and other articles. She sent for a constable,
who found the duplicates upon the female prisoner.
The property was produced, and identified by Mrs. Perry.
A pawnbroker proved that the property was pawned by
the female prison;,
In his eross•examination, he said the prisoner was very
frequently in the habit of pawning and redeeming articles
such as those in question ; so that she might pawn the ar-
ticles when short of money, and redeem them when she had.
Mr. DUNBAR submitted to the Court that this was a
mere case of illegal pawning, and that the facts would not
bear out the indictment for larceny.
The COURT said they were bound to leave the case in
the hands of the Jury.
The Learned COUNSEL then addressed the Jury for the
defence. He argued that had the prisoners intended to
steal the property, they would have gone to some place
where they would have got more for it than they could get
at a pawnbroker's shop. Besides, there was no evidence
whatever against the old man, and the woman ought to
have been punished under the Illegal Pawning Act.
The CHAIRMAN summed up the evidence and said it was
the peculiar province of the Jury to say whether the case
was merely one of illegally pawning, or if it did not go a
little farther, and amount to a larceny. If the law was as
it was laid down by the Learned Counsel, no man's pro-
perty would be safe, for a servant. would merely have to
say he intended to return any property he took away when
he got more money, and so put the law at defiance.
The Jury consulted together for ten minutes and then
returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners, but re-
commended the man to mercy on account of his age.
The prosecutor also begged to recommend the prisoners
,o mercy.
Sentence—Three months imprisonment and hard labour.