The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-07 00:00:00

7 S UN.

your Paper, I
the following
,orthy, I hope
umns of The

March, some
ent, I feel it a
ese realms, to
neficial to the
) which many
sh to another.
ne to another,
belong to u.,
Finaintaining ;
let 114 remove
n establishing
uch, and the
s to returning
e expense will

iblic if this be
for a removal,
Jay all the ex-
iense incurred
us to the time

the most use-
! ; and as the
upon parishes,
lile that a plan
ted. Perhaps
itendant over-
of hired over-
le case, might

BECKS.
beg to assure
'd Parliament
illy complaine,
nature. The
he streams of
U N.l

NCELLORS.
the seals the
them twenty
twenty years
ring the two
years within a

Ds.---Go to
et money, save
wealth, and a
ill, provide for
)od, generous,

at this time
xl of Oxford.
illustrious cog-

lAKSPEARF.

TUENTS.—
y. Mr. SAD-
!! Anti-Reform
im rieefifteen
t the SPEAKER;

dy, residing
rninF supposed
made for the
to the gieat
icial journalist

OLD COURT.

OLD BAILEY (THIS DAY.)

These Sessions cominenced this morning, before the
Bight lion. the LORD MAYOR, the RECORDER, SDE-
Airfr's, and the usual Civic Authorities.
The Judges in attendance are Lord Chief Justice TsN•
TERDEN and Mr. Baron GARRow.
Jane Andrewg, aged 32, was capitally indicted for
stealing,' in the dwelling-house of John Mills, a glazier's
diamond, a handkerchief, and 141. 10s., his monies and
property.
The prisoner, a respectable-looking widow woman, was
a lodger of the prosecutor's, and was living irphis house at
the time the money was lost. She was taken twice before
a Magistrate, and at both times discharged. She arter-
wards summoned the prosecutor to the Court of Requests
for a sum of 1/. 19s. 11d., which the Commissioners
ordered him to pay; and he then, according to her ac-
count, threatened to be avenged of her. The prosecutor
appeared before the Grand Jury, and preferred an indict-
ment, and they having returned a true bill, the prisoner
was taken into custody.
Several witnesses were called, who deposed to the pri-
soner being very short of money before the robbery, to
what she was afterwards.

The prisoner put in a long written defence.
The prosecutor was re-called, and being asked if it was
true that he had been summoned to the Court of Requests
by the prisoner, admitted that he had,land was ordered to
pay the demand.

Mr. Serjeant ARABIN—Was this before or after the
robbery? Prosecutor—Three weeks afterwards, my Lord.
Mr. Serjeant ARABIN having summed up the evidence,
The prisoner said she had witnesses both to facts and
character.

Mr. Serjeant ARARIN—I think, gentlemen of the Jury,
you will not deem it necessary that they should be examined.
The Jury assented, and returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
John Downie was indicted for stealing in a dwelling.
house a time-piece and other articles, of the value of 61.,
the property of James Wells Taylor.
A servant of the prosecutor stated, that about eight
o'clock in the morning of the 15th of January the prisoner
came to her master's house, in James-street, Bedford-row,
and said that a Mr. Carter wished to see him directly.
She asked him to walk into the office, and wait until she
went up stairs to her master, which he agreed to. On
her return, however, she found that he was gone and had
taken away the property gamed in the indictment. The
witness said she was quite positive the prisoner was the man.
A police officer produced the time-piece, which was
found at the house of a person named Gass, at the time
that he (Gus) was apprehended on a charge of felony. It
did not appear, however, that the prisoner was in any way
connected with Gass.
Mr. Taylor (an attorney) identified the time-piece as
his property. The other articles had not been found.
The prisoner strongly protested that lie was as innocent
as the Judge or Jury.
Lord TENTERDEN summed up, and the Jury, after a
short deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty of stealing
under the value of 51.
Charles Kitchen, John Trigg, and Edmund Fean,
three lads, under 17 years of age, were capitally indicted
for assaulting Robert Robinson on the King's highway,
putting him in bodily fear, and stealing from his person a
watch and other articles, his property.
The prosecutor stated that he met the prisoners in the
Edgware-road, where the robbery was committed. There
being some doubt, however, as to his identity, and the
prisoners having received a good character, the Jury returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.