The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-25 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Oct. 24.

(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS Assistant-Judge, and
_ _

a Bench of Magistrates.)
JUVENILE DEPRAVITY.—Edw. Toghill, 11, and
Edw. Skae, 11, were indicted for having stolen
nine silk handkerchiefs, the property of John
Hitchcock.

Mr. Hughes defended the prisoner Tognill.
It appeared from the evidence, that the prosecutor
keeps a shop, No. 139, Edgeware-road, and that on
the evening of the first Saturday in the present
month, between seven and eight o'clock, the two boys
were seen by a policeman, who had been watching
them fur nearly half-an-hour, to stop at the shop in
question, when Toghill went in while Skae remained
on the outside, looking through the window. Pre-
sently the former came out again, and at once ran
across the road and went into White Lion passage,
whither he was soon followed by his companion. The
policeman, D 95, followed them into the passage, where
he took Toghill into custody,but not until something
had fallen from him. Another policeman, who was
near, having seen something dropped by the prisoner
Toghill, picked it up, when it proved to be the hand-
kerchiefs in question, which, on the boys (with the
prope, ty) being taken to the prosecutor's shop, were
identified by the prosecutor as those which he had
just lost.
Mr. HUGHES having been heard on behalf of
Toghill,
The Learned JUDGE said the facts were so few,
and the case was so clear, that he did not think it
necessary to recapitulate the evidence.
The jury at once returned a verdict of Guilty
against both prisoners.
Toe Learned JUDGE said that it might appear
somewhat strange to the jury when he informed them
that that little boy, Tcghill, was one of the most
notorious thieves in London. There was, however,
another part of the present indictment as affecting
that h)y, upon which, with a view to another pro-
ceeding, he must take their opinion. The prisoner
Toghill, in addition to the theft, was further charged
in the indictment with having been twice previously
convicted. Evidence would now be laid before the
jury to support that part of the indictment, and that
having been done, then he would ask them whether
that portion of the indictment had been sustained.
Mr. Maude, the deputy clerk of the peace, was
then sworn, when he produced the two previous con-
victions.

Lockyer, one of the officers of the Westminster
House of Correction, next proved that the boy at the
bar was the same boy as had been sent to that prison
under the convictions which had just been read.
The first time was on the 17th of August, 1847, when
he had been sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment
and to be owe well whipped ; and the other time
was on the 10:h of the same month, in the present
year, when he had been sent for one month, and also
to be well whipped. On those occasions he had
come under hi< own name of Edward Toghill, but on
the 25th of August, 1848, he had been sent to that
prison for three months, under, as in the last named
instance, a summary conviction, and to be well whip-
ped, when he came in as "James Smith."

- The Learned JUDGE—Then he has been twice
summarily convicted to your prison at Westminster?
Lockyer replied in the affirmative.
The Learned JUDGE then said that the questions
which arose out of this case were of so much im-
portance in a public point of view, that he was
extremely glad to find that the boy was represented
by counsel. It happened that this was the first
conviction which had taken place in that court under
the new Act, and therefore, anticipating that such a
conviction would ensue, an application had been
made to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
merit, fur the purpose of settling a point upon which
the Court had held some doubt—namely, as to
whether by the recent statute the jurisdiction of that
Court of Sessions had been taken away in such cases.
The reply to that application had been, that the
jurisdiction of the sessions had not been taken away.
However, notwithstanding that answer, such was the
state of the law upon the subject that he was most
anx;ous that the opinion of the Learned Judges
shou!,l be obtained in the matter. lie saw that
the question was surrounded by so much diffi-
culty that he was desirous for the question to 1-,e pro-
perly and fully argued before the Court above, for he
was greatly puzzled as to the mode of proceeding
une.,.r the statute. There was an Act which gave the
power of transportation for life in cases where evi-
dence was produced of two previous convictions. That
was the 7th and 8:h of George IV. c. 28, s. 11, and
what he wanted was, that the whole question should
undergo a full argument, in respect of that and the
last Act ,before another tribunal.
Mr. lluGuns was inclined to think that that Act
had been repealed as to the mode of giving evidence
of former convictions.
The Learned JUDGE.—Yes, that was so; the 6th
and 7th of William IV., c. 111, no doubt repealed
that portion of the 7th and Bth of George IV., as to
the mode of giving evidence as to previous convic-
tions, for under that statute evidence of previous con-
victions was not to be given in the charge, or even
read to the jury, until after the finding of that jury of
a subsequent felony, except when evidence as to
character was given. But the difficulty which pressed,
upon his mind was, as the law at present stood, whe-
ther he ought not to have sent the whole question
which the indictment raised to the jury at once, and
that he should not have left the one question only—
namely, the guilt or innocence as to the theft charged,
but that he should have called upon the jury to have
determined by their one verdict the two questions
which the indictment had raised in respect of the boy
Toghill. He would, therefore, with a view to the
matter being properly settled for the future guidance
of these sessions, grant a case to the Learned Counsel
in the matter of that boy, whom he would remand
until the next sessions, in order that the Learned
Gentleman might consider the course he should take.
Now, as to the other boy, Skae, he had been sum-
marily convicted as recently as the month of August
last, and he had also been convicted three or four
times previously. It was quite clear that he was a
very bad boy.
Mr. HuouEs said that he had had an interview with
the father of Toghill, who was a very respectable man
in his rank of life. He was the foreman at a tailor's,
and was a very industrious person. That father had
informed Jahn that his son, so long as he was with him,
was an exceedingly good boy, but that he had
managed to get hold of some bad connexions, and then
when he ,left home he was led into these
truth waft
the that he was made the
scapegoats of older
ehs-
thieves, who having thrown him intocaped themselves, and left him to get on ase
The father had requested him to solicit the Court might
in any sentence it might pass upon his son it might be
so arranged as that the boy might be taught some
trade or handicraft, whereby he might, when his term
of punishment was over, be enabled to earn an honest
livelihood.
The Learned JUDGE—Just so ; the son to be
taught a trade, but not at the expense, or by the
efforts of the father, who bad neglected him. He
could not conceive a more atrocious case than this
was. Here was the foreman to a tailor, with a good
situation, with only three children, so recklessly
neglecting one of those children, who as yet had only
reached the age of 11 years, as that in little more
than two years he had been committed to prison no
fewer than eleven or twelve times, and by the various
terms of his imprisonment of those two years he had
spent fourteen months in gaol, and now that father
bad instructed his counsel to say that the child had