The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-27 00:00:00

S Ny
SEPT 27, 1847.

future occasion. She must have been, at the time
she took the things in a state of unconsciousness.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and
The jury, after ten minutes' consultation, returned
a verdict of Guilty, accompanied by a recommendation
to mercy.

Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK, in consequence of the
recommendation, sentenced her to be kept to hard
labour at Maidstone Gaol for two calendar months.

Wm. Jolly, aged 28, and Phcebe Jolly, his wife,
aged 20, were indicted for stealing 131., the moneys
of Robert Collett, in the dwelling-house of James
Gale.

The prosecutor stated that ha is a clerk in the
-General Post-office, and occupies apartments in the
house of Mr. Gale, in Hatfield-street, Stamford-
street.

The prisoners were lodgers in the same house at
the time, and appeared respectable. On Sunday,
the sth of September instant, the witness was absent
from his apartments for a short time, but he left his
money safely locked up in his trunk in the bed-room.
On his return he found the trunk had been opened
and the money gone. It consisted of 121. 10s. in
gold, and 10s. 4d. in silver. One of the stolen shil-
lings had a hole in it, by which he knew it again, so
as to be able to swear to it without the least hesita-
tion. He informed Mrs. Gale immediately of the
robbery. As no one had been there during his ab-
sence, suspicion fell upon the prisoners, and they
were forthwith given in charge. When -the box in
their room was searched the exact amount and of the
same denomination of coin was found that he had
lost, viz., twelve and a half sovereigns, ten shillings,
and a silver groat, and among it was the shilling with
the hold in it.

Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK, considering the case
a very clear one, left the jury only to say whether the
female prisoner might not have been influenced by
her husband, besides, there was no proof which of
them committed the robbery.
The jury consulted a short time, and then returned
a verdict of Guilty against the man, and acquitted
his wife.

The prisoners were again jointly and severally in-
dicted for stealing, on the 18th of August, at St.
Saviour's, Southwark, 3/. in money, the property of
Mary Ann M'Caras, their late landlady.
The jury returned the same verdict as in the last
case, and the woman was discharged.
The male prisoner was sentenced to seven years'
transportation.

Joseph Jackson, aged 22, was indicted for stealing
a flitch of bacon (381b5.) the property of Edmund
Rolandson.

[PItr,JE SD.

had been called in to advise on the case, said this was
not a sufficient aservice. The statute required the
summons should be served personally, or on some in-
mate at his usual place of abode. This phrase was the
same as in the Excise Act, upon which there had been
decisions. Where a person slept usually was his usual
place of abode. As he had not been at the house for
a fortnight and had never slept there, it could not be
assumed that he had had the summons, or that it was
now his place of abode.

Sir P. LAURIE said they must be bound by the opi-
nions of their law advisers, and though they had no
right to proceed with the case, as he saw Mr. Chad-
wick, the chairman of the company present, he would
venture to hope that gentleman would allow the com-
plaint to be made and give a straightforward answer
to it.

Mr. Chadwick expressed his readiness to do so.
The fact was, the complaint was groundless. The
secretary being unwell, asked leave to go out of town,
and the directors granted it on condition that he pro-
vided a substitute. He did so, and the young man
was here to prove that he had the care of the books at
the office, that the complainant had seen them, and that
they were open to the inspection of the shareholders
as required by law.
Sir PETER LAURIE said nothing could be fairer
than this.

Mr. Shaw said, however fair it might seem, it was
but a cloak to unfairness. They wanted particular
books which the law required to be kept, and it was
of no use to show them New Testaments or any
other books they did not want. The shareholders
had a right to know where the funds of the cem-
pany were lodged. A sum of 20,0001. had been paid
away in cheques made out in favour of anonymous
parties, in sums from 1,0001. to 8,0001., and he had a
right to see the books, which contained the entries
las to whom these parties were. If he were shown in
whose bands these sums were he should be satisfied,
and he demanded that information now.
Sir PETER LAURIE said the magistrates could only
enforce the production of the books, and could not
permit any discussion of their contents, or of the
general affairs of the company. The magistrates had
no right to inspect them. It was the privilege only of
the shareholders.

Mr. Shaw thought the magistrates bad some juris-
diction in respect to the contents. The law required
certain particulars to be entered in books, and if books
without those particulars, or blank books were pro-
duced, could not the magistrate assume the law was
not complied with, and the production of the book
refused?