The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-15 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
Thomas Troughton, a miserably-dressed young
man, who described himself as a theatrical performer,
was indicted for stealing a tunic, sword, and several
other articles of theatrical " property," belonging to
Moss Cantor.
The prosecutor stated that he carried on an ex-
tensive business as a dealer in theatrical dresses and
" properties," in Goodman's-fields, and supplied most
of the theatres at the East end. The prisoner was
in the habit of frequenting his shop, and having
missed the above articles, he taxed him with having
taken them, but he denied all knowledge of any of
the articles. He (witness) subsequently made in-
quiries, which induced him to give the prisoner into
custody.
The first witness styled himself Mr. Taffray, and
described himself as a theatrical performer. He was
not at present in any engagement, but was retained
to perform at the Standard next Christmas.—(A
laugh.) He knew the prisoner as a brother actor,
and bought a tunic, cap, shirt, and some "properties,"
from him for 3s. 6d., Mrs. Taffray paying him 2s. in
Money, witness 6d., and the other shilling being paid
by rent the prisoner owed to them.
Randolph Wilkins said he was a comedian, and he
and the prisoner were engaged to perform at the
Effingham Saloon for a benefit. He (witness) hired
the sword in question from Mr. Cantor, and soon after
the close of the performance he missed it. The cha-
racter he performed was Edward Percival in the Vil-
lage Belles.
The next witness produced a sword, which he
swore the prisoner pledged with him for 9d.—(A
h
laug.)
Mr. Cantor identified it as well as the ether articles
as his property.
The prisoner, in his defence, said it was usual for
persons " in the profession" to assist each other by
buying theatrical articles from those" members" who
were out of engagement, and he became thus pos-
sessed of the articles. A young man, a friend of his,
got an engagement at a fair for three days, and the
shirt WAS borrowed to enable him to take the engage-
ment, after the termination of which he (prisoner)
bought it from him. There were other " properties"
these the things he was charged with stealing, and
mese things were mostly the clearance out of his
wardrobe at the close of the Standard Theatre, and
he could speak to them particularly because there
Was an old white hat' which he had long used upon
the stage.—(Laughter.)
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the pri.
soner was sentenced to three months' imprisonmen
with hard labour.

ARLBRO'-STREET—(THIS DAY.)
Henry Baker, a young man, in the employ of a
Mr. Gill, dyer, 52, South Molton-street, was placed
before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having obtained
from Mr. Francis Kerridge, cheesemonger, 260, Ox-
ford-street, a piece of ham and a piece of cheese by
fraudulent practices.
It appeared that about nine o'clock last night the
prisoner went to complainant's shop and ordered a
piece of ham and a piece of cheese to be sent to Mr.
Gills, 52, South Molton-street. The goods were sent
by complainant's shopman, who was ordered not to
leave them without the money. On arriving at the
house the-prisoner was standing against the door, and
took the goods from the shopman, who asked for the
nioney. The prisoner said, " It's all right, come and
have some gin, and I will find Gill, and get you the
Money." The shopman went with him to two pub-
lic-houses, but no Gill could be found ; and as the
prisoner attempted to shuffle out of it, the shopman
gave him in charge.
Monsieur Louis, 61, Norton-street, stated that he
had a charge to prefer against the prisoner. Having
a quantity of curtains, which wanted dying, he called
at Mr. Huggard's, 94, Norton-street, and asked him
What he would charge for doing them. The prisoner
Was in the shop at the time. Witness asked what
the price would be per yard for the lot, and as he
thought the charge too dear, he left the shop, saying
that he would think of it. On his way home the pri-
soner came after him, and touched him on the shoul-
der, said that as there was a lot of curtains, he would
do them for 21d. per yard. Thinking that he was
sent by Huggard witness told him to call at his
house, when he would give him some of the curtains
to do, and if they were done well, he should have the
rest. The prisoner accordingly called, and a bundle
containing the four curtains were handed to him.
After he had left the house, it was discovered that
he had taker, another curtain from off the table.
This excited the suspicion of witness, who, on going
to Mr. Huggard's, was informed that no person had
been sent from him for the goods.
A number of other charges of a similar nature
were preferred against him; when
Inspector Squire stated that the house in South
Molton-street was occupied by swindlers, who
managed to victimise the public to a serious extent.
L'L he prisoner, who passed himself off as Gill's porter,
plaint
the prime mover in the concern. The corn-
Vllnts made against the house were innumerable.
ere were at present several summonses and a war-
rant out against Gill, who always managed to keep
°at of the way.h
e prisoner denied the charges against him. He
*as employed by Gill, and acted according to his
dire employed
M with. He
icx said it was a case for a jury to
lle should, therefore, commit him for trial.

THAMES.—(THIS DAY.)
Slartha Howard, a
„young woman of considerable
personal attractions, was charged with attempting to
pass a counterfeit half-crown at the shop of Mr.
John Putnam, eating-house-keeper, Brook-street,
Ratcliffe.
prThe case was curious, inasmuch as the wife of the
:2osecutor was brought up to this courts on Tues-
43r Week last, charged with passing a counterfeit
five-shilling piece, the particulars of which appeared
in The Sun of the same day. Mrs. Putnam was re-
lviatnhdoeudt on the charge, but subsequently discharged
an imputation on her character. She alleged
that she
had taken the five-shilling piece in her shop.
Mrs. Putnam stated that yesterday evening the
fprisoner came into her shop and asked for a pork pie,
or which she tendered the half-crown produced. On
•
I°°ltlng narrowly at it she discovered that it was
counterfeit. She immediately called her husband,
Who bit it in two places. The prisoner then begged
Seen
be let go, but Mr. Putnam sent for a policeman.
g that he was determined, the prisoner engaged
himin conversation, and watching her opportunity,
suddenly snatched the half-crown out of his hand and
ran out down Harris-court. Mr. Putnam pursued
and overtook her, when she said, " I have done you,
for I have dropped the half-crown." He, however,
detained her till the policeman came, and the half-
crown was found in the court this morning.
Police-constable, K 206, produced the half-crown
which a watchman had found in Harris-court this
morning, and on it were the marks where Mr. Put-
nam had bitten it.
The watchman swore to finding the coin.
Mr. YARDLEY said, that from the adroit manner in
Which the prisoner had acted, no doubt she was an
adept at smashing, and he should therefore remand
her till Tuesday next, in order that the police might
Make inquiries about her, and also communicate with
the solicitor to the Mint.
The prosecutor then stepped into the witness-box,
and said he had brought forward this case with aview
to vindicate his wite's character,
Mr. YARDLEY---I have already said that no impu-
tation whatever remains on your wife's character.
Mr. Putnam then thanked the magistrate, bowed,
and withdrew.

REGISTRATIONS.—(THIS DAY.)
CITY OF LONDON.
(Before T. Y. M'Cußisna, Esq.)
Mr. S. Smith, at the commencement of the pro-
ceeding of the Court, said, that both himself and Mr.
Brown wished to have the opinion of the Court upon
a point which theysonsidered of some importance as
to the regulation 7 their future proceedings. The
Court had come to a decision that in cases where ob-
jections had been made, costs would be allowed to
tilt parties, although the agents had agreed to with-
draw their objections, and that notice should be given
to the parties in such cases that the objections were
Withdrawn. Now it happened that whenever
botice was so given to the parties, they invariably
attended the court and claimed costs.
Mr. Brown said that last year, in consequence of
the decision of Mr. Arnold, a great number of objec-
tions were at once withdrawn, and no costs allowed
an such cases. The Court had, however, decided
that when the objection was withdrawn, and the
Parties attended, they should be allowed costs. Thatl
;was a very hard case upon the agents, because in all
Instances where the objections were made they were
auPposed to be valid ones.
The REVISING BARRISTER said that the agents had
brought the inconvenience upon themselves in con-
aequence of their having served so many objections,
without having any foundation for so doing. He had
done all that lay in his power to remedy the incon-
Yenience.
Mr. Brown wished to know whether, if an objec•
'toll were withdrawn and notice thereof sent to the
Party, the Court would refuse to give costs ?
v
„,
eREVISING BARRISTER said that he could not
I.lige
nded himself to do any such thing.
ofuring the sittings of the Court several persons
Pe
who had received notice of the withdrawal
Iltl the objections, and in each case received costs va-
gin amount from 10s. to 20s.
ttarernr.e S• Smith upon this reiterated his former
th t thenta as to the hardship of the case, and trusted
a Court would consider such cases worthy of
rece;...
.it, ving the fullest consideration of the Court.
""i•r• 13rown said that last year there were upwards
1000
.44ore objections made than in the present