The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-24 00:00:00

LAMBETH.

THE LATE CASE OF CONVICTION OF AN INNOCENT
PERSON.—As Mr. Norton was about to leave the
bench, Mrs. Ward, the mother of James William
Ward, the lad who had been convicted at the Old
Bailey, and sentenced to seven years' transportation,
tor stealing his grandfather's watch, and who was also
the prosecutrix in the case of Mary Ann Turpin, who
had been unjustly sentenced to six months' hard
labour for the same offence, entered the Court, and
entreated his Worship's advice under the following
circumstances :—She stated that that day a letter
which her son had written to his late master had
reached her hands, in which the boy stated, in the
most solemn manner, that his uncle, Henry Wenman,
it was, who had induced him to steal his grandfather's
watch ; that out of the fifty shillings received for it
he had only got five ; and that his uncle, who had
kept the remainder of the money, had told him to ad-
mit receiving the whole of the fifty shillings, else they
should be both transported. This avowal on the part
of her son completely confirmed her (the applicant's)
opinion that her brother was really the guilty party,
though her son had been sacrificed.
Mr. NORTON desired her to state the other circum-
stances which she alluded to, as strengthening her
suspicion, and she went on to say—That on the day
before the watch had been stolen, her brother, Henry
Wenman, had been to her house, and some difference
of opinion having taken place between him and her
husband about the workmanship of English and
French watches, she produced the one in question, for
the purpose of settling the point. Her brother, at
that time, had an opportunity of examining the watch
(which was one or a peculiar description) minutely ;
and at that time she told him it belonged to her father,
who had left it with her to have a glass put in, and
that she was particular about it. Notwithstanding
this, her brother, in a day or two after, received the
same watch from her son, and sold it upon the
mere representation that she, the mother, wanted the
money for it. Besides this, her brother called at her
house twice while the young woman Turpin was
under examination, and though he must have been
perfectly satisfied that the charge against her was that
of having stolen the identical watch that he himself
had sold, he never disclosed the fact, but merely
endeavoured to prevail on her, applicant, not to press
the charge against the young woman Turpin. F. urthT.
than this, her brother, though bound over to give evi-
dence against her son, at the Old Bailey, had not ap-
peared until after the trial was over, and the judge gave
directions that he should be taken into custody.

—Folice-constable George Quennier, 201 P, who had
the case, having been called on by the magistrate to
explain how this was, said that Wenman had been
bound over as a witness, and was told by him to be
in attendance at the Old Bailey on the day of the
trial, at nine o'clock, but he did not make his appear-
ance in time to be examined, in consequence of which
the Recorder directed that his recognizances be
estreated, and that he should also be apprehended.
Shortly after the trial was over Wenman made his
appearance in court, and applied to the judge to
rescind his order, and the Recorder at that time
further
not order him into into custody. The officer
her
son
stated that neither at the time of
into custody, nor during his examination, had Mrs.
Ward said a word to him abuofuthis e
e hersel suspicions
pi c itohne watch
s of her
brother, or the circumstance
before it had been stolen,Tuorraphlitsuios
wfveallsstitiustntdtooerbheeh remand
her
shdouutsye
while the young womanat
this court, He (Quennier)
that the lad Ward, both at the
to inform his Worship
time of his taking him intohad custodyackuow leadngded'onhaavliln
sions up to the
trial,ll 50 shillings from • °gccrea--
ived thewse of t e. his uncle, and
what the officer said was
apdremei"ttwediththiatt.
ehead a
only 6s. of the money was that which confirmed
perfectly true, but the declaration of her son that he
had
her in her opinion that her brother must have been
Mr;:lgV7rd
thorougly satisfied the watch had been stolen by her
boy, if he did not, as her son now confessed, prevail
upon to take it ; and therefore she wished that the
more guilty party should be brought to justice.
Mr. NORTON remarked that there was nothing in
the law to prevent a convict giving evidence, but still
the evidence of such a person should be received with
much caution. He (Mr. Norton) could not help ex-
pres,,,ing his surprise that the applicant had not, when
giving her evidence against her son, stated the whole
of tht, circumstances against her brother. He should
carefully read over the letter put in by the applicant,
and give the matter his best consideration by the fol-
lowing (this) day, when he requested the applicant
to attend again.

DALRY.—The iron works are again in full opera-
tion--the furnacrs were in blast on IN,fonday, baying.
bc,ll Tho w01.k.7il -are hi
full enat;loyment. Business here is very brisk.—Ayr
Observer.