The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-13 00:00:00

MORNING SUN

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY of PLATE,

JEV7.ELL:IIY, &c,

MYSTERIOUS CASE.

MANrCIIESTER, OCT. 9.—This day, Mr. Richard Thel-
well, lately carrying on a most extensive business as a
jeweller and silversmith, in St. Ann's- square, in this
town, was brought before Messrs. Maude, Walker, and
Armitage, on suspicion of being concerned in a very
serious robbery, which was committed on his premises
about seven weeks ago, when property to the amount of
9,0001. was stolen. A man named William Moobay
was placed in the dock along with him, who had been
employed as a porter in the establishment. Owing to
the singular nature of the charge, and the amount of
Property in question, the case excited the utmost inte-
rest, and the Court was crowded to excess. Mr. Thel-
well was some time ago made a bankrupt. and the rob-
bery
had been committed at the time the assignees were
in possession of the property, and when the bankrupt
and his friends were in treaty for the purchase of it.
Mr. Sat:enders, the Solicitor under the fiat, appeared
in support of the charge. Mr. Thelwell was defended
by Mr. Greene, Barrister-at-law.
In stating the ease Mr. Saunders said the robbery
had been committed on the 22d of August last. The as-
signees under the fiat were chosen on the 12th of May,
when a parson named Horton, a jeweller in London, on
behalf of himself and several others, applied to the assig-
nees not to proceed to the sale of the property forthwith,
but to allow it to remain as it was, merely selling by
private contract, to give the friends of Mr. Thelwell an
opportunity of coming forward and purchasing it in one
lot. The assignees, knowing that when the property was
under Mr. Thelwell's control a previous robbers had been
committed, two valuable communion services being
stolen, felt that there was some danger from reeeated at-
tempts of the kind. and employed a watchman to remain
on the premises all night, and afterwards all day on
Sundays. He did so fur three weeks, and was then dis-
charged from further attendance on Sundays, by Mr.
Thelwell's order, without the knowledge of the assignees.
The robbery was committed on the third or fourth
Sunday afterwards, when the man was absent. Sus-
picion attaching to Mr. Thelwell, it was found that on
Saturday, the 21st of August, the day before the rob-
'bery, he had taken his place by the P.M. train from
Manchester to Parkside (the place of junction for the
trains from Manchester, Liverpool, and Lancaster to
London), not in his own name. Thence he had gone to
Lancaster, also in a wrong name ; and on being asked
to account for this circumstance, just said he had gone
there to see a friend, 'a'nd then that he had gone to see a
yourre woman. 'lle had left Lancaster on Sunday after-
noon by the train which arrived at Parkside in time to
meet the 7 P. 31. train from Manchester to Birmingham,
and by that train he had proceeded to London. In in-
vestigating the robbery, it had been found that a large
heavy box had gone by that train from Manchester.
On the morning of the robbery, during the hours of
Divine Service, a woman saw two men carrying a boit
along Half-moon-street (a retired street near Mr. Thel-
well's shop). They were traced into King-street, where
they got into a coach that was waiting, and drove WOK
place very near the house of the prisoner Moobay, in
Hahne. The box could be traced no further than the
railway station on Sunday evening. Superintendent Saw-
ley, of the Manchester police, proceeded to London,
where, after some difficulty, he found Mr. Thelwell, on
Tuesday evening, at the White Horse, Fetter-lane, in
company with Mr. Horton, and ten persons who said
they were from Birmingham. Sawley toll Mr. Thel-
wedl hie suepicione and advised him to go back to Man-
chester immediatefy, which he did. Nothing beyond a
very strong suspicion was entertained until last night,
when a letter was received from Mr.. O'Brien, a magis-
trateof the county accompanied` by a copy of de-
po:itiotts tken before him, from which it appeared that
a .man named hit Rafferty bud been thei-e charged
with stealing 70/. from a James Thelwell, the brother of
the prisoner. Thelwell gave a very suspicions account of
the way, in which he became possessed of the 701., and.
Rafferty, whose sister had cohabited with James
Thelwell, afterwards made a confession irnp!icating
the two prisoners and James Thelwell (who had been
employed as porter by his brother) in the robbery in St.
Ann's-eepiare. He stated that the 701. had been handed
over to him 3 his shore of the property, various portions
:
of which had bee.7l sold in Derbyshire and other places,
and a fruit spzwiateen had. been there entered into by
.
himself and James Thelwell. A quantity of this fruit
was traced to the possession of the prisoner .Moobay.
On the premises being examined after the robbery, it
was evident that no force had been Used except from the
inside. It was pretended to be said that a box-lock had
been broken open, but the box had' been regularly and
carefully unscrewed ; not a bit of wood remained in the
worms of the screw, which eeculd have been the case had
it been forced off'. It was suspected that there were du-
plicate keys, and that the premises had been entered in
that way. This was strenuously denied, but it ulti-
mately turned out that there were duplicate keys,
which had been missed since the time the commu-
nion plate was stolen. Beyond all doubt the rob-
bery had been committed by parties well ac-
quainted with the premises, as was shown by their taking
the valuable property and leaving the refuse.
Superintendent Sawley was then sworn, and stated,
that he was sent for on the night of Sunday, the 22d of i
August, by Mr. Gillovr, who was in possession of the
shop under the assignees. The outer yard door was un
locked, and the door leading from the yard to the shop
evae open. He had no doubt the lock of the box had
been unscrewed inside. He made. inquiries, and on
Alonda.y traced the box up to near the prisoner Moobay's
house. He searched the house, but found nothing. Moo-
bay was mach alarmed. At the railway lie learned that
the porters haJ placed a very heavy box on the luggage
carriage of the seven le3l. Sunday train, but they did not
know whether it was eassengers' luggage, and none of
them remembered carryie e* it up stairs. He then went to
London, and found Mr. Thelwell there on Tuesday ; he
then knew all about the robbery, as he said, by a let-
ter from his son that morning. tieetad only arrived in
London at six on Monday morning. It was supposed
in Manchester that he had gone on the Thursday pre-
viously, and this led to the inquiry about his going to
Parkside and Lancaster. The prisoner's brother James,
Ratfertja-anctkis sister, who had lived with James Thel-
well, had for some time dealt in fruit up and down the
country, but they suddenly disappeared soon after the
robbery, and nothing was heard of theta till the com-
munication was received from the Magistrate in Ireland.
ThmeaseLee stated that, he had been employed as a
private watchauut.hn the premises, in the first instance
by Mr. Thelwell himself, and afterwards by the assig-
nees. Ha was instructed to remain on the premises from
seven at night till eight in the morning. He then re-
ceived orders to watch on Sundays, and did so for two
Sundays ; on the third Sunday Mr. Henry Thelwell, Mr.
Thelwell's son, told him his father said there was no oc-
casion to stay on Stindays, and he discontinued it. He
then used to leave the premises between seven and
eight on Sunday morning, and return at night. They had
a large dog, which he always left in the yard on
Sunday mornings., On the night the robbery was
discovered they found the dog shut up in the cellar. It
was a very ferocious dog, and would not have allowed a
stranger to place it there. Mr. Gillow used to let wit-
ness in and out. He went with him to let him in on the
night of the 22d of August. The witness then described
the state in which ti:e -doors were found.

Cross-examined—Mr. Billow, the person employed by
the assignees, knew that witness did not watch on Sun-
days before the robbery, and did not comploin of .
was paid half-a-crown extra, by Mr. Thelwell, whets He
ets he
watched on a Sunday.
Mr. Gilluw deposed that he was employed by the
assignees to keep possession of the property. When
he first went a watchman was only employed in
the-night ; but on-the' 26th of June, Mr. WM tin,,re,
one of the. assignees, gave instructions to Mr.
Thelwell to put. . a watchman on on the Sun-
day.. Mr. Thelwekafterwards said to witness that it
was very unnecessery,, as lie bad not been in the habit
of keeping one either at niebts or in. Sundays. The
watchman was put on on Sundays, and was paid by Mr.
Thelwell, on behalf of the assignees. On the Saturday
evening prior to the third Sunday of the watchman
being employed,. Mr. Thelwell said it was very un-
necessary—it was only incurring extra expense to the
estate. Witness told him he certainly ought to know
best, but if the assigeees knew of the watclenan being
discharged they would find great fault. He was after-
wards discharged from_ Sunday attendance unknown to
the
assignees. During the Sundays he watched, Mr.
Thelwell or his sons let hint in and out, as they did
until the 13th of August, when the assignees excluded
them erem the premises ; and witness then took posses-
sion of the
keys and let the vvatchman' in and out. On
the morning of the robbery he was let, out a little befcre
half-pasts and the premises were left perfectly secure.
The keys W
•
%%reenin witness's possession all day till he went to
let the man in at
night, and found the premises as described.
e d.
Did not inform- the assignees of the
wa
discarded on a Sunday. Did not in-
rternenifren lahmeiinng e
form Mr. Hobson,
by whom he was immediately em-
ployed,
ployed, but concur re with
owingto the
experience he had
ex-
pense on the estate.
gThelwell,it
anunnecessary d
its tthh initrir. n
had, n
The reason was this—Mr. Thelwell
had then every expectation of coming forward with secu-
rity to take the stock, which
of for the benefit of the crditors than the assignees could
the watchman on Sundays,
possibly have done : and witness knew if he had told the
assignees of the discharge of . .
shop, and
not
they would immediately have closed the forward 1
of coming
given Mr. Thelwell another chance
with security. His reason for rt.
Tbelwell. He told
informing the assig-
nees was out of friendship to air.
him it would not do to let the assignees know, other-
wise it would put a stop to the whole negotiation._ Did
not think Mr. Thelwell was acting incorrectly. He
as Hes.a.ac-
knowledged he was remiss in not informing th
nese that the watchman had been discharged on Sundaysl
immediately after Mr. Thelwell we's
premises on the 13th of August. excluded from the
Re-examined—Mr. Thelwell's negotiation with the
assignees had not closed on the 13th of August ; one
part of it was that Mr. Thelwell would have to pay
expense.
The letter from' tl4 Irish NfaUistrate, and the deposi-
tions. taken by him, having been handed up to the bench,
Mr. Saunders asked to have the prisoners remanded till
the parties could be brought over from Irelend.
Mr. Greene opposed the remand, as -far as Mr. Thel-
well was concerned. Mr. Thelwell had shown every
disposition, at ail times, to give al the information in
his power to the police, or to appear any time when
the Court thought proper to call him before it. In point
of fact, there was not the slightest evidence in the world
against Mr. Thelwell. First of all, he was shown to
be altogether absent from the place ; he went from
Lancaster direct to London. It was attempted to
throw suspicion upon him, because a large heavy box
left the Manchester station the same night, and crossed
Mr. Thelwell on the way the supposition being that
he had girt hold of that box: But heft was that to he,
made out? The box undoubtedly left the •Matchester•
station by the Manchester carriages, but the train from
Lancaster consisted of different earriegee, which were

attached to the other at Parkside. It had clearly been
a passenger's box, otherwise it would have appeared in
the bill ; there would have been carriage to hi paid on
it at London, and it might have been kuo•.vn from the
porters what had become of it. And, assuming that it
contained all the stolen property, there was no connec-
tion shown between it and Mr. Thelwell. What had
been Mr. Thelwell's conduct ? Had he not come down
to Manchester immediately when desired to do so
by Sawley ? Then, with regard to the discharge
of the watchman from attendance on Sundays,
it was evident that Mr. Gillow himself thought
there was no necessity whatever for his continu-
ance. As to the duplicate keys, thero was no evidence
in the world of any such existing, still less of Mr. Thel-
well being in any way connected with them. Mr. Thel-
well's brother, or Mr. Pat Rafferty might have had some-
thing to do with the robbery for aught that appeared,
but there was no evidence affecting Mr. Thelwall.

Mr. Saunders contended that there was a very strong
case made out against Mr. Thelwell.
After a conversation the Magistrates consulted, and
then said, that without expressing, any opinion as to the
probability of his being implicated, and thereby affecting
his character, they felt bound to call on him to find two
sureties in 1,0001. each for hi: appearance on that day
week.
Moobay was also required to find sureties fur his ap-
pearance on the same day, when the parties in Ireland,
whose evidence has led to this disclosure, will be brought
forward.

PRICES OF FOOD AT HOME AND

ABROAD.

The price of white wheaten bread of the first quality,
at Paris, is 70 centimes the loaf of 2 kilogrammes, which
is scarcely equal to 6d. for the four pound loaf of Eng-
lish weight. Bread of the first quality is sold in Lon-
den at 10d. for the four pound loaf. The best descrip-
tion of bread is, therefore, 66 4-6ths per cent. dearer in
London than in Paris. There is a second quality of
wheaten bread made in Paris, of which the price at
present is 54 centimes for the loaf of 2 kilogrammes, or
41d. for 4 pound loaf of English weight.
The highest quotation of the best flour in Paris on
the 4th instant, was 65E the 159 kilogrammes, which is
equal to 40s. I Id., the sack of 280 pounds English
weight. The highest price of flour at Mark-lane yester-
day was 625. the sack. Flour, therefore, is 511 per
cent. dearer in London than in Paris, where a man can
buy 281 b. of the finest flour for 4s. Id., whereas is
London he can buy only 181 b. for the same money.
The highest quotation of white wheat at Paris on
the 4th instant was 35f. for the 14 hectolitre, which
equals 535. 3d. the quarter. The highest quotation at
Mark-lane on Monday was 80s. per quarter : wheat,
therefore, is 49 2-3ds per cent. dearer in London than
in Paris; or a man can buy in London only one bushel
of the best wheat for ten shillings, while in Paris he
can buy a bushel and a half for the same money.
At Arras, on the 2d instant, the best wheat was sel-
ling at 23E the hectolitre, or 525. Bd. the quarter ; at
Amiens, on the 3d instant, at 22E 50c. the hectolitre, or
51s. 6,1. the quarter ; at Dieppe, on the 3d instant, at
22f. the hectolitre, or 50s. 4d. the quarter ; at Nevers,
on the 2d instant. at 20f. the hectolitre, or 455. 10d. the
quarter ; at Nantes, on the 2d instant, at 181. the hec-
tolitre, or 41s. 3d. the quarter ; and at Tarascon, on the
Ist instant, at 25f. the hectolitre, or 575. 3d. the quar-
ter. At Nantes, therefore, the port where the purchases
of French wheat for the EngliTh market are most fre-
quently made, wheat is 91 per cent. cheaper than in
London.

At Danzig, on the 2d instant, the highest quotation
for the best wheat was 535. per quarter, free on board.
There were several English vessels in the port at that
date ; but as it was known that the duty would be up
again in England to a prohibitory point, none of those
vessels could obtain cargoes, though willing to accept of
very low freights.
At Konigsberg, on the Ist instant, the highest quota-
tion of wheat was 525. 6d. free on board.

Cured India beef of the best quality is now selling at
Hamburgh at 5/ 6s. the tierce of 3361 b. For the same
quality Si. is charged in London. The best cured beef,
therefore, is 50 per cent. dearer in London than in
Hamburgh. The best navy beef (the quality generally
used for victualling the Royal Navy) is selling in Ham-
burgh at 4L 14s. the tierce of 3041 b. The British Go-
vernment, as we first stated this day week, lately made
a contract fur 15,000 tierces, of the same quality for the
use of the navy, and the average price at which the con-
tract was closed was 71. ss. 2d. a tierce. Government,
therefore, paid 2L lls. 2d. more for each fierce of beet
than the present current price at ll•smburgh ; conse-
quently the country has, on this contract for navy beef,
been subjected to a loss of 38,3751, which may be looked
upon as so much money taken from the tax-payers of
the United Kingdom, and handed over to the landed
aristocracy. At the same time, a contract was closed for
16,000 tierces of navy pork, at an average price of
71. 3s. Sd. the tierce. Pork of the same quality is now
selling at Hamburgh at 4L 17s. 6d. the tierce ; on this
part of the contract, therefore, the country has been
mulcted in the. sum of 21. 6s. 2d. for each tierce, or in
the gross amount of 36,9331. 6s. Upon the 31,000
tierces of beef and pork purchased this year for the use
of the navy, the people of England hare been obliged
to pay to their own aristocracy 75,308/. 6s. more than
they would have had to pay had there been a free trade in
foreign- provisions. The present fixed importation duty
on cured meat is 12s. per cwt.
The best fresh beef is retailed in Hamburgh at 4-id.
per pound, in London at 9d. The best fresh mutton is
retailed in Hamburgh at 4d., and in London at Bd., but
it must not be forgotten that the mutton is of an in-
ferior quality in•Hamburgh, which is not. the case with
beef. The best fresh pork is retailed in Hamburgh at
41d. a pound, and in London at 9d. The importation
of fresh meat into England is totally prohibited.
In New York the prices of fresh meat, though in ge-
neral somewhat higher than in Hamburgh, are consider-
ably lower than in London. The best beef at Now York
costs 12 cents. or 6d. per pound, and the best mutton sd.
Perk is retailed in New York at 6 cents. or 3d. per
pound, which is less than is charged for it either in Lon-
don or in Hamburgh.
An ox in London, fit for making into India beef, awl
weighing about 700Ihs. without the offal, will cost about
25/.; the same description of ox, fattened in Holstein,
would cost in Hamburgh about 121. in autumn, and
about 151. in spring. The people of England, however,
can derive no advantage from the comparative cheapness of
cattle in Hamburgh ; for let the price in England be
ever so high, the importation of live stock is, at all times
and under all circumstances, positively prohibited.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES' COURT, Oct. 12.
SINGER V. UPTON.

This was a writ of elegit to inquire as t) the amount
of property within the bailiwick of the Sheriff of Lon-
don, possessed by the defendant, a Mr. Thomas Upton,
of Bow Church.

Mr. ROGER s stated the case to the Jury, and said that this
was a writ to ascertain what property the defendant was
possessed of, in order that the plaintiff might obtain satis-
faction for a debt due to him from defendant of 1811.75. 7d.
The defendant was possessed of certain houses in Bow
Church-yard, which he held under a lease of twenty-one
years of the Rector and Churchwardens at the yearly
rent of 4501. Some time ago the defend-
ant entered into an arrangement with his
creditors, and at the meeting he stated to them that he
had let this. property for 7951., leaving him a clear yearly
income of 3451., and also that a part was unlet, which,
when occupied, would bring him in 30a. more.
Several witnesses were called to prove these facts, and an
estate agent, who had valued the premises, being called,
stated that part of the property was unoccupied ; he
valued the property, now let to be about a clear yearly
rental above-alleharges of 2001.

The Learned UNDER SHERIFF having summed up,
the Jury returned, a verdict, " that the defendant was
possessed ,of an interest in certain property within the
bailiwick of tho Sheriff* of Landon of the clear yearly
value of 200/. per annuli).

• DOCKING V. MOON.
This'was an action to recover the sum of 71. 6s.
being the balance of an account.
The plaintiff was a licensed victualler, and resided at
Henfield Lock, New Eemonton, and his house was situated
near to some Government works. The defendant 'was a
labouring man, employed in those works. The defen-
dant, together with the other workmen, was in the
habit oe dealing with the plaintiff, and he sup-
plied them with various articles of food and
provisions: When the workmen applied to him for ar-
ticles he did not sell, he was in the habit of lending them
money, which was put down to their account, and
settled at the end of the month. This com-
menced in the year 1833, and several of the
accounts having gone into arrear the plaintiff called
a meeting of the workmen together, and they agreed
to pay oil: their several accounts by instalments. The
defendant was one of the parties to that agreement, and
`The defendan
paid his instalments up to 1837, since which the plaintiff
could, get no more from him.
secondly, the st:tul3treeaodfuldim
Witnesses fiitrasttionths.e several issues ; and,
esaes were called to prove the facts of the decla-
ration, and the (Fury returned for the plaintiff for the
full amount.

INSOLVENT
(Before Alrur.
MATTER
Commissioner DEB TOR' S COURT.
BowEN.)
IN THE
The insolvent was the
°P
jriAeltoErs CeRTIS.
of the Lion and
Lamb tavern Hounslow, anpdrop
Mr. COOKE appeared on behalf
petition to be discharged.
of several creditors,
appeared in Court on his.
and called
Mr. Charles-Verney, who said he wa
into
and appraiser, and was employed by the solicitor n
soa auctioneer
l property
ieitor to the
assignees to take an inventory of the insolvent'soin
and stock-in-trade at Hounslow. On g
room of the tavern he perceived a peculiar .dam a hack
one of the walls indicating that it had beenlnss on
re-
cently papered, and upon examining it closer he
found it to be a secret door which he caused
to be removed, and inside was found a large amount
of property, consisting of furniture, wines, wear-
ing apparel, Fcc. In another part of the house was a
similar closet, in which. he found a number of boxes,
containing account books and papers. amongst which was
a will executed by the insolvent's father-in-law, devising
tE)perty to his (insolvent's) wife. This person upon
Whig asked how the property came to be secreted here,
replied that she believed. it to have been placed there
by her brotbix4n-law, who bad since occupied the pre-
mises, and about ten months back passed through the
Insolvent Court.
The insolvent was remanded to prison for a period
not exceeding. ten calendar months from the date of
his vesting order.
IN-TEE NATTER OF JOHN STANCLIFFE JAMES.
- The appliCation of the insolvent to be discharged
401(1.er:the Act. Was opposed,in person...by Mr—Aiten,..a,
osheidm
of ,
to
of books fdisromp
bookseller, on the grounds that he obtained a quantity
whiocitlhe'r%s'er in a
the trades
afterwards

The insolvent, in his examination, slated that
he had originally been articled to. afi Attorney;
and that he had afterwards studied fur the Church,
hut eventually was placed in a situation in
Somerset-house, and was allowed an annuity by his
father, whith was paid him through the hands of a gen-
tleman named Lumley.- He was likewise opposed by a
person named Rutledge, who, on the suggestion of the
insolvent's Counsel, Mr. Cooke,lagreed to withdraw his
opposition upon receiving the sum of 121. 65., being the
amount of money advanced to the insolvent on a draft
made payable by Mr. Lumley, which was dishonoured.
A great many other creditors' names were inithe sche-
dule, none of whom, however, appeared in opposition.
The case was then adjourned to afford time for the ar-
rangement with Rutledge.