The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-21 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY.

Yesterday, a very respectable female, of the name of Mary
Ingrain, was indicted for stealing a rug, the property of
Dinimock, a linendraper, residing in High Holborn.
The facts proved on the part of the prosecution were these:—
The prisoner was observed in the prosecutor's shop at a dme
when it was very full of custathers. Shortly afterwards she
went out, and the rug was missed. The prisoner was traced to
a liquor-shop close by, where she had deposited the rug. She
was somewhat in liquor at the time, but not so drunk but she
knew what she was about. When she was apprehended,
about an hour afterwards, she prayed for forgiveness, and hoped
she should not be prosecuted. It appeared that the prisoner,
t the
latterp r e s eanist
or okbnbe ewr , nedo.w n
Tt oh
ethperopsrecosue.
tor stated his belief that she had a most irreproachable charac-
ter,-
cutor,previo previous
and the
previous to the present unfortunate circumstance.
wherewas swheenlikv
• A great number of very respectable witnesses, who had
known the prisoner for between 20, and 30 years, gave her an
excellent Character. She had brought up her family most
respectably, and had worked hard for their subsistence. The
prisoner had lately been unfortunate, and had indulged too fre-
quently in ardent liquors. A very small quantity of liquor
had an immediate effect upon her, and under its influence she
was perfectly unconscious of what she did.
The RECORDER, in addressing the Jury, told them that in
the eye of the law intoxication was considered to be rather an
aggravation of the offence, unless the prisoner was m such a
state of senseless drunkenness as not to be aware of what she
did. In the present case he did not think the evidence would
justify the Jury in supposing that the prisoner now at the bar
had been reduced by liquor to such a senseless state; because
it was proved, that after she had committed the offence, she
prayed for forgivenness of the prosecutor. This at least showed
on her part a consciousness that she had done wrong. It ws
very true that the prisoner had received an excellent
charactera,
a better character could not have been given to any person, but
as he had frequently observed on former occasions, character,
however excellent, would not, and ought not, to weigh against
clear and uncontradicted facts.
The Jury having considered for a few minutes, the Foreman
expressed a desire to ask a question of one of the prisoner's wit-
nesses as to the influence which liquor had upon her. He un-
derstood one of these witnesses to say that she was very easily
affected by liquor.
The RECORDER observed, that one of the witnesses had
certainly said so; hut the question here was, whether in this
instance the prisoner was so intoxicated as to be insensible.—
Upon this point the Jury would exercise their judgment.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict—Not
Guilty.
The RECORDER then addressed the prisoner, and cautioned
her to be on her guard how she again indulged in these mis-
chievous practices. She had now been acquitted by a most
merciful jury ; but she might depend upon it, that if she again
abandoned herself to these courses, she would not be so le-
niently dealt with.
Sophia Reed, a young girl of a very interesting appearance,
was put to the bar, charged with stealing apiece of meat, the
property of Samuel Somers. The girl was in so weak a
thatstate,
she was unable to stand at the bar, and a chair was pro-
vided for her.

'When the prosecutor appeared, he stated that he was not sure
that the prisoner was the girl who stole the meat. As there
was no -other evidence against her, she was immediately cc-
pitted. The unfortunate female was taken from the bar nearly
in a fainting state.
The' Jury highly reprobated the conduct of the prosecutor in
not stating his inability to prove identity to the Magistrate, and
the Court would not allow him his exPenees.
The RECORDER ordered the prisoner to be discharged as
soon as she had sufficiently recovered.
'no nnE ay Or A CIIIT Thomas Richardson and James
Groves were indicted for stealing a quantity of lead from the
roof of Stanmore Church. _

Mr. AwnrttliVS stated the ease. The property was stated to
belong to the pastor and the commissioners and the trustees of
the parish.
John Bone examined—Witness is clerk of the pad; he
.saw the lead safe on the Bth instant, and nii*(l it on.the fol-
lowing day.
Edward Barton met Grove near to the church on the evening
of the Bth of May • ho was alone.
Charles French Cleposed that he saw the prisoners in Honey-
pot-lane on the 9th with a cart; witness had heard that lead
was stolen, hence he was induced to watch them; they pro.
ceeded to a dung-hill, and took the lead from it and put it into
the cart ; witnesr followed them toldgeware' and took them
into custody with the lead in their possession, which correspond-
ed with that on the roof of the church.
Andrew Carney is a horse patrol, and assisted in apprehend-
ing the boners; they give no account as to the manner in
which they came by the lead, except that they found it on a
dung heap.
John Bodymead is a plumber, and repaired the roof of the
church. .The lead produced exactly fitted the chasm.
The prisoners made no defence, nor called any witnesses to
characler.—Guilty.

By the'Bill presently passing through Parliament, for the
regulation of the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, various provisions
are made which must have some effect upon the procedure in
future in those Courts. In the first place, the Clerk's fees are
to be regulated and established by a commission to be ap-
pointed for that effect. Extracts of decrees are to be abridged,
and the money usually consigned in the hands of the Clerk is to
be secured by depositation in the hands of a Bank. The Sheriff
Clerks, hereafter appointed, are to discharge their duties in
person, and no gratuity, whatever is to be received for their ap-
pain ttn en t. A tpresen t, in all trials before the Sheriff,whether they
proceed with or without a jury, the evidence must he taken
down In writing; but by a provision in this bill, this practice
is abolished where a Jury sits on the cas; end where the She-
riff is an Advocate of a certain number of years standing. The
Sheriff, however, is to take notes of the evidence, according to
the practice in the Justiciary Courts. The verdict of the Jury
is to beprobatioprobata of the facts of the case, and it isnot coin.
petent to impugn this verdict, unless it proceed upon evidence
legally inadmissible, and objected to on the trial, but received
by the Sheriff: Verdicts viva yam are allowed on the same pro..
visions as apply to the Justiciary Court. And no appeal or
advocation is competent against any proceeding, unless the ob.
jection forming the ground of it shall have been taken at the
time of trial.—(Edinburgh Cauraqt.)

Yesterday morning several male convicts were
out upon the Chatham stage, from Newgate, to be conveyed on
bard the hulks for transportation.