The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-12 00:00:00

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY.

In the course of this week a very extensive system
of plunder, which has been carried on for five or six
months, was cleverly detected.
About three or four weeks ago some circumstances
occurred which led to the suspicion that Messrs. T.
R. and F. Andrews, drapers, of Wolverhampton,
were being robbed to a vast amount, and that the re-
ceiver was connected with the Birmingham police
force. The information was in the first instance
communicated to Superintendent Stevens, who im-
mediately devised means by which the guilty par-
ties would be detected. He opened up a communi-
cation with Messrs. Andrews, who had not the
slightest idea, their stock being very extensive, that
property to a considerable amount had been abstracted
from their premises. From what was stated to
them, however, suspicion was excited towards one of
their assistants, named William Neale, and two of
the Birmingham detectives were sent to Wolver-
hampton, to exercise a strict surveillance over his
movements. From what they observed, there could
be no doubt of the fact that Neale was the thief, and
equally little hesitation could be felt in coming to the
conclusion that a policeman in the Birmingham force,
named Richard Mills, residing in Camden-street,
was the receiver. He also was closely watched ; and
it was found that packages of goods were regularly
sent off by Neale, by rail and omnibus, at least once
a week, and sometimes oftener, and as regularly re-
ceived by Mills. At length it was resolved, if possi-
ble, to bring the charge home to the parties. For
this purpose some portions of the stock of Messrs.
Andrews, by direction of Mr. Stephens, were
marked, on Monday last, and they were
shortly afterwards missed. Neale was observed to
send a package off by rail, and immediately
the fact was communicated to Mr. Stephens.
On Tuesday afternoon that gentleman, accom-
panied by Inspector Glossop, proceeded to the Sand
Pits station, where Mills was on duty, at the time
when it was expected the package would arrive.
Mills there received the parcel, signed the delivery
book, stating that it was all right; when Mr. Ste-
phens immediately showed himself, and took Mills
into custody on a charge of receiving property know-
ing it to be stolen. The fellow was thunder-struck,
and admitted that he bad received great quantities of
property frcm Neale, although he declared that he
did not know that it was improperly obtained.
While this transaction was taking place, Mr.
Glossop hurried off to Mills's house, and was about
to institute a search, when he observed the postman
enter the door. He handed two letters to Mrs.
Mills, which
by Mr.l Glossop. I
were
instantly snitched from her hand
was exceedingly exlceetetderinsglwyerfeortuulntaimteattehlayt
he did so, inasmuch a

found to be of the greatest importance in the case.
They were from Neale, and one of them contained
the key of the box in which the goods were packed.
The other contained directiens as to the prices at
which the prcperty was to be disposed of; but espe-
cially urged upon Mills the necessity of taking the pri-
vate mark off the goods, so as to destroy their identity,
and to get rid of any he had in hand as speedily as
Possible, as he had a suspicion that the Birmingham
police were watching him.
This was a principal link in the evidence against
them ; but stronger proofs of guilt were afterwards
found. In Mills's house was a room, fitted up as a
sort of warehouse, and there every article of an ex-
tensive drapery stock was discovered. Costly silks,
satins, velvets, prints, calicoes, stockings, gloves, rich
laces, purses, neck ties, silk pocket handkerchiefs, and
many other articles of drapery, to the amount of be-
tween 501. and 601., were systematically arranged.
Information of what had occurred was sent to Colonel
Hogg, the superintendent of the Wolverhampton
police, and to Mr. Andrews, both of whom hastened
to Birmingham, and found that the greater portion of
the property discovered could be identified.
Mills was consequently conveyed to Wolverhamp-
ton, and at the same time Neale was apprehended,
when he at once acknowledged that he did send the
goods to Mills. It was under these circumstances
that they were brought before the Wolverhampton
magistrates on Wednesday and remanded.
Since that period further inquiry has shown that
the system of plunder alluded to has been carried on
for about six months, and to an extent that was
scarcely imagined at first. It hrs been ascertr.ined.

that no fewer- than 14 bulky packages had been re-
ceived by Mills during the last two months. A book
in account with the Birmingham Savings Bank, in
Neale'a name, was found in Mills's house, showing a
deposit to the amount of 301., and on Neale himself
memoranda of deposits made in the Birmingham Bank
to the extent of 701. Further inquiry also revealed
the fact that Mrs. Mills had disposed of drapery goods
in the neighbourhood of her residence of the value of
nearly 60/., and that a young girl, named Jane Lewis
Coleshy, in the employment of a button manufacturer,
and who resided with Mills, was instrumental in
finding purchasers for articles to a similar amount.
Goods of the value of 180/. have thus been accounted
for. The list of persons to whom the girl scld arti-
cles contains the names of no fewer than 122 indivi-
duals. Jo consequence of these discoveries, both Mrs.
Mills and the girl were apprehended as accessories.
It appears that the intimacy between Mills and
Neale arose from the circumstance that both were na-
tives of the same village, situated in the southern divi-
sion of this county. Neale was generally regarded
with confidence, and Mills, who has been in the Bir-
mingham police for the last seven or eight years, was
looked upon as a quiet, steady officer, and seemingly
incapable of being involved in so serious a transac-
tion. The mode in which they did business apparently
was this :—Neale generally came to Birmingham
on Sunday, and then received the proceeds of what
sales had taken place during the week, Mills doubt-
less obtaining a very handsome per tentage by way
of commission. This is an epitome of the case, so far
as at present ascertained. Yesterday (Friday) the
whole of the prisoners were taken before Mr. Leigh,
the stipendiary magistrate, when so much of the case
was stated as would justify a second remand, which
was granted till next Friday.-Birmingham Journal.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
110 AI E CIRCUIT.— Croydon, August 11.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and a Common Jury.)
TIIE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF GRAHAM V.

JOHN WHITEHEAD AND OTHERS.

This way an indictment for a conspiracy preferred
against John Whitehead, senior, John Whitehead,
junior, and George Wyatt.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin conducted the pro-
secution; and Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Prentis defended
John Whitehead, senior, who alone appeared to take
his trial.

The offence imputed to the defendants was that of
having conspired unlawfully together to obtain from
Major Graham, and a gentleman named Head, the
sum of 1,500/., by falsely pretending that the plant
and other property in a distillery at Lambeth, which
was carried on by the defendants under the firm of
Whitehead and Co., was their own property, and that
they had consequently the power to mortgage it for
that amount. It appeared that shortly before the
month of June last the younger Whitehead entered
into communication with Major Graham upon the
subject of a loan to be advanced by that gentleman
upon the security of his lease and the plant, horses,
waggons, &c., connected with the distillery, and the
defendant represented to Major Graham that the
property was worth 5,0001. or 6,0001., and that he had.
expended a large sum in improving it. At first Major
Graham was solicited to become a partner, but
this he declined to do, and at length an arrangement
was entered into by which he agreed to advance
1,5001. to the defendants upon their executing a bond
and bill of sale, by which they agreed to pay 40/. a
month for the loan of the money for a period of five
years. It seemed that Major Graham was at first
struck with the liberality of the interest that was to
be paid, but the younger Whitehead got over this
difficulty by telling him an extraordinary tale of the
quantity of spirit that could be purchased with ready
money, by which they should save threepence a
gallon, and afterwards make a much larger
profit by it when it was worked up into different
spirits and compounds ; and at length the bond and
bill of sale were drawn up by Mr. Sandilands, the
attorney for Major Graham. This gentleman, it ap-
peared, had no money of his own, and the amount.
was advanced to him by Mr. Head, a gentleman of
fortune, with whom he was acquainted. Very soon
after the money had been advanced, it was ascertained
that the defendants were merely the holders of the;
lease of the premises, which had two years to run ;
that they had no title whatever to the plant,
and that the horses and carts used in the busines a
were merely hired, and that the property, in fact,,
belonged to a lady named Sinclair, and in the com-
mencement of the present year the firm be-
came bankrupt. The evidence against the defendants
John 'Whitehead, senior, and George Wyatt, merely
went to show that after the money had been advanced
they had countenanced the assertions that had been
made by the younger Whitehead, and had stated that
according to the value of the property 2,000/. more
ought to be advanced upon it. Upon the cross-exa-
mination of Mr. Sandilands, Major Graham's attor-
ney, that gentleman admitted that although he was
aware of the existence of a lease he did not take the
trouble to look at it ; and it also appeared that be
had handed over a considerable portion of the money
to the defendants before the bond was executed, taking.
their promissory notes as a security. It also appeared
that the defendants had been in negotiation with Mrs.
Sinclair for the purchase of the plant, &c., of the dis-
tillery, and that a sum of 1,1001. had been agreed
upon to be paid for it; but the negotiation went off
because they could not raise the amount. It like-
wise appeared that, although during the whole time
the negotiations and inquiries connected with the po-
sition of the defendants were going on, a person con-
nected with Mrs. Sinclair was upon the distillery, not
a single question was ever put to him, either by Major
Graham or any other person, with reference to the
ownership of the property.
Mr. BALLANTINE addressed the jury at some length
in behalf of the defendant, contending that the legal
offence of conspiracy had not been established, and
also commenting upon the want of proper caution that
had been exhibited, not only by Major Graham, but
also by his attorney, Mr. Sandilands.
Baron ALDERSON, in summing up, said the question
the jury had to decide was, whether the defendant
had wilfully conspired with the other two persons
whose aames had been mentioned to make the false
representation that they were the proprietors and
owners of the plant of this distillery, in order
to obtain the money of the prosecutor. He
could not help expressing his surprise that
a gentleman in the position of life of Major Gra-
ham should have been a party to a transaction which
was certainly of a most usurious character, or how
he could have been foolish enough to suppose that it
could be an honest transaction in which he was to re-
ceive 5201. a year for a loan of 1,500/. There could
be no doubt that the representations which had been
made by the defendants with respect to the property
were false ; but he must say that there had been not
only a great want of caution evinced by Major Gra-
ham, but that Mr. Sandilands had acted very care-
lessly and imprudently, when he knew that a lease
was in existence, in not asking to see it, for if he had
done so he would have seen in a moment that the re-
presentations of the defendant John Whitehead, jun.,
were false, and that the plant of the distillery was, in
reality, the property of Mrs. Sinclair, and that they
had nothing whatever to do with it. .

The jury—, after deliberating a short time in the
box, expressed a wish to retire. They were absent
about half an hour, and they then returned a verdict
of Not Guilty.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Monmouth, Aug. 9.
The assizes here closed to-day at four o'clock.
Mr. Greaves, Q.C., assisted yesterday in trying pri-
soners. All the business, with the exception of the
following charge of perjury, was disposed of last
evening. The other case was not disposed of till too
late for post.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Ears.)
Thomas Griffin Philpotts, attorney •at-law, was
charged with having committed wilful and corrupt
perjury at the last assizes for this county.
Mr. Keating, Q.C.,'and Mr. Huddlestone, conducted
the prosecution ; and Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr.
Gray the defence.
Mr. KEATING, in opening the case for the prosecu-
tion, after dwelling on the enormity and danger of
the crime of perjury generally, said that when a per-
son who appeared in a cause as an attorney was pre-
sent at the trial, understood, or supposed he under-
stood, the law on the subject under investigation, saw

a real or supposed difficulty, and tendered his evi-
d&co for its removal, it was essential that the evidence
should be true, or, if false, should be attended with
punishment. The facts on which this charge -was

founded were these :—On the 27th of March last there
came on to be tried in the next court a cause called

" Doe on the demise of Thomas Richards, v. Lewis
Lewis." It was an action of ejectment brought
by Thomas Richards to recover possession of
certain leasehold premises held by the defendant.
Mr. Philpotts acted on that occasion as the
attorney for the plaintiff. The premises in dis-
pute were held under a lease granted in 1822 to two
persons named Rhys Morgan and William Joseph.
In that action the plaintiff claimed through Rhys
Morgan, and it was therefore necessary for him to
show that Morgan was the survivor of the two
lessees, and that Joseph was dead ; and accordingly,
in the course of the cause, the plaintiff's counsel put
in with that view a document which purported to be
an office copy of the will of William Joseph, and it
was proposed to be read in order to show that Joseph
was dead. It was objected that this office copy was
not evidence, and could not be read as an office copy
of a will in any shape or way. On this Mr. Philpotts,
after communicating with his counsel, was called as
a witness, and swore that he had compared that docu-
ment with the original will in the Consistory Court
of Llandaff. It was then objected that this did not
make the document evidence, and the Learned Judge
who presided (Mr. Justice Talfourd) said to the
counsel who led for the plaintiff, " An examined copy
of a will will not answer. You must have the pro-
bate or act of probate." On which Mr. Philpotts
swore that he had examined the document proposed
to be read with the act-book and the act of probate
in the Consistorial Court. This appeared rather
strange. It was strange that he should have exa-
mined that document with the original will and with
the act-book and the act of probate. Accordingly,
the counsel fur the defendant in the action cross-
examined Mr. Philpotts very strictly, so that
there should be no mistake in the matter ; and he re-
peated distinctly, again and again, that he had ex-
mined the document with the original will, and with
the act-book, and with the act of probate; and on
being sifted in cross-examination, he gave the time at
which, the place where, the persons with whom, and
the circumstances under which he made the examina-
tion. He stated that he went, in the month of Feb-
xuary last, to the Consistorial Court of Llandaff, and
I'xar2ined the document with the original will, and
that there were present during the examination a Mr.
Evans, one of the clerks to the registrar of the court,
.and a clerk of his own named Smith. Ile was asked

about other persons being present ; but Evans and
Smith were the only persons mentioned as being pre-
sent on the occasion. The whole of the material parts
of this statement would be proved to be totally and
entirely false, and false to the knowledge of the de-
fendant when he swore them. It would be shown
that he did go on the Bth of February to the Consis-
torial Court of Llandaff; that he asked to see a copy
of the will of William Joseph ; that there is a book in
which wills are copied ; that a copy of that will was
found in that book by the officer of the court ; that he
read it and asked for a copy ; and this was between
four and five o'clock on Saturday, the Bth Feb.; that
the officer told him that he could not have a copy that
day, as the office hours had nearly expired ; that the
defendant replied his clerk could make one in ten
minutes, but was told that they never allowed
strangers to make copies of documents in the eccle-
siastical courts, and that if he wanted a copy one
would be made out and sent to him on Monday
morning ; that he then asked what was to be paid for
it, and was told the sum, and paid it and went away ;
and that the copy was made on the Monday and
transmitted by post. In fact, there was not a single
portion of the material parts of what he swore true.
It should be added that the document was still ob-
jected to by the counsel for the defendant as inadmis-
sible, and the Learned Judge said to Mr. Alexander,
the counsel for the plaintiff, that he would receive it
if pressed by the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff's
counsel said he would withdraw it for the present.
That was a circumstance which would probably be
relied on by his Learned Friends to show that the
legal crime of perjury had not been committed. But
he submitted that the document being tendered in a
cause under judicial investigation and objected to, and
this false evidence being given in order to obviate
the objection and render it admissible, the legal crime
of perjury was that moment complete, whether
the document was afterwards withdrawn or
not, and that its being withdrawn made no
difference in the crime. This case was analo-
gous to those in which perjury was assigned on affi-
davits, the jurats of which were so defective that they
could not be used in court. Another ground of de-
fence might be that the defendant went to the court
in the month of October, and by mistake said Fe-
bruary for October. But it would be shown that
when he went in October it was to go and see ano-
ther will, and not that of William Joseph, and that at
no period whatever did he compare the document in
question with the original will of William Joseph, or
with the act-book or the act of probate. It would be
shown that the original wills were kept in the record
room in the cathedral, which was a totally different
place from the office where Mr. Philpotts had been.
The practice of the Llandaff office was to keep wills in
bundles according to the date, and when after the
trial at the last assizes a search was made the original
will of William Joseph was fuund in its proper place,
never having been exhibited to Mr. Philpotts or any
other person. It appeared that, when a will was ap-
plied for, it was taken out of the office in the cathe-
dral, and taken to the registrar's-office, and there put
in a bundle by itself and kept there for a year or so,
when it was replaced in its proper place. These were
the facts on which the prosecution rested, and he sub-
mitted that they constituted the legal as well as the
moral crime of perjury. If the defendant's statement
was false, it must be to his own knowledge, for it
must be observed that when he produced the
document be stated that he had compared it with the
original will and the act of probate and the act-book ;
whereas the document was made out after he left the
office and sent to him by post, and he never compared
or examined it with anything in that office. This
statement was fully established by the evidence in
every respect, except that it was not clearly made out
for what purpose the copy of the will of William
Joseph was tendered in evidence on the trial of the
action, the counsel for the prosecution now contending
that it was for the purpose of showing inferentially
the death of Joseph, and the counsel for the defendant
saying it could not have been any evidence of that
circumstance, and that it was to explain something in
another will, which, however, did not more fully or
otherwise appear on either the former or the present
trial. On the close of the case for the prosecution,
the counsel for the defendant submitted that the con-
tents of William Joseph's will were utterly immate-
rial to the determination of the issue in the action of
ejectment. His Lordship said that was clearly so. The
Learned Counsel then contended, that as the contents
of the will were utterly immaterial to the issue in that
action, everything sworn by the defendant in
reference to them was immaterial, and conse-
quently could not be the subject of an indictment for
perjury. The counsel for the prosecution, on the
other hand, contended that though the contens of the
will were immaterial to the issue, yet the death of
Joseph was most material to it, and as an examined
copy of the probate of the will was some circumstan-
tial evidence, however slight, of his death, everything
sworn by the defendant in order to get that examined
copy admitted in evidence, was sufficiently material
to maintain this indictment.
His LORDSHIP said, that though his own private
opinion was that the law ought to be that whatever
was sworn in the course of a cause in a court of jus-
tice should be the subject of an indictment for per-
jury, yet he had not the least doubt that as the law
now stood that which was the subject of an indict-
ment must be something more capable of supporting
the issue. He would not now determine this ques-
tion, but reserve it for the Court of Criminal Appeal,
if the verdict should be against the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN then addressed the jury for
the defendant.
After his LORDSHIP had summed up,
The jury deliberated for four minutes, and then re.
turned with a verdict of Guilty.
The defendant was then admitted to bail till the
next maims, in order that the point reserved may be
decided in the Court of Appeal.
Francis Davies was indicted for a burglary on the
7th of January, in the house of Miss Hannah B. Da-
vies, at Usk, and Anne Denham for inciting him to
commit the same.
Mr. Skinner conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Smythies the defence.
This case was remarkable for the train of circum-
stantial evidence by which the guilt of the woman
was established. The principal witness was a man
named Clarke, who was under sentence of transpor-
tation for another offence. He stated that he had been
a lodger in the house of a man named John Denham,
the husband of the prisoner, who had been an officer
of Monmouth gaol, and afterwards set up the trade of
a marine storedealer that he and the prisoners and
John Denham planned the burglary in question, and
that the prisoner Anne told them that they would find
a gold watch on the mantelpiece and some wedge (a
cant word for silver plate) in a short round thing
like a stool, in the house of Miss Davies, and de-
scribed the house to them ; that, following her direc-
tions, Davies and himself got into the house and broke
open a cellaret, which they thought answered the de-
scription of a short round thing like a stool, but
found no plate in it ; nor did they find a watch on the
mantelpiece, but they found some plate in other parts.
of the house, and took it away, and also a stick,
had belonged to an old gentleman who had resided. in
the house, and a pack of cards and a bottle of spirits,
which last they drank on the road back, and which
made them intoxicated. They had used as a wedge
for forcing open a door a wooden mesh for netting,
and, in their hurry, left it behind. On their ar-