The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-04 00:00:00

MARY LEBONE.

Richard Richards, living at No. 3, Weir's-passage,
Somers-town, was placed at the bar before Mr. Long
for further examination, charged with having stolen
birds of paradise, ostrich, osprey, and other splendid and
valuable feathers, to the amount of upwards of 2001.
The prisoner was asked if he had any answer to make
to the charge, and he replied that ho bought the Leathers
found at his house.—He was fully committed for trial.
W RSHIP- STREET.

John Hackett, brother of the notorious George
Hackett, whose daring escape from the Model Prison
excited so much attention some months since, and a
well-dressed young woman named Mary Ann Kiug,
were charged upon suspicion of being concerned with
others not in custody in stealing three bales of silk, of
the value of 113/., the temporary property of a carrier
named Pope, and also upo❑ another charge, the particu-
lars of which were as under:—

On or about the 9th of May last several bales, or
rather ballots, of unwrought silk were consigned from
one of the foreign silk houses to a manufacturing firm
in Spitalfielda, and upon reaching Southampton were
forwarded to town by that railway. While in the course
of its transit Mr. Pope, an extensive carrier in Tower-
street, became the legal owner of the consignment, and
upon sending one of his carts to the warehouse to re-
ceive it, three of the bales, of the above value, were found
to have been stolen before they reached their destination.
Information of the robbery was immediately given to
the police, and Sergeant Teekle, of the H division, and
Inspector Bridges, of the Thames-police, were instructed
to trace the thieves, but no clue could be obtained to the
silk till a month or five weeks ago, when information
was forwarded them that silk of that peculiar descrip-
tion had been offered for sale by the prisoner Hackett at
3s. or 3s. 6d. pund. A scheme was then laid to entrap
the prisoner, but he succeeded in not only evading the
officers himself, but also in concealing the locality of
some stabling he was known to have until Saturday
morning se'nnight, when they traced him to his stables
at Pentonville, and pounced upon and secured him with
handcuffs. On telling him the nature of the charge he
stoutly denied all knowledge of the silk, but upon the
cffisers searching the stable they discovered a quantity
of canvass wrapper corresponding with that usually em-
ployed in covering silk bales, and matching other
wrappers handed to them at the docks for that purpose,
but torn into strips, apparently to prevent identification.
Upon searching further an illicit still was found, set in
brickwork, ready for working, and, their suspicions
being excited by the peculiar mariner in which a large
cask was concealed by a number of bags and sacks, they
searched that also, and found inside a large tin can,
partially emptied of its contents, but still containing
seven gallons of turpentine. Tne spirit the prisoner
claimed as his own, having, as ho said, taken it in ex-
change for some spirits of wine he bad sold to some
French polishers he dealt with, but be declined saying
of whom ho had received the can itself, and this was
afterwards sworn to, from the initials stamped on it, by
the warehouseman of Messrs. Gahoy and Wills, whole-
sale oilmen in Shoreditch, as their property, but to
which of their customers supplied he could not tell.
Upon this state of facts the prisoner Hackett was re-
manded on Saturday week, and upon his being trans-
ferred to the van, for removal to the House of Detention,

his wife and the other prisoner King pressed forward
and urgently demanded his name. The prisoner con-
fusedly answered them " Hackett," upon which one of
the women exclaimed, " - it, you fool!" in a tone of

vexation, and the prisoner was carried away.
A Mr. William Watkins, an oil and colourman at
Camden-town, was now in attendance, and stated—The
can and turpentine produced by the police are my pro-
perty, and were sate at my door between six and seven
on Friday evening week, bat stolen at ten. I had them
from Messrs. Gabey and Wills, with whom I deal, and
on the next (Saturday) evening the prisoner King en-
tered my shop and said, " You had a bit of lark here
last night, didn't you?" I said, " Yes, I had, for some-
body had stolen a large can of turps." " Well," said
she, " I have come to pay for it. Four men, car-
penters and shoemakers, all with wives and families,
were out for a spree and got intoxicated, and, taking
your can away without knowing what was in
it, kicked it about till they smelt something de-
vilish strong." I said they could not very well have
done that, it was so strong and heavy, but it did not
matter, and, showing her my invoice, explained that I
had sold three gallons, and that she had, therefore, to
give me 1/. 9s. 3d. She said they had only given her a
sovereign, and on her representation I consented to take
it, gave her a receipt, and promised, if she brought me
the can back to allow her si. more. She, however, did
not bring me the can, and I never saw her again till
now.
sergeant Teakle said he saw the female pris"ner out-
side the court that morning, in company of Hackett's
wife and mother, and, after cautioning her, asked if she
had not been to the last witness's house, and paid some
money, and got a receipt? " Oh," said the prisoner,
" You have told me I am not bound to answer your
questions unless I like, and I shall not, therefore. tell
you;" upon which he took her into custody and placed
her at the bar with Hackett. The sergeant added, that
he had then several witnesses in c Curt to establish pos-
session of the stolen silk against Hackett, but, as he was
still in want of the evidcncd of two more witnesses, one
of them a constable, and should much prefer, in further-
ance of the ends of justice, that they should all be ex-
, amieed together, he trusted the magistrate would grant
a remand until the requisite testimony could be ob-
tained to complete the case.
Mr. Heritage, who was retained for the defence,
strongly protested against the remand upon such incore
plete evidence, as being unjust towards his client, and
expressed an opinion that, even as regarded the second
charge, the testimony adduced was wholly insnfficient to
justify the male prisoner's detention.
Mr. HimattLL, however, said that he not only felt it
his duty to grant the interval the officers asked fur, but
that he consid"red the evidence upon the second case so
conclusive that he should send both the prisoners to New-
gate for trial upon it.