The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 18, 1858.

of a mediatorial priestly power. I cannot but ear-
nestly- trust that :the discussions on this subject
which have lately arisen, and even the improper
heat which has been excited, will be overruled by
God to make men more cautious how they trifle
with any of these dangerous weapons, by which
some of our clergy have been disposed of late vainly
to think that they might strengthen themselves
by borrowing from the armoury of Rome." With
regard to penal discipline, in case it should be re•
quired, his lordship said :—" All I can distinctly in-
timate on, this public occasion is, that if what I
deem a dangerous systematic invitation and admis-
sion of their people to confession is endeavoured to
be maintained by any clergyman in this diocese, I
shall feel myself bound to watch his proceedings
very carefully, and shall hold him most deeply re-
sponsible for any evils that ensue; considering care•
fully, in each particular case, what power the law
gives me to correct what is amiss. One thing I
wish to add, that if I have abstained hitherto
from giving in any church distinct directions on
this subject, it has been because I have re-
ceived no assurance that my directions are likely
to be obeyed. Clergymen who seek to intro-
duce this bad system may indeed express a general
readiness to follow my advice as to modes in which
they will carry it into practice, thus endeavouring
to gain for it the aid of my authority. On such
terms lam not likely to give advice. What I do
advise and urge is, that they abstain altogether from
seeking to introduce among their people ally sys-
tematic and habitual confession such as I have
described." . •

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Nov. 17

(Before Mr. Pashley, Q.C., Assistant-Judge, at
Westminster.)
Mary Ann Davis, the woman who was convicted
on Tuesday of robbing a"policeman of a £lO note,
&c., was put upon her trial yesterday morning, with
Edwin Shaylor, described as a picture dealer, for
feloniously breaking and entering the shop of
Henry William Johnson, in Gloucester-street,
Clerkenwell, and stealing therein 110 ounces of
silver wire, the property of him and others. They
were also indicted as receivers.
After the examination of several witnesses,

The Assistant-Judge summed up the evidence,
and the jury found Davis guilty- of receiving the
property, knowing it to be stolen ; and Shaylor, of
breaking into the premises and stealing it.
Sentence on the prisoners was postponed, the
police stating that additional information could be
furnished respecting. them by the next sessions.
Mary Aun Carmichael, 22, Sarah Harper, 21,
Frances Jordan, 26. and William Jordan, 34, were
indicted, Carmichael for stealing a gold watch,
value £35, the property of John Williams, from his
person, Harper and Frances Jordan for receiving
the same, and William Jordan for being an acces-
sory after the fact, and for unlawfully endeavour-
ing to prevent the apprehension of the prisoner.
Carmichael..

The prosecutor, who at first gave the name of
Johnson, but afterwards stated that he lived at 3,
Central-avenue, Portman-market, and was named
John Williams, accompanied Carmichael to a
brothel kept by the Jordans, 1, Stephen's-court,
Marylebone, and while there she robbed him of his
watch. -

Carmichael and Harper pleaded guilty.
The evidence of several police constables proved
the case against the other two prisoners, and they
were found Guilty.
Carmichael and the two Jordans were each sen-
tenced to six months, and Harper to four months'
hard labour.

Ann Thompson, 19, was indicted for stealing. in
the dwelling-house of Charles Lyne, a timepiece
and other articles, value £7, and a pair of boots and
other articles, the property of William Mosely.
Mr. Abram prosecuted; Mr. Gent defended the
prisoner.
A police-constable of the N division stopped the
prisoner in the Caledonian-road carrying a large
bundle, and on his asking her -where she got it
from she said she was carrying it for a man who
had promised her a shilling for so doing. He took
her in charge, and the contents of the bundle proved
to be the proceeds of one of four house robberies
committed during the preceding night.
The jury found her guilty of feloniously receiv-
ing the property.
She had been summarily convicted three times,
although she called a witness to give a good cha-
racter, ~ •

The court passed upon her a sentence of twelve
months' hard labour.

George Freeman, a youth, the son of very re-
spectable parents, was indicted for stealing in the
dwelling house of the Right. Hon. the Earl of
Malmesbury a watch, value £6 Os. 'Bd. the, pro-
perty of JOhn Clements, one of his lordship's ser-
vants. He pleaded guilty. Evidence was given
as to his previous excellent character, and no rea-‘
son could be assigned for his .committing the theft
other than he had been suddenly tempted by see-
ing the watch lying in the butler's pantry, et Lord
Malmesbury's, and no one by. The prisoner was
sent to his lordship's residence on an errand from
his employers, who were lamp manufacturers, and
unfortunately could not resist the opportunity of
stealing the under butler's watch, which he pawned
next day for £2.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced him to three
months' hard labour, and hoped that he would en-
deavour to regain that high character which his
friends had given him.
John Stantion, 26, bricklayer, was indicted for
unlawfully assaulting Benjamin Armstrong, a police
constable, in the execution of his duty. He pleaded
guilty. The prisoner was known as a desperate
character, and the assult was a very violent one.
The court sentenced him to nine months' hard
labour, and to enter into a recognisance of £5O to
keep the peace for two years.
Mr. M'Carthy, 18, a shoe-black, and Henry
Proctor, 20, labourer, were indicted for stealing an
overcoat, the property of W. H. Norton, from
shop in in the Strand.
Proctor pleaded ;linty. M'Carthy protested his
innocence but his participation in the theft was clearly
proved by ther'porter of King's College Hospital,
who, in pursuing him, was knocked down by an
omnibus and narrowly escaped being run over.
The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced
to six months hard labour. A former conviction,
and a sentence of twelve months, were proved
against Proctor, whom the Court sentenced to
three years' penal servitude.

(Before Mr. Creasy.)
Edward Clark, 26, traveller, was indicted for
fraudulently obtaining, by false pretences, the sum
of 13s. from Ambrose John Whiteman' with intent
to defraud; he was also indicted for fraudulently
obtaining, by false pretences, the sum of 16s. 6d.
from Margaret King. There were six other counts
charging the prisoner with similar offences.

H. -.Lewis prosecuted ; the prisoner was
undefended.

Mr. Lewis, n opening the case, said the prose-
cutor was a Mr. Burrell, trading under the name
of Clothier and Co., in Houghton-street, Clare-mar-
ket, and was a general printer and paper bag
maker. The prisoner was engaged by him as tra-
veller, and was allowed a percentage on all orders
he obtained, which produced him a weekly sum of
20s. to 255. He entered the prosecutor's service in
May, but was not entitled to receive any money on
account of his employer, but merely to take orders,
and on their being returned to Mr. Burrell, he
charged his commission for having obtained them.
At the end of July the prisoner,, without giving
any notice, absconded from his employment, and
nothing more was heard of him until the end of
October, when he was given into custody. At no
time had the prisoner authority to receive money ;
but it appeared that after he had left Mr. Burrell's
service, in the month of August, he went to Mr.
Whiteman and received money on the part of his
employer.
Mr. Ambrose John Whiteman said he carried on
business at No. 22, Princes-street, Notting-hill, and
on the 22d of July the prisoner waited upon him
and solicited orders. Witness gave him one, with
an understanding that he should have three months'
credit. Soon afterwards he brought a bill, and ap-
peared to linger about as if he expected payment,
when the -witness remarked that the tune had not
arrived for doing so. .The prisoner remarked that
he supposed that it was not convenient then to pay
the bill, and witness replied that he did not know
about it not being convenient,-but there was a dis-
tinct understanding that he should have three
months' credit, and those three months had not
expired. The prisoner then ,said, " Why, the fact
is that I am collecting for this house, and for all the
money I can collect this month I am authorised to
make an allowance of 21 per. cent." Upon that
representation he paid the prisoner, and received a
receipt bearing the name of the prosecutor.
Margaret King, in the employment of Mr. Duffy,
proved paying the prisoner in July tie sum of
16s. 6d. on a similar representation.
Mr: Burrell, the prosecutor; said it was the.pri-
soner's duty to collect orders, for which he received
10, 15, and 20 per cent. He left his employment
in July without notice, and the next time he saw
him was iri October, when he was in custody. He
had no authority to receive money.
The prisoner, with considerable effrontery, cross-
examined this witness, and endeavoured to elicit
that he had given him authority to receive moneys
on his account, which was positively denied.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
William Wall, City police-constable 121, proved
that the prisoner was tried at the Old Bailey on
the 18th of August, 1856, and sentenced to six
months' hard, labour on a charge of embezzlement.
Mr. Creasy said he felt sure, from the prisoner's
demeanour in the dock, that he was familiar with
charges of embezzlement, as it appeared he had
already had six months' imprisonment for that
offence. However, he would protect society from
him for some time to come, and now santenced him
to be kept in penal servitude for three years.