The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-13 00:00:00

Somerset-street of V, in company of two young
men he did not know. Walsh denied that she had
anything to do with the robbery, and M'Voy now
stated that it was a made-up tale.
The prosecutor's brother was called as a witness,
when

His Lordship remarked that it was quite unne-
cessary to bring a witness at the expense of Go-
vernment to prove that there was a privy in Leeds.
He had observed the same thing before in the Leeds
cases, and he hoped the taxing officer would take
care not to allow the expenses of these unnecessary
witnesses.

Mr. Compton, the taxing officer, said they were
bound over to appear.
Mr. Baron Watson said the magistrates' clerks
ought to know their duty, and not send unneces-
sary witnesses.
The jury found the prisoners guilty, and they
were each.sentenced to four years' penal servitude.
Immediately upon receiving her sentence the
female prisoner made use of some disgusting lan-
guage to the judge, and, seizing a pair of handcuffs,
she threw them with great violence among the pri-
soners who were in the dock. The officers had
forcibly to remove her, his lordship observing to
the jury, " Now, gentlemen, you see you are not
far wrong in your verdict."
Daniel Hanson, 34, was charged with having, on
the 18th June, at Hipperholme, assaulted Sidney
Ellis, and stolen from his person a silver watch,
4s. Bd., a bunch of keys, and a basket.
Mr. Blanshard appeared for the prosecution ; and
Mr. Campbell Foster defended the prisoner.
The prosecutor, it appeared, is a schoolmaster,
residing at Lightcliffe, near Halifax. He arrived
by rail at the Lightcliffe station, at half-past 10
o'clock on the night of Friday, June 18, and he
then proceeded towards his house, which is about a
quarter of a mile from the station. On arriving
halfway home three men walked behind him, threw
him down, and rifled his pockets of his money. He
kept his hand still on his waistcoat pocket, in which
his watch was, when one of the men, tearing his
hand away from his waistcoat, knelt upon his arm
and took his watch. At this time he was held by
the throat by a man behind him. , The man who
took his watch he was quite certain was the pri-
soner, though he only saw him for an instant, as
the men all then ran away over a wall, taking his
basket, which contained some groceries, with them.
He afterwards saw the prisoner in the gaol at
Bradford, and identified him among six or seven
other prisoners. He denied that he had then ex-
pressed some doubts about his identity, but did not
then prefer the present chargé against him. The
prisoner was in custody for some other offence, and
was discharged, and he was not taken again into
custody until three weeks afterwards on the pre-
sent charge.
For the defence it was contended that the pro-
secutor was mistaken in the prisoner's identity,
and that he had expressed himself as uneasy in his
mind since at having sworn to him. Witnesses
were also called who proved that at the time of the
robbery the prisoner was sitting having a glass of
ale with a friend in a beerhouse four miles from
the scene of the robbery, and at 11 o'clock was
seen to enter his own house, immediately on leav-
ing the beerhouse.
His lordship asked the prosecutor if he could
make anything of the case after this ; it was a very
weak one to begin with.
The learned counsel after what his lordship had
said, would not press the case any further.
The prisoner was then acquitted.