The Sun.
London, England, 1804-04-12 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY.

i'iRST DAY-WEDNESDAY, AIRIL

YFSTFRDAY the Sessions commenced at this place
letore the City Officers and Lord 14.:LLENTiORCLIGH,
Mr. jilgtiCe HEATH, and Mr. Baron THomPiorr.

irdliam Moore was-indicted for a Burglary in the
dwelling-house. of Messrs. Taylor and Co. on the
17th of Jannary last, and stealing therein a great
quantity of Bank Notei,,and Bilis of Exchange to a
.great amount.
It appeared in evidence that the Prosecutor's house
was broke open, and that the property was taken
out of the strong chest, &c. That on the third of
February last, a number of theSe notes were given
in change of two rol. Bank Notes, they being all
one-pound notes ; and that.. they were all indorsed
with names which had been altered, but there was
no evidence that the Prisoner altered any of these
indorsements.

It appeared also that the Prisoner keeps a grocer's
shop, and is, in a considerable way of trade in White
Chapel, and that,he had been at some expence in ad-
vertising person of the name of Lawrence, who
has disappeared' since this burglary has been tom.
mittcd.

in the couse of tracing the issue of these notes
out of the Bank, a Clerk appeared who had taken
extracts out of the Bank Books, to prove the parti.
culars of their being issued ; but it was. objected by
the Prisoner's Counsel, that this extract was not
evidence, for char the Bank Books ought to be pro-
; hot

Mr. Justice HEATH held, that if the witness
Lirnse:i had male this extraft, and could swear to
the truth of it, it was evidence in this case ; the
Bank B.)cks were boulcs which are kept for the
generai tbe and service of the Public : and it had
been held, over. and over again, they need not be
produced in a case of this kind. .
The Learned Judge then observed to the Jury,
that this. Burglary had been committed on the i 7th
of January last, and the time was material in this
ease. There was no evidence against the prisoner,
further thin that thes-e Not% were found in his house
on the tat of February. They were then traced
into his possession, and they were marked by the
Colle&ing Clerk of the Prosecutor, and the names
indorsed upon them had been altered ; but there
was no evidence whatever that the Prisoner was the
person who altered them :—They were found in his
possession, it was true, but that was not sufficient.
Now, if property be lost, and presently afterwards
is found in the possession of another under circuits_
.stances of suspicion, and that person gave no ac_
count of them, the infetence of Law was, that he
was the Thief. But here a fortnight had elapsed
since the theft was committed, and there was no
improbability that he took them in the way of his
trade, so there was no inference in Law that he was
the Thief ; and therefore it would be the duty of
the Jury, as well as their inclination,' to acquit
the Prisoner.

The Jury hesitated a while, on account, as they
said, that the Prisoners had no evidence.
Mr. Justice HEATH observed, that there was no
improbability the Prisoner took these One Pound
Notes in the way of his trade :—Nubody took nu.
tice of these Notes.—There was no probability that
the Prisoner stole these Notes, since he kept a Shop
of considerable Trade.—Not

William Gill, otherwise liewet,' was convi&ed
of a Highway Robbery on Mr. Brown, a Common-
Councilman of the City of London, at half past
twelie o'clock at noon, on Sunday the 19th of Fe-
bruary last, in a field by Hackney, and taking
from him his watch, and pure containing 55. 6d.—
Guilty, Death.
Recommended to Mercy by the Prosecutor, on
account of his not using cruelty to him, whilst he,
held a knife to his throat.