The Sun.
London, England, 1804-01-16 00:00:00

dual their own good sense suggested to

the Al.

Aged twenty _two.

Fl rlliam Naylor aria irdt;Lvx Ankles were charged
with a misdemeanor, in_unlawfully, knowingly and
wilfully, by false pretences, obtaining from Jane
Pridmore iSo glass bottles, the goods of Thomas
lamieson, with intent to defraud and cheat him the
said Thomas Jamieson.
The Prosecutor it appeared had some dealings
with Mr. Dunbar, of Fore-street, 'a wine and spi-
rit selftr, for glass bottles. On the 73th of Decem-
ber the prisoner Anktes came tol the house of the
Prosecutor and informed Jane Pridmore, a servant of
his, that he (the Prisoner) wa• sent,•by Mr. Dunbar
for five dozen of bottles, which she accordingly let
him have. The following day Ankles came, accom-
panied by the prisoner Naylor, they asked fu;
more bottles ; accordingly lane Pridmore, taking
it for granted that they were the servants of Mr.
Dunbar, let them have, without farther inquiry,
ftSo bottles, or /5 dozen. • •
The Prosecutor stated the nature of the dealing-
between him and Mr. Dunbar for bottles ; and Mr.
Doncan Dunbar, so far from having authorised the
Prisoners to bring away any bottles from Mr. lonic-
son declared that, he never had seen either of them
before he saw them in the Justice Room :at Guild

The Ricoßns observed, that a difficulty- oh.
tained in the case which must be fatal to the died
f the present indiament. The two Prisoners were
indified together for a fraud, in obtaining under
false pretences, fifteen dozen of glass bottles, the
property of Thomas Jamieson. This charge was
not substantiated by the evidence. The first day
Ankles came by himself, and pretended that he came
from Mr. Dunbar, and by that means obtained five
dozen of bottles—on the following day the two
Prisoners came together, not a word is said upon
whose account they came, or by what atr.hority,
and Mrs. Pridmore taking it for granted they were
the servants of Mr. Dunbar, let them have 5 dozen
of bottles—had the indidment'been laid for their
having conspired together, the case would be dif-
fereor, but here the charge was for obtaining under
false pretences, therefore, as the inditiment was
laid, the charge was not made out by the evidence.

Under these observations from the Learned RE-
CORDER, the Jury pronounced a verdia of Not

IPill;am Naylor was then charged with unlaw-
fully, knowingly, and by false pretences obtaining
from Jane Pridmore, on the I 3th of December, sixty
glass bottle,, the goods of Thomas Jamieson.
The evidence in support of this second indictment
was a repetition of that given on the former case,
and Jane Pridmore was positive that the .Prisoner
said he came from Mr. Dunbar, on which account
she let him have the five dozen of bottles in ques-
tion—and no difficulty obtaining as with respell to
the former case, the Prisoner was forthwith found
Guihy.

gohis Speil was charged with a capital offence, in
burglariously breaking and entering 'the dwelling.
house of Messrs. Gibson and Altereith, on the
night of the 26th of December, and stealing therein
twelve loaves of sugar value 51. their prop-rty, and
also a shirt and neck-handkerchief, a pair of Lreeches,
a knife, scissars, and other articles, the property of
Martin Waber and others.

The Counsel for the Prosecution, in the course of
his opervng stated, that the Prisoner on being fully
deteEted with respect to the above, endeavoured to
justify his condua by saying that his masters re-
fused to pay him a part of his wages which were
due, and that he resolved to pay himself one way
or other. This, however, wasno justification either
in point of law, or in fact. If the Prisoner were
aggrieved in such a manner, he should have sought
his remedy in a fair and legal way.

In the course of the evidence, -which ran to some
length; it appeared that the Prosecutors are resped-
able Sugar-refiners, in Lime-street ; the Prisoner
was a short time in their service as an errand-porter.
Their premises, as was stated by one of the Mr.
Gibsons, who came forward on the occasion, do
not immediately communicate with the street, a
yard and a passage lie between—neither did the
sugar-house communicate directly with the dwel-
ling-house—sale warehouse lay between, and a yard,
which must be crossed to get from the dwelling to
the sugar-house. The Prisoner was -in their ser-
vice about two months—they paid him his wages
when he left them—he was not discharged, he left
them suddenly and without warning; a month's
wages, according to their invariable rule, was there-
fore deduqed—he had been three days gone when
the robbery took place.
It appeared that on .the morning of the rith it
was found the premises had been entered on the
overnight, and the articles laid in the indidment,
stolen therefrom—the articles of wearing apparel
belonged to the inferior clerks and servants of the
concern—the premises were entered from the back
ran on which side Fen-court is situated.

- One of the Witnesses, a watchman,stopped the
Prisoner very early on the morning of the 27th, near
the Prosecutor's house ; he had something in a bag
thrown over his shoulder—the watchman suspea-
ing some ill-doings, stopped :l►e Prisoner and vies.
tinned him with respe& to what he had about him—
not liking his answers, he took him to the watch-
house,.where,' being searched, the arricles in ques.
lion were found upon him. These were produced
and duly identified, the sugars on the part of the
prosecutors, and die wearing-apparel by the respec-
tive owners.

in his defence the Prisoner only urged the right
he said he had, to he satisfied for the wages his mas.
ter3 withheld from him. •