The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-08 00:00:00

his wife, and meant to keep it for his fare. Smith
swore the girl had no purse in her pocket when she
was undressed. The prisoner promised to call
again next morning, but he did not, and Smith did
not see him again until he was in custody. A cab-
man named Parsons gave evidence to the effect
that on the night in question he saw the prisoner
in Broad-street, St. Giles's, about 12 o'clock, and
he asked him to lend a hand to help him over the
road with a young woman he had with him who
was drunk, and for whom he had engaged a room
in George-street. The prisoner having remarked
that she was a friend of his, the witness said if
she was, and was respectable, that was not a
proper place to take her to, and that he'
ought to take her to a coffee-house. The
prisoner replied that he knew the place he was
going to take her to was one of safety, and that he
had tried to get her a lodging at a coffee-shop, but
she was so drunk that they., would not take her in.
As the prisoner persisted in taking her to George-
street, he refused to help him, but he watched them
into the house referred to. This witness, in- cross-
examination, stated that he heard Smith say to the
prisoner at the public-house, that if he, the pri-
soner, would give him half-a-sovereign, he would
take it all upon his own "nut ;" but Smith; most
positively swore that he never said anything of the
kind. In consequence of information received
through Mr. Ashley,. the
.prosecutrix's master,
Lambert, 68 F, made inquiries into the case, the
result of which was that he went to a public-house
in Mary-street, Hampstead-road, where he found
the prisoner, and took him into custody. When
told what the charge was, the prisoner said, " Oh,
I know all about it. I have taken the money to
the Bow-street police-station," and handed the wit-
ness a receipt, signed by Inspector M'Kenzie, of
that station, for a purse, £l, and a set of studs.
The officer told him the sum stolen was £1 19s. 6d.
when he said, "No, there was only .£1 6s. in the
purse when I found it ; I wish to tell you all about
it, but I hope you will not say anything to injure
the waterman.' He then stated that after he had
taken the girl to 4, George-street, and put her to
bed, he went back to his cab, which was left in
charge of the waterman, and,on looking in the cab
he found the purse (which; h • prosecutrix identi-
fied), and on looking in it he found £1 6s. ; that he
put the sovereign in his own pufse, and out of the
6s. paid ls. 6d. for the lodgings; that he then gave
the purse to the waterman, who took 2s. out of it,
and the remaininr, half-crown was spent between
him, the waterman, and the man who assisted him

to take the younc, woman to George-street. On the
29th of July the prisoner did go to Bow-street
station, and handed to the inspector on duty,
Mackenzie, a purse, a sovereign, and two pairs of
studs, and said he had found them in his cab on the
morning of the 28th of July. The inspector ob-
served that he was behind time, that the law was
that all property so found must be delivered up
within 24 hours. The prisoner made an excuse
that he did not know that, being unable to read,
and gave the following account how he came in
possession of the articles :—" I was on the rank in
Holborn, top of Chancery-lane, about 10 o'clock, on
the night of the 27th, when I was hailed by two
young women, one of whom got in and ordered me
to drive to iiondon-bridge. On getting there I
found she was so drunk I did not know what to do.
I brought her back to Broad-street and got her a
lodging at 4, George-street." The inspector said
that was a brothel, and it was something very
extraordinary—who was the person ? He did not
know, but said he went to the house next morning
and could not find her, and he did not want to get
into trouble by keeping her money. The inspector
then gave him the receipt, which the prisoner gave
to Lambert afterwards, and the prisoner said the
purse when he found it contained £1 is. 6d., and
that he paid the Is. 6d. for her lodging. ,
Subse-
quently he said the purse really contained £1 65.,
' but as to any of the woman's clothes he left them
with her at the house, and that if they were gone
the people in the house must have done it. That
was the substance of what he stated before the
magistrate. a
-

The prosecutrix, in her evidence in chief, stated
that she was positive she never gave the cabman
any other direction than to go, to Covent-garden or
Charing-cross, and that the public-house where the
driver stopped and gave her a glass of ale was on
this side of London-bridge. Neither she, the ser-
vant LucYPaynter, nor the waterman of the Isling-
ton cab rank, could identify the prisoner as the
cabman who took her up. "When she recovered her
consciousness and found herself in such a miserable-
looking place she cried out " Where am I?" and
finding the door locked she shook it, and a woman
came up. She asked her how she came there, and
the woman told. her a cabman brought her, and she
then told the woman her money and clothes were
gone. The woman refused to lend her a pair
of boots, and she borrowed a pair from a person
next door to go home in, and when she did get
home she at once told the housekeeper and the other
servants what had occurred, and an inquiry was
at once instituted. In cross-examination she said,
the sister for whom she borrowed the money lived

in Blue Anchor-road, Bermondsey, and she left her
place on the 27th with the intention of going to
her. She was positive she did not say it was too
late for her to go home, and ask the cabman to get
her a lodging. She had never been intoxicated
before, but might have approached it once or twice
at Christmas or some other holyday-time. She was
sure she had not the slightest recollection of get-
ting into a second cab that night, and that she had
her glass of ale on the way to Covent-garden, and
most certainly on this side of London-bridge. If
she had gone to the Surrey side she must have
known it, as she knew London very well.
Parsons, in his cross-examination, said he. heard
Smith say that the prisoner was a fool to think of
giving the money up at the station, and that if
half of it were given to him he would take all the
blame ; but the prisoner said he would give it up,
and as to the clothes they were stolen after he left
the woman in the house, and he knew nothing of
it.

Mr. Ribton made a very able address to the jury
for the prisoner. After reviewing the circum-
stances of the case, he suggested, as a solution of
the whole affair, that the prosecutrix having
reached Holborn changed her mind under the in-
Hence of the drink she had taken, and hired
another cab (the prisoner's) to go to her sister at
Bermondsey, as she had intended when she set out
in the morning ; else for what reason on earth
could the prisoner have taken her to Bermond-
sey ? She admitted that he gave her a glass of
ale, that was at the Sussex Hotel, which the
and after she had drunk
prisoner
itshe
becameacknowledged,
drunk, and in that state, of
course, afraid to go to her situation ; she asked
him to procure her a lodging, and begged of him
not to take her to the station-house on account of
the disgrace that would follow. He took her back
to Holborn and tried to get a lodging at a coffee-
house, but she was so drunk they refused to take
her in, and as a last resort he took her to this house
in George-street, where he left her ; and if she was
robbed of her clothes it was by Smith, whose oath
was not worth a rush, or some one else in the house.
Smith found it very convenient to say the prisoner
left him at the publichouse, so as to make it appear
probable that he went bask to the house and broke
open the door of the room to rob the woman ; but if
he had done so why did he go back next morning
and actually go to the police station and deliver up
the purse and money ? It was not proved that he
was the cabman who took her up at Islington ; in
all likelihood she discharged that cab, and being
tipsy hired the prisoner to take her to Bermondsey..
On the way she lost her senses, and he could not
ascertain from her the right address. Under all the
circumstances, he submitted that there really was
no ground at all for this very serious. charge against
the prisoner, and that he ought to be acquitted.
Mr. Creasy then summed up, and after minutely
goily, through the evidence, told the jury that, even
if they did not think the prisoner gave the girl the
ale, whatever might have been in it, to deprive her
of consciousness for the
purpose of carrying out an
intention of robbing her, or if they thought he
might have had no base intention in taking her to
such a place of infamy, as he did, in St. Giles', still,
if they believed the evidence of Smith—and it was
entirely for them to judge as to what that evidence
was worth, regarding it in relation to the circum-
stances of that part of the transaction, the prisoner
had undoubtedly committed a larceny in ransack-
ing the girl's pocket after they had got her up stairs
and carrying off the contents, part being subse-
quently used by him to procure gin ; and, further,
admitting that he found the purse and money in the
cab, he appropriated part of it to himself according
to his own account. The case would receive an at-
tentive consideration at the hands of the jury,
with
whom it entirely rested.
The jury
retired. In a short time they came into
court, and said they foundthe prisoner guilty of
simple larceny.
It was then proved that the prisoner had kept
two brothels in the neighbourhood of the Hamp-
stead-road before he took to cab-driving.
Mr. Creasy said the jury had found the prisoner
guilty of larceny only, by which he understood
them to mean that they acquitted him of that most
serious charge of having diabolically plied this
young woman with drugged drink for the purpose
of robbing her and taking her to an infamous place
with, perhaps, still worse intentions. Had he been
found guilty on the first count the Court would
have sentenced him to a very long term of penal
servitude ; fortunately for him the jury had not
come to that conclusion. Treating this, therefore,
as a case of simple larceny, as the jury had found
it, he should sentence the prisoner to 10 months'
hard labour.
The trial lasted seven hours and a-half.