The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-27 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

THE CHARGE OP ROBBERY AGAINST A TRADESMAN.—The
two men, Morris and Phillip, who stood charged with
stealing a large quantity of sugar, the property of Messrs.
Seward; and Mr. Cornelius Belcham, a grocer, in Drury-
lane, where he had carried on business for more than 20
years, was charged with feloniously receiving the same,
well knowing it to have been stolen. There was also
another charge made against Belcham, viz., feloniously
receiving a large quantity of tea which had been stolen
after its delivery at Beal's Wharf.
The first witness examined this morning was,

Henry Taylor, a clerk at the London Docks, who proved
delivering to Seward's carman a hogshead of sugar on the
12th of March. It weighed 17 cwt. 1 qr. 171 b. He could
not swear that Morris was the person.
Mr. Samuel Wrode, foreman of the East and 'West India
Dock Company, said on the 12th he delivered a hogshead
of sugar to Seward's carman, weighing 18 cwt. 1 qr. 231 b.
Mr. Beard said that would complete th• sugar case, and
he would now proceed with the charge of feloniously re-
ceiving the tea, which affected only the prisoner Belcham.
Mr. Bousfield, delivery foreman of Beal's Wharf, Tooley-
street, said on the 12th March he delivered 10 chests of
tea to order. Six were numbered 411 to 416, and four
178 to 131. He could not identify the carman. He had
examined the chests found at Belcham's house, and three
of the six produced had contained a portion of the tea he
had delivered on the occasion to the carman.

Georgo Rose, carman to Messrs. Camplin, said he re-
ceived the tea from the last witness. He then drove his
cart into the lane leading from the wharf and left it for
about two minutes, and on his return he found the horse,
cart, and tea gone. Ho searched about and made inquiries,
but without avail, and could hear nothing relative to the
robbery of the tea. On his return he communicated the
matter to his master.

In cross-examination the witness said he was given into
custody for stealing the tea, but after four remands he was
discharged.

Police-constable Ackritt said—On the 12th of April he
went to Belcham's premises in Drury lane, and found there
a quantity of tea and some empty chests. The three pro-
duced he found in the cellar beneath the shop. When he
discovered the chests Belcharn said, " Oh, they have been
in my possession over twelve months." At that time he
was not aware of the robbery of the tea.

In cross-examination Ackritt said Sergeant Mathews and
he were present when Belcham made that admission
about the possession of the ten chests. They found
11 tea chests. Four were down stairs and the rest in the
shop. They could not be seen until the sacks which
covered them were removed. The prisoner was in the
cellar when the conversation took place, and he would
swear the other two officers were present. Prisoner said
there was one of the chests found in the shop ho had had
18 months ; but that remark did not apply to the chests
found in the cellar.

Police-constable Doudall said he was with Ackrell when
the chests were found in the cellar. He recognised the
chests produced from the fact of there being marks of the
action of firo on each of them. He heard Ackritt say
something to Bolellam, when he replied, "Oh, I've had
these chests in my house more than a twelvemonth." He
made that assertion more than a half dozen times. This
was said in the hearing of Sergeant Mathews. Witness
made some remarks about the burnt marks about the place,
where the marks had been, and Beleham said he had
bought the tea from a man over the water, where there
had been a fire, but he did not know who the man was.
He would swear positively that Belcham said ho had had
the tea-chests now in court more than 12 months. In

one of the chests found on the premises the sample of tea
now produced was found.

Mr. Taylor, recalled, said the tea taken from the chest
had not been damaged either by fire or water. lie pro-
duced a sample of tea ho ought to have received on the
12th of March, and it was precisely of the same descrip-
tion as that produced by the police.

This being the whole of the evidence, Mr. Lewis, who
appeared'for Belcham, contended that the charge against
his client had entirely failed as the warrant put it, as the
stolen tea bore the date of delivery on the 9th of March
and not on the 12th as had been stated. There was no
evidence to show that Belcham had received it other than
in the ordinary course of business:

A number of witnesses were called, who spoke to the
prisoner Belch= as being looked upon by his neighbours
as an honest, upright man.

Mr. Flowers said he had decided upon sending the case
for trial.

Mr. Lewis asked, under the circumstances, that his
client might again be admitted to bail.
Mr. Beard, who appeared for the prosecution, said ho
should object to that, because the case against the prisoner
Belcham now presented a very different aspect to that
which it did on the last occasion ; and, moreover, he had
two officers in attendance who would prove that Belcham
had been long suspected as a wholesale receiver.
Mr. Flowers said he admitted the prisoner to bail on the
first occasion, and he thought if he could now produce
responsible bail he ought to accept it again.
The prisoners were fully committed for trial.
Bail was then accepted for the prisoner Belcham in two
sureties of £5OO each, and himself in £l,OOO.