The Sun.
London, England, 1804-02-16 00:00:00

was usually placed in thelock on the ontside ; they
were therefore constrained to break it open. Some
drawers and other depositaries were found to hare
beeen forced open; and from these the articles laid
in the Indictment were taken; these• were pro.
duced, and duly identified by the Prosecutor and his
Wife. On evidence to this effea, no sati4aaary
defence having been made by the Prisoner, the jur,t
pronounced a verdict of—Guilty--Death.
This Prisoner had been tried previously on
charge of a similar nature, in stealing from the
of a Mr. Middleton, who occupies the hou to
next to that of Mr. Parker above mentioned; rae
evidence adduced was nearly the same, save the
circumstance of 4 diffl!rent. Prosecutor. On this
case the verdict' was Guilty of stealivi o,1.1), wifich
did away the capital part.

/Jerrie/ /1/PG ann,- a private in the zoth Regiment
of Light Dragoons, was charged with a capi, pl of.
fence, in feloniously stealing, cn the 17th :of Janu-
ary, a Bank of England Note,' value 51. th r pro-
perty of Timothy Drury.

The case against the Prisoner almost solelr rest-
ed on the testimony of Geo. Nyndes, a com7ade .of
his. It appealed that both lodged irrthe T.iouse of
the Prosecutor, who keeps the King's Arms, in
New Round Court, S:rand. Hyndes s..zited, that
or. ere day above.:menioned, he lay t.U',%.'n 'on his
bed between 7 and 8 in the morning; he had lain
down in consequence of indisposition. In sothe time
after, the Prisoner came into the room (in which lie
alio lodged) but he could not tell ev.raly.what time
it was. He staid a few minutes, when he went out
and ro,k t!-:e key with him after locking the door.
Th. Will c.! said, he immediately got out of bed,
at.ki•laced his eye to the key-hole,' to observe the
Prisoner's motions. The door oi the landlord's bed-
isimber, it appeared, exatily fronted that of the sol-
dier's lodging-room. He observed the Prisoner un.
lock the door of the room opposite, go into- the room
for a short time, come out and lock the door after
him. He could not see what he did within the room.
He then returned to the bedroom, where the Wit-
ness was, staid a few minutes longer without say-
ing a word ; he then went away. The Witness did
not obServe to the Prisoner what he had just seen
him do.- On being questioned as to his motivesfor
getting out of bed and looking through the key-
hole after the Prisoner, the Witness said, it was
not in consequence of any suspicions he had har-
boured of the Prisoner he had done so.

• The Landlord-(Drury) spoke•as to the loss of the
note, which he described as having been deposited
in a chest in his hed-roorn; he saw it a few days
before it was .taken ; he had never seen the note
since, nor did he recoiled the Number of it, eze.
Mrs. Drury corroborated the account, and added,
that the only particular reason which she had to
sUspe6i the Prisoner.of the theft was, that in a day
or two after it- was lost, he appeared rather " flush
of money."
This was the sum of the evidence adduced against
the Prisoner, as applying to the charge in
queStion. One of his Officers (Captain Reynolds)
-spoke favourably as to his chaP.adter , and after Mr.
Baron Flovimq had summed up, the Jury, without
hesitation, found a verdict of Net

Richard Anderson was conviaecl on the capital
charge of hurglariously breaking and entering .the
dwelling-house .of joieph Liversedge Tuck, and
stealing therein three silver watches, his property.