The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-08 00:00:00

I can swear. It is a single stone brilliant set in

pearls.
The landlord of the house 28, Adam street West,
Bryanstone-square, stated that the prisoner had
lodged there about seven months. He was always
a steady well-conducted man, and when he came to
lodge with him he had very excellent references,
and he should have given a good reference had he
left him and required one. The box in which the
ring was found was the prisoner's.
The manner in which the prisoner's lodging was
found out was very curious. The prisoner being
missing, a description was given of him in the name
of Marshall, as missing from 28, Adam-street, and
that description corresponding with the appear-
ance of the prisoner, it was suspected that he was
the person. A watch which he had in his pos-
session when taken into custody had the name of
Marshall upon it, and this led to the prisoner's
identification.
The landlord said the prisoner was always con-
sidered a respectable man. He was acquainted
with many respectable tradesmen. By trade he
was a house-painter and decorator, and was con-
sidered a first-class hand at his business.

The jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner
guilty.
The Assistant-Judge said the Court -would treat
this as a first offence by a person of good character,
and though the case had taken a very singular turn
in the additional evidence which had so unexpectedly
and no doubt to the prismaer's great astonishment,
been brought forward, it was in itself an ordi-
nary one of larceny from the person in the
street. The prisoner picked. the pocket, no
doubt, and did not know the value of what
he might find, a penny or a great amount,
and there was the.additional circumstance that he
had not disposed of the ring, which was one of con-
siderable value. The sentence would therefore be
six months' imprisonment, with hard labour.
(Before Mr. Creasy.)
James Sorrell, a cabman, was indicted for steal-
ing a gun and a gun-case, value £5O, the property
of Harry Bell, and George Cockram was indicted
for feloniously receiving the same with a guilty
knowledge.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted ; Mr. Metcalfe defended
Sorrell, and Mr. Ribton the other prisoner.
The prosecutor stated that he was a solicitor, of
36, Bedford-row, and on the 26th November he hired
Sorrell's cab, and drove to London-bridge. His
gun, which was in the case, was put into the cab,
and was left in it. He traced out the prisoner,
who denied having driven him at all, and knew
nothing of any gun, but subsequently it was re-
turned. It appeared that Sorrell had been endea-
vouring to dispose of the gun at several shops, and
pledged it for £5. When he went to redeem it the
pawnbroker took the money and then stopped the
gun, having received. information. The prisoners
both went to the prosecutor and asked to be for-
given, as the gun would be sent back. Sorrell ad-
mitted that he had the gun, and had given it to
Cockram, who pledged it.
The Jury found them both guilty, and recom-
mended them to mercy.
Mr. Creasy said it was fortunate that not only
did the prosecutor get his gun back, but the pawn-
broker the money he had advanced upon it. Usually
one or the other was the loser.
They were sentenced to three months' hard
labour.

George M'Carthy, 40, was convicted of stealing
two cushions, the property of Richard Tucker, car-
riage trimmer, Little Crescent-street, Euston-square.
He was an old offender, and his apprehension on
this charge was due to a poor, shoeless, homeless,
destitute boy, named Sims.
Mr. Creasy kindly gave him some assistance, to
provide him with boots and food.

The prisoner was sentenced ,to four years' penal
servitude.
Mr. C. Robertson Griffiths prosecuted ; Mr. Way
defended the prisoner.

SURREY SESSIONS, Jan. 7.

NEW COURT.
(Before J. E. Johnson, Esq.)
A PALTRY THEFT BY A GENTLEMAN.—SINGU-
LAR CASE.—John Molley, a young man, whose con-
nexions are highly respectable, was indicted for
stealing a pair of gloves, the property of Mr. Piken,
hosier, High-street, Southwark.
Mr. Lilley prosecuted, and Mr. Robinson de-
fended the prisoner.
Edward Howes, an assistant to the prosecutor,
said that about eight o'clock in the evening of the
24th ult., the prisoner entered their shop, and asked
to be shown some kid gloves. Several were placed
before him, and the latter selected a pair and paid
for them. The prisoner then asked for another pair,
and as he was going to fetch them witness
saw him put a pair into his pocket. He instantly
informed his master what had occurred, when he
came to the counter and asked the prisoner whether
he was suited. On his replying that he was not,
Mr. Picken told him he had put a pair of gloves
into his pocket which did not belong to him, and
witness was sent for a constable, and on the arrival
of the latter the prisoner was given into custody.
This witness was severely cross-examined by Mr.
Robinson, but he positively swore that he saw the
prisoner put a pair of gloves into his pocket that
he had not paid for.
The prosecutor said that when he was called into
the shop, he asked the prisoner, over and over
again, if he had any gloves in his pocket. He re-
plied that he had not. Witness, however, persisted
that he had, and sent for a constable. When the
latter had left the shop, the prisoner said "he
knew he had a pair of gloves, and he wanted
another pair for his brother." le then produced
the pair of gloves, and said he meant to pay for
them. A constable then came in and he was given
into custody.
Sergeant Gardner, 25 M, Acting Inspector at the
Stone's-end Police-station, said he was on duty on
Christmas-eve, when the prisoner was brought in
and charged by last witness. He cautioned the
prosecutor as to prosecuting the charge, as he knew
the prisoner to be a respectable gentleman. The
prosecutor, however, persisted, and the prisoner was
locked up until Monday morning, the 27th, when
he was discharged, no person appearing to prose-
cute when the case was called before the magistrate.
In cross-examination, witness said that there
were a number of persons about the court on Mon-
day morning, but the prosecutor and his assistant
were not present, although they were called three
times by the doorkeeper.
Mr. Robinson addressed the jury at some length
for the prisoner, contending that he did not put
the gloves in his pocket with theintention of steal-
ing them, but he meant to have paid for them as
soon as his brother had selected another pair. He
called—

The prisoner's brother, who stated that he was
with him in Mr. Picken's shop, when he saw him
select a pair of gloves and put them into his pocket.
He then asked for another pair for witness, when
Mr. Picken came into the shop and charged him
with having stolen a pair, and he gave him into
custody.
A number of gentlemen and merchants were then
called, who gave the prisoner a first-rate character
for honesty, &c.
The Chairman summed up, and the jury retired
to consider their verdict. After being absent three-
quarters of an hour they returned a verdict of
guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.
The Court sentenced him to 14 days' hard labour
at Wandsworth.
CONVICTION OF AN INCORRIGIBLE YOUNG THIEF.
—Cornelius Harnett, 16, alias Harrington, a young
lad, who has been convicted innumerable times for
stealing from barges on the river, was indicted for
stealing an ingot, of the value of £3, from a barge
on the River Thames, the property of Edward
William Chapman. He was also indicted for steal-
ing a quantity of bones, the property of the same
person.
The Court sentenced him to 18 months' hard
labour.

THE QUEEN V. THE PARISH OF PARNHA3I.—IN-
DICTMENT FOR THE NON-REPAIR OF A HIGHWAY.
—This was an indictment charging the parish of
Farnham, in this county, with wilfully neglecting
to repair Marins-road, leading from Gravel-hill to
Red-hill, such being a highway leading to Farn-
ham across the Common.

Mr. Garth, with Mr. Watkins Williams, appeared
for the Crown ; and Mr. Knapp, with Mr. Chandler,
for the parish.
Mr. Falkner said he had been resident near
Gravel-hill about 20 years, and his father many
years prior to that. The road in question had
always been a public one, but for some length of
time it had been in such a bad condition that it
was almost impassable. A severe storm happened
about seven or eight years ago, destroying the
road, and since then it had never been repaired by
the parish. Whatever had been done was by the
inhabitants themselves. There had lately been a
new road made about a quarter of a mile off by
the parish, and that was kept in good repair.
Twelve other witnesses were called to prove that
the road in question had always been a public high-
way, and that formerly it was kept in repair by the
parish.

It was then contended by the counsel for the
defence that it was not a public highway according
to the meaning of the act of Parliament, but only a
way used by people going towards the common and
their respective homes adjacent. It was in fact an
obligation road made by the inhabitants for their
own convenience, consequently the parish were not
bound to repair it. He called
Mr. Harris, who said he was surveyor of high-
ways, and he produced the books to show that no