The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-22 00:00:00

BO W-STREET.

On Saturday Henry Jackson, John Pritchard,
Thomas Burton, and Caroline Williams, were
brought before Mr. MINSHULL, on the charge of
having been concerned in a burglary which took
place at the house and workshop of Mr. Halfpenny,
jeweller, of No. 8, Serle's-place, Carey-street, on
the night of Thursday week, when bank-notes and
jewels were stolen to the amount of 700/. and
up wards.
Mr. MINSHULL asked Higgins, the officer, what
evidence he had against the prisoner Caroline Wil-
liams ?

Higgins replied that she had been frequently seen
in the company of Evans, the lad who had absconded,
and was observed speaking to him close to the house
of the prosecutor on the day previous to the robbery.
The MAGISTRATE observed, that although this
circumstance appeared suspicious, it was not suffi-
cient to warrant him in detaining the young woman
any longer.
She was accordingly ordered to be discharged.
___....

Higgins then said that Williams and the prisoner
Burton cohabited together, and it was this circum-
stance, together with the fact of his having been
acquainted with the lad Evans, that led to his ap-
prension.
Burton then declared that he knew nothing what-
ever of the robbery, but admitted that he knew
Evans, who about six weeks ago accosted him in
the Three Tuns public-house, Brook-street, Hol-
born, and offered him the key of his master's door,
telling him that there was plenty of property in the
house. He (Burton), however, declined the offer,
and Evans then offered the key to another man
who was sitting in the tap-room, whom he (pri-
soner) advised to have nothing to do with it. He
then kicked Evans out of doors, and had never seen
him since.

Mr. MiNsituLL said, that as there was no evidence
against Burton he should discharge him also. The
Magistrate then asked if there was any probability
of obtaining additional evidence against the other
two prisoners.
Higgins was quite convinced in his own mind that
both Pritchard and Jackson were concerned as prin-
cipals in the robbery, and he fully expected on a
future day to produce evidence to that effect.
Pritchard and Jackson were accordingly remanded
for a week.

A gentleman, who stated that he was an Irish
barrister, applied to Mr. MlssnuLL, at the evening
sitting, for a warrant against a person whom he de-
scribed as having formerly been attached to the lite-
rary department of a London morning newspaper,
and whom he charged with having, by a false re-
presentation, obtained from the lady of the house in
which he (the applicant) lodged, two letters, which
came by post from Ireland, directed to him.

Mr. MlNsituLL asked the applicant if he had ever
given the accused any authority to receive his letters.
The applicant replied most certainly not. He had
been on terms of friendship with the accused, and
had assisted him in various ways, but latterly he had
had no dealings with him whatever. On Wednesday
last, during his temporary absence, the accused
came to the house where he lodged, and represented
to the landlady that he had his, applicant's, autho-
rity to receive his letters, in consequence of ►which
representation the landlady handed him the two let-
ters in question.
Mr. AliNstruLL— Did the letters contain money ?
Applicant—I really cannot say whether they did or
not, but I apprehend that the fact of obtaining them
by means of a false representation is a misdemeanour
at common law.

Mr. MINsuuLL agreed that it was so, and told
him that if he would draw up an information and
swear to the facts alleged, a warrant might be
granted against the party charged.
The applicant withdrew, saying that he should
present the information to the Magistrate on Monday.