The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-18 00:00:00

THE si:.)N, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, • NOVEMBER 18,. 18b9.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Nov. 17.

(Before the Assistant-Judge.)

Wm. Mickley, 50, was indicted for , feloniouai:
stealing L 3 195., the money of John Stroud. ire.
surrendered.

Mr. Ribton was for the prosecution ; Mr. Cooper
defended the prisoner.
Ann Stroud, the wife of th 3 prosecutor, the land-
lord of the Clarendon public-house, 52, Cambridge-
street, Pimlico, deposed that cn Sunday afternoon,
the 6th inst., she was in the parlour of her house
when she saw the prisoner pass by the door inside
the bar. The house was closet at the time, and the
prisoner must have' secreted himself somewhere
when the doors were shut. She, on seeing him, got
up, and he then tried to get cut at
.the front door.
Witness demanded to know what he did there. He
replied that he had fallen asleep in the back yard,
and did not know it was so late. His tale was told
in so plausible a way that she believed it, and
opened the door and let him cut, but when she got
back to the bar she found all the money gone from
a shelf on which the takings were kept. She did
not know the amount, as she had not counted the
money over, but the barman had.
William Grayson stated that he was asleep in the
parlour, when Mrs. Stroud called him on missing
the money. At half-past three he had counted the
money taken since opening the house at one o'clock,
and it amounted to £3 19s. He ran after the pri-
soner and came up with him in Warwick-street, a
short distance from the house. I (said the witness)
asked him if he had just left the Clarendon ; he
said he had, and I then brought him back to the
house, and I then asked him if he had taken any
money from the bar. He denied having done so,
and I sent for Mr. Stroud, who came down stairs,
and said to the prisoner, " Come' where's the money
you've took ?" The prisoner at length put £3 10s.
on the counter, and I asked him where the other 9s.
was. The prisoner said he had no more, but if they
would let him go, he would get 9s. and make it all
right. A constable, was sent for, and he found a
sovereign in the prisoner's cap. That made the
amount of gold £3 103. right, bat the prisoner had
put upon the counter £2 10s. in gold and £1 in
silver, so that with this sovereign he produced 1 ls.
more than we had missed. The prisoner admitted
that he had cleared the money from the bar shelf.
He had made the same admission to the policeman
who was called In.

Mr. Cooper, on behalf of the prisoner, said he
could not resist the evidence for the prosecution,
but urged that the prisoner really was drunk r.t
the time, and had fallen asleep in the backyard.
On going through the house he unfortunately
caught sight of this pile of money, and no doubt
he took it. He was a man of hitherto good cha-
racter, a sewerman, with a large family dependent
upon him for support.
Witnesses were called to character.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the As-
sistant-Judge sentenced him to three months' hard
labour.

Adolphus Gibson, 14, was indicted for having
stolen four silver watches, a gold one, a brooch, and
other articles, the property of William John Am-
herst, his master. He pleaded guilty.
William Gibson, 16, and Caroline Gibson, 17,
his brother and sister, were indicted for feloniously
receiving the same, knowing them to have been
stolen.

Mr. Orridge was counsel for the prosecution ;
Mr. Metcalfe defended the prisoners William and
Caroline..

The prosecutor was a pawnbroker carrying on
business at 14, St. Albans-place, Edgware-road, and
the prisoner Adolphus was in his service as wareho ase
boy. The trial lasted a considerable time, but the
facts of the case may be very briefly stated.
Adolphus had been in the habit of carrying watches
and other articles, which were unredeemed pledges,
off his master's premises, as it would seem, by .se-
creting them in the legs of his Wellington boas.
He was detected, and he admitted he had taken the
things home to his brother and sister, and other
prisoners. William was in the service of Mr. Fol-
kard, of Blackfriars-road, and the constable found
in that prisoner's possession some of the stolen pro-
' perty, and it turned out that he had stolen a gold
pencil-case from his master. Other portions of the
stolen articles were found in the possession of the
girl Caroline, who was in a good situation, and
whose mistress attended and gave her a most ex-
cellent character. When questioned about the pro-
perty she prevaricated a good deal, to screen, it was
suggested, the criminality of her younger brother,
which then for the first time she became aware of,
and ultimately she produced a gold watch and
chain from her bosom, she took a ring from her
finger, and when questioned about a brooch, she at
first said it was at home, and then that she had
pledged it, and at the same time gave up the ticket.
On going to the house of the father of the prisoners,
a highly respectable man, an auctioneer and ap-
praiser, who had six other children, the prosecutor
and the constable found two or three small articles
which had also been stolen, and the prisoners
Adolphus and William had disposed of others.
While this was going on the prisoners' father was
lying dangerously ill at Manchester, his wife being
in attendance upon him, and the first intimation
they had of it was seeing an account of the exami-
nation of the younger prisoner before the magis-
trate in the papers. The father at once sent the
mother to London, and she had the painful duty of
telegraphing to inform him that the other two were
in custody.
Mr. Metcalfe made a very able defence, and
argued that the prisoners IVilliam and Caroline
had been deceived by' Adolphus, who represented
to them that all the things he brought he had taken
as wages, that they received them certainly, but
without the slightest knowledge of their having
been stolen.

The jury found them guilty.
The Assistant-Judgesaid it was a melancholy case,
and his duty was a painful one. The best course
he could take with respect to the younger prisoner
would be to sentence him to three years' detention
at Feltham Reformatory, which he did, and upon
the others, who undoubtedly had received these
things, knowing how their brother had come by
them, he should pass a sentence of 12 months' hard
labour each.

Wm. Allen was indicted for assaulting „Wm
West, police-constable 248 G, while in the emcee.•
tion of his duty.

The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Cooper ;
the prisoner was defended by Mr. Sleigh and Mr.
F. H. Lewis.

It appeared that the prosecutor was on duty in
Orchard-street, St. Luke's, when he found the de-
fendant in a state of drunkenness, quarrelling and
fighting wit ii another man who passed as his brother.
He interfered to Ecparate them, when he was as-
saulted by the prisoner, who kicked him in a man-
ner likely to disable him for life, and he had to be
placed under the care of Mr. Mather, of Dunhill-
row, the divisional surgeon, who thought the kick
likely to result in a rupture.
For the defence two witnesses were called, a
young man and the wife of the defendant's brother,
who gave evidence flatly contradicting the police
and denying the kick, but
The jury found the defendant guilty, and recom-
mended him to mercy on account of his family.
The Assistant-Judge asked the jury if they be-
lieved or placed any reliance on the evidence of the
two witnesses for the defence ?

The jury said they diTna..
The Assistant-Judge then ordered the man into
custody, and reprimanded the woman for having,
as both be and the jury thought, come forward to
tell that which they knew to be untrue. But for
her sex he should have sent her to prison too.
Mr. Lewis said he hoped this would not prejudice
the case of the prisoner, who being so drunk at the
time that he had no knowledge of his own of what
took place ; he had, of course, relied upon the state-
ments these persons had made as to the transaction,
and if they were untrue he could not be responsible
for their coming forward. He had believed from
them that he had not been guilty of the violence
imputed to him.
The Assistant-!udge said that was an ingenious
suggestion, but he could see no ground for it. A
gross and brutal assault had been clearly proved,
and he should pass upon the prisoner a sentence of
six months' hard labour. The witness would re-
main in custody for the present.