The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-20 00:00:00

are discharged from giving a verdict. Not having
recorded a verdict you are entitled to no fees.
The jury then left the box.

MIDDLE SEX SESSIONS.—.March 18.

(Before the Assistant Judge.)
Jacob Demolins, 40, described as a pianoforte
tuner, was indicted for stealing a picture, the pro-
perty of George Henry Christie and others (Messrs.
Christie and Manson).
Mr. Platt was counsel for the prosecution.
The prosecutors were the well-known auctioneers,
of King-street, St. James's, and the case, as proved
by the evidence against the prisoner, was, that he
frequented their auction-room, and stole two pic-
tures, one of a pair by C. Ruysdael, which had been
sent for sale to Christie and Manson's, but which,
having been stolen, had not been put in the cata-
logue. The prisoner sold the picture to a dealer,
and information having been received, he on offer-
ing another painting for sale, was given into cus-
tody, when he said he had been employed as an
agent to sell them for a man named " George" of
whom he could give no further account, name, nor
address. That the pictures were stolen from Christie
and Manson's rooms was admitted, but the prisoner
declared that he did not steal them, but was em-
ployed by " George" to dispose of them. It appeared
that the prisoner had frequented auction-rooms for
the purpose of examining and testing pianos. He
was found guilty, and he then said he could produce
witnesses as to his former good character, and to
show that he had worked'at pianoforte tuning, and
the learned judge postponed the sentence until the
end of the week, to afford him an opportunity of
doing so if he could.
Anaise Chantegrenill, 28, was indicted for steal-
ing four yards of silk and other articles, value £2O,
the property of Joseph Ruttens, her master. Mr.
F. 11. Lewis prosecuted; Mr. Cooper and Mr.
Gresham appeared for the defence.
This case occupied a considerable time, but the
circumstances were very simple. The prisoner, it
appeared, escaped from a place in the South of
France, called Oreillac, having defrauded a num-
ber of creditors, and went to live for a while in the
Rue [St. Honore, Paris, whence she came to Lon-
don, via Havre-dc-Grace, with passports in false
names. Being a first-rate milliner, she was em-
ployed by the prosecutor, or rather by his wife,
Madame Ruttens, milliner, 64, Berners-street, at
£52 a-year with board and lodging. It was proved
that she had been making up bonnets, &c., with the
prosecutor's materials, on her own account, and a
great number of remnant pieces of silks, ribbons,
lace, &c., sworn to be the prosecutor's property,
were found in her possession. The r roof of identity
of some of the articles was singular. Some of the
ribbons had been purchased of a Coventry firm, on
account of the distress prevalent among the wea-
vers, and Madame Ruttens produced the corres-
ponding pieces, also a piece of silk, a portion of
which her own bonnet was made of, and was of
peculiar manufacture, and value, cost price 16s. a
yard. The prisoner said she had these things in
lieu of wages, but that was not only denied by the
prosecutrix, but her wages book was produced,
which showed that she had been paid. Suspicion
having fallen upon the prisoner she was watched,
and was detected carrying off a bundle which she
had secreted, and which contained portions of the
property laid in the indictment.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the As-
sistant-Judge sentenced her to 12 months hard
labour, and observed, that in her own country with
her antecedents she would no doubt have received a
sentence of a severely penal character.
Mr. Albert, interpreter in the case, communi-
cated the sentence to the prisoner, and ehe again
said she was not guilty of felony.
The prisoner was the mother of a child by a gen-
tleman in Paris, who had settled upon her 10,000
francs for its maintenance, to be paid in monthly
sums, and the bond, by which it was secured, was
ordered by the Court to be given up to her friends.
Charles Keen, a young man of very respectable
appearance, and stated to be well connected, was
indicted for stealing six bracelets, the property of
George Hooper Stone, and another two brace-
lets the property of Adolf Jahn and another,
his partner; and further for stealing two
bracelets, the property of the said Adolf Jahn and
another. He pleaded guilty.
Mr. Kemp appeared for the prosecution, in-
structed on behalf of the Clerkenweil Precious
Metals Protection Society, and stated that the pri-
rvia ea was undoabtedlv well connected, but had
a or his reap—
to defraud tradesmen of valuable jewellery bt7ti'Ce-
lets chiefly, which he either pawned or sold to re-
finers. Some he disposed of to Mr. Bryer, of Bar-
bican, at 655. per ounce, which were afterwards
sold at 70s. One was produced out of five sold
there, and two Mr. Bryer said had been sold to a
Mr. Levy, of South-street, Finsbury ; two, his
assistant thought, 'had been melted. The Assis-
tant Judge said refiners ought to be very careful in
receiving such property, and ordered the one brace-
let produced by Mr. Bryer, and two produced by a
pawnbroker, on which £l5 had been advanced, and
any other which could be found and identified, to
be restored to the owners. His lordship sentenced
the prisoner to 12 months' hard labour.
Mr. Bryer produced a testimonial of a first-rate
character of the prisoner, by whom he said (and
produced the account) he_had lost £167.
The prisoner, who seethed much dejected, and
said not a word, was then removed.

" TOUTING" IN PRISONS AND POLICE

CO URTS.

At the Guildhall Police-court, yesterday. Isaac
Sturt, a porter in the employ of Messrs. Hutton
and Co., Berlin wool and fancy warehousemen, of
Newgate-street, was brought up for final examina-
tion before Sir J. Musgrove, relative to the charge
of robbing his employers, in whose service he had
been for 30 years, of property to the value of about
£2OO ; and Mary Winter, described as a char-
woman, was charged at the same time with receiv-
ing the property knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., conducted the prosecution;
Mr. Wontner appeared for Winter ; and Mr. Lewis,
jun., for Sturt.
The circumstances of this case have already been
reported, and the depositions being now complete,
the prisoners were fully committed for trial. After
which, _ _

Mr.Wontner said, now that the case was disposed
of, he wished to draw the attention of the magis-
trate to a system of " touting" for business in the
prisons by persons representing themselves as soli-
citors, which was at once disgraceful to the parties
acting in that manner, and prejudicial to the in-
terests of the prisoners under remand. Having
already appeared for the prisoner Winter on seve-
ral previous examinations, he, after the last hear-
ing, had occasion to send his son to Holloway pri-
son, where females under remand are confined, for
the purpose of taking further instructions for her
defence at the next examination • and he was very
much surprised to find that his Client had already
been visited by a " Mr. Bramwell," of 17, South-
ampton-buildings, or some one representing him-
self as Mr. Bramwell's clerk, and that, consequently,
his (Mr. Wontner's) son could not be permitted to
see her. He could not at first conceive how Mr.
Bramwell could have been introduced to her, but it
afterwards occurred to him that this person might
have been retained by the other prisoner in the
case to defend them both, and he accordingly insti-
tuted inquiries at Newgate, where Sturt was con-
fined, and there ascertained that a man of the name
of Empson, who called himself Mr. Bramwell's
clerk, there being no solicitor of the name of Bram-
well of 17, Southampton-buildings, either in the
" Law List" or " Post-office Directory,
Sturt and asked if he had a solicitor, or if had seen
he should
act tor him. Sturt, he found, bad not employed
this Empson to appear either for him or for the
female prisoner, and he therefore thought it his
duty to expose the system, as such a mode of ob-
taining business was contrary to the practice of the
respectable portion of the profession, and most dis-
reputable in the parties adopting it; and he hoped
the aldermen of London would assist him in putting
a stop to this obnoxious system by preventing the
practice of it in the City prisons. It was within
the province of the visiting magistrates to prohibit
such persons from continuing to obtain business in
that way.
Sir J. Musgrove asked Mr. Wontner
if he
suggest any plan which would have the effect of
suppressing the evil!
Mr. Wontner said the evil might be co
if
could
the gaolers were instructed to refuse ad re
v missionen t ed
to
such persons, unless the prisoners stated they had
engaged them.
Sir J. Musgrove said there was an order of the
Court of Alderman, that none but their solicitors
and articled clerks should be allowed to practice as
advocates before the magistrates of the City police-
courts, and he, for one, would never allow that
order to be infringed; bat to prevent persons visit-
ing prisoners was quite a different thing, as they
must be tender of the rights of the party accused,
and take care that no unnecessary obstacles are