The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-22 00:00:00

THE GREAT GOLD ROBBERY.

FANNY KAY AND THE TURKISH BONDS.
Yesterday, prior to the opening of his business in the
courts, Mr. Baron Martin heard an application in his
private room, Westminster Hall, upon the subject of
the property seized by the police after the apprehension
of Pierce, Burgess, and Tester, the three prisoners last
week convicted in the great gold robbery case at the
Old Bailey. An application had been previously made
on behalf of the South-Eastern Railway Company, that
the property of the convicts might be given up to them,
as being a portion of the proceeds of the robbery. On
that occasion the application was refused, and it was
arranged that due notice should be given to all the
parties concerned before a formal renswal of the appli-
cation, after affidavits duly made.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Rees (solicitor) now appeared
for the South-Easter❑ Railway Company; Mr. Sleigh,
for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex; Mr. Lewis,
for the convict Burgess ; Mr. Wontner, for thy con-
♦ict Pierce ; and Mr. Beard (from Buchanan's), for the
convict Tester.

Mr. Under-Sheriff Crosley was also present, as well
as Mr. Saward, a solicitor, and brother to Seward, the
forger, and now familiarly known as "Jew, the
Penman."

Mr. Baron Martin commenced proceedings by calling
upon Mr. Sleigh to say anything which he might wish
in opposition to the claim of the South-Eastern Rail-
way Company.

Mr. Sleigh said the sheriffs were anxious that the
property taken from out the possession of the prisoners
should get into the proper channels, and as there was no
proof of its being a portion of the proceeds of the rob-
bery they claimed it on behalf of the Crown, as being
clearly entitled to it as the property of convicted felons.
Mr. Lewis objected that the judge bad no jurisdiction
in the matter, as Burgess had, before his conviction,
executed a deed of trust conveying the property to the
had& of trustees for the benefit of his wife and children,
and that therefore the property was not in point of law
the property of Burgess at the time of his conviction
and could not be claimed by the Crown as the property'
of a convicted felon.

Mr. Beard said Tester had taken exactly the same
steps as Burgess before his conviction, and therefore the
objection which applied i❑ the one case applied equally
so in the other.
Baron Marti❑ expressed his regret that his brother
Wines, who sat with him en the trial, was absent, and
said he had understood that all parties were agreed upon
the course to be adopted, and that there would be
no objection to the delivery of the property into the
bands of the sheriffs, for the Crown to decide upon
its application.
Mr. Sleigh directed attention to the affidavit of Mr.
Rees, where it was admitted that the property taken
from Pierce was in Agar's possession before the robbery
took place.
Baron Martin said he had read the affidavit, but he
thought it would be best for him to adjourn proceedings
till a future day, when any of the parties might come
before him with such affidavits as they might think
proper, and when he might have the assistance of his
brother Willer.

Mr. Savvard said that he wished to state that he was
a creditor of Pierce, and that he had attached the Turkish
Bonds taken from him.

Mr. Wontner—l think it right to mention that this
man is the person who wrote the authority which I
received from Agar, to hand over the proceeds of the sale
of his bank stock to Pierce, and therefore it is quite
certain he must have known something of the transac•
tion at the time. I feel bound to mention this.
Proceedings were then adjourned till Monday next.
The property involved in the settlement of this appli
cation amounts to about 2,6001., principally Turkish
Bonds, found i❑ Pierce's possession, but belonging to
Agar (or rather Fanny Kay and Agar's chili), 6001.
belonging to Burgess, and 4001., (also Turkish Bonds),
belonging to 'rester.