The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-14 00:00:00

THE GREAT ROBBERY OF SILK.

Yesterday James Hunter, late proprietor of the
Red Deer public-house in Cambridge-heath-road,
Bethnal-green, surrendered on bail at the Thames
Police-court, to answer a charge of being concerned,
with many others, in stealing 10 bales of silk, the
property of the St, Katharine Dock Company, in
March last.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., of the firm of Humphreys,
Son, and Morgan, Newgate-street, solicitors, con-
ducted the prosecution ; Mr. Leech, solicitor, of
Derby, defended the accused.
The examination of additional witnesses was pro-
ceeded with for several. hours. No clue has yet been
obtained to the actual perpetrators of one of the
most daring robberies committed in the annals of
crime. At the various investigations which took
place at this court, in April and May last, it
was not stated whether the silk was stolen
from the barge Dorville on its way from the West
India Dock to the St. Katharine Dock, in the last-
named dock, or in its transit from the St. Katha-
rine Dock to the company's warehouses in New-
street, Bishopsgate.
The witnesses examined yesterday stated that on
the opening of the hatches of the barge Dorville, in
the St. Katharine Dock, on the 14th of March,
there was a vacancy in the cargo in the shape of
the letter T, and ten bales of silk were missing.
Instead of 411 bales, the quantity delivered into the
barge in the West India Dock, there were only 401
bales.
It was elicited by Mr. Leech, in cross-examina-
tion, that the Crown locks and other fastenings
were on the barge Dorville on its arrival in the St.
Katharine Dock, and they did not appear to have
been tampered with.
The evidence of the witness Barker, the brother-
in-law, now under sentence of 18 months' impri-
sonment for being concerned in the robbery, was
read over, and he was again examined.
The object of Mr. Humphreys was to show that
Hunter was in Derby at the time Debock was there
negotiating for the sale of the stolen silk to John
Newton, the silk throwster.
Barker persisted in his denial that he bad seen
Hunter in Derby on the occasion alluded to. He
went down to Derby by the night train on the 18th
of March, at the solicitation of Debock, merely to
have a ride. He was in company with Debock
when that person was apprehended by the Derby
police with three £lOO notes in his possession. The
notes were a portion of the money paid by Newton
for the silk.
Mr. Mumford, the Superintendent of the St.
Katharine Doak Police, said that on Wednesday the
6th instant, the day Hunter surrendered, the pri-
soner said to him, in the clerk's office of the Thames
Police Court, " I was a fool or a stupid (the
exact words he could not remember)—to go
down to Derby. Barker saw me there, and came
up and shook hands with me, and said I knew his
father."
William Crane, a porter in the employ of Messrs.
Drakeford and Co., silk merchants, Old Broad-
street, London, said he knew a person named Agg,
who was for many years in the service of Messrs.
Drakeford. Agg left their service three years ago.
He knew Hunter by sight, nothing more. He did
not know of any business transactions between Agg
and Hunter. The witness then said he had been
tried at the Central Criminal Court for being con-
cerned in the robbery of the silk, and acquitted.
Mr. Humphreys—Did you give to Mr. Hudson,
your attorney, a—
Mr. Leech—l object to that question.
Mr. Humphreys—Well, if I am to be put down
by poplar clamour, I may as well sit down.
Mr. Leech—Any communications between an
attorney and his client is confidential, and cannot
be put in evidence.
Mr. Woolrych reminded Mr. Leech that he had
not allowed Mr. Humphreys to finish his question.
Mr. Humphreys said that Mr. Hudson, an attor-
ney, who defended Crane on the many investiga-
tions that took place in April and May, had sent to
him the statement which Crane made to him. He
proposed to put in the statement, and to ask the
witness whether his signature to it was not in his
handwriting. The statement had been furnished
to him for a particular purpose, and the confidence
between the attorney and client had ceased.
Mr. Leech argued in a forcible manner that the
statement was a confidential communication by a
client to his attorney, and was not admissible in
evidence.
Mr. Woolrych allowed the objection taken by
Mr. Leech. He certainly would not receive as
evidence what took place between an attorney and
his client.
Crane was then examined at great length by Mr.
Humphreys, who repeatedly cautioned him, which
as frequently brought forth an observation from
Mr. Leech that his friend was cross-examining his
own witness. Mr. Humphreys justified the course
he was taking on the ground that Crane was an
adverse witness. Crane gave the answer to the
questions put to him hesitatingly and indistinctly.
He said—l did not know Agg and Hunter as
partners. I never said they were partners. Agg
never stated to me that he was in partnership with
Hunter. I have never said that Agg told me so.
I have no recollection at all about it. I saw Hunter
twelve months ago. That was the only time.
Mr. Humphreys—On your solemn oath, sir, have
you not seen them together frequently ?
Crane—lt must have been twelve months ago. I
have seen Agg and Hunter together once ; that is
twelve months ago. I cannot say that I recollect
seeing them together on the 17th of March. Agg
and Debock called upon me on that day. It was a
Sunday. I have no recollection of seeing Hunter
there in a chaise. I did not see Hunter, Debock,
and Agg leave my house together. Agg went first
and closed the door after him. I know John New-
ton, of Derby, who was tried at the Central Crimi-
nal Court for receiving the stolen silk, and
acquitted. lie has had legitimate transactions with
Messrs. Drakeford's house before that event. I went
to Barker's house, No. 2, Hope-street, Bethnal-
green, on the 18th of March, with ten wrappers,
some string and a needle. It was in consequence
of the interview with Agg that I went to Barker's
house on the Monday, I saw Debock there. Mrs.
Barker came in afterwards. I packed ten bales of
silk alone, without assistance. i did not open the
bales. I supposed they contained silk. They were
ready for packing. I marked each bale A in a
diamond, and marked them one to ten, and other
figures besides.
Some cotton wrappers were here produced, and
the witness identified them as being those in which
he packed the bales of silk. He wrote out a deli-
very order, which he gave to one of Pickford's car-
men with certain instructions. He saw the 10 bales
of silk put into one of Pickford's vans, which was
in charge of a carman named Tooth. Debock was
present. He only made out one paper—that was
the delivery note. Debock gave him a shilling for
the carman.

In cross-examination by Mr. Leech the witness
said he did not believe Hunter bad any connection
with the transaction relating to the 10 bales of silk.
He did not see Hunter engaged in the affair from
first to last. I will take my oath of it. I was de-
fended at the expense of Messrs. Drakeford and
Co. I have been in their service 18 years. lam in
their service now The firm re-engaged me the day
after 1 was honestly acquitted at the Old Bailey.
Agg is a nephew of Mrs. Drakeford. I don't know
where he is at present.
Henry Jackson, a detective on the Eastern Coun-
ties Railway, stated that he saw Hunter and De-
bock at the bar of a public-house in Bishopsgate-
street about the middle of March.

Mr. Humphreys—That is as far as I can go to-
day, and I ask for another remand.
Mr. Leech—l have no objection to a remand. I
hope you wit! take the same bail as before, Sir ?
Mr. Woolrych—Certainly I will.
Mr. Humphreys—l feel bound to oppose the pri-
soner being bailed.
Mr. Leech—He has surrendered, and here are the
same gentlemen ready to bail bim to any reasonable
amount.

Mr. Woolrych—As at present advised, I shall
accept of bail, the prisoner in £5OO, and two sure-
ties of £250 each.

Mr. Humphreys—Then I will call another wit-
ness, and when you have heard him I think your
views on the subject of bail will be materially
altered.

Mr. George Hilton, the Superintendent of the
Borough of Derby Police, was sworn.
Mr. Humphreys—l am bound to tell you. sir,
that the evidence of this witness will occupy two
hours.

Mr. Woo]rych—Then I must stop the case.
Bail was immediately tendered and accepted for
,he prisoner's appearance on Ttiursday next.

A private letter from Belleville, in the Beau-
jolais, of the 7th inst., states that the wine-growers in that
district, to the number of 150, are to meet this week to make
arrangements for sending samples of their produce to the
London Exhibition next year. They have deputed the
managers and agents of the English wine company esta-
blished in the Beaujolais to represent them on the occasion.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Diseases of Early Lite.—Though the bills of mortality are
slightly below the average, the mortality from scarlet fever
is greater than it should be; this may be remedied by
rubbing Holloway's Ointment upon the cervical gland&
It penetrates to them, subdues inflammatory action. It
cleanses them, removes all obstructions to a free circulation
through them, and effectually prevents the formation of
matter and ulcers, Holloway's Pills should be simul •
taneously taken to check the fever, cool the system, and
keep out the bright scarlet eruption. Holloway's remedies,
when properly used, soon disperse all enlarged and painful
glands, clean the furred tongue, and effectually prevent any
foetid or disagreeable discharge from the throat) uoeo, or
care.