The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 2, 1859.

METROPOLITAN, COUNTIES, AND
GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY,
27, Regent-street, Waterloo-place, London, S.W.
Life Assurance, Annuities, and Endolvments.
Loans on real and personal security. 0-
F. FERGUSON CAMROUX, Manager.

HOUSEHOLD WORDS.
EXCELLENT CONGOU TEA, of the EAST
INDIA TEA COMPANY, in their celebrated 61b. Bags,
is a thing now as familiar as " Household Words." Every
family should obtain it " Once a Week" " All the Year
Round."—Warehouses, 9, Great St. Helen's Churchyard,
Bishop agate.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.--Aug.-1

George Price, 20, was indicted for stealing two
silver spoons, &c., the property of William Daniel
Hawes, in his dwelling-house, 154, Cambridge-
street, Pimlico.
He pleaded guilty.
The grand jury, when the bill was brought in,
called the attention of the. Court to the conduct of
one of the witnesses, a nurse-girl in the service of
the proSecutor, who seized the prisoner as he was
coming up the area of her master's nouse, and after
a sharp struggle, gave him into custody. They
hoped, if the Court had the power, it would direct
some reward would be given to her for her praise-
worthy conduct.
The Assistant-Judge said he had raid the depo-
sitions, and had particularly noticed what the grand
jury alluded to, and the girl's conduct was very
laudable and praiseworthy. The prisoner got into
her master's house, and was carrying off the plate,
when she caught him coming up the area steps with
his boots in his hand, and with these he beat her
about the head, still she kept her hold, and the pri-
soner was secured. The Court had the power of
ordering her a reward, and he should direct that
she receive £2 in addition to her ordinary expenses
as a witness.

The prisoner, who was not known to the officers,
was then sentenced to 12 months' hard labour.

John West, a police-constable 114 B, was indicted
for stealing a watch, value £2, the property of J.
Green, from his person.
Mr. Foot was for the prosecution ; Mr. Metcalfe
defended, the prisoner.
The prosecutor stated that he lived in Horseshoe-
&Hey, Smith's-rents, Westminster, and on the
morning of the 2d of July, about two o'clock, he
was sitting at his own door, half-dozing, when the
prisoner, who was on duty, came up to him and
snatched his watch from the guard chain, and then
roused him up and wanted to know why he did not
go up to bed. He said to him, " Why, you've taken
my watch," and called his wife down. The prisoner
then said it was a - lie that he had taken the
watch, and that the prosecutor was a - rogue,
and walked off. He and his wife followed him, and
desired another policeman to take the prisoner into
custody, but he would not, and witness's wife called
out " Police." The policeman then put his hand
into his right-hand coat pocket and took out the
watch, and gave it to her. A person named Quin
came up, and the policeman told him not to say
anything about it and he would give him a shilling.
He told witness that he was a poor man, and he
would do something for him if nothing was said.
He worked for Mr. Alderman Lawrence.

The witness was cross-examined as to his respect-
ability, but the facts were not questioned. His
answers were quite satisfactory. The ring or bow
of the watch was broken off, and was found loose
in the prisoner's pocket.
The witness Quin was then examined. He fully
bore out the prosecutor's evidence.
in cross-examination he was asked how it came
that he was wandering about the streets, and he
said it was because he could not sleep.

Mr. Metcalfe—Was it the heat that prevented
you from sleeping ?
Quin—Yes ; and something else, the bugs.
(Laughter.) The witness said he was an invalided
seaman, had served in India and was sent home on
account of having broken his leg. He was in the
Company's service three years and nine months,
and was discharged without a pension. He now
earned his livin€, by sack-making. The prosecutor
was an entire stranger 6 to him.
The prosecutor's wife also gave evidence, but
Mr. Metcalfe declined to cross-examine her, and
then said it would be useless to attempt to resist
the evidence. It was a charge fully borne out by
the clear evidence of three persons whose respecta-
bility could not be questioned, and he had done all
that his duty to his client permitted him to do. Of
course he could not impute perjury or conspiracy
to the witnesses, when there appeared not the least
foundation for either, and he should offer no de-

fence.
The Assistant-Judge told the jury that he was
quite sure the learned counsel would take no course
but the best for the interest of his client, and he
quite concurred in the one he had adopted in this
case.
...ne jury bale they din so iuu.
The prisoner was then found guilty.
Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed by the friends
of the prisoner, who were very respectable, and
lived near Canterbury. They could not account
for this extraordinary conduct of his, his character
hitherto being good.
An inspector of the B division stated that the
prisoner had been reported occasionally for infringe-
ments of police discipline.
The Assistant-Judge asked if the policeman who
refused to take the prisoner in charge was present?
The inspector said he was not, but h' had been
reported to and reprimanded by, the commissioners,
for not taking the prisoner in charge.
The Assistant-Judge directed that he should be re-
ported again, now that the charge hadbeen fully sub-
stantiated and theprisoner convicted. Three persons,
of humble position, but of respectable character,
charged the prisoner with a robbery, and another
policeman refused to take the charge, because the
accused was, like himself, a policeman. Such con-
duct was intolerable, and the Inspector must report
to the Commissioners that the case had been proved,
without contradiction by the prisoner. The offence
was a very bad one in itself, but it was aggravated
beyond all measure by the circumstance that the
prisoner was a policeman—a man kept and paid to
protect the public and their property. At first he
had thought that it would be the duty of the Court
to pass a sentence of penal servitude for a length-
ened term. but after well considering the matter
he thought, and he had the concurrence of the
' ) bench, that a milder course might be taken, and
; ) the sentence upon him would be 12 months' hard
labour.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—EXETER, July 30.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
REVERSING A VERDICT.
Francis Western, 46, a thatcher, was charged
with having, on the night of the 14th of June,
burglariously entered the dwelling-house of Eliza-
beth Oath, and stolen a brass candlestick.
Mr. C. Turner prosecuted, and Mr. Cole de-
fended the prisoner.
The principal evidence against the prisoner was
that of a woman named Rowe, who swore to having
bought the candlestick of the prisoner.
His Lordship having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
A further conviction was proved against the
prisoner under which he was sentenced to seven
years' transportation in the year 1832. He served
some period of that time ; and since his return to
Tiverton he appeared to have got his living
honestly.
The prisoner, on being called upon, said he was
innocent. The woman Rowe was a prostitute of
the town of Tiverton, and kept a brothel. She had
a grudge against him some two years since.
Mr. Cole, in reply to his lordship, said he was
not brought acquainted with this fact until he (the
learned judge) was summing up, when he thought
it was too late.
His Lordship said he wished Mr. Cole had in-
I formed him of it. He should not in the least have
considered it irregular. He believed, in point of
law, as the verdict had not been recorded, the jury
could reconsider their verdict.
Rowe was then re-called by Mr. Cole, iu answer
to whose questions she admitted she was a prosti-
tute, but denied keeping a brothel. She had no
grudge against the prisoner.
His Lordship, in addressing the jury, said this
was doubtless a matter of great irregularity ; but
it was hard, if the prisoner was innocent, that he
should suffer for the offence. The jury now knew
what the law would not have allowed them to know
before giving their verdict in an ordinary case, viz.,
that the prisoner had been previously convicted ;
but they also knew that since then, and for up-
wards of 20 years, he had been getting his living
in an honest manner. The jury had the power
of reconsidering their verdict, and to say
whether they were satisfied on the evidence of the
woman Rowe of the guilt of the prisoner ; for if
they could not credit her statement then the whole
of the case as against the prisoner failed. The jury
ihad heard the account she had given of herself.
They were not called upon to say she had told an
untruth ; but the question was, could they rely on
her statement beyond all reasonable doubt.
The jury, after a brief consultation, said that
there was a doubt on their minds as regarded Rowe's
testimony, and they therefore acquitted the pri-
soner.
The learned judge said this course would doubt-
less be considered irregular ; but it was' never too
late to mend."
There was but one more case in the calendar, after
the disposal of which Mr. Baron Bramwell pro-
ceeded to try common jury cases.