The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-20 00:00:00

litrb

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTNAN.)
TILE STRAND ROBBERY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Editior.)
On the return of the jury,
Evan Jones was called and examined by Mr. CLARK.
S)N—I am a constable of the M division. I know the
prisoners Gardner and Cheruneau. Last year they lived
together at 29, Martin-street, Blackfriars. I have heard
them both speak of each other. The woman called
Gardner her " old man."
Cross-examined by Mr. PARNELL—They passed as
man and wife. She was called Mrs. Gardner.
John Saunders, examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I keep
the York Hotel, Waterloo-bridge-road. I know the pri-
soner Gardner. About a month or five weeks before I
was examined before the magistrate I saw him in
front of the bar of the retail part of the house,
and, to the best of my belief, Clinton was with him, but
I cannot swear to him. Gardner had a deg wih him,
and that attracted my attention to Gardner, who made
the dog stand up in the corner on his hind legs. I
talked with him about the dog, and have no doubt about
Gardner being the man.
Cross - examined by Mr. HUDDLESTONE There
were not half-e-dozen persons present, but I did not take
notice of the number. It was through talking to Gard-
ner about the dog that I recollected him. I never saw
him in my life before.
Re-examined—l saw him at Bow-street, and recog-
nised him at once.
Anne Bayley, examired by Mr. BODKIN—I live at No.
23, Temple-street, Blackfriars-road. I know the pri-
soner Cheruneau, who used to live there. She had a
little dog which did performances, such as standing on
the hind legs, and tricks of that kind.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUDDLESTONE—The police
said they would lock me up unless I told the truth. I
called the prisoner "Polly. She kept a servant of her
own and used to dress smartly.
Mr. Burnaby, the chief clerk at Bow-street, examined
by Mr. CLARKSON—I took the examinations of the pri-
sohers on this charge. The caution prescribed by the
statute was addressed to the prisoners by the magistrate
at the close of the examination. The prisoner Badcock
nevertheless said Clinton said to him when the robbery
came off ho would make him a present of something
handsome, but he did not know anything about it, or
when it was to come off.
Susan Cesal—l live at Temple-street, St. George's.
The woman Cheruneau lived opposite me. I knew the
prisener Gardner by sight, and have seen both of them
in Temple street repeatedly. The 29th of September
was the last time I saw them. I have seen a little dog
at the woman's window, but I have never heard her say
anything about it.
Cross-examined—l had no acquaintance with the
worn tn, nor did I know what name she went by.
E! et Andrews—l live at 26, Temple-street, St.
George's-road I know Gardner and the woman Che-
runeau lived together. One morning 1 heard the woman
say to Gardner " Look, Jack, the dog is bidding you
good bye." She had a dog.
Cross examined—l did not know her to speak to.
This closed the case for the prosecu• ion.
Mr. PARRY submitted that no case had been made out
against Shaw.
Mr. PALLINTINE took sin Isr objections on behalf of
the Bundlers.
The Learned JUDGE, after looking through his notes
of the evidence, said the evidence against those two
prhoners made out nothing, except it was that they were
acquaintances of same of the others.
Mr. CLARKSON suggested that there was evidence
enough t connect them with the others, which was
sufficient to justify the ease going to the jury.
Mr. BODKIN reminded his Lordship that a sispiciou4
pep :r was found on Mrs. Buncher, while Gardner, with
a tail man, was watched to the house of Buncher, who
came out with there.
The Learned JUDGE was always unwilling to take
any question out of the hands d the jury, but it did
appear to him that the evidence, though it made out a
case of suspicion, fell far short of anything which could
warrant a conviction. Without intending to offer any
offence to the parties themselves, lie could not avoid
remarking that it was to be regretted that the evidence
was so slender; bat perhaps the jury would decide now
whether they considered it strong enough to make it
necessary for the prisoner's counsel to trouble them with
an address.
The Jury intimated that they were satisfied, and had
made up their minds with regard to all the prisoners but
Badcock, and be"ore decidieg upon him they wished to
hear his Ceun el.
Mr. PARRY accordingly addressed them, and contended
that although the evidence made out a case of suspicion,
it was f. r from suffi: ient to warrant a verdict of guilty,.
Up till this moment Uadcock's character had been un-
impeachable, and though he might have reiterated a
boastful conversation his competdoe, Clinton, had in-
dulged in, no juty, (Wally and dispeslionately con-
sideting the evid non, could convict him upon
the strength of so trivial an incident as
that. Why was not Clinton put into the
witness box? Clinton could—at least it was to be so as-
sumed—have implicated all the parties who were Col:
cereed in the robbery, but he was not forthcoming in
the capacity of a witness, and the only inference that
could he deduced from his absence was that the prose-
cution did not believe what he ha I stated. Pray-
ing in aid, th-r, h's previous good character,
he implored the jury not to cons'gn a young man like
Badc'xk to the hcrrers of transportation upon the
strength of such insignificant and inconclusive evidence
as that which had been produced against him in the
course of this investigation.
The Learned Junes, in summing up the case, re-
mineed the jury that there could be no doubt that a very
considerable robbery had been committed, and though
the evidence made out a case of suspicion, there was no
one piece of evidence that at all brought the robbery
home to any of the prisoners. He was always reluctant
to take eases of this nature out of the hands of
the jury, and he therefore preferred simply giving
his opinion of the evidence itself, and leaving it
for the jury to say whether it conclusively satisfied them
that the parties arraigned were guilty of the offence im-
puted to them. That course he had pursued on the pre-
sent occasion, and he understood the Jury were satisfied
as to all the prisoners but Badcock, and having heard his
counsel, they had now to say whether the evidence
against him was conclusive of his guilt. For his part he
certainly thought it very slender—so slender that, viewed
in every conceivable light, it established no more than a
case of suspicion.
The jury interrupted the Learned Judge, and said
there was no necessity to continue the inquiry further,
as they had made up their minds that the evidence was
not sufficient to warrant a conviction against any of the
prisoners.
A verdict of Acquittal was accordingly recorded, and
the prisoners were liberated.
Ciinten was then put forward to receive the judgment
of the Court.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, observed
that he had looked through the depositions, and he could
not help feeling that no reliance ought to be placed on
the statements ho had made implicating other parties.
There could be no doubt, however, that a most extensive
robbery had been committed through hie instrumentality,
and the interest of the public re quired that he should be
severely punished for it. The sentence of the Court,
therefore, was that he be transported for the term of
twenty years.
The prisoner, who remained unmoved to the last, was
then removed from the dock.