The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-28 00:00:00

Dr. Quin then retired into the room with Mr.roung, and on
• his returning, having been sworn, deposed that to keep
Mr. Young until Monday morning would be attended, most
probably, with dangerous consequences to his health.
March 23.
The jury were called out after Judge Ball had taken his
seat, and his Lordship inquired if they had agreed ?
The foreman intimated that they had not, nor was there
the least hope of their doing so.
Judge BALL observed, that very often those who were
quite as clear as to their not being able to agree, after
deliberation, were enabled to return a verdict.
The foreman—There is not the least hope here.
Judge BALL—Then, I have only to request of you to return
to your jury-box.
The foreman said, he was treasurer of the Savings' Bank,
and the public would be very seriously inconvenienced if he
had to remain in all day.
Judge BALL—I am very sorry for it ; but you have here a
more paramount duty to discharge, and I regret to say it is
not in my power to discharge you.
The jury intimated that they had long since agreed as to
the verdict to be given with respect to one of the prisoners.
Judge BALL said he did not see any objection to taking
their finding in the case in which they had agreed, and dis-
charging them as to the other.
Mr. Sausse remarked there could be none.
Mr. Hassard, who was present, made no observation.
The jury gave no finding as to Jeremiah Leary, but returned
a verdict of guilty against John Cooke.
The scene at this moment was very impressive, and, amid
the utmost stillness, the Clerk of the Crown asked the pri-
soner what he had to say why sentence of death and execu-
tion should not be passed against him.
The young man bent over the bar for a moment, as if con-
vulsed with grief, but then became quiet, and merely said,
" I am not guilty."
Judge BALL, addressing the prisoner, said he had been
found guilty of an offence of the deepest dye, after a long
and anxious deliberation by the jury. He had been found
guilty of the barbarous murder of an innocent and unoffend-
ing man, and upon evidence which showed that he had ex-
ercised a degree of savage ferocity at which human nature
shuddered. Under all the circumstances no hope could be
held out to him of a remiss ion of the penalty which the
law awarded to his offence. His companion in guilt had
already expiated his crime by an ignominious death, and for
the short time the prisoner had to live, he ought to pass it in
such a manner as to appear in the presence of his Maker, im-
ploring that pardon which the law denied him here. His
Lordship then sentenced the prisoner to be hanged on a
future day to be named.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY,)
MANSION-HOUSE.
David Hearn, who has been known as a coffee-stand
keeper on London-bridge, was brought before Sir Peter
Laurie, charged with having committed a robbery upon
a sailor.
Ford, the prosecutor, stated that he belonged to the
ship Brilliant, now lying in the London Docks, and
that, as he was passing over London-bridge, at a very
early hour in the morning, he saw the prisoner, and in-
vited him to have something to drink, a compliment
which was at once accepted ; that they walked to a
public house in Darkhouse-lane, and there enjoyed some
liquor, and that the prosecutor laid his head upon the
table at about half-past three o'clock, and fell asleep ;
that, while he was reposing, the landlady saw the pri-
soner's hand slip into the prosecutor's pocket, and that
she seized him in a vigorous manner, and with the as-
sistance of a person whom she called, she opened
the clenched fist, and took two half-crowns and some
small silver out of it, after which she deposited the thief
in the custody of a policeman. In the prisoner's posses-
sion were also found two books, which were the prose-
cutor's property.
A boy named Plummer stated that he saw the prisoner
draw a watch from the prosecutor's pocket, but as there
was a guard chain to it, the fellow failed in disengaging
it. The witness said he had himself something more to
make complaint of against the prisoner. A few nights
ago he had gone to the theatre, and having been de•
tamed till a late hour, he asked the prisoner, who was on
London Bridge, to accommodate him by letting him know
where he could get a bed. The prisoner offered to take
him home to his own house ; and thither they went, and
the prosecutor, after having treated his host, retired to
bed. At six in the morning, however, the prosecutor
was surprised at the entrance of the prisoner, who
threatened to hand him over to the custody of a police-
man who was waiting below, if he did not consent to fork
out two shillings.
Sir PETER LAURIE said he was astonished that the
police should allow a man who must, as was apparent
from the statements just made, be known to be a bad
character to have the privilege of standing on London
Bridge.
The prisoner was then remanded.
Two common girls of the town, named Elizabeth
Boswell and Mary Reid, were brought up, charged with
having been concerned with another girl in robbing a
young female, aged about fourteen years, named Susan
Furr. In the course of the examination Sir Peter Laurie
found that there was ground for supposing that a plan
had been made to entice the little girl into a house of
ill-fame in the notorious vicinity of Wentworth-street,
and that, if it had not been for the interposition of a
&cent and humane woman named Ann Kean, the poor
child would, in all probability, have been ruined.
Susan Furr had, it appeared, from a long statement
made in an unmethodical manner, been living with a
young lady at a house in Clerkenwell, and was employed
in making artificial flowers. The lady had oceasion to
leave town, and the little girl, having obtained an ad-
mission for two to the City of London Theatre, was ob-
served in conversation with the prisoners, to whom she
offered the orders. It afterwards appeared that she
went home, made up all her clothes in two bundles, and
put them into the possession of a girl who was known to
be the companion of the prisoners, but who decamped
with the property. The prisoners, who had taken a
room in Wentworth-street for the accommodation of
Susan Furr and themselves, were, after the disappear-
ance of the thief, taken into custody, and they stated
that the little girl had applied to them to help her to a
lodging, and ageed to pay the expenses arising from the
accommodation which they provided in the above-men-
tioned street.
Sir PETER LAURIE said that the robbery was nothing
in comparison with the awful danger into which the
child was near falling. He knew that girls of the town
were regularly employed in decoying the innocent and
inexperienced of their sex, and such emissaries were in-
finitely more to be dreaded than even the person to
whom the victims were betrayed. There was no offence
which he was disposed to punish more severely than
the diabolical one of being in any way instrumental in
the ruin of female innocence, and he wished to impress
upon the police the obligation they were under to give
all the protection they could afford to poor young females
who were exposed to the industrious villainy of the
women he alluded to.
The escape of Susan Furr was, in Sir Peter Laurie's
view, attributable to Ann Kean, who gave the alarm to
the police, and acted in such a manner as entitled her to
very high commendation. The little girl, whose father is
dead, and whose mother's intellect has been affected by
the calamities of her family, became an object of much
interest, and Sir Peter Laurie stated to her aunt, who
was in attendance at the police-room, that he should
use his influence to gain admission for her into one of
Ike great institutions of the metropolis.
The two prisoners, as there was no evidence against
them calculated to show that they had done any mis-
chief to the child, were discharged, upon their promise
to appear, if required to be present, upon the apprehen
lion of the female who stole the bundles.

WORSHIP-STREET.
THE FIRM OF WIGRAM AND Co.— William Spurrell,
alias Wigram, Mary Elizabeth Spurrell, his daughter,
and James Martin, a well-dressed man, described as a
law writer, were finally brought up, charged on sus-
picion of having fraudulently obtained possession of a
large quantity of haberdashery goods, of the estimated
value of 250 L
The Court was crowded during the investigation by
tradsmen and other persons, who manifested the most
lively interest in the proceedings.
It will be recollected that the greater part of the pro-
perty in question was found at the house of the prisoner
Spurrell; the police also discovered nearly a ream of printed
circulars, offering aid in the shape of accommodation
bills to persons in embarrassed circumstances, together
with numerous letters from country tradesmen, accepting
of the proffered assistance, and referring to inclosed re-
mittances, as being the commission charged by " Messrs.
Wigram" for their invaluable services. An invoice for
goods consigned to the imaginary firm, from Mr. Lea-
royd, a draper, at Pontefract, was also found on the pri-
soner Martin, at whose house a further quantity of
haberdashery goods was afterwards discovered. At the
former examination the elder Spurrell avowed himself
to be the head and sole representative of the firm in
question, and said that, being a natural son, he had
assumed the name of Wigram, which was that of his
mother.

Sergeant Lambert now stated, that the letter carrier
of the district had been desired to attend to give some
explanation as to the extraordinary circumstance of his
having been in the daily habit of delivering to the elder
Spurrell, at his house in Goring-street, letters which
bore the superscription of " Messrs. Wigrana, Brothers,
and Co., Barclay-place, Hackney." He had also written
to Mr. Learoyd, the draper at Pontefract, who was now
in attendance to give evidence.
Mr. David Graham Learoyd was then called, who
stated that he first became acquainted with the firm of
" Wigram and Co." in the month of November last,
when he received one of their circulars by post ; and
being in temporary want of money, he wrote to them
requesting to be accommodated with two bills of 1001.
each, and enclosed the amount of their commission. The
bills which purported to be accepted by " William
Brading, commission agent, Commercial-road, London,"
were transmitted to him in due course, and had since
been negotiated. From subsequent inquiries which he
had made he had reason to believe that no such person
as William Brading, the ostensible acceptor, was in ex-
istence. The several articles of haberdashery now pro-
duced were his property, and were consigned by him to
Messrs. Wigram for the purpose of being sold by
commission on the 9th inst. An invoice was sent

...... - -
with the goods, which amounted to 1731 lls. ;
and he had received a bill at three months accepted
_ _

by Messrs. Wigram for 1721:65., which he had paid
over to his bankers. He was induced to make the con-

signment in consequence of a statement in Messrs.
Wigram's circular, to the effect " that if he had any
goods on hand, and found the sale dull or difficult, they
would use their endeavours to turn them into money to
the best advantage;" and he distinctly treated with
them in the character of commission agents, and not as
purchasers of the property.
Mr. Hentage, who attended on behalf of the prisoners,
submitted that no case whatever had been made out to
justify their further detention. To constitute a breach •
of trust on the part of an agent, it was essential that ex-
press written instructions should be sent with regard to
the disposal of any property with which he might be
entrusted. but so far from that course having been pur-
sued in the present instance, the prosecutor had made
out the invoice in the name of Messrs. Wigram, and had
received their bill in liquidation of the amount. The
transaction, therefore, amounted to an absolute sale of