The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-11 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Mrs. Jane Tyrwhit, the wife of a gentleman of for-
tune, residing at No. 1, Charles-street, Berkeley-
square, was put to the bar before Mr. Hardwick,
charged with having stolen a microscope, value 2s 6d.,
from a stand in the Soho Bazaar, kept by Miss Mary
Ann Lewis.

Mr. Chambers attended for the accused, who was
allowed a seat within the bar.

Miss Lewis said the prisoner came to her stand be-
tween four and five o'clock on Friday afternoon, and
made a purchase of a thermometer, which she paid
for. Immediately after the prisoner had left the stall,
in consequence of a question put to her by the inspec-
tress of the bazaar, she looked over her stock, and
missed a small microscope. The microscope was some
time afterwards shown to her, and she knew it to be
her property, and it was safe on her stand just before
the prisoner made a purchase there. She did not see
the prisoner take the microscope.
Sarah Harker said she was inspectress of the bazaar.
She was in No. 300 room, where Miss Lewis's stand
was, at the time the prisoner was buying something
at the stand. While the last witness was putting the
purchase in paper, she distinctly saw the prisoner take
the microscope from the counter. As soon as the
prisoner had left the stand she went to call one of the
men belonging to the bazaar, and having met with
one of the door-keepers, she went up to the prisoner,
who had joined a young lady who was at another
stand with a gentleman, and requested them to walk
into the office. A police-constable was sent for, after
which the prisoner was given into custody.
Cross-examined—Was sorry to say that she had
made many similar charges against ladies; but could
not tell the number.

George Norris, door-keeper, said he followed behind
the prisoner as she was on her way to the office with
the matron. He saw something drop from the side
of the prisoner, which he immediately picked up. It
was a small microscope, which he now produced.
Police-constable Merchant, C 49, said he received
Cmge of the prisoner, and to,k her to the station-

Mrs. Harker was re-called, and cross-examined--
The prisoner and the lady with her were searched at
the bazaar. Their clothes were taken oft; hut no-
thing was found upon them to implicate them in any
charge. NVitness searched the prisoner, but not the
other lady. It was part of the orders from Captain
Trotter's °Kee, that persons suspected of theft should
be searched. Mr. Bryant, the clerk, gave witness
orders to search suspected parties. Had seen the
a)or-keeper find the miscroscope, which was after-
wards identified by Miss Lewis.
l,zasLewis, when questioned, said there were
many articles of jewdiely on her stand, of smaller

bulk, and of far greater value, which were quite as
much within the prisoner's reach as the microscope.
Mr. Chambers said he appeared on behalf of the
lady, Mrs. Tyrwhit, who was charged with stealing
a small article, the selling price of which was half-a-
crown. In such a fearful, terrific charge as the pre-
sent, against a lady in her station, it was indispens-
able that the evidence should be as clear as possible.
The case attempted to be made out against the lady
was one of the greatest improbability, and this had
made him anxious to put certain questions to the
witnesses, in order to elicit circumstances which a
jury would always wish to be clear upon,
before they came to their verdict, on a
charge of this sort. It was always desirable
to see whether a party, charged with a trum-
pery offence, even if in an inferior station, had
an opportunity of committing an offence of a more
serious nature in point of value ; and it was with this
view that he had put questions and obtained informa-
tion to show that the lady had an equal opportunity
of taking articles of infinitely greater value, and of
smaller compass, than the trifling article she was
accused of having stolen. In ordinary cases this fact
formed a strong argument against the presumption
that an accused person really intended to steal an
article like the microscope produced, which was
neither useful, ornamental, nor capable of being dis-
posed of. He could well understand how a person in
a superior rank of life, forgetting what was due to
herself and neighbour, attracted by ornaments of
value, might be tempted to pilfer the property of
another. Indeed it was beyond doubt that ladies had
taken articles of value from the premises of Messrs.
Howell and James, but it was inconceivable to sup-
pose that a lady would stoop to steal an article so
petty as to be procured for half-a-crown. In dealing
with the charge, there was another matter to which
he begged to direct the attention of the court, as it
was certain a jury would look very closely into it. It
was the situation of things at the bazaar at the time
of the alleged robbery—the time of day—the number
of customers at the bazaar, and the great improbability
that any party intending to steal would place herself at
a counter, with many eyes turned towards her and in-
specting her actions all the while. There was also
another part of the evidence which he must publicly
' remark upon. He was quite willing to admit the
immense importance of this bazaar, but then he in-
sisted on it that public justice ought to be done there.
If persons were charged with offences so serious as
felony, he contended it was the duty of those who
were on the watch to give accused persons a fair
opportunity of explanation, or, if the case was clear,
to give the offender at once into the custody of the
police. It could not be tolerated that a suspected
person should be led through the bazaar to an office
to be searched, and that when, by this means, a crowd
was collected round the part, something should be
picked up from the ground, by the help of which
something only a charge was attempted to be sus-
tained. According to the evidence not only the lady
snspected was searched at the office, but her niece
was obliged to undergo the same disgraceful cere-
mony. He was, however, glad that in this case this
practice had been resorted to, for the result was
to show that the ladies did not go to the bazaar
to take what did not belong to them, nothing
except what was their own property having been
found on them. There was one other point which he
was anxious to have cleared up, and he fortunately pos-
sessed the means. In ordinary cases of shoplifters a
strong proof of guilt was evi&nce showing that par-
ties went into shops to purchase a small article, and
adopted this pretext to steal a larger one. But he
should show, in the case of Mrs. Tyrwhit, that she
went to the bazaar for an expensive purchase. The
lady had a fancy for paroquets. She had recently
lost one of a pair, and she had gone to the bazaar to
replace her loss. It was when going down stairs,
after having entered into a dealing for one of these ex-
pensive birds, ar.d after having stopped for a minute
to make a trifling purchase at one of the stands that
she was, to her horror and amazement, charged with
stealing an article of no real use or value. He men-
tioned this circumstance to show that it was utterly
hapless a charge of this nature could be sustained be-
fore a jury. If, on inquiry, it should turn out there
was a real foundation for the charge, then the persons
at the bazaar did only their duty. But he was there
on the part of the lady to deny the charge, and to ex-
press her indignation and astonishment at being
charged with a felony at the bazaar, when she had
, merely gone there with her husband and niece to make
a purchase.
Mr. Ashton, a bird-dealer in Oxford-street, was
calved. He said he had a room at the Soho Bazaar,
where he sold birds. He knew the lady at the bar
very well. The lady had been to him on the day
when the alleged theft took place, to get a companion
for her grey parrot. The parrot would cost Si. or 91.
Mr. Chambers said the lady's niece was in attend-
ance, but on consideration he would spare her feelings
and not call her.
Mr. Haunwicia said, under all the circumstances,
the evidence was of a nature that he could not do
otherwise than have it submitted to the consideration
of a jury, however extraordinary and incredible it
might appear for a lady of station to purloin an ar-
ticle of such trifling value, yet with the direct testi-
mony of the matron, who saw her take it, of the per-
son who saw her drop it, and of the proprietor of the
stall, who saw it safe just before the purchase, and
missed it immediately afterwards, he did not see how
it was possible to decide otherwise than that the case
must go to trial.
Mr. Chambers applied for the prisoner to be ad-
mitted to bail.
Mr. HARDWICK agreed to take two good bail in
2501. each, and the prisoner's recognizance in 5001.
Bail was immediately put in.
James Smith, a clerk in the employ of Mrs. Parkes,
in Golden-square, who recently had a picture raffle,
yeas charged with having assaulted Robert Fisher, of
No. 23, Clarges-street.
The complainant said he purchased some tickets in
the recent picture lottery, one of which came up a
small prize. He went on Friday, with a friend, to
Golden-square, to exchange his tickets for prints.
The defendant showed him the pictures which were
to be selected from, but these pictures appeared to be
so inferior that he told the defendant he thought the
public had been imposed upon, that the pictures were
not what they were represented to be, and that, in
short, the public had been humbugged. The de-
fendant instantly struck him from behind a blow,
which blackened his eye. Complainant was staggered
by the unexpectedness of the assault, but having re-
covered he returned the blow, and a scuffle ensued,
which was put an end to by the interference of those
who were in the room.
A solicitor who attended for the defendant wished
the complainant to say in whose service he was. The
complainant objected to answer the question, and Mr.
Hardwick, held the question to be irrelevant.
The complainant was then cross-examined. Ac-
cording to the terms of the raffle he was entitled to
prints of tke value of a guinea for his ticket. Nothing
was offeret..to him to select from except what ap-
peared to him to be prints of little or no value. Was
not offered a two-guinea print for his ticket, but was
told he could have it if he paid the difference. Did
not call the defendant either a liar or a thief.
John Richardson, cheesemonger, 41, Old Bond-
street, went with last witness to Golden-square.
While looking about the room he heard a noise, and
on turning round, to his great surprise, saw his
friend and the defendant fighting. He ran to part
them, and told the defendant neither he nor his friend
had come there to fight; they had come there for their
property. Parted the combatants, and would not let
any further violence take place. Did not hear any
offensive words from the complainant to the defen-
dant. The only words he heard the complainant use
were, " Show us the pictures ; there are no pictures
here worth anything." Nothing could have been
more uncalled for or unprovoked than the assault on
the complainant.

Edward Pearson said the defendant struck the com-
plainant a severe blow on the face, but did not hear
any words from the complainant to provoke the blow.
Heard the complainant say something about having
been humbugged.
The defendant's solicitor said the black eye which
the complainant exhibited had been done with a stick
carried by the witness Richardson.
Mr. Richardson said this was quite untrue, as he
had neither stick nor umbrella with him.
The solicitor then said he would admit that blows
had been exchanged, but he would prove they had
been provoked by the complainant calling those con-
nected with the raffle cheats and thieves.
A nephew of Mrs. Parkes said the defendant
offered the complainant a two-guinea print because
he was dissatisfied. The complainant, however, was
very abusive, and called the defendant a thief.
Lavinia Smith, the defendant's daughter, said she
heard her father offer the complainant a two-guinea
print, because he appeared to be dissatisfied. The
complainant, however, would not accept the offer, but
said they were all a set of swindlers, and had cheated
the public. The complainant afterwards called her
father a thief, and then her father struck him.

The complainant declared, on his solemn oath,
there was no truth in the statement that the defendant
had offered him a two-guinea print for his ticket.
On the contrary, the defendant was downright saucy
to him, and, in quite an off-hand way, said the public
were never satisfied. lie (complainant) replied, they
had got the public money, and that was all they
wanted. He thought the public had been hum-
bugged, and he thought so still.
111 r. HARDWICK said it was clear some little provo-
cation had occurred on the part of the complainant.
The complainant felt himself aggrieved and had used
strong language, which had provoked a retort.
_ _

The defendant declared that a valuable Russell
print was o&red to the complainant. This was
peremptorily denied by the complainant.
Mr. llARnwicK said he could not see why the de-
fendant should take upon himself to be the champion
of the establishment. If the enmniftinat.t