The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-24 00:00:00

road, to refresh herself with half a pint of ale. While
drinking, the ale the prisoner came and sat alongside of
her, and began asking some questions about the child.
The prisoner looked at the child, and said it was a very
pretty boy, and then she told witness she was wait-
ing for her sister, who was about to leave her place, at
No. 15, London•street, Fitzroy-square. The prisoner
asked her to carry a message for her to her sister's, to
say she (the prisoner) was waiting for her. The
prisoner said it would appear strange to take a baby
to a respectable helve, especially as the lady was
very particular, and, therefore, she begged complainant
to leave the baby with her. The prisoner then took the
infant, and complainant went to London-street. She
had not been away more than two minutes, when she
found, on her return, that the prisoner had gone and
taken the baby with her. Complainant made search
and inquiry, but could hear o tidings of the prisoner
until last Wednesday night, when she met the prisoner
accidentally near St. Giles's Church. She had only
seen the prisoner once before, but recognised her imme-
diately, and the prisoner also knew her again, for she
instantly ran off towards Crown-street. Complainant
pursued her and said, " You wretch, you stole my baby."
The prisoner struggled to get away, and asked her
what she wanted with her. Complainant called " police,"
but no assistance came, and the prisoner broke away
from her and made her escape. Complainant at last as
certained who she was and where she lived, and went
with the constable to No. 23, Crown-street, and on going
upstairs and knocking at the door of a back room, the
prisoner opened it, but on seeing complainant imme-
diately shut the door in her face. Complainant
got into the room, and saw her baby on the bed. -
Mr. HARDWICK--`'''ere any clothes found in the pri-
soner's room by which the infant can be more com-
pletely identified 7—Police-constable E 102 found a
child's shirt and bed-gown, fi Melt he now produced.
The complainant said these articles were part of the
infant's clothing vk hen the baby was stolen from her.
The constable further stated that when the prisoner
was accused of stesling.the baby she protested it was her
own child, and that she had been delivered of it in the
house of a woman named Sullivan, living in Upper Gren.
ilk-street, Somers -town. .

Mr. HARDWICK (to the prisoner)—Where were you
confined, and when ? Prisoner—l went on the 14th of
February to be confined at my friend's place ; they
wanted me to go into St. Giles's Workhouse, but I would
not, and so I eras confined.
Mr. IlAnnwwx—Then you were confined at this
woman's house ? Prisoner—No ; I was confined in the
street near the church.

Mr. llAnDwicK—Where did you take the baby? Pri-
soner— To Mrs. Sullivan's, and 'stopped there some days.
A woman, named Sullivan, was called. She said she
recollected the prisoner coming to her about nine c'cluck
one night in the middle of last February. She had a
child with her, and she appeared very poorly. The
child had a cap and clothing on. It. appeared dre. sed as
infants generally sire. The prisoner was carrying the
child, and walking without assistance.
The chief clerk (Mr. Fitzpatrick) told the gao'er to
bring the infant to him, to give him an opportunity of
judging of its age. The prisoner banded him the child,
which was immediately given to its real mother.
The prisoner, seeing this, said, " Won't I get back my
baby ? then see how I'll (lie ;" at the same time setting
up a sort of a prolonged cry, known as an " Irish howl,"
until lodged in the lock-up cell.
In addition to the evidence, the infant's clothes found
in the prisoner's room, and the identification of the in-
fant by its own mother, the constable found the dress
worn by the prison when she stole the child, in ber
room, of which dress the complainant had given a de-
scription when she mentioned the loss of her child.
The prisoner was fully committed.
CROYDON.

Mr. Richard Messenger. a paw nbroker at Croydon,
was charged, upon information I.id by Mr. Cilarles
Leigh Hoskins Master, the Chairman of the Godstone
Board of Guardians, with having taken certain

articles on pledge from one names Herriett, and
with having neglected to make a proper entry of the
transaction in his book, and also neglecting to make the
proper inquiries of the person who pledged the property
as to whether he was a lodger or housekeeper ; and
likewise with neglecting to place the letter L. for the
former, or 11. for the latter description of the person,
upon the ticket.
Mr. Richards attended on behalf of the Board of
Guardians of the Godstone Union, by %horn the pro-
ceeding was instituted, and Mr. R. Russell appeared for
the defendant.
It appeared that some time in March of last year a
man named James Herriett, who was at the time an in-
mate of the Godstone Union Workhouse, absconded
with some blankets and other articles, the property of
the guardians. Inquiry was set on foot, and it was at
length ascertained that llerriett had pledged the stolen
articles at Mr. Messenger's, and upon his being appre-
hended Mr. Messenger was requested to attend and give
evidence. He at first did not do so, but on the se-

cond examination he attended and produced a duplicate,
which, upon being examined by the officers of the union,
did not appear to them to be in conformity with the re.
quirements of the Act of Parliament ; they, therefore,
directed the present proceeding to be adopted. Mr.
Richards observed,•in opening the case to the bench,
that it was very important for the public that pawn-
brokers should be compelled to act up to the letter of the
Act of Parliament, and comply with all those regula-
tions which were necessary to prevent facilities being
given for the disposal of stolen property.
James Ilerriett, the prisoner alluded to in the infor-
mation, and who stated that he had come from the
county gaol, a here he was undergoing a sentence of im-
prisonment for unlawfully disposing of the articles in
question, was c xamined as a witness, and deposed that
on the 21st of March, 1844, he pawned two blankets at
the defendant's shop for 45., end the name he gave was
James Strep. He adds d, that he did not recollect that
Mr. Messenger asked him arty questions as to whether
he was a housekeeper or a lodger; but he said that all
he did was to give him a ticket and 4i. That ticket he
had since destroyed.
Some discussion here took place as to whether parole
evidence could be given of. what appeared upon the du-
plicate produced by the defendant before the bench at
Godstone, and at length Mr. Russell said that to save
trouble upon the point, Mr. Messenger was ready to
produce his book, and also the duplicate.
Mr. Messenger accordingly produced a duplicate, and
a book containing entries of pledges made in the month
in question. The duplicate and the entry appeared to
be both in the proper form; but Gower, the master of the
workhouse, who had been summoned as a witness, ex-
pressed his opinion that the duplicate now produced was
not the same that was brought to Godstone.
Mr. Messenger requested the witness Gower to be
cautious in what he stated, for ulterior proceedings
would certainly be taken if he stated what was fal e.
Mr. LUCAS told the witness that he was throwing a
very serious imputation upon Mr. Messenger, and be
requested him to look at the duplicate again carefully,
and then say whether he persisted in his former state-
ment.
Gower having done so, declared his belief to be that
the duplicate now produced was entirely different from
the one he formerly saw in Mr. Messenger's possession.
Mr. Russell -I hen addressed the Bench and submitted
that the charge against the defendant had altogether
failed in proof. He said that Mr. Messenger had been
long known in the town as a most respectable tradesman,
and far from his ever having given any facility in the
disposing of stolen property, he could, if it were neces-
sary, show by the evid,nce of the police that he had on
several occasions given them valuable information and
assistance to discover offenders. _ _ _

The Magistrates, after a very short deliberation, ex-
pressed their ►pinion that the evidence was not sufficient
to support any of the charges against the defendant, and
the information must therefore to dismissed.