The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-06 00:00:00

SURREY SESSIONS,

Monday George Hazel Fraser, a young man of highly
respectable appearance and connexions, surrendered to
take his trial, charged with feloniously stealing from
the person of Ann Thorpe, wife of Richard Thorpe, one
half-crown and a latch ley, the property of her husband.
The trial created more than ordinary interest, in con-
sequence of the extraordinary nature of the alleged
robbery, and from the circumstance of the prisoner
being possessed of an independent fortune, of which

he had recently come into possession. The case lasted
nearly the whole of the day, until a late hour in the
evening. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Charnock.
Ann Thorpe stated that she went into a public-house
in the Borough, on the evening of the 4th of December
last, to call for a glass of gin, and while standing at the
bar she felt some person's hand in her pocket, and on
turning round saw the prisoner take his hand away,
when she immediately accused him of the robbery, at
the same time saying that if he would return the money
she would forgive him and let him go. He denied the
robbery in the most positiie manner, and, a policeman
coming up at the tire,., addressed him, sayire:, "The
woman accuses me of robbing her." The p licernan
asked her of what she had been robbed, when .he stated
two half-crowns and a latch-key. One of the half-
crowns the prosecutrix gave a description of, stating that
it was a George IV. one, and black at the edges.
• The prisoner was taken to the station-house, where
he pulled his handkerchief out of his coat pocket. The
policeman, hearing something rattle, asked the pri-
soner what he had got there ; to which he replied,
" Nothing." The key was, however, found in the hand-
kerchief, at which the prisoner seemed thunderstruck,
and said he could riot account for its possession. He was
then searched, and two half-crowns were found in his
pockets, one of which the prosecutrix identified as be-
longing to her, and swore it was the same that she had
lost.

Mr. CHARNOCIC severely cross-examined the prosecu-
trix. She stated that she lived with her husband before
she. was married ; was from home the whole of the day
in question, until seven in the evening. The robbery
took place about half-past six o'clock. Never saw the
prisoner before. " I will most solemnly swear that I
was never in a house of ill-fame on that evening with the
prisoner. I was not drunk. I am, not in the habit of
drinking. I again most solemnly swear that I did not
iuvite the prisoner to go with me to a house of ill-fame
in Fishmonger's-alley. I do not know where it is.
I had only been in one public-house before this. I
paid 2d. for something to drink, but whether it was gin
or rum Ido not know. I never had any conversation
with my husband about losing money. He did not say
to me, I see by the pagers you have lost two half-
crowns.' " _

The Learned COUNSEL then, on behalf of the prisoner,
made a most powerful address.. Re said it was one of
the most unholy prdsecutions ever brought into a court
of justice, and he would unfold such evidence on the
part of the defence as would at once show that the
woman was one of the most wicked and abandoned of
her sex.

The Learned COUNSEL then called several witnesses,
who proved that on the evening of the robbery the pro-
secutrix was turned out of the Naked Boy public-house,
for being drunk and disorderly. Her dress was in the
greatest state of confusion, and the skirt of the gewn
she wore came away from the body, and the prisoner
sent for some pins to pin it together.
Elisabeth Sheen, a servant at a house of ill-fame in
Kent-street, stated that on the evening of the robbery
the prisoner came to the house in company with the pro-
secutrix. Witness herself lighted the woman up stairs.
They were the only parties who came in that evening at
such an early hour. The prisoner was brought the next
day to the house in custody of a policeman, and she in-
stantly identified him. On going to Union-hall, witness
there saw the prosecutrix, who was the same woman who
accompanied the prisoser to Kent-street the preceding
evening. Witness could not be mistaken as to the
identity.
The landlord of the Naked Boy proved that the prose-
cutrix was at the bar on the day of the rubbery—she had
some rum to drink—she was drunk and creating a dis-
turbance, and witness turned her out himself.
Other witnesses were called, who proved that the pro-
secutrix was in the habit of getting so much intoxicated
that she was brought home in a state of insensibility on
a shutter. She was subject to " drunken fits."
The husband was unexpectedly called,' and examined
by the Learned Chairman at some length, and he ad-
mitted that he had bad a conversation with his wife rela-
ive to her being robbed.
The CHAIRMAN summed up at gretit length. snd said
that the present was me of those distressing csses which
we were sometimes compelled to witness in a court of
justice. That there had been most wicked, wilful, and
corrupt perjury on one side or the other was beyond a
doubt, and it would be for the jury to decide on which.
There was one startling fact in the case which he could
not get over, and this was the circumstance of the key
being found in the possession of the prisoner. Then
again the prosecutrix identified the half-crown even be-
fore the policeman had seen it or examined it. The case
was a very difficult one, and the jury would weigh well
the evidence, and give it their most careful consideration,
so as to enable them to return a righteous, upright, and
just judgment, fearless of all consequences. The pri-
soner had received a most undeniable character for ho-
nest ; but, in considering their verdict, they would be
guided by the evidence alone. The Learned Counsel
had made some severe observations relative to the 'Con-
duct of the Bench, stating that they bad a prejudice
against the prisoner. Such was not the ease. The
court had. only instituted a most searching eross-exami-
nation into the witnesses' evidence for 'the defence, in
order to test their. truth. The Court would commit the
case entirely to 'the hands of the jury, confident that they
would return a just and righteous verdict, without fear,
favour, or affection, in accordance with the terms of
their solemn aid sacred oath.

The jury immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
On hearing the verdict the prisoner burst into tears,
and was immediately surrounded by a host of friends.
There was an attempt at applause on hearing the ver-
dict, but it was immediately checked by order of the
Court. _

Before Mr. PIICKLE, Chairman, and 'a full Bench of
Magistrates.)

TUE BETHLEM HOSPITAL V. THE OVERSEERS AND CHURCH-
WARDENS OP THE PARISH OF SAINT GEORGE THE
MARTYR. •

This important case came on for hearing on Satur-
day, on a motion for spocial costs, the parisk having
given the appellants notice that it was not their intention.
to contest the rate, and that consequently the names of
all the appellants would be struck out ,of the, rate-book.
Mr. Watson, Q. C., Mr. Wallinger, and Mr. Locke
api.eared for the appellants ; and Mr. Montagu Cham•
heti, with Mr. Knapp, for the respondents. •
Mr. WATSON contended that the overseers could not
legally amend the rate by striking out the names of the
appellants ; and the parish officers, having thought
proper to abandon the rate as not legally made, they
were compelled to pay the costs of the application.
Mr. CHAMBERS, on the part of the respondents, spoke
at great length.

The BENCH said that they would retire before they
gave their decision.

- The. CHAIRMAN, on the return of the magistrates into
Court, announced that the Bench were unanimous in
their opinion, which was, that the application for costs
must be referred, unless the appellants had made out a
special case, which they had failed to do. The Court
considered that Vac parish were justified in refusing to
defend their appeal if they so thought, and that they
evidently possessed the power to amend the rate by
striking out the names.—Application refused.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
GUILDHALL.

John Lucas Grierson, residing at 210, Strand., and
who stated himself to be a phrenologist of some cele-
brity, was placed at the bar, before Sir James Duke,
charged with haying defrauded Mr. Charit,s, the
tailor, of Fleet-street, of a suit of clothes, value V. ss.
Nr. 'Ward, a solicitor, of Essex-street, appeared
for the prisoner.
According to the evidence of the prosecutor's son,
it appeared that on last Wedhesday evening the
prisoner entered his father's shop, and ordered a
suit of clothes to be made for himself, and which
he desired might be executed by the following
evening, and sent to his residence at the above
address. The clothes were accordingly sent home by
the time, witness taking them, when he was informed
that the prisoner was not in the way, but that if he
called in the course of two hours, he, no doubt, might
find him in the way. 'Witness then left, and on
calling in the course of two hours, found that he
had returned home. Prisoner immediately came
down to the door, and expressed his regret that
he had, been disappointed in having some cash, and
which would prevent his paying the amount of the
• suit, cash on delivery being the agreement ; but that
if witness would call with the clothes on the follow-
' ing evening (Thurrday) he would be sure to have
sufficient cash to settle the bill. On the \Thursday
evening witness again called at the prisoner's resi-
dence, when he was ushered into the sitting room.
The prisoner then expr ssed his desire to try the
clothes on, and they were handed over to him for
that purpose. He instantly proceeded into a kind of
nuti-room, as witness supposed, to put them on.
a few minutes afterwards a lad came up into the
sitting-room with a pair of boots, appa.
ready. 120 W from the hootmakees, and inquired for

the prisoner, but wbo was not forthcoming. A gen-
tleman next came up and made the same inquiries,
but met with the same unsatisfactory results. The
landlady, Mrs. Butterworth, at last entered the
apartment and informed them that the prisoner had
left the house about ten minutes previously. Wit-
ness, on passing a bootmaker's shop at the corner of
Essex-street, in the course of Friday afternoon, saw
the prisoner come out, and he immediately caused
him to be taken into custody.
Wardle, the City police-officer, stated that he re
ceived the clothes from the mother of the prisoner,
who lived at the boot-shop alluded to. They had,
apparently, been in pawn, for they were very much
creased, and had only been brought into the house a
short time before he seized him.
Sir J. DUKE wished to know whether Mr. Charles,
sen., could identify the prisoner as being the same
party who ordered the clothes of him on the Wednes-
day erening ?—Mr. Charles said he could not posi-
tively swear to him. The prisoner was something
like the party, but. tnere wa,s a dill-rence.
‘Vardle, the officer, thought he could assist Mr.
Charles in clearing up the doubt. When he appre-
hended the prisoner, he found him wearing a wig;
that was since doffed, and he thought that if it was
put on the prosecutor might then have an opportunity
of identifying the accused.
Sir J. Duan immediately ordered the wig on, and
on it being effected. Mr. Charles said he hart then no
doubt but what the prisoner -s-as the same porAcm who
ordered the clothes of him on the Wednesday evenif.g.
The prisoner was remanded.
CLERKEA WELL.

An old seaman, named Church, was charged with being
drunk and incapable.
The poor fellow had received his pension, 31. 45., yes-
terday, and having been watched by some heartless. art •
ful fellow, was induced to go,and drink with him, and hav-
ing been drugged with liquor, was robbed of every penny
he had: The old mac was eng-vtd in almost all the
brilliant naval encounters from 1800 to 1816. and re-
ceived a ball in the chest at the battle of Trafalgar.
Mr. COMM humanely discharged him. He lives with
his daughter, a poor dressmaker, in Cleveland-street,
Fitzroy-square, and said he feared that after the loss of
the money she would not receive him.
LAMBETH.

On Saturday a respectable-looking middle-aged
female; dreSied in " widow's weeds," applied to Mr.
Norton for his humane assistance.
The applicant stated that, through the sudden and
Unexpected death of her husband, herself and her six
children were at present reduced to a state of perfect
want, and she knew not what to do to provide them
with absolute necessaries. In reply to the questions
of Air. Norton, she said that her late husband, Mr.
John Moore, was an artist of considerable eminence,
and rapidly rising in his profession, when in the
midst of health he was seized with violent illness, and
died in a few hours afterwards. Though he had re-
ceived a good deal of money from several distin-
guished personages for portraits, and other paintings,
yet from having to provide for a young family in
a manner which he thought befitting his position, her
husband had not been enabled to make the slightest
provision for herself or his children, and the consee,
quence was, that the melancholy deprivation placed
her and her family in a state of dependence, and, she
might say, poverty. By the assistance of some kind
friends she took a house in West-square, in the hope
of being able to make a living for herself and family,
by boi.rd and lodging ; but this turned out a perfect
failure. Her furniture had been seizei on and sold
up for rent, and she was now left, as she had :before
stated, without the means of subsistence for herself
and children. The applicant further said that her
oldest child, a girl of seventeen, was out at a boarding-
schOol, giving her services for her board and lodging;
and the other six (and one of them in infant in arms)
were upon her hands. The applicant here handed to
Mr. Norton some flatterine: testimonials o,f the talents
of her late husband. Amongst il:rn was one from
Sir William Follett, in which that distinguished
lawyer addresses him in the most familiar
manner, 'and speaks in the highest terms of his pot,
trait of Sir Edward Sugden, the present Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland. .A.nother, from the Right Hon.
John Wilson Croker, in which that laconic writer,
addressing the late artist, says—" Dear Mr. Moore,
you will be glad to hear the picture came dowti safe,
and is pronounced here equal. to Sir Thonal's,"_
A third, from Mr. Barrow, of the Treasury,•in which
the writer speaks. in the highest terms of admiration
of the portrait of his mother, Lady Barrow, painted
by Mr. Moore; and several others, and from distin.
guished persons, equally laudatory of the talents and.
genius of Mr. Moore.
Mr. Noirrosi remarked that the funds in the poor-
box were intended to relieve those eases of distress
which came incidentally before the magistrates more
than in cases of applications for' relief, such as the
made by the applicant ; besides, the funds in the
poor-box were,.he was sorry to say, not very great.
He then directed one of the summoning officers to
make the necessary inquiries, and he having repre-
sented the circumstances precisely as they had been
described by Mrs. Moore, Mr. Norton ordered the
chief clerk to give the applicant a sovereign.
Mrs. Moore, on receiving the money, expressed her
gratitude to. the worthy magistrate for his kindness.