The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-08 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY.-(THIS DAY.)'

OLD COURT.

ROBBERY AT A POST-OFFICE..

- - .
Thomas Joseph Hinton was indicted for secreting
letter containing a 10/. post bill, which was put into tO
receiving-house kept by his employer in High Holbert',
Mr. SHEPHERD stated the case to the Jury. The pot
saner was employed.hy Mr. Wasp, a cordwainer, in 114
Holborn, who also kept a receiving house. The prisoner
had had an opportunity of seeing how the letters were ere
ceived and conveyed to the General Post-office.,The 104,
in question was put into the receiving house by-.Zachatiee
Finch, and post-paid. It did not reach its destination,.ile
was found with the bill under the board at which heworkee,'
On seeing it, he denied all knowledge of it, but seentr
greatly agitated. The servant who was there iearchingi,
found also two other letters. The prisoner the'. requester
that
„she would not say any. thing about them
It was Proved in' cross-examination by Mr.' 'lnutile'
that several persons had access to the board wheie
letters were, found,; that the prisoner had anipportno
of taking away .the third letter when he shut up, tlitislel
and went home at night,, and might have gone awayiber
returned to wank as usual on the next day. •
Me. Plitt.Lies took two legal objections to the indict'
rnent. The first was, that the prisoner, as charged je,
sonic of the counts, had never been entrusted by the Peri
.Office, and therefore could not be convicted 'r
stealing as their servant. The net objection W
that the Act of Parliament on which the indicting
was framed, expressed that any person stealing a letter
" from and out of" any carriage or post•house or office'
There was in this case no evidence that the letter was ell
in any letter-box, or that it had ever been removed " fin°
or out of" the house or box, which was in fact the post'
office, as they had been found in the same room.
Mr. BOLLAND opposed the objection, Mr. Pilaus's re'
plied, and the Recommit considered the first objectiee
was well founded. "With regard to the nextaibjection,,bli
considered that the words of the Act must be conitrur
strictly, and not as Mr. Bolland argued, with .respect
the intention when taken. The letter Lad never bed
proved to have been in the boX, and consequently never
under the controul, or in the possession of thy Poet-office',
He therefore directed an acquittal, and the Jury returnee
a verdict of " Not Guilty."

He .was then charged, on another indictment, will
having embezzled a certain sum for the postage of a lette(-
being at the time-a servant-of the Post Office, as charge
before. . The same objection. applied to this
and he was again acquitted.
He was then indicted, as a servant to Mr. WaSpoviii
having embezzled, on the 14th of June, a sum of nine
pence, which he had received as the postage of a letter.
This letter was the third one mentioned in the first 014
and found on the shelf. On its being found, the .prisoa
admitted that the inscription on the letter, « Paid 9(1,1L0'
in his hand-writing. That was the strongest fact pro"'
against the prisoner, as it was never traced into his pO
session.

The prisoner denied all knowledgeof the letters,but .6001
instances of letters having slipped by accident behind tl
counter, and that the money which was receireil after'
o'clock was accessible to every one who came into the shoP'
lie also received kgood character, and the Jnry, after a 100
charge from the RECORDER, immediately acquitted Litt.
He was then indicted Mr embezzling the postage mond,
of the first letter belonging to ZachariahFitch,but no eci'
dence was adduced, and he was again acquitted.