The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-31 00:00:00

TUE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENIN.G, OCTOi3ER 31, 1842.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(TBIS DAY.),
OLD-COtil/Tr.
(Before Mr. Justice Eitilifi4V
TRIAL OF ALICE LOS E.
As it was understood that the trial of this young
woman, whose ease Ints attracted it-H.IA of public
atteritiOn, Would positively take place this morning,
the Old Court, Old Bailey, was crowded at an early
hour, and amongst the earliest arrivals were several
parties of ladies, of whom some (who were accom-
panied by their mothers) were of an age when
modesty might be supposed to repress curiosity, by
the nature of the disclosures to be expected.
The prisoner, who was very much altered since her
appearance in Marylebone police-office, and pow
looked not less than twentyfive years of age, was
placed at the bar at ten o'clock. She W2S described.
in the calendar as follows :—" Alice Lowe, aged 19,
spinster, charged with stealing two gold boxes, one
watch-hook and pendant, two miniatures, &c., the
property of Lord Frankfort, in his dwelling-house."
Mr. CLARKSON (with whom was Mr. Bodkin)
stated the case for the prosecution. The indictment
was preferred against the young woman at the bar
under circumstances which rendered his duty pecu-
liarly difficult, as they had brought forth upon
Lord Frankfort remarks which he was sure the Jury
would be convinced his Lordship did not deserve. It
would be the privilege of his friend (Mr. Adolphus),
who appeared for the prisoner, to do as he had done
elsewhere, and to present to them Lord Frankfort as
a person who deserved but little consideration. But
if the Jury were satisfied that the Noble Lord when
he was called before them .was speaking the truth
(and he almost thought he should apologize for the
suggestion), then they were bound patiently and dis-
passionately to discharge their duty, without any re-
ference whatever to the imprudence of the prosecutor,
except in the matter which brought them together
this day. He (Mr. Clarkson) should not condescend
to address them on the character of the person who
stood at the bar, but for what had been said of her in
connexion with the prosecutor, and which rendered
it necessary that the Jury should not be allowed to
think that Lord Frankfort had added to his impru-
dence the abomination of having seduced an innocent
girl from the paths of virtue: He knew that those
who made those representations made them in error—
Mr. ArioLruus—l see the scope of this. It is the
intention of my Learned Friend to enter into some
statement to repel something that has been said in the
newspapers. But we are not met here to discuss what
is said in newspapers, or in anything else, about the
prosecutor or the prisoner, or about her previous life.
Mr. Justice EasiiiNri--lf you suppose, Mr. Clark-
son, that anything which has appeared elsewhere is
likely to make an improper impression here, there
will be an opportunity to prevent that. But I did
not understand you to make any reflections upon the
prisoner's previous conduct. (A very unseemly noise
of persons pushing and talking in the Court rendered
a great part of what was said inaudible.)
Mr. CLARKSON was obliged to his friend for the
interruption. He would be the last person in the
world to introduce observations prejudicial to the ac-
cused and irrelevant to the question before the Jury,
and he would at once give way to the suggestion of
the Court. But his friend would forgive him for
putting the matter before the Jury in this way—that
the young woman at the bar had been for some years
past leading a life which was popularly called that of
a gay lad
DOy.
M.r. A LPIIUS—Really this is not to be allowed.
Mr. Justice ERSKINE—Mr. Clarkson, you know
you cannot go on this way. We cannot take cogni-
zance of what may have been said out of Court.

opal box, on which he could set no price
whatever. It, was matchless. There were also
1:4(.1 iraltiatle tienknires. • worth five —guineas,
and two eiui cases, *thidit *ere worth 2(11. each. He
had giVen none of these things to the pilsooers. nor
permission to pawn or dispose of any of the& They
ittfe kept iii a wardrobe, in which he kept his own
clothes. That the room in which he slept.
The wardrobe was always (TpFri -Wlliht he was in the
room, and he always locked when he wefit Otit; The
prisoner had access to it while she was in the rootil.
He made her several presents whilst she was with
him; and supplied her with clothes. She did not leave
the house with his knowledge the whole time. -
Cross-examined by Mr. Abottittia—i am a mar-
ried man. I was married in 1835 ; that is, I havebeen
married seven years, and have been separated from
Lady Frankfort four years. She lives in Chapel-
street, Grosvenor-square. The house in which I lived
at this time was not quite furnishes when the prisoner
was there, but it now is. Three rooms were
at that time furnished—the bed-room, dres-
sing-room, and drawing-room. My family
consists of two servants—a house-maid and a boy.
The boy is what is called a tiger, if you like, and the
housemaid is cook and housekeeper as well—if you
please, you may call her maid of all work. I have
parted with them both since this affair occurred
—about three weeks after Alice went away. I have
not brought them here to-day. Ihave not brought here
the girl Mitchell who was with the prisoner the first time
she came to me. I understood you had brought her. The
prisoner never left the-house during the time, nearly
two months, she was with me. Two friends used to.
visit her, who were, she said, her sister and niece.
No man came to see her, excapt the hair-dresser,
Mitchell, who came at her request to dress her hair.
I last saw the things which are contained in the in-
ventory in the drawer of the wardrobe. The things
purchased for this young woman were not kept in the
same drawer. There were a few of her things there,
such as hair-brushes and bottles. She had access to
that drawer only when I was in the room.
Mr. AnaLruns7—What, and did you lock up her
hair-brushes and bottles in the drawer?
Witness—l always locked the drawer when I left
'the room. Miad some friends to call on me • whilst
she was in the house. I cannot say who they were.
I rememlier two, Mr. Borodaile and. Mr. Malley.
They were both attorneys. They did not come ou
my .‘,business, but on that •of other persons.
They never saw the prisoner. Her own
friends came three or four or five times a-
week to visit her. When Mitchell brought her the
first night, her name was not mentioned, nor was
there a word said about her.
The Counr —Tell all that passed.
Miss Mitchell brought me tickets for her benefit,
and I took some to circulate. She did not remain ten
minutes at the most. I have not been in the habit of
circulating tickets for the benefit of players. I have
done so for Miss Mitchell three or four times.

Mr. ADOLPHUS—How came you to be so intimate
with her ? Witness—She had been in America, and
she brought me a letter from a person who knew me,
requesting that I would assist her if I could, and I
did so. This was' about a year ago.
Mr. Anosaqius-,-And did she have four benefits in
one year ? Witnesss— Yes ; when the prisoner came
to me I did not ask her where she came from, or who
she was. She introduced herself so suddenly that I
had not time.
Mr. ADOLPHUS—Are we then to understand that a
stranger, without introduction, was received into a
nobleman's house at nine or ten o'clock at night, and
was permitted to stop there nearly two months with-
out being asked who she was, or where she came from ?
Witness--I never ask where people come from. I
did not ask her all the time she stopped. I told her
if she liked to stop she must not be running about the
' streets, and if she chose to go she must stay away. I
never had any other woman living with me in this
way before. I haVe children, both in marriage and
otherwise. The woman by whom I have children,
out of marriage, lived with me seven years, and did
just as she liked. The prisoner went away
about nine o'clock, on the 22d of July,
and about ten o'clock I missed the things. I sent the man
servant to Richmond-buildings, where prisoner said
her sister lived, and no such person lived, there. I
then sent to Mr. Wooller, my solicitor. 1 cannot say
how long he has been my solicitor. I have applied to
him when I wanted to send to the police-office or the
like. lam not in the habit of having business at the
police-offices. Mr. W. advertised the things which were
missing, and circulated hand-bills. I never appeared
at a police-ofticeexcept in this transaction. I remember
the case of an Italian boy. I did not go to the police-
office then, but I was fined. I have employed Mr.
Wooller to go for me to the police-office about the
organs and nuisances of that sort. When I was fined
about the Italian boy, Mr. Lewis was my solicitor,
and attended'for me. I used to dine at home every
day whilst the girl at the bar was there. I have seen
her wear the ear-rings and also one of the miniatures.
They were all kept in the same drawer, and all in
their Own cases.
Mr. ADOL PHUS--Yiiirsay thlt she -was isr-want of:
clothes when she came to you, and that you supplied
her. How did they come to her ? "Witness—l wrote
by post to the dress-makers, at her request, and they
came to her.
Mr. ADOLPHUS—Why, have you not told me be-
fore that you went yourself to Mrs. Deacon's, in Re-
gent-street, and ordered the things ? Witness—l
did not.
Mr. CLARKSON objected to this mode of examination.
Mr. AnoLraus-s-Why the answer is in the depo-
sitions.
'Witness— Perhaps so but I never said it.
Mitchell was an actress when I first knew her. It
never happened that any other young lady besides this
came in her company. As soon as I missed the
things I inquired and sent to Mr. Wooler. I received
two letters from prisoner a fortnight or three weeks
after she left me. The post-mark on one is July 29.
This was a week after she left me. It is the first
letter. The second letter is dated August 3, and
about that time I received it. I sent the letters to
Mr. Wooler. Patterns of her dress?s were sent to-my
house in a basket, and she fitted them on. I never
gave Miss Mitchell any dresses.
Mr. ADOLPHUS—Neither male nor female ?
Lord Frankfort—She was going to act in a uniform
dress—she did not know what -coat to wear, and I gave
her a pattern—a little pattern—which she took to
her tailors.
By the COURT—It was about nine when the pri-
soner went away. I was in the library over the bed-room
I had left the drawer locked, and when I came down
I found it locked. I opened it. I saw several of
the cases there ; I examined them, and found them
empty.
Arthur James Jones—l was in the service of Mr.
Vaughan, pawnbroker, Strand, in July, August, and
September last. I produce a miniature ; I received it
in pledge on 6th July. I have had it ever since. I
cannot say for certain -which of those persons I re-
ceived it of. I know the prisoner as a customer, and
another who passes as her sister, and another, who
passes as her niece. It was to one of them I advanced
30s. on it. I produce a gold snuff-box, pledged 30th
September by the prisoner. It is an antique gold
box. I advanced 71. ss. on it. I have another box,
pledged 30th July by prisoner, with another box for
51. This is of Dresden china; it is old, and very va-
luable. I have the other at home, and will send for it.
I produce a watch. hook of gold and enamel. It was
pledged 30th September by. prisoner. I did not find
any duplicates for the articles left on 30th September.
I advanced 36/. 10s. on them. Prisoner said she
would call in the afternoon for the duplicates. I re-
ceived the opal box I produce on 30th September. I
received two knives also, which I do not produce, but
I will send for them ; they were pledged on the same
day as the other things, and by the prisoner. I pro-
duce a gold-mounted smelling-bottle, in a gold case,
received on 7th June. I am not certain which of
them brought that. I have another smelling-bottle
of china, received on 9th July from the prisoner. I
advances on the two smelling-bottles 8/. 10s., and on
the china smelling-bottle and tablets, 31. 10s. I pro-
duce an etui case, with cornelian snap, received on the
7th of July. All these things, had been pledged pre-
' viously, and redeemed and pledged again. The
whole had been redeemed on the 30th of August. The
whole had been previously separately pledged. The
etui case had been previously pledged, on the 7th of
July, for 51., redeemed,Aug. 30, and again pledged on
the 30th of September. I have not brought the
counter duplicates. The whole of the things were
pledged in the name of Chester, the only name by
which I knew the prisoner. I produce the
duplicates, which I returned myself. On the
7th of June the smelling-bottle and the gold case
was pledged in the name of Miss Chester, King-street.
On 9th July the gold scent-box and gold-mounted
tablets, in the name of Miss Chester, Craven-street.
On 26th July the miniature, in the name of Miss
Chester, 38, Craven-street. On 80th Jul} the two
snuff-boxes, in the name of Miss Chester, Leicester-
place. On 29th September the snuff-box I have left
behind, in 'the name of Miss Chester, Gerard- street ;
and also the gold etui case in the same name and
address; and the remaining articles on 30th Septem-
ber, in the same name, and with the same address.
I likewise produce a toothpick case of Dresden china,
on which I advanced 1/. It was pledged 30th Sep-
tember by, the prisoner. It had not been pledged
before. Som,e were in leather cases, and some without
any cases.
- Cross-examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS—I knew pri-
soner very well as a customer; knew she was living
with some nobleman, but knew nothing snore, I
never saw any hand-bill circulated among the trade
relating to these articles. Bills of that description
are generally stuck up in shops. I saw no such bill.
If any of those goods had been advertised as having
been stolen in the month of July, I would not have
advanced money on them in September. There was
no recommendation to secrecy or concealment when
they were pledged. They were offered with a dmi-

The prisoner ltre fainted, and it was a considerable
time before she was sufficiently recovered to be again
placed at the bar, when she was of an ashy paleness,
and seemed every, moment about to faint again.
Mr. CLARKSON said he had made the observations
to which his friend had objected only on account of
what had taken place on the cross-examination of the
prosecutor at the police-office.
Mr. Justice ERSKINE—I think you will see that
you cannot proceed in this way.
Mr. CLARKSON readily submitted to the Court. He
should, however, state to the Jury that Lord Frank-
fort was a married man, but had been for some time
separated from his wife ; since which he had led a
more secluded life than before. It appeared that he
first became acquainted with the prisoner on the 26th
of May last, when she came to his house in the com-
pany of another person. But on that occasion no in-
troduction took place. On the 28th she came to him
again, and that time she was unaccompanied. She
remained with his Lordship until the 22d of July,
and during that time he presented her with a valuable
brooch and other ornaments; and she was in the habit
also of wearing diamond earrings, a diamond pin, and
other jewellery, to which she had access, but which
she put on without the prosecutor's knowledge,
although he afterwards permitted her to wear
the rings and the pin. These things were usu-
ally kept in the room in which his Lordship slept,
and to which the prisoner, whilst living with him had
access. On one occasion his_Lordship found that she
had removed the diamond pin from the case, and upon
his inquiring what had become of it, she told him that
she had given it to one of her relations for the purpose
of borrowing money on it at a pawnbroker's. He
was very touch vexed at this, but he gave her a
check for 251., and the pin was restored. On the
22d July, the prisoner left Lord Frankfort's house,
without any quarrel, without any intimation, or any
thing occurring which could lead him to think that
she Intended to go. Soon after her going he missed
the valuable property which she had taken, and he
immediately made Inquiry for her amongst those
whom she had represented to be her relations. He
now found that he had been altogether imposed upon,
and made a dupe of, and he learned her real character.
During the short time that she lived with him he had
expended nealy 3001. upon her, for when she came to
him she was poorly provided with clothes. On fur-
ther inquiry he heard that she was at a house in Soho;
and on going there he found a woman, whom she had
represented to be her sister, and introduced to him as
such at his house. He did not find the prisoner there,
but the pawnbrokers' duplicates of his property, of
considerable value, were found there. On the 30th
July the prisoner was found in Chancery-lane ; and
it would be proved that she had pawned, or rather
that she had deposited as• security for money with a
pawnbroker, property of considerable value, upon
which she had: just raised the sum of 26/. For that
property she had received no duplicates, but the dupli-
cates of the rest of the property taken from his Lord-
ship were found in the house of the person called her
sister. All these things had been within her reach.
She had access to them. She had been in the habit
of looking at them, and admiring them. One of the
articles which she took away had, undoubtedly, been
given to her ; and another she had, as he had stated,
taken the liberty to pawn. If, from these facts, the
Jury were satisfied that the prisoner stole from his
Lordship's house the property laid in the indictment,
to which she had access, and which were thus traced
to her possession, it would be their duty to find her
guilty. They were :aware that, by an Act which
had lately passed the Legislature, his friend (Mr.
Adolphus) would have the privilege of addressing
them on the part of the prisoner. He (Mr. Clarkson)
would not anticipate the course which his friend
might think proper to adopt in the defence of his
client. He would, therefore, conclude with these ob-
servations; his friend was aware that if he called wit-
nesses for the defence, he (Mr. Clarhson) would be in
a condition to address the Jury again, and would
have no reason to regret that he did not now occupy
their time longer, by attempting to anticipate the
defence.
Lord Frankfort (who seems to be about 35 years
old, of a tall and portly figure, with strongly marked
features, and copious dark hair and whiskers) was
then called and examined by Mr. BODKIN—His
name is George Raymond. he is an Irish Peer,
Viscount Frankfort de Montmorenci. At the time
of this transaction resided in Southwick-terrace,
Paddington. Had been living there since October or
November of last year. Had been for some time sepa-
rated from Lady Frankfort. First saw the prisoner
on the 26th May. She came to his house in company
with a person of the name of Mitchell. That was
about nine o'clock in the evening. When they came
he was about to retire to bed. Had some conversation
with Mitchell in the drawing-room and in the hall.
Prisoner was present, but he did not speak to her,
nor she to him, the whole time. they remained no
more that six or seven minutes. They went away
together. He had not expected the visit that evening,
nor had he to his knowledge ever seen the prisoner
before. He saw her again two days after. She came
to his house in a cab. She was alone. It was about
the same hour in the evening, about nine o'clock. He
was above stairs when she came, and he met her on
the landing-place. There was a light on the stairs
and in the hall. He asked her what she came for ?
She said she came to see him and to stop with him.
This was in the drawing-room. He told her she had
better not; she had friends who would be uneasy
about her, and she had better go home to them.
After she had stopped with him near an hour, and
he saw that she would not go away, I e went to
the door And dismissed the cab. •She stopped
from that time to the 22d of July. When she went
he had no reason to suppose she was going. There
had not been the slightest quarrel. Whilst she was
with him, he had in his possession two miniatures,
one of which cost him 101., and the other 16/. He
had also three china snuff boxes—very rare—it would
be impossible to match them, and no price could be
put on them. They were pawned for 201. each. He
had bought them with other valuables in a mass, and
he could not say what they cost him, nor could he
put any price on them. There was also a gold tooth-
pick and case. They were very valuable, but he
could not say what they cost. He was in the habit of
collecting such things, when they were curious, and
he bought them in quantities. There was a gold
snuff-box, worth 91., and a watch-hook and pendant,
which cost him 60/, There was also an

neering manner. I told her that I must make some
inquiries, as they were unusual things for me to see ;
and she satisfied me at once by saying they were
presents.
Re-examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I should not be
satisfied with such an answer, unless from a person I
knew, I have known prisoner four in- five years. I
first knew she was living with a nobleman in the
early part of June. I have frequently known her in
similar circumstances. 'I did not know she was living
in that way from her own account, but only from
supposition and hearsay.
Mr. Justice ERSKINE—Then- you can carry that
no further.
William Round examined by Mr. BODKIN—I am
an assistant to Mr. Rochford, a pawnbroker in
Brewer-street, Golden-square. The miniature pro-
duced was pledged on the 26th of July by prisoner,
in the name of Mrs. Linsdale, 18, Craven-street,
Strand. I lent 3/. 10s. on it. It is in a gold case.
I never saw her before. •
Inspector Ames, A division—l searched for pri-
soner on 29th September last. I went to 46, Gerard-
street, Soho, found 12 pawnbrokers' duplicates there
I gave up six to the prisoner's sister as not having
any reference to this charge. The others are July 30,
for two snuff-boxes pledged _at Vaughan's, No. 39,
Strand, for 51. Os. 4d:, in the name of Miss Chester,
Leicester-place ; July 26, same place, miniature
.1/. 10s., by Miss Chester, 36, Craven-street; July 9, at
the same place; a gold and china'seent-box, and a gold-
mounted tooth-pick, 31. 10s. •(The witness proceeded
to read the remaining duplicates, which were those
given to the prisoner by the two preceding witnesses,
and spoken to by them.) The duplicates were in the
lid of a work-box. I went to the house on the 30th
and did not find the prisoner there. I inquired for her.
She had been taken in the mean time.
Cross-examined .by Mr. ADOLPHUS—I had been
informed by Mr. Lewis of what had occurred some-
time before. I was employed on the 29th, and she
was in custody on the 30th. I made inquiries as to
where she was, and traced her to•the house s question.
Lord Frankfort recalled---,ldentified the articles
produced as his property.
Cross-examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS—i think I re'd
collect Miss Mitchell coming twice while the prisoner.
was there. Prisoner once offered heia small etui case.
Ido not see it here. Prisoner had been with me three
days. I forbad her to give it away. She took it up
from the table. I said "I do not allow any person
to give that away." I was in the army. I left tii n
1827. I was in the 10th Hussars. I left the ary
on coming of age.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. ADOLPHUS then proceeded to address the Jury
for the defence. The Learned Gentleman said that
during the course of a long professional experience,
he had never met with a case more painful than the
present. He stood there as the advocate of a young
woman oppressed by a prosecution by a Noble Lord,
who, after lying for two months on her bosom, was
now seeking to prosecute her to banishment. *hen
a crime was easily alleged, but difficult of disproof, if
the accuser neglected to produce all the witnesses
which might be produced to corroborate his story, the
story dismissed itself as disproved. Suppose that the
prisoner had charged his. Lordship with rape, and had
neglected to produce the persons in the • house to cor-
roborate her story, would they have believed her ?
Why, then, should they believe his Lordship's story, thuS
uncorroborated and unsupported ? Her defence was, as
it always had been, that she had received these articles
in a mass as a present, and as the price of her pros-
titution. His Lordship now thought he had pur-
chased his pleasures too dearly, and wished to get his
jewellery back again. It had been made a subject of
complaint by the prosecution that the-Press had taken
up the matter in a manner hurtful to his Lordship's
feelings. He (Mr. Adolphus) .saw little of the daily
papers, but in an enlightened and inquiring com-
munity, if' a person chose to make himself con-
spicuous by voluntarily instituting a prosecution
which could do no man alive any honour, he must
not be surprised if persons who had a proper sense of
propriety should make comments upon his conduct.
His Lordship, in this prosecution against the unfor-
tunate prisoner, was actuated solely by a desire to get
back the jewellery which he had given the prisoner
If she were convicted they must be restored, and pro-
vided he got them back he cared not for the prisoner,
who, for two months, had lived with him. Like
Shylock, his Lordship was ready to exclaim, " Would
she were dead, so that the jewels were in her coffin,—
would she were dead, so that my diamonds were in
her ear." That alone seemed to be the object of the
prosecution. He could not believe that after reposing,
night after night, o n the bosom of this unfortunate
creature, for two months, his Lordship would seek to
drive her into banishment for revenge. No ! his Lord-
ship's only object was gain. Let them look at Lord
Frankfort's statement. Could they believe the state-
ment that he told of his first introduction to
the prisoner ? Could they believe that Miss
Mitchell had called on him, as he represented,
at a late hour of the night with the girl, that nothing
passed between them, that the girl went away, re-
turned again two nights after, saidilere I am, and that
then, without any preliminary conversation, or any of
those fendnesses by which connections Of this sort are
usually preceded, the girl remained with his Lord-
ship, and consented to be shut-up for two whole
months? What could they believe but that this jewellery
was the price of that imprisonment ? The counsel for
the prosecution had asked him to produce the sister
and niece of the prisoner who had visited him. He
should do no such thing. It was for the prosecutor
to do that. Lord Frankfort had sought his client,
not his client Lord Frankfort. Lord Frankfort had
taken her into keeping, not she Lord Frankfort;
therefore it was for his Lordship to produce them if
he wanted them. How had he acted when she had
proposed to give away the etui case in his presence ?
IVhy he had not said I am astonished at your imper-
tinence in daring to give away these things. No, he
had quietly desired her not to give it away, as he
might have asked her not to dispose of any other
present he might have given her. If the days of Jo-
nathan Wild had come back again, could they, in the
most common thief-taking case, convict a person on
such evidence as that of his Lordship ? With regard
to calling witnesses to character, how could he,
do so ? the prisoner's character had been de-
stroyed by his Lordship. She had lived two months
with him • how could she have any character after that ?
Fortunately, this was not a question in which they
were bound to disbelieve either the girl or his Lord-
ship. They all knew the effects which a good dinner
and a bottle of wine produced on persons of his Lord-
ship's temperament, and he put to them whe-
ther all the circumstances of the case did not
show that in a moment of fondness, after taking his
wine, his Lordship had given the prisoner those things
in a mass, and had afterwards forgotten it ? Did not
the circumstances under which they were pawned bear
out the supposition? They were all pawned se-
parately, sometimes by the prisoner, sometimes
by her sister or her niece—were redeemed,
pledged again, and all this was done openly without
any attempt at concealment. When she left his
Lordship she showed herself in public. She was
easily traced. She wrote to his Lordship, who never
answered her letters, and after a lapse of two months,
she was taken into custody on this charge. These
articles were missed in July, and yet no inquiry is
made about them until September. With regard to the
story of the handbill could they believe that any such
handbill had been circulated ? There was no bill pro-
duced, Mr. Wooller was not produced, the printer
was not produced, and the pawnbroker had heard no-
thing of these bills; could they doubt, then, but that
these things had been given to the prisoner as a pre-
sent, and that she was entitled to a verdict of acquittal
at their hands ?
(The Learned Gentleman throughout his address
spoke in a very low tone, and was at times quite
inaudible in the Reporters box.)
Mr. Justice ERSKINE—I think the prosecution
must elect upon which of the articles produced they
will proceed, or upon what data they will rely.
They must fix some day on which they charge the
offence to have been committed.
Mr. BODKIN—We will* elect to proceed on the
articles pledged on the 30th of September.
' Mr. Justice ERSKINE—AII the articles pledged on
30th September had been pledged before—that was a
re-pledging. You cannot lay that as a stealing in a
dwelling-house.
Mr. BODKIN—Then we will take the 22d July, the
day she left the house:
Mr. Justice ERSKINE—That excludes all the arti-
ties pledged on the 7th June. •
Mr. BODKIN—It excludes the gold smelling-bottle,
the gold key, the etui case, and the china smelling-
bottle.
Mr. Justice ERSKINE, in summing up, said, that it
was impossible for any person to have heard the evi-
dence in this case, without entertaining the greatest
feeling of compassion for the unfortunate woman at
the bar, and an anxious desire that the Jury should,
if they could consistently with the evidence and with
the oaths they had taken, acquit her oribe offence
with which she was charged. At the same time they
must not suffer themselves to be influenced by such
feelings if they were satisfied from the evidence that
she was really guilty of the charge laid in the indict-
ment. If, however, they had any doubt on the sub-
ject they would no doubt gladly give the. prisoner the
benefit of that doubt, and return a verdict of acquittal.
It had been suggested for the defence that Lord
Frankfort had given her the articles in question, that
he • hod • afterwards repented of what he had
done, and had instituted the prosecution to
get then back again. This was a terrible
imputation io make against any man, m_ pre especially
against a man occupying the station of Lord Frank-
fort. He found nothing in the evidence to show that
Lord Frankfort could be so base as first of all to make
a present to this unfortunate young woman, and after
that to attempt to
withdraw it by accusing her of
felony. That, however,. was a question which they
were to
.decide, mother surPo4tion offered . for