The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-04 00:00:00

SURREY S ESSIONS.

Yesterday 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-key, the property of her husband.
The trial created more than ordinary interest, in cone
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 want into a public-house
in the Borough, on the evening of the 4th of December
last, to call fur a glad 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 positive manner, and, a policeman
coming up at the time, addressed him, tee in " The
woman accuses me of robbing her." The policeman
ast:ed her of what site had been robbed, when she stated
two half-crowns and a latch-key. One of the helf-
crowns the proseeutrix 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 ho 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 not 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. CHARNOCEI severely cross-examined the prosecu-
trix. She stated that the 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
invite 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 20. 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. Ile did not say
to me, I see by the papers you have lost two half-

crowns.' "

The Learned COUNSEL then, on behalf of the prisoner,
made a most powerful address. He said it was one of
the most unholy prosecutions ever brought into a court
of justice, and ho 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.

1 The Learned CoturrsEL 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,
far being drunk and disorderly. Her dress was in the
greatest state of confusion, and the skirt of the gown
she wore came away from the body, and the prisoner
t•ent for some pins to pin it. together.
Elizabeth Sheen, a servant at a house of ill-fame in
K-ent-street, stated that on the evening of the robbery
th e prisoner came to the house in company with the pro..
sec sitrix. Witness herself lighted the woman up stairs.
Tb ey were the only parties who came in that evening at
sucl ian early hour. The prisoner was brought the next
day to the house in custody of a policeman, and she in-
stanti.y identified him. On going to Union-hall, witness
there saw the prosecutrix, who was the same woman who
accorn pulled the prisoner to Kent-street the preceding
evenin g. Witness could not be mistaken as to the
identil :y.
The landlord of the Naked Boy proved that the prose-
catrix was at the bar on the day of the robbery—she had
sorne rum to drink—she was drunk and creating a dis-
turimne e, and witness turned her out himself.
Other witnesses were called, who proved that the pro-
secutrix in the habit of getting so much intoxicated
thatsecu tsrhilf, vi as brought home in a state of insensibility on
She was subject to " drunken fits."
h
a aThe race r.,
hinlE and was unexpectedly called, and examined
by the Learned Chairman at some length, and he ad-
mitt ad that ho.haa had a conversation with his wife rela-
ive Lo her being robbed.
summedof
those
saet
distressinggrea t
which
said
that the
hteheCplirielsßenUtd-gwtieone
we were sometimesand
compelled to witness in a court of
just ice. That there had been most wicked, wilful,
eon upt perjury on one side or the other was beyond a
( 100 bt, and it would be for the jury to decide on which.
r., "here was one startling fact in the case which he could
n of get over, and this was the circumstance of the key
b sing found in the possession of the prisoner. Then
ai gain the prosecutrix identified the hall-crown even be-
fa. re the policeman had seen it or examined it. The case
wa.s a very difficult one, and the jury would weigh well
the . evidence, and give it their most careful consideration,
so a i to enable them to return a righteous, upright, and
just judgment, fearless of all consequences. The pri-
sone r bad received a most undeniable character for ho-
nest e ; but, in considering their verdict, they would be
quid ad by the evidence alone. The Learned Counsel
had made some severe observations relative to the con-
duct of the Bench, stating that they had a prejudice
ar,„j_ est the prisoner. Such was not the case. The
C -Am - had only instituted a most searching cross-exami-
na Lion into the witnesses' evidence for the defence, in
era der t ) test their truth. The Court would commit the
ci oe et oirely to the hands of the jury, confident that they
w cute, .re,`urn a just and righteous verdict, without fear,
fi ivot ir, or affection, in accordance with the terms of
ti 3eir solemn and sacred oath.
T 1 ie jury immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
0 i hearing the verdict the prisoner burst into tears,
at id was immediately surrounded by a host of friends.
TI ,ere was an attempt at applause on hearing the vete
dict, but it was immediately checked by order of the
Co ,T rt.