The Sun.
London, England, 1816-11-08 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY, Nov. 7.

Mx Taylor and Int. Judd, two young lads,
bode 14 years old, were convicted of grand lar-
ceny. The punishment bring in the discretion
of the Court, the .COMMON SIIRJEANT intimated
his intention of sending the boys to the Philan-
thropic Institution.
Robert Eden was convicted of stealing a bundle
from the person of Miss Bailey, in Holborn. The
COMMON SERJEANT observed, that the prisoner
would be transported for life. This WAS a most
useful prosecution, fur his Majesty's subjects must
be protected from such depredations.
David Cabilow and iittn, Jones were found guilty
of a. burglary in the house of John Senate, on the
sth of September, who is a butcher in
.Spitalfields.
The prosecutor had gone out in the evening, leav-
ing his wife and family in the house ; and about
haMpast 5 the robbery was found to be commit-
led. The wearing apparel stolen was traced to
an 'old clothes shop, kept by Solomon Solomon s.
Richard Dacidge stood. capitally indicted for
stealing in the dwelling-}rouse' of Dr. Reece a
silver tea-pot, value 101.
The: prisoner, according to the depositiOne of
the servant of the prosecutor, called tit the-house
and said that he came to mend a drain, which was
defective. No suspicion was entertained and he
was admitted down stairs. After having pretend-
ed to examine the drain, he said to the servant,
'' I think you are' called up stairs," but she said
that she would no: go until she wax rung for. Pre-
sently the bell did ripg ; it was answered ; and
upon the servant's coining down stairs again, she
found the prisoner had contrived to make off with
a silver tea-pot.----Guitty of stealing to the Value
0(39 shillings.
The prisoner stood again indicted for, a similar
offence in the house of Samuel Breuer, by steal-
ing therein a quantity of plate. Accompanied by
another man, the prisoner went into the house as
,plumbers, under the pretence of measuring the
water-pipe. One of the awn went into the hack
pin lour with the servant to look at the pipe, amt
the other proceeded into the kitchen, and ob.
mined the property in stuestien. Both the men

then went away, and said they would call next day.
Of course the promise was not fulfilled.—Guilty.
PaCTuall.--Thontos Goldsmith was indicted for
wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. ALLEY stated the case for the prosesution.
John J. Wilson produced an office copy of a re-
cord, in a cause in which William Bainbridge was
the plaintiff, and Mr. Osborn the defendant.
Richard Smith, clerk to Lord Ellenborough,
deposed, that the action in question was brought
in the King's Bench on the 15th of July.
Mr. Oliver, an attorney, was present at the
trial. The defendant was examined as a witness
for Osborne. Au account was 'put into the de-
fendant's hand on that occasion, and he was ask-
ed, whether the first entry of a bill of 1021. was
in the book in October 1815, which Goldsmith
denied. 'He said, that the bill of exchange upon
which the action was brought was not paid when
it became due. The note was drawn by Osborne,
Butterfield, and Denny, and made payable to
Charles Thoroughgood or order at seven months.
The defendant said, that on the 25th of June,
1815, he hail paid Thorough good 50/. and a simi-
lar sum in October, at Malpas's, in the neigh-
bourhood of Covent-garden, and that Bainbridge
was present at the time. The defendant said he
paid these sums on account of the note, for which
the action was then brought.
Mr. Comma', for the prisoner, then mile an
objection that the evidence for the prosecution
was not complete. The whole of the averments
in the indictment were not proved, as was re-
quired, according to the cases of the King r.
Lough, In Term Reports, and the King v. Dow-
ding, in Peake's Reports. In the latter case,
Lord Kenyon had decidedly given it as his opi-
nion, that hetore the conviction of a defendant
for perjury the whole avelments in the indirtmeht
tumt be proved. •
Nir. ALLEY , on the other hand, maintaived that
it was tint necessary for him to prove' t, very
words sworn on the trial, and that the evidence
was sufficiently complete, according to the opi-
n,ons of both Lord Ellenborough and Lotd
Kenyon.
The COMMON SEaJEANT, however, • watt of a
different opinion. The evidence, he conceived,
which had been adduced was not sufficient to con-
vict the defendant.

The Jury therefore found.a Yerilict—.Not

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.