The Sun.
London, England, 1829-08-01 00:00:00

ROW.STREET.

On Thursday eveninga respectable-looking woman
was brought hi custody before Sir R. BIRNIE, by
George Crow, a Surrey constable, charged upon
suspicion of having unlawfully pawned forty-two
towels and a table-cloth, the property of her master,
Lord Amelius Beauclerck, uncle to the Duke of
St. Alban's.

Crow stated that a robbery had been committed
at the house of a Mr. Francis, in the Kent-road,
and in consequence of information he received, he
went that morning to search the lodgings of a
woman named Jane Tingley, who was suspected of
having stolen the property. In searching a tea-
caddy in her room, he found two duplicates, one
for this ty-six towels pledged for 175., and the other
for six towels and a table-cloth, for 15s. Suspect-
ing that this property had been dishonestly come
by, he (Crow) questioned the woman Tingley re-
specting it, and she at once acknowledged that the
towels and table-cloth were given to her to pledge
by the housekeeper of Lord Amelius Beauclerk.
Upon receiving this intelligence, he (Crow) pro-
ceeded to his Lordship's residence in Margaret-
street, Cavendish-square, where he found the pri-
soner ; and, under the impression that she had
stolen the property from her master, he took her
into custody.
The prisoner appeared considerably hurt at the
charge, and declared that it was totally false. She
had lived, she said, for twenty-eight years in the
service of Lord Amelius Beauclerk, and was never
accused of any dishonest act before. The fact was,
that the towels and table-cloth had been cast off by
his Lordship, and as such became her perquisite.
The woman, Jane Tingley, having represented to
her that she was in great distress, she lent her the
towels and table-cloth to pawn, for her temporary
relief.

Sir R. BIRNIE asked Crow if he had apprized
Lord Amelius Beauclerk of the circumstances under
which his servant was accused.

The constable replied, that his Lordship was out
of town, but expected to return in the course of that

afternoon.

Sir R. BIRNIE observed that he could not think
of sending the accused to prison after the explana-
tion she had given. It was the duty of Crow to
have taken the woman into custody upon whom he
found the duplicates, and not to have arrested the
prisoner. The Magistrate then told her that she
might go where she pleased, upon condition of her
coming forward in the morning, in order that she
might be confronted with the other woman, whom
he ordered Crow to apprehend.
Yesterday morning Crow again appeared at the
office before Mr. MINSHULL with the woman Jane
Tingles in custody.

Upon being questioned respecting the duplicates
, found in her possession, she declared that the house-
keeper of Lord Beauclerk had given her the articles
to pledge upon her own account; and the reason she
assigned for being obliged to raise money upou her
master's property was, that his Lordship, upon leav-
ing town, had neglected to leave her money for
board wages.
Mr. MINSHULL observed, that this statement was
direct at variance with that which the housekeeper
had given to Sir Richard Birnie en the previous
evening. He then directed the constable to wait
upon Lord Amelius Beauclerk as soon as he should
arrive in town, to ascertain from his Lordship if his
housekeeper had any authority to pledge the arti-
cles in question. The circumstances of the case
furnished ground for strong suspicion.
The prisoner was then allowed to depart.

It is but fair to state, that the housekeeper was in
attendance at the office, and ready to be examined
before the arrival of Crow and his prisoner. After
waiting some time, we believe Sir It. Birdie told
her she had no occasion to remain any longer, as the
other parties had not appeared at the hour appointed
An old man, a butcher, was charged by a soldier
of the Foot Guards with obstructing him upun his
duty. The soldier was accompanied to the office
by the Deputy Marshal of the King's Household at
St. James's, who complained that he was obliged
to come forward in person to support the charge, a
Bow-street officer, named Pace, having declined to
interfere.

The defendant having expressed his regret for
what had happened, was suffered to depart upon
apologising to the soldier.
Herring, the conductor of patrol, soon afterwards
appeared before the Magistrate, with the serjeant of
the regiment, to explain why Pace had declined in-
terfering in the business. The police-officers gene-
rally understood that they had no power to take a
party into custody, charged with an assault, unless
they happened to see the assault committed. Pace
had not seen the soldier either pushed or struck,
and therefore declined to take charge of the de-
fendant.