The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-28 00:00:00

CROWN SIDE-MARCH 26.

Abraham Mills. Abraham Hardy, Thomas Standrim,
Benjamin Chadwick, John Cocker, and William Buckley,
were indicted for a burglary in the house of Josiah
Taylor, at Knott Lanes, near Ashton-under-Lyne, on
the 28th of Sept. last.
Mr. Brandt for the prosecution ; Mr. Cobbett, Mr.
Blair, and Mr. Wilkins for the several prisoners.
It appeared that on the night in question, some per-
sons residing in Knott Lanes were passing the house of
Taylor, when they perceived four men standing in his
fold, near the window of his shop. They saw sufficient
to induce them to think there was something wrong, and
ran on to the houses of some of their acquaintances to
get assistance. On coming back there were still four
men standing near the window, having some clothes in
their hands, who ran away. Three men were then seen
to come out of the shop window without hats, coats, or
shoes. One got clear off, the second was knocked down
with a poker, but also got away, and the third was ap-
prehended as he was getting out of the window. lie
proved to be the prisoner Mills. Some jugs and other
articles had been moved to the outside of the window.

All the other prisoners were identified as having formed
part of the gang on the occasion. The evidence, how-
ever, was somewhat confused ; it appeared that the night
was a dark one, and that the greater number of the pri-
soners were entire strangers to those who now deposed
to their identity.
Evidence was given of the prisoners having been to-
gether at Ashton up to near twelve o'clock on the night
in question. Hardy, on being apprehended, was found to
have a recent cut on his forehead, and in his house were
discovered a pair of shoes, which were claimed by the
prisoner Mills.
The prisoners were all convicted and sentenced to 15
years' transportation.
In the course of the day the Grand Jury, in bringing
into Court a bill against a Mr. Heaps, of Bolton, for
manslaughter, which had been ignored, stated, through
their foreman, Mr. Bootle Wilbraham, their unanimous
opinion that there was not the slightest shadow of a
ground for the charge which had been preferred.
His LORDSHIP said he had looked over the depositions,
and entirely concurred with the Grand Jury, that there
was not the most remote ground for impugning either
the care or skilfulness of Mr. Heaps, who now left the.
Court without the slightest imputation on his character.
It will be recollected that Mr. Heaps was the medical
gentleman attached to the Bolton workhouse, who had
given direction for the exposing to the fumes of, sulphur
.f a pauper afflicted with a lousy disease, in the usual
apparatus for that purpose, contrived so as to exclude
the head of the party. The pauper died some time
after, as was proved, of inflammation of the lungs, but
this seemed no ground whatever, for alleging that her
death had any connexion with the sulphur bath, to which
she had been exposed.
CIVIL SIDE--(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
BLAIR V. HALDRED.

This was an action of trover for a poodle dog.
Mr. Martin appeared frr the plaintiff, and, Mr. Wit
kins for tke defence.

The plaintiff, who resides near Manchester, had pur-
chased in August last two puppies, about ten .weeks old.
One of them died. The defendant was for some short
time away from home, and in his absence the second
puppy was lost. Some short time after a dog was found
by a neighbour, and taken to the plaintiff's house. The
plaintiff's wife: supposed it to be the dog she had lost, but
within a day or two the defendant came, claimed the dog,
and took it away. He said he had paid ss. for it the
Monday before at Stockport. This action was now
brought to recover it, and the only question was as to.its
identity. The witnesses for the plaintiff swore positively
as to the dog the defendant carried away being the dog
the plaintiff had purchased. It was described as exmed-
ingly small.
For the defence a number of witnesses were called,
who professed to identify the dog as one which the de-
fendant had purchased in Stockport, and mentioned. se-
veral marks by which they recognised it, among others
that it was bored in the ears. The litigated poodle was
now produced, and appeared to have thriven well, being
much larger than from the testimony of the plaintiff's
witnesses would have been thought possible.
Mr. MARTIN contended, in reply, that the poodle -pro-
dwed was a changeling, and not that which had been
taken away by the defendant.
The Jury, afterretiring for some time, returned a ver-
dict for the defendant.

The Court was engaged a great part of the day with
the trials of undefended causes.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

An information was laid against William Mincheil, an
old smuggler upon a large scale, by the revenue officers
for having brought over from Ostend, in the Menai
steam-boat, without payment of duty, 3,345 Flemish, ells
of foreign lace, and a small quantity of tea.
The officers having had information of the arrival of
this man, went on board the Menai, but he managed to
escape -to the house of his son-in-law in Lower Tha ales-
street, where he stripped himself of the lace, which was
so concealed about his person by calico pockets, that no
part of him appeared to be disproportioned to the rest
of his body ; even his neck and legs were stuffed with
the neatly-arranged lace. The above-mentioned quan-
tity of lace was found in the house, and also the calico-
dress in which the defendant had performed the chit-me-
ter. The officers said they had not then the power of
detaining the defendant, as the lace was thread and -not
silk. Since the seizure he had disappeared. It was
stated that the defendant had been caught at Dover IN ith
a great many thousand yards of lace, and had frequim tly
visited Brighton with foreign goods.
The ALDERMAN having heard proof that the goods
had not paid the duty, fined the defendant loot. The
lice was, of course, lodged in the Queen's warehouse..
An old woman, of decent appearance, named Sarah
Lewes, was brought before Sir C. Hunter under the fol-
lowing circumstances :—A policeman, named God win,
stated that he had been informed by a man named R;ey-
nolds, that the prisoner, who kept a marine store-s hop
in Silver-street, was a receiver of stolen goods ;
being told by Reynolds that a boy had taken s erne
broken pewter-pots into the shop, he went to the pl
and asked the prisoner whether she had made any inn--
chase of the kind. She replied she had not, and was
not in possession of anything of the sort. Witness,
however, put over his hand to the spot near which she
was standing, and took hold of a bundle which proved to
be the pieces of broken pewter pots, which had the
name of the publican upon them. He considered he
was justified in taking the prisoner into custody. Be
did not know where Reynolds was.
The old woman swore most positively that she bad