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 felonious?), 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 con-
sequence of the extraordinary nature of the alleged
robbery, and from the circumstance of the prisoner
being possehsed 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 went into a public-house
in the Borough, on the evening of the 4th of December
last, to call for a glass 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 se 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
coining up at the time, addressed him, saying, " The
woman accuses me of robbing her." The policeman
asked her of what she had been robbed, when she stated
two halt-crowns and a latch-key. One of the half-
crowns the prosecutrix 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 he had got there ;to hich he replied,
" Nothing." The key was, however, found in the hand-
kerchief, at which the prisoner seemed thunderstruck,
anti 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. CIIARNOCI severely cross-examined the prosecu-
trix. She stated that she 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 2d. 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. He 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 he 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.

The Learned COUNSEL then called several witnesse.,
who proved that on the evening of the robbery the pro-
secutrix was turned out of the Naked Boy public-house,
for 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
sent for some pins to pin it together.
Elizabeth Sheen, a servant at a house of ill-fame in
Kent-street, stated that on the evening of the robbery
the prisoner came to the house in company with the pro-
secutrix. Witness herself lighted the woman up stairs.
They were the only parties who came in that evening at
such an early hour. The prisoner was brought the next
day to the house in custody of a policeman, and she in-
stantly identified him. On going to Union-hall, witness
there saw the prosecutrix, who was the same woman who
accompanied the prisoner to Kent-street the- preceding
evening. Witness could not be mistaken as to the
identity.
The landlord of the Naked Boy proved that the prose-
catrix was at the bar on the day of the robbery—she had
some rum to drink—she was drunk and creating a dis-
turbance, and witness turned her out himself.
Other witnesses were called, who proved that the pro-
secutrix was in the habit of getting so much intoxicated
that she was brought home in a state of insensibility on
a shutter. She was subject to " drunken fits."
The husband was unexpectedly called, and examined
by, the Learned Chairman at some length, and he ad-
mitted that be had had a conversation with his wife rela-
ii+o to her being robbed.
The CHAIRMAN summed up at great length, and said
that the present was one of those distressing cases which
we were sometimes compelled to witness in a court of
justice. That there had been most wicked, wilful, and
corrupt perjury on one side or the other was beyond a
doubt, and it would be for the jury to decide on which.
There was one startling fact in the case which he could
not get over, and this was the circumstance of the key
being found in the possession of the prisoner. Then
again the prosecutrix identified the half-crown even be-
fore the policeman had seen it or examined it. The case
was a very difficult one, and the jury would weigh well
the evidence, and give it their most careful consideration,
so as to enable them to return a righteous, upright, and
t e rT fhoer pri-
sonerhouessttyj u;hdag_dmu
.re,e
received
vfearless
mostof
undeniable all .
charac
considering
evidenceba,l,tohneet.r
Thuverdict,
Letahrenye
Learned
ould
Counselbe
s no-t
the case. The
against the prisoner.
Such
wta searching cirose-extuni-
had made some severe crythataitontshervelabtai%d,e
atoptrheieucdoince-
Court had only instituted a most
:"uuei(tleodf bht)h'et thßineench, stating
Bross-exami-
nation
orderation
to into
testto the
their
truth. witnesses'
that they
would entirely to the hands of the jury,
confident
'thout fear,
would return a just and righteous verdict, without 'Theevid evidence
tfoth woulde
cdoemfemnicte,tiiine
ftahveoirurs,oloermnaffaend etisoanc,reidn
oaactcho.rdance with the terms of
On hearing )
bjuearryi immediatelyngthev erdi returnedathep a v
prisoner
soneerid. ibc tof
u rstNi
into
Gouil t 3.
tears,•
and was immediately surrounded by a host of friends.
There was an attempt at applause on hearing the ver-
dict, but it was immediately checked by order of the
Court.