The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-29 00:00:00

CROWN SIDE—MARcIi 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. Brands 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. Ile
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 funies 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 SlDE—(Before Mr. Baron RoLn.)
BLAIR V. HALDRED.

This was an action of trover for a poodle dog.
Mr. Martin appeared f:-:r the plaintiff, and Mr. Wil-
kins for the 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, Init
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 exceed-
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-
duced was a changeling, and not that which had been
taken away by the defendant..