The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-22 00:00:00

GUILDHALL,

EXTRAORDINARY ATTEMPT AT ROBBERY.-Yesterday
Ann IT'illsdn, a young woman, only eighteen by her own
reckoning, dres,ed in a black bonnet and clean yellow
gown, except which the constable who searched her du-
dared she had scarcely any other covering, was charged
before Sir PETER LAURIE, with breaking a square of glass
in the shop-window of Mr. Fredsham, watch and chro-
nometer-maker, Gracechurch-street, and attempting to
steal therefrom au armful of watches.
The examination took place about one o'clock, and Mr.
Frodsham stated that, about an hour previously, be was
standing inside his counter, when he suddenly heard some
glass broken. He looked around to ascertain where the
accident took place, when, said the complainant, "I was
absolutely petrified to behold one of the squares in the shop
window completely broken in ; the prisoner standing at it ;
one hand thrust in, and she helping herself to a whole
armful of my watches, as deliberately as if she were at work
at her own property. When I recovered myself I hallooed
to her, at the same time making my way as fast as pos-
sible outside the counter. At hearing my voice she let go
a handful of the watches, and walked away. I followed
her, and overtook her within a few yards of the door, for
she proceeded up the street as cool and as slew as if she
had been engaged in the most pious work in the world,
and when I stopped her I found two of my watches in her
hands."

The worthy Alderman seemed almost as much asto-
nished as the chronometer-maker at an attempt to rob a
shop in the open day, by dashing in a square of glass, and
especially in Gracechurch_street, at present thronged by
the fair-goinggentry. He proceeded to put some questions
to her, when the following dialogue took place, which she
went through with the most sullen and dogged composure
imaginable :
Sir P. LAURIE—How do you get your living? Pri-
soner—By thieving !
• Sir P. LAURIE—How long have you adopted that pro-
fession ? Prisoner—About two years—it may be three.
I can't be particular.
Sir P. LAURIE-You must have associates. Who are
they?. - Prisoner—No; I work by myself.
Sir. P. LAURIE-Where do you reside? Prisoner—l
have no settled place of reaidence.
Sir P. LAURIE-Where did you sleep last night ? Pri-
soner—That does not concern you to know.
Sir P. LAURIE-Where were you born ? Prisoner—l n
London.

Sir P. LauatE—Have you any parents or friends?
Prisoner—None; they are a!I dead.
Sir P. LauntE—What did you intend to do with the
watches ? Prisoner—To sell them.

Sir P. LAURIE-Where? Prisoner—You slia'nt know
:hat.

Sir P. LAURIE—Did you break the window ? Pri-
soner—Certainly. How could I come at the watches else ?
Sir P. L!►URIE—Do you like thieving? Prisoner—lt
makes no odds to you whether I do or not.
Sir P. LAURIE—I shall commit you to Newgate. Were
you ever there ? Prisoner—Never ; but I don't care what
you do with me.

It was suggested to Sir PETER that the prisoner might
be insane, but, except that the desperate character of the
attempt may be construed into insanity, there was nothing
in the priso:ler's manner to sanction the supposition. She
was fully committed, and Sir PETER observed, that there
would be opportunity enough between her committal and
the next sessions to ascertain if her mind was affected.
BO W-STEEET.

Yesterday a dirty ill-looking fellow, named John Foty,
was charged by Groom, a street-keeper of St. Martin's,
with having wilfully cut the silk cloak of a lady named
Walgrave, in Cranborne•alley.
Mrs. Amelia Walgrave stated that the cloak produced
was her property. It cost her three guineas, and was very
little the worse for wear. On Monday evening, about
eight o'clock, she was passing through Cranborne-alley,
when she was told that a man had cut her cloak, and iu a
few moments the prisoner was taken into custody.
George Rogers said he was passing through Cranborne-
alley about the time mentioned, when he observed the
prisoner following Mrs. Walgrave and the lady who was
in her company. He watched the prisoner, and saw him
take the lady's cloak in one hand and cut it with a pair of
scissors which he held in the other. He immediately ac-
(painted the lady with the circumstance, and then pursued
the prisoner and took bins into custody.
Mr. MINSMILL was at a loss to know what motive
could have induced the prisoner to commit an act so wan-
ton and mischievous.

The prisoner denied the charge, and said he was a poor
tailor just dropped into London to look for a little work to
earn an honest penny. He was on his way, he said, to a
house of call for tailors in the neighbourhood of the Hay-
market, when he was taken into custody on a charge that
was quite groundless.

Groom, the constable, stated that he had frequently ob-
served the prisoner following well-dressed females, both in
Cranborne-alley and St. Martin's-court. He thought that
his object had been to beg charity. Groom then produced
a pair of scissors which he took from the prisoner, who
endeavoured to conceal them in the sleeve of his coat.

Mr. MiNsirutr. ordered the prisoner to pay 14s. on ac-
count of the damage, and in default of payment he was
sent to hard labour in the House of Correction for two
calendar months, agreeably to the 7th and Bth of Geo IV.
cap 4. Previous to the passing of this amended Act the
offence was transportable, a tailor under similar circum-
stances was sent to Botany-bay for seven years, for wilfully
cutting the dress of a female at Bartholomew-fair a short
time ago.

THE EMERALD Ibtal.—We deem it right to correct
an error made by our reporter in his statement of what
took place on Tuesday last at Bow-street, before Mr.
Halls, respecting the possession of an emerald ring. Mr.
Levy, sen. was not present at that examination, and the
observation imputed to him was made by a friend of his
family. It is right also that we supply what our reporter
unintentionally omitted—namely, the words used by Mr.
Halls, the Magistrate, when Mr. Neutnegen expressed his
wish or intention to prefer a charge of felony against
young Mr. Levy; they were these—" I think there is no
pretence whatever for snch a charge, as in my opinion the
Levy's have satisfactorily accounted for the ring found in
their possession, and I must say that throughout the busi-
ness I have not seen any thing to justify a charge, or the
colour of a charge, against any of the Levy family."