The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-26 00:00:00

noise, and coon after observed the prisoner gliding
along the desk; he gave the alarm, however, before
he had time to plunder, and he was at once taken into
custody. The police-constable, on opening his boxes,
found the identical pair of ear-rings which had been
missing, as well as some precious stones, and some in-
struments used by lapidaries, the property of his master.
Mr. Wakeling, who conducted the prosecution, re-
quested that the prisoner should be remanded, as he
had no doubt but he should be able to trace the rest of
the stolen property to the prisoner.
He was remanded till Friday next.
UNION-HALL.

On Friday a person who attended professionally on
the behalf of Lindsey Cranford, the claimant to the
Cranford peerage, who was brought up to this Court
on a charge of being a returned convict some time
ago, made the following application relative to that
individual. Having described the circumstances
under which Mr. Cranford was brought to that Court,
he intimated that he was now in Ireland awaiting his
trial at the spring assizes for returning from trans-
portation, it being alleged he was sentenced to banish-
ment for life for horsestealing in the county of Lon-
donderry. The object of the present application was
to ascertain from the Magistrate whether at the period
Cranford was brought before him, a witness, who
stated himself to be the Captain of a convict ship,
did not prove that a man named Cranford was one of
the convicts whom he took out to South Australia at
the period it was said the claimant for the Cranford
peerage was transported, and that the witness on
seeing the latter individual admitted that he was not
the man.

Mr. COTTINGILAM said, that he recollected a person
coming forward when the individual alluded to was
brought before him, and stating that he was not the
convict of that name who went out on board the ship
of which he was the Captain.
The applicant said that he had received a commu-
nication from Ireland on the subject of Mr. Crau-
ford's detention in that country. That subsequently
to his having been discharged from that Court he was
retaken aril conveyed to Guildhall, and thence sent to
Ireland on a warrant backed by an Irish magistrate.
Applicant having attended the examinations that took
place at this Court on the behalf of the accused, he, as
well as his solicitor in Ireland, was most desirous that
his trial should take place here, as the principal wit-
nesses were in town. If all the circumstances con-
nected with Mr. Crauford's case were known, it would
be found that a foul conspiracy existed against him,
principally owing to his exertions to obtain his rights
as claimant to the Cranford peerage. Applicant
added, that in the event of being unsuccessful in re-
moving the trial from Ireland to this country, he
should obtain the affidavit of the witness alluded to in
order to prove Mr. Cranford was not the convict who
went out on board his ship. At the period it was
alleged he had returned to this country, there was no
notice given at Mr. Capper's office of the escape of a
prisoner of that name. It was true Mr. Cranford had
been in Van Diemen's Land, and at the time of his
leaving the colony he made his intention known by
public advertisement, a circumstance at once proving
that he was not a returned transport.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said, that if the allegations of
the applicant were founded in fact, and as yet they
were not controverted, a trial in Ireland would answer
precisely the same purpose, for if the case was not
made out against the individual referred to, no doubt
he would be acquitted.