The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-27 00:00:00

WORSHIP-STREET.

A case of considerable interest to persons engaged
in the silk manufacture has for several weeks past
been before Mr. BENETT and Mr. BROUGHTON, the
Magistrates.
William Wells, a journeyman in the employ of
Messrs. Smart, was charged with embezzling a
quantity of the silk intrusted to him to manufac-
ture, and the evidence on the pint of the prosecu-
tion clearly established the fact, that even a greater
quantity than► he was called upon to account for had
disappeared; but in cunsequcnce of a difference of
opinion between the Magistrates, no judgment has
been pronounced. It appeared that the defendant,

house,

when he commenced the work, received MO yardi
of cane, or silken ground-works, for the manufacture
of the whole piece; and asii4e ,Work proceeded,
shute was given out at differtn, f.times to the amount
of 21b. 12 ounces. Somethipg ioccurring to - render -:
him suspected to his empl ‘ F)7,..they sent to his
..
house for the manufactured onion. of the - Work,-
and the defendant, saying that-W-had-woiked ni
the whole of the shute, returned ItheCgmpty -lcob-
bins, The weight of the manufactured silk, includ-
ing about a third of the cane, was found to be only
21b. 70z., lea-ving a clear deficiency of soz. of slime,
besides the weight of the cane. The remainder of
the cane was afterwards taken off the roller and
weighed, and the deficiency in the whole was found
to be about 14 oz. of silk.

The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had
‘vorked up a the shute he received, arid that there
must have been some mistake at the warehouse, the
bobbins not having been delivered to him, but to his
daughter.

He was asked why he did not go to the ware-
house for himself?—He replied that it would have
taken him away from his work, and occasioned the
loss of Italia day,
It was explained to be a common practice for the
weaver to send his wife or child to the warehouse
for his material,,, instead of losing time by going for
them himself.

Mr. BE:SETT felt a difficulty in convicting a de-
fendant of embezzing property which had passed
through the hands of a third person, who might pos,.
sibly have abstracted a portion of is on the road.—
The masters, he thought, shook' deliver the mate-
rials to the workman only, Who wart to be respon-
sible.

Mr. BROUGHTO►N asked the defendant if he sus--
petted his daughter of Stealing the silk ?----He said
no, certainly not; but there must hare been 'woe
mistake.
Mr. BROUGHTON said it was clear that he muse
have received the shute which had been sett to
for he had afterwards returned the whole O the
bobbins that had contained it. As to the suggkv,
tion that the silk should be given to no one but the
workman, such a rule must operate materially to the
injury of the weaver himself, to whom it was a great
advantage to be alloWed to send his daughter or
apprentice for the materials, while he was pro-
ceeding with the work, and he was responsible for
their acts.

Mr. BENETT—Yes, in a civil case. But if this
man were at the bar of the Old Bailey, charged with
.felony, and the property, part of which he was ac,
cased of stealing, were proved to have been cent to
him by his master through the bands of antother
person, in my opinion the Judge would direct so+
acquittal. The Magistrate added that in this pro--
ceeding under the Silk Act, where the consequence
of a conviction would be to send the defendant to
prison for three months, they should be gelded 17y
similar rules of evidence.
Mr. BROUGHTON said that he considered the tase
quite clear against the defendant, for the shute
vered out weighed 21b. 120 z., and he had only re-
turned 21b. 7oz. of wrought silk, in which there was
also about a third of the cane; and he must have
received the shute delivered to his daughter, be-
cause he had returned the whole of the bobbins.

Mr. BENETT Said it was possible that the girt
might have taken a portion of silk from each bobbi►►
on the way, between the warehouse and her father's

The prosecutors said that could not be done
without discovery by the %weaver, and they provt d
the delivery to the girl of the bobbins with the silk
tied up in a hankeechief.
Waters, one of the officers, who has been a silk-
weaver, was sworn and examined.—He stated thw,t
the silk could only be taken from the bobbitts4 b'
winding it on to others, an operation that woek,
occupy several hours. It could not otherwise be
taken off unless picked or cut off, and would not
then be of the least value.

At the subsequent examination, the defendant's
daughter, a girl of twelve or thirteen, was produced,
and she swore that she carried the bobbins to her
father in the same state that she had received them,
tied up in the handkerchief, without stopping any
where on the road.

Mr. Coles, the solicitor for the prosecutors, after
arguments of considerable length, called upon the
Magistrates to convict the defendant of the em-
bezzlement, which he submitted was clearly es-
tablished.

Mr. BENETT still thought it possible that some of
the silk might have been purloined before it reached
the defendant, and it ought not to have been rent
through the hands of a third person. tioppose that
the master had sent a bag of geld to his servant, and
had committed it to the cam of another person, if a
part of the gold were afterwards missing, could the
servant be convicted of stealing it ?
Mr. BROUGHTON said, that in the case of the
gold there might be some doubt, but there it was
certain that the bobbins with the silk had been re.
ceived by the defendant, and it was in evidence that
the silk, if taken off, must hare been wound on other
bobbins, and that would have taken several hours.
The absence of the girl for such a length of time
must have been known to her father, and excited
his suspicion, but he made no such defence, and had
no such suspicion.
On Friday the case was again before the magistrates.
Mr. BENETT then re-examined Waters, the officer,
who, in answer to the questions proposed, said, that
it was possible for a dishonest person, carrying 50 or
100 bobbins from the warehouse, to take a small
portion of silk from each, without fraying the sur-
face of the silk so as to lead to detection by the
weaver. But, he added, to make any use of it, or
sell it, it must be wound on other bobbins, arid that
could not be done in less than two or three hours.
To pull it off the bobbins otherwise, would take a
person a whole day, unless it were cut off.
Mr. Davis, the Bethnal-green beadle, who is also
a weaver, confirmed the statement of Waters.

Mr. BENETT said he had still very great doubt,
and could not convict the defendant under such cir-
cumstances.

Mr. BROUGHTON said, that to him the case ap-
peared clearly and satisfactorily made out, and he
should feel no hesitation in convicting the defendant.
The case was about to be dismissed, but the clerk
of Mr. Coles requested that it might be again ad-
journed till that gentleman could attend.
Mr. BENETT said he would nut object to such a
course, and the case was accordingly again adjourn-
ed for a week.