Star.
London, England, 1824-04-19 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

•
BOW-STREET.
Saturday, a young man, named Miens Gibbs, was charged before
THOMAS Ham.; Esq. on suspicion of having stolen a large quantity
of grapes, the property of the Right Hon. G. Canning, from his
hot-houses at Gloucester-lodge, Old Brompton.
Mr. Grange, a fruiterer in Covent-garden Market, deposed that
the prisoner came to his shop between five and six o'clock, with
about 401bs. of sweet-water grapes in a basket, and wished him to
buy them. Witness observed that the grapes were not ripe enough
to gather, and asked prisoner where he brought them from ? He
replied, from Kingston, and that he had gathered them in that un-
ripe state because his hot-house was about to be pulled down to
make room for other buildings. Witness thought this an imptoba-
ble story, but told prisoner he might leave a few bunches of them
with him, and when he had ascertained the market price, if he
would call again he would pay hint for them. Prisoner then left a
few bunches, and as soon as he was gone witness placed them in his
window, not doubting but they were stolen, and that so exposing
them would be the best means of finding the owner; and so it
turned out, for they had not been in the window more than an
hour, before Mr. Canning's gardener came into the shop, and
claimed the grapes as his master's property. Prisoner returned
shortly after, and was given in charge to an officer.
John Johnson, Mr. Canning's gardener, deposed, that he left the
hot-houses a 3 safe at eleven o'clock on the preceding night, and on
going to them at six o'clock next morning, he found a large quan-
tity of grapes had been carried away during the night. The win
dews were open, and there were marks of footsteps from the bot-
tom of the garden. Ile immediately proceeded to Covent-garden,
and fouatl some of the same grapes in Mr. Grange's window. The
Magistrate asked how he knew them to be the same? He replied
that he had grown them himself ; had inspected them frequently
during their growth ; and he knew them by the shape of the bunches,
and by their state of ripeness.
Inc pi isoner, in his defence, said, the grapes ware given to him
to sell, by a man whom he did not know.—He was remanded for
further examination on 'Tuesday next ; the gardener being of opinion
that he had an accomplice, who might be-readily apprehended.
'Fe aerlIZE TOLLS.—Felir Webb, one of the toll-takers on the Ken-
sington Trust, appeared upon summons, to answer the complaint
of John Greenway, for demanding and taking double toll.
Mr, Williams, the Solicitor for the defendant, begged to put a
few questions to Mr. Gcernway, previous to the evidence being
heard, as a view to slam that he had given a false name. The
:%lagi..trate assented, and it cause out that his real narna was John
Greenway, but the Magistrate held, that as the parties
were present. this variation was immaterial, and the case proceeded.
It appealed by the complainant's evidence, that on the morning
of the sth inst. he passed through the Hammersmith gate in a one-
horse chaise, and p lid the toll to the defendant, receiving the ticket
of the thy in return. Ile returned from the country the same
evening in the same !terse and chaise, and on his coming up to the
gate'defenslant dem ttit;cd the toll. Complainant said, " You know
%ell I paid )ou this morning." Defendant replied—" I know
nothing about it, except that I know you to be an old thief!" Com-
plainant shewed him the ticket he received in the morning, at the
same rinse tendering bins a shilling, in order that he might take the
sell again if he thought proper. Defendant did take the toll, and
complainant told him he would punish him if possible, for he bad
defrauded bins in the s-one way before ; upon which the defendant
again c4livd bins an old thict ; and insisted that he had given him
his shilling again; and after some further altercation the complain-
ant left bins.

Felix \CI-hb said nothing in his defence ; hut Mr. Williams, for
him, said the shilling was certainly returned. Creenway positively
denied this ; and the lintistrate said it was of little consequence, as
the words of the Act were •••taking and demanding."
Mr. Williams then contended that his client could not be con-
victed on the unsupported testimony of a witness who was to re-
ceive half the penalty.
His Worship observed, that if this objection was valid, it would
be necessary for every traveller to carry a witness behind him on a
pillion.—lkfendant convicted in the penalty of 31. with full costs.