Star.
London, England, 1824-07-01 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

CHILD-STIALINO.—AnteIia Savage, who on Tuesday night un-
derwent a long examination before T. Ilau.s, Esq. on the charge
of stealing a fetnale shild, the daughter of a labouring man of the
name of Wench, residing in Rose-street, Long-acre, was again
brought up for a final heating of the case.

- .
By the statement of the mother last night, itappears that she
was looking :into a pawnbroker's shop, in Brytides-streti, Covent.
garden, with the child, about six o'clock in the evening, when
suddenly missing the child, she made every search in the neigh-
bourhood, and at last applied to this Office, and obtained the,
assistance of Lock, one of the patrol, who returned With her, and
in a short time stopped the prisoner coming out of a pawnbroker's
shop, with the child's frock and a pinafore ; she wds imme-
diately taken into custo.ly, and the child was found by a ticket-
porter in the Temple.
The prisoner denied her guilt, and said she had bought the
clothes about a fortnight ago.
Mr. 'Luis, after a patient hearing of the case till past eleven
o'clock onTue.day night, reirtanded her till yesterday morning; when
she was committed for trial at the next Old Bailey Sessions.
A young woman of the nano of Mary White, has undergone
_ __ _

several long examinations before Mr. Ilas.t.s, on a charge of stealing
some articles of household linen, a watch case, and other articles,
the property of Mr. Archbold, the barrister. The prisoner pro-
tested her innocence, and said that the motive of the principal evi-
dence against her (the housekeeper) was to get rid of be*, in conse-
quence of her having found the winless in a very improper situation.
This the housekeeper solemnly denied upon oath, and her assertion
was fully corroborated by the evidence of her master; and as part
of the stolen proprty was found in the lodgings of the prisoner,
she was committed for trial.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Yesterday J. Richardson, an apprentice to Mr. Hughes; of Plea-
sant-row, Mile-end New-town, silk weaver,was brought before Mr.
Bevirt. and Mr. Twir roan, upon a charge of leaving his master's
employment. The case was heard before.
Mr. HARMER attended OM the part of the master, and Mr. MM.
ens appeared for the apprentice, who stated that the defence he
bad to offer was, that the indenture, which bore date the sth of
January, 1815, was rot executed until the 9th of October, 1819.
This he proved by the subscribing witness as well as the notice
upon the master signed by the apprentice that it was his determi-
nation to leave him. Mr. Burgess further maintained that the ap-
prentice had not either clandestinely or surreptitiously quitted his
master's house; but, on the contrary, had been governed and di-
rected in the steps be had taken by the opinion of Mr. Chitty; in
support of which be produced the sth George 111. c. 46, which re-
quires that " The indenture must bear date with the day of its exe-
cution." Ile also cited the case of Gray v. Cookson from the 18th
of East's Reports.
Mr. Beviu. observed, that at the former hearing he mentioned
it was quite clear in his recollection, that the memorandum or
printed notice at the bottom of the indenture was repealed, and he
'since found that to be confirmed, for the 48th of George I l I. com-
pletely removed the previous operation of that clause. Ile there-
fore thought Mr. Chitty must have given his opinion in a hurried
moment. He then ordered the apprentise to go back to his mis-
ter, and if not he would send him to prison, and. then his ti iends
might get a Habeas and let the Court of King's Bench decide it.
Mr. BURGESS said that he would certainly cause the question to
come before the Court of King's Bench, as it was one of the first
importance to masters and apprentices, and ought to be decided
upon.—The parties then withdrew.