Star.
London, England, 1810-01-15 00:00:00

OLD BilIL.Er.

Saturday Margaret and Richard Comm were in-
dicted for stealing; a gown, a petticoat, and other ar-
tielos, the property of Mary Anderson. The pri-
soners were tried the day previous on a similar charge,
when the evidence disclosed a scene of fraud and
deception on the part of the woman prisoner, and of
credulity and superstitious dread on the part of the
prosecutrix, not often to be met with. When the
prosecutrix noticed to the woman prlsoner the cir-
cumstances of her wearing her clothes, the answer
was, that the spirit chose that it should be so, and
that, if the prosecutrix cbjected to it, she shotill be
changed into some other shape. The prosecutrix was
so completely daluded, that she believed the prisoner
could do any thing she pleased. No direct evidence,
however, being brought forward against the man, he
was acquitted ; and the woman was fopnd guilty of
the simple felony.
Mr. Justice CHAII3RE now asked the prosecatrix if
she had any thing farther to alledge against Richard
Conners than she had stated on the former trial ?
The prosecutrix stated, that one evening she saw
Richard take out of the hands of M. Conners the
articles specified in the present indictment, and when
he saw the prosecutrix, he ran round the corner of
the street where they had been standing. Site could
not, however, say that he was present when the arti-
cles were stolen. Mr. Justice CHAMBRE said, this
was not sofficient to bring the felony home to him.—
As for the woman, she was already found guilty on
a similar charps ; there was, therefore, no necessity
for laying the evidence again before the Jury. Both
prisoners were accordingly found—Not Guilty.
The female prisoner was again indicted, on a simi-
lar charge, under her maiden name of Margaret Sal.
ter, and a similar verdict taken.
William Mackie was indicted for stealing a lamp,
Value 4s. the property of Mr. Harrison, of the Tavi-
stock Hotel, Covent-arden, in July, 1808.—A
broker, ti whom the lamp had been sold, proved
that the prisoner was the person of whom he had
purchased it, and Mr. Harrison swore that he bad
been frequently in his house about that time inquir-
ing for a situation, being a gentleman's servant out of
place. On the part of the prisoner, evidence was ad-
duced to shew, that in June, 1808, he had, by the
sentence of that Court, been committed to the House
of Correction, where he remained till the following
December, having been in custody from the 21st of
May preceding. The Lord Chief Baron said this
was an alibi which could not be false.—Verdict, Not
Guilty.
W. Shims and J. Brown were indicted fbr breaking
aril entering the house of Messrs. Gilbert and Mob-
sky, in Chiswell-street, on the mornini of the Ist in-
stant. There were stated to be five engaged is thel
burglary, and two of them had escaped. The pri—
saner Skinn had made a voluntary confession of his
guilt, in which be detailed the whole circumstance ;
another of the party, named Jones, had becn admit-
ted King's evidence, and upon his testimony princi-
pally did the guilt or innocence of the prisoner Brown
depend, it appearing that he had returned about three
years ago from the-hulks. The Jury asked Mr. Jus-
tice Lißuesc, who tried the case, if the name of
Brown was mentioned in Skinn's confession ? The
Learned Judge answered, that the confession of one
prisoner was not legal evidence against the other.—
The Jury then found Skinn Guilty, and Brown Not
Guilty.