The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-08-17 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.
(Continued frotn 2

age 6)

CROWN COURT—YESTERDAY.
Lord Campbell took his seat at nine o'clock
ROBBERY FROM POST LETTERS.

John Morgan, 28, and Michael Oldfield, 43, were
charged, the first-named prisoner with having, he being
in the employ of the Post-office authorities, stolen from a
post letter, one £5O bank note, one £2O note, and one £5
note, the property of the Postmaster-General ; and the
prisoner Oldfield with feloniously receiving the £2O note,
knowing the same to have been stolen.
Mr. Adolphus prosecuted. The prisoners were without
counsel. -

The facts of the case having been fully given at the time
of the robbery, the following outline will suffice to recall
to mind the circumstances. On the 17th of February last
a gentleman named Hoyle, connected with a commercial
house at Halifax, inclosed the notes enumerated in a letter
addressed to Messrs. Glendenning and Wilson, of James-
street, in this town. Amongst the notes was one for £2O,
numbered 41,733, and dated the 22d of January. Mr.
Hoyle gave the letter to an Edward Crowther, who posted
the letter at Halifax, on the same day. The letter was in
the usual way transmitted in the post-bag to Liverpool,
and received by John Blake, a clerk in the Liverpool
Post-office, on the morning of the 18th of February ; he
opened it, and the letters ware delivered to the carriers
for delivery. The letters not arriving at Messrs. Glenden-
ning and Wilson's, an inquiry was instituted, and the mat-
ter placed in the hands of Inspector Bates, of the Liver-
pool force. Mr. John Bales, superintendent of the letter
carriers at Liverpool, stated that the letter, in the usual
course, would go into the hands of Morgan for delivery,
he being the carrier of the district in which James-street
was situate.—Mr. James Collins deposed that he received
the £2O note from Mr. Anthony O'Donnell, who received
it from Charles Wallar, who had obtained it from Mr.
William Whittle, feather-bed manufacturer, of this town.
Mr. Whittle deposed that on the 12th of March the note
come into his hands from the prisoner Oldfield, who gave
it in payment for two beds and other articles. Oldfield,
at the time of this transaction, stated that he wanted one
of the beds from another person, and he (Mr. Whittle)
afterwards saw part of his bedding in the house of the
prisoner Morgan.—James Phillips, a carter, stated that
on the 12th of March, the prisoner Morgan came to him
on the stand, and hired his cart, giving directions that he
was to go to Mr. Whittle's shop, where he would see a
tall man (the prisoner Oldfield). The bedding was placed
in the cart, and the two prisoners and he called at a
public-house in Tithebarn-street, where they drank to-
gether, and afterwards they went to another public-
house in Great Howard-street, and ultimately the
goods were conveyed to Oldfield's house, at Seaforth,
where they were delivered. Inspector Bates took Oldfield
into custody on the 31st of March, Morgan having been
apprehended on the 24th of the same month. At Mor-
gan's house a portion of the goods purchased from Mr.
Whittle were found. Subsequently to being taken into
custody, Morgan sent for Bates, and told him that there
was another party in the robbery, from whom he (Morgan)
had received the £2O note.

The prisoners being called upon for their defence,
Morgan said he had received the note from another
person connected with the Post-office, and that he had
not abstracted it from a letter. Oldfield denied any guilty
participation in the transaction.

The jury immediately found both prisoners guilty.
His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, told Morgan that
he had been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, of a
most heinous offence, having stolen a post letter and
divided the contents with the other prisoner. Oldfield
appeared to be equally culpable, and it was necessary, in
order to suppress the prevalence of such offences, and to
give confidence to the public in the postal system, that a
very severe punishment should be imposed. The prisoners
were each sentenced to ten years' transportation.
Thomas George Sutton, a respectably-dressed young
man, aged 17 years, pleaded guilty to having, on the 26th
of June, stolen a post letter, containing half a sovereign,
and on the 29th of June stolen one other letter containing
a sixpence. The prisoner had been in the employ of a
letter receiving house in Liverpool, and had availed him-
self of the position he held to purloin the letters and
abstract their contents.—Witnesses were called who de.
posed to the previous general good character of the pri-
soner.—Lord CAMPBELL, in passing sentence, said the
offence was an exceedingly serious matter, and the evi-
dence was clear against the prisoner; and, what was worse,
the facts led to the assumption that he had been
guilty of several similar cases ; but on account of his
(the prisoner's) youth, and his previous good character,
with the contrition which he had expressed, he (the
Judge) should not inflict so heavy a sentence as otherwise
he should have done.—The prisoner was ordered to one
year's imprisonment, with hard labour.

STREET-ROBBERY AT WARRINGTON

Charles Maguire, 26, James Fay, 21, John Davies. 21,
and Mary Noon, 20, were indicted for having, at War-
rington, on the 2nd of June last, feloniously assaulted and
with violence robbed John Williams of a purse containing
half a crown, sixpence, and other property.
Mr. Owens prosecuted ; Mr. Ross defended Maguire.
The other prisoners were without counsel.
The prosecutor is a groom residing at Delamere Forest.
On the day in question he was at Warrington, and at night
met with the female prisoner in one of the streets of the
town; and at her solicitation accompanied her into an entry.
The male prisoners came up shortly afterwards, seized upon
him, and violently stole his property.
The defence of Mr. Rass, for Maguire, was, that the
evidence left a doubt on the point of his personal identity.
This, in fact, was the defence of the other male pri-
soners, and Noon admitted that they had been in company
with the prosecutrix. but she denied all participation in the
ieiony._ . _ . _

The jury retired to deliberate on their verdict, and after
an absence of about twenty miplutes, returned with a ver-
dict of guilty against all the men, but acquitted Noon.
The men were each transported for ten years.

BURGLARY AT MANCHESTER

Thomas Moore, 21, was indicted for a burglary in the
dwelling-house of James Anderson, of Manchester, in July
last.—Mr. Higgin prosecuted. The prisoner was without
counsel. The circumstances of this case possessed not
the slightest interest. On the night of the day stated in
the indictment, the prosecutor's house was feloniously
entered and wearing apparel and other articles stolen. The
prisoner subsequently gave the articles to another person
to pledge. The prisoner was found guilty, and a previous
conviction for felony proved against him. There were two
other indictments against the prisoner for burglary, but
his lordship thought it unnecessary to proceed with them.
The prisoner was sentenced to ten years' transportation.