The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-07-23 00:00:00

ROBBERY OF A -X5O NOTE,

Mary Ann Roberts, 21, and James Riley, 23. were placed
at the bar—the first (Roberts) charged with having stolen a
purse, a bank note the value of fifty pounds, thirty so-
vereigns, and four guineas, the property of Thomas Hyde
from his person, and the later (Riley) stood charged with
having received the said fifty pound bank note, well knowing
it to have been stolen.

Mr. MURPHY (with whom was Mr. EfaAs) conducted the
prosocution.—Mr. VENABLES defended the prisoner Riley.
The case was recently tried at our Police Court, and we
supplied a pretty copious statement of the evidence. As that
adduced yesterday was to the same effect, though more in
detail, we shall merely remind our readers of the heads :
A Mr. Hyde, a confectioner of York, was in Liverpool
on the 13th of March last, and on his way from the Wel-
lington Inn to the Mitre, where he slept, by some means
lost his purse, containing the money stated. A few days
afterwards the female prisoner went up to a Police-officer in
Scotland-road—confessed that she and another had taken a
£5O note from a gentleman, and that she had given it (sold
it) to the prisoner Riley, who kept the Globe public-house
in Milton-street. The note was afterwards traced to the
bank at Macclesfield, by which it had been issued, and it was
found that it had passed through Riley's hands, and had
been paid by him to Mr. Marsh, draper, of Scotland-place.
The evidence as to these facts, and.the dentity of the note
was quite clear, and the jury found both prisoners Guilty.
Mr. VENABLES addressed the jury at considerable length
in behalf of Riley, contending that he might have received
the note honestly, without knowing from whom, in the course
of business. He called witnesses to character.

Mr. Gallaghar, manager of a brewery, said the prisoner
had always behaved honestly to thrir concern.
Mr. Timms had known Riley for five years ; he had been
been in his employment 15 months, and he had never heard
anything against his character till now.
The RECORDER summed up, and the jury returned a
verdict of guilty against both prisoners. There was a pre-
vious conviction for felony against the prisoner Roberts in
1837, for stealing a watch from the person of the prosecutor.
The RECORDER in passing sentence on Roberts, said she
had been found guilty of the serious offence of robbing a
gentleman to a large amount, and she had also pleaded guilty
to a former indictment, charging her with felony. The sen-
tence of the court was, that she be transported beyond the
seas for the term of ten years. On addressing Riley, he
said the prisoner had criminally taken the note from the
woman, with a full knowledge that it was stolen. No one of
common honesty would have taken so large an amount from
a person of character, without at once going to the police,
in order to discover the owner. In place of this he had
bargained with the woman for it, had many subsequent inter-
views with her, and he paid her sums of money from time
to time on account. The sentence of the court was that
he should be transported for seven years.
It appears that the prosecutor, though a part of the money
has been received, is still a later to the amount of about
£45.