The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-10-22 00:00:00

THE PLATE ROBBERIES

The three prisoners—Sirrell, the refiner, of London; Mac-
auley, a watchmaker and jeweller, of this town ; and Maguire,
a publican, also of this town—were brought up at the Central
Police Station, on Tuesday, for further examination. The
court was densely crowded, and there were nearly a dozen
magistrates on the bench. Mr. J. W. Harden, judge of the
Birkenhead County Court, acted as chairman.

Eight persons liave owned property at Sirrell's, which has
recently been purloined.
The magistrates agreed to take the county c-ses first, that
relating to the robbery at Little Crosby Roman Catholic Cha-
pel, winch was partially gone into last week, and a fresh one
in which Sirrell was charged with receiving a silver gravy
spoon, which. together with other plate, was purloined from
the dining-room table of the Rev. Thos. Gardner, at Stanley,
West Derby, on the 17th of July last.

The evidence in the first case was principally recapitulatory
of that given on the previous occasion. In the ca,e of the
robbery from the Rev. Mr. Gardner's, it was proved that the
gravy spoon, with two smaller ones, was stolen from the
dining-room of that gentleman's residence at Stanley,—the
thief having obtained access through the window, which was
left open. On the same day that the robbery took place, there
was a remittance of plate by Macaulev to Sirrell, and the gravy
spoon, which was broken in two pieces, and was engraved with
the initials of " H. S." and a cypher (those of Mr. Gardner's
father-in-law) was found amongst Sirrell's stock.
Mr. Simon first addressed the court in defence of Macauley,
contending that the case as regarded his client was merely
one of suspicion, and not such as to justify a committal.
Mr. Lewis, on behalf of Sirrell, said that the prosecution
had failed to prove a guilty knowledge on the part of his cli-
ent, in the cases brought forward, and the decision of the
magistrates must be guided by those cases alone. The par-
cels seized by the police had not been opened by Mr. Sirrell,
who consequently could not know the nature of the property
they contained. The goods found on Sirrell's premises were
such as would be sent by a country dealer to a London refiner,
and the property supposed to have been stolen was not of that
bulk—amounting in value to many thousand pounds—de-
scribed in the newspapers. The whole Listory of the case, as
it was now presented to the bench, showed that the amount of
stolen plate in Sirreil's possession was not of more than or
£lO value ; and there was no evidence to show that he had
received that knowing it to be stolen.
After a lengthy hearing, the magistrates decided on corn-
miiling the prisoners for trial, but Sirrell was formally re-
manded till Thursday, for the examination on-another case,
which was within the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates,
and in which Maguire was charged with stealing,. and Sirrell
with receiving, a pair of silver salt cellars, stolen from the
house of Mrs. Tinley, of Peel-street, in this town, on the 28th

Mr. Lewis applied that Sirrell might be admitten to bail.
Bail to any aim lint could be given.—The magistrates said they
could not take upon themselves the responsibility of granting
the application, and recommended an appeal to one of the
judges. A similar application on the part of Macauley was
also refused. Both prisoners declared their innocence.

On Thursday Sirrell and Maguire were brought up before
Mr. Rushton, for further examination on the charge above
referred to. The facts of the case were, that one of the par-
cels seized by Inspector Lund, in Sirrell's shop, contained a
tin canister, in which was a quantity of defaced plate, subse-
quently identified as the property of Mrs. Tinley, of Peel-
stref t, Toxteth-park, and which was stolen from her residence
about the latter end of September. In the canister there was
a slip of paper attached, on which was written--" From Martin
Maguire, School-lane, Liverpool."
Mr. Rushton asked, bad they any evidence that the hand-
w, icing was Maguire's ?

Mr2bowling said that he had no proof of the handwriting;
he might say so at once. It would, therefore, be folly to go
further into the case.

Mr. Rushton then said that the prisoners, under these cir-
ctwastahces, must go back to the county, to be there dealt
with for the charges that had already been brought against
them.
Mr. Lewis requested to know if Sirrell was discharged in the
case then before the court?

Mr. Rushton replied that he discharged him in the case then
before the bench, and Maguire too. Having asked if there wus
any other charge against Al aguire, and received a reply in the
negative, he observed, "Then Maguire may be discharged."
He (Mr. Rushton) had no hesitation in saying, that if the pro-
secution could have proved the handwriting of Maguire, he
would have committed them both in an instant.
. .

Several persons in court examined the handwriting on the
slip of paper found at Smell's with Maguire's signati're in
the police-books, and the result of the comparison was that
the writing in both instances was by one and the same person.

On Friday morning the prisoners Sirrell and Macauley were
formally committed, by the county magistrates, to take their
trial at the next Liverpool assizes. Nothing new had transpired,
and the London officers returned to London, with the packages
of plate and jewellery, by the eleven o'clock train. The police
authorities have, it appears, been in communication with
Colonel Brown, of the Dublin constabulary, and it is not im-
probable that some plate found in Sirrell's stock will be identi-
fied as the produce of robberies in Ireland. Nothing further
has been spoken to in Liverpool, but a list of the various articles
exhibited here has been retained for reference.
Sirrell is said to ne in very low spirits, frequently making use
of desponding expressions, wishing he were dead or shot. The
general impression is, that the case will break down if Macauley
is not indicted as the receiver, instead of the thief; and that it
will entirely fail as regards Sirrell, he not having opened the
parcel containing the stolen plate before it was seized by the
officers. Sirrell positively refused to have anything to do with
the parcel after it was delivered to him by the porter, and it is
stated that he was never known to have received one before. It
was always done by his clerks, and it was only by acting in col-
lusion with the railway porter that the police-officers were
enabled to get the better of him in this instance. Among other
rumours, is one to the effect that Sirrell was on the eve of re-
tiring from business, and that in another month the whole of
his stock would have passed into other hands.

On Saturday the committing magistrates received a writ of
c•rtiorari in re Sirrell, returnable, to-day, at the Judge's-
chambers, Rolls'-gardens, Chancery-lane, London, when vari-
ous parties will be proposed to enter into recognizances for the
prisoner's appearance at the next winter assizes.
It is stated that, on the evening of the day of AUGuire's ac-
quittal, he tntertained a number of his particular friends to
supper, at his house in School-lane.