Police.
The Times, 1824-08-20T00:00:00

MANrsrt-seOsr. s..-lYesterday the solicitor for the Poxt-..fde attended at the juatice-roun, with evidencie to make the case con-; plete against Robert FWightnan, who was charged on Saturday with havingstelen manesout ofa letter, directed byaye narzgdyYnamed BaLrry to a person wvo resides in the country. It wtil be rer.ollectea,thaton the former exameination it wae stated that the prisoner, who is a stamper of letters in the Post-office, was seen by a feilow.setvant to put aside'a letter, which vsas supposed to contain moneyt end afterwards to go to a water-closet, in which tie fiagments of a'letter were- founEd subsequently. MfiSS Barry stated thae the writing oan the fragmnents of the lettcer WaS hers to the best of her belief,-nd that she had enclosed Iteif a sovereign in the letter, which she superseribed to a person at Truro in Cornwall. She also stated that she intrustethe letter to stioher young female to put into the Post-office. Proof w.as given that the letter was delivered at the Post-office. To a question put to her bv Mr. HstasEt, who attendedl for the prisoner, Mies Barry said th'e money was put so carelessly into the etter that she could not swear itmrnigt not have dropued out. MIr. HtnARER then asked the solicitor for the Post-ocfiee (Mlr. fowling) tfnder wh:at act of Parliament it was his intention to pro- secute Wigxhtman ? Mr. DOWLINO replied that the Post-office woald prosecute him under the 7th Geo. lii., C5AD the Mr,. HYAEUER submitted to the Lord MYeyor, that- S1pposinfr the prisoner had taken out the half-sovereign, he ivas not guilty of Any offenee of wbhih that act took notice. The act alluded to made it a capital offence for any servant employed in the Post-office to eocrete a letter conttaining notes or secxrittes of aiy kind for the paymnent of money, hut in no part of the statute was there the least mts3tion of monev i:self,' as, prohibited from being stolen. The lonD AtAYoR said, the case wa" one that certainly was new to him, and he wished that the Solicitor for the Post-office hael been readly with the au:horities in sapport of the charge. As the life of the prisoner was in question, he thought it would be ImOSt ad. visable in Mir. Dowling to bring forward all the circumstances he could collect, to elucidate his view of the subject at the same time his Lordiship coild not help stating, that f&om the bastv reference lie had himself made to the statute, the prisoner'4 case did not ap pear to be comprehended in offences punishable by the act. The pnSotler was then remanded. GutLYsrALL..,_Elizabceth T trnIt was brought up yesterday for re-examination, before l\fr. Alderman ANSLEY on the chargeof passinr two tif the notes stoleni fro:n the Birmnrgbml coach, to Ar. eadmnan. haberdasher, Beech-street, Barbican. Sir James Shaw having presided at the plevious hjaring, was also in attendance. .The necessary Itroof having been given as to the fact ot tberobbery, t he id enrtit f the two notes as part of the property stolen, and of tbe prisoner's offering themz in pamenet, PMr. ijsePuasxs, her solcitor, said, that as far as regarded the facis of the case, he htul nothing to offer. There wvas no douit that the notes that the pri sroer had tendered were part cf tiOse so stolen. Hi* objection was, that even admitdrn that fact. she had rot. as the law now stood, committed any offence. The statute 3di Gec. I., cap. 24. which constituted it an offence to re- ceive Bank :notes, knowing thiem to be stolen, and therefore the only act under which sie could be indictedl, it was now notorious wt55 a niere nuilit. ant. had been so held bv the twelve Judges :Mr. Rairon Hullock, at l'ork; M.r. Justice Bayley, at Durham; aTnd Mr. Blaton Graham. at Lewes, had cachi of thenm leltit theirduty, in Lheir charges to the respective Grand Juries, to put thes on their guard as to this very statute, which, in consequence of souse difllcul- ties whith had arisen upon it, had been under the consi.lertion of the twelve Judges, the najaritv of whom were of opinion, that no indictment could be sustained upon it, and thit the law must there- fore be considered to be precisely as it stood before the passin_ of this act. Sir JAMES SseAW eaid, that conceiving it of great importanoe itt this commercial country, that offenders of the prisoner's description should be brought to punishment, and although there rrgSt be some doubts with respect to the statute, yet it was not his province, as a magistrate, to decide nice points ot law. he certaenly hai in- tented to commit the prisoner for trial. for feloniously receiving considering at the tme that the observations said to hve been made by Mr. Baron Hullock were onlv the opinion of a single iudtre; hut he fow foand, from the public papers, the accuracy of wlhich, in such matters, he had generally found rerson to relj on, that these sentiments had heen delivered as tbose of the majority of the judires; and altbougb, on an attentive perusal of the act, the same difficulties were not evident to him, vet to tlesle authorities he felt it his duty to bend, and alter his opinion, and he should there- fore send the prisontr to take her trial lbr the trideneslnor only'. The prisoner was then required tti find bail for her appearsiticl, h OOL and two surceies in 1001. each. Crowder, ker fathier, immc.iately tendered himself, butt was at first objectecd to. Mr. liumphreys, however, pledging himstelf thatCrowder, he knew, was a man of large property, and offering himself tO join him. Sir Janmes, at lenzth, agreed to accept him and Mlr. Humpltreys as bail, and the prisoner was liberated. IIATTON-GARDEN.-PROHIaITED Goo:Ds.-YesterOay the solicitor to his 31ajesty'6 Board of (;ustoms attended before thte sit- ting Aagistrates, Messrs. ROGEIS aDd LbisNG, to prefer chrrges against the tindermentioned ner4ons, for having in their possession various silk goods, of Frenacl, Chincse, and Persian manufactute, contrary to the stattute. lViUiion JVeore, an hostler at Honnslow Itn, for having in his possession three French silk handkershiefs. The defendant- pleaded cuilty to the information, and was fined in the taitleated penalty of 31. 7s. Gd., with lbs. costs. The Mlagistrate observed, that the full penalty which the law allows in such cases is treble the value rof the article seized, and the mitigation cannot be less tlan half the full amount. .Vary Ifer-e (sister to the former deferdantt), for thelikeo&ince, Was fined 2L 6s. 6d., and costs. .'hr. Xic'lsor Anrewrs, glover, of 262, Reirent's-ch'cns, ple.ded guilty to having five pieces, containiag 35 single iatdkerchtiefs of foreign manufacture, in his possetsion, but threw hinself on the tuagisrate's clemency, and stated, that having suffi.re to a grat extent by the pLrfidy of a shopman, lie was utterly incapable either of meeting his creditor's demands, or of paying a pCealty in this case, if thr y should inflict one. The matistrates saia it vvw not in thleir power to abate a fraction of the penalty, bryond a cerin mi- tigation allowed by the statute, but at vised Mr. Andreow to peti- tion the Board of Customs on the subject. He was accordingly fieed 71. lOs., beine half the full ramount. Cluirlc: Mills, Esq., of 24, Hienrietta-street, Cavendish-squtre. Was also charged with having in his possession one pieee of Banduna silk-hiandkerchiefs. Air. Mlills didnot appearrwhen callIed tt plead to the infornation, and the scizing officer's evidence was taken il order to empower the magistrates to convict, whiclh thev finally did, in the full penalty of 3i., being treble the actual value of nroperty seized. Willian Ponle (servant to Mr. Mills) was finedl the full perotlty for having in his possession, 12 whole pieces of Persian and Chi- nese silk handkerchiefs. containing seven single handkerchiefs, three retinanas containing eight each, and twvo single, making in all ll0 handketchiefs. No appearareebeingtnade in this case, the Solicitor said lie suiould certaintay pTess for a conviction in the full penalty on tihis man, wvio wvaY evidently a wholeuale dlealer.-The value beng stated at 131., the defiendant was fined 391. Carolintie T'2e/elw (atiother scrvant to Mr. iills) was fined 31. tbr having in her possession a silk pelicse, of' French unanufac- taire. The officer stated that he iound in the younig woman's trnDk several gowns, which were also manufactured of prohibited siLks, but beitg somewhat soiled, he did not seize tbeut. During the hearing of the last case, Mr. Mlills came into theofice, and stated that he appeared merely to pay the penalty attaching to the seizure oflhis own piece of handkerchiefs, and to prevent tlte seizures of the servants' artides being identified with his nanie. The Solicitor politely assured Ml r. Mlills he might rest satisfied on that poisut, no such isiipression having been for one moment enter- tained. In all tie above cases the inforsnations were laid, not for tewtro- ba,,d goods, but for prohibited gootls; that is to saY, it was not be- cause those articles had not paid a duty on importation, but because their importation is altogether put a stop to by law, that they were so sczied; and a customhouse officer, receiving Private information where property of this description may be found, is authorized to search sansv gettlmats's house, open; his presses, trunks, private drawers, &c. (a:s in the ease cf Mr. Mils), and seize whatever lie finds therein amlenable to thisif enactmnent. So that, thoughb a person purchases is a public shop, he is liable to seizure, and tKe penalty annexed. POLfl21SI.