OLD BAILEY, Tuesday, Febr...
The Times, 1824-02-26T00:00:00

Robert Szeet, a respectable kgan, about 40, was indicted for feloniously receiving 7 garden.pots and plants, the property of Hlis Alaestv, well knowing' the sanie to hare been stoleR by some ev!l.disposed person or persons. There was a second count in the indictment, in wlhich the property was laid as belonging to Mr. Ayton, the King's head gardener, at Kew. It was stated in evi- dence, that the plants in question, rare exotics, having been missed from the Botanic Garden at Kew, were discovered to have been sent, in a deal box, by a man narned Hogan, who worked in the garden. and afterwards absconded, to a coach-office at Brentford, directed *'i Ir. Robert Sweet, MLr Colville's nursery, King's-road, Chelsea." They werec forwarded accordingly, and taken in by Alr Sweet, Dlr. Colville's principal matager,who paid Is. 8d., the charge for carriage, to the person bringing the box. In consequence oel information received at Bow-street, Ruthven the officer was de- spatched with a nerson named Smith, an assistant gardener at Kew, to Sweet's 6ouse, and there asked hirn what he had done with tne box which he had received that morning from Kew or Brentford ? Sweet at first hesitated a little; but his attention being 'nore particalarly called to the box in question by Ruthven he took him and Smith to 3Ir. Colville's nursery, for thepurpose of showing where the plants were. Upon seeing Lr. Colville, Ruthvern repeated his question to Sweet in the presence of ColviUle, who imme- diately said, " You (meaning Sweet) know nothinU of it; I know nothing of it." Ruthven, however, said he wou d not be trifled with, and proceeded, with Smith and Sweet, to the bothouses, to search for the plants,Colville having first said to Sweet, "You know nothing of them-What are you at?" In a little time Smith recognized five of the plants, amongst those of Colville's, in different pots from those in wlhich they had been at Kew. Ruthven then asked Sweet for the directon which had come upon the box. Sweet at first denied having it, but when about to be searched he produced it. He was taken to Bow-street, but In consequence of the non.attendance of the witnesses, he was discharged. He was again taken before the 31agistrates on the following Saturday, and upon examination, committed for trial.. 1lr. Justice BEST observed, that it was somewhat extraordinary that Mr. Colville was not before him also, to answer for his share in the transaction. Sweet put in an extremely well-written defence, reasoning upon the improbability of his committilg a felony without any aissignable motive; lie having no interest whateverin the ssle of the plants in 3ir. Colville's nursery, where the plants in question had been exhibiied to view. HIe called several witnesses, who swore, anongst other tlhings, that botanists were in the constant habit of recciving plants for experimental and other purposes with out any intimation accompanying theni as to the pardes who had sent them. They all gave him the best possible character for inte- grity; and one of them, an emiinent botanist, named Anderson, stated, that Mr. Sweet was reported to be the first practical botaaist in Europe. One of the jurors had Smitl put into the box a second time, and asked himn if Ar. Sweet had not published some worksa on botany ?-Smith said he had. Juror.-And is not 3IMr. Ayton also an author ?-Witness. Re is. Juror._Is AIr. Ayton here to day ?-Witness. I believe not. Juror._Has not 3ir. Sweet severely criticised a work of Mr. Ayton's?- Witness. I do not know. I have seen a recent publi- cation in which Mr. Ayton is called a dunce. Juror.-What publication is that ?P-Witness. i The Botanic Register." dlr. Justice BEST.-*VhO is the editor of tbat?-WitnesL I 46 not know. Juror.-')o you not believe that this box was sent to MIr. Sweet to entrap him fbr this prosecution ?-Witness. I have no reasoa to think so. It was afterwards stated by AIr. Ridgeway, of Piccadilly, that Sweet was not the editor of the " Botanic Register." The Jury, after having retired for a couple of hours, returned a verdict of NVot Guilty. WEDNESDAY, FEn. 25. Mary Robinsot was indictecl for stealing a 201. and i 101. bank note, the property of a person named Chisbolm. The prosecutor, when in a s:ate of intoxication, took the prisoner to a certain house ii St. Giles's, on the 13th of January. His pocket-book wasfoutid im the room after he hadl gone away, minus the notes. On the fol- lowing day, the prisoner went into a shop and asked for change of a 101. note, tendering at the same time a 201. note, which was refused, in consequence of the suspicion the drcumstance excited. She then procured a little boy to pass for her son, and taking him to a sale- shop in the Alinories, she purchased a suit of clothes for him in payment for which she gave the ?20. note, and received the dy&cr- ence. This note was proved to htave been one of those lost by the prosecutor. VerdictG_Guilty. Joh/n Warden was indicted for embezzling 21. 2s., the property of Robert Mr. Elliston. It appeared that the prisoner was in -Mr. El- liston's employment as a privatebox.kerperatDrury-laneTheatre;- and on the 4th of Februarv he accommodated a party with a private box, for which he receivea two guineas, without accounting for the money afterwards to his employer. It turned out, however, that the box in question belonged on alternate weeks to the Duke of (olocester and l\lr. Elliston; and that this transaction took place dluring one of the weeks on whichiTI lr. Elliston had no interest in the box. Consequently the indictment failed, and the prisoner was lcquittcd. OLD BAILEY, Tues,day, Fcbruar 24.