Old Bailey New Court, Sat...
The Times, 1824-12-06T00:00:00

( sefore fhe (;OMMON SER1GEANT and a London Jurn. ) - LeadbiUter was indicted under the act of the 4th of Geo. I. with feloniously taking from .J. C. Cramplin, the sinm of 30 sove. reigns, under mretence of helping the said Cramplin and his partner, B. Charlesworth, to the recovery of silk googs, to the amount of 7001. of which they had been robbed, he net having apprchended the thieves who committed the robbery, nor caused them to be brought to trial. Alr. BRtoDRtci, the counsel for the prosecutisn, stated to the jury, that the prosecuitors, as they mjL-ht collect from the indictmnent, hd been plundered of goods to a large amount, and they had ad- vanced a sum of money to thle urisoner at the bar for tir purpose as iL was understood by one of the parners,of the recovery of the good-s; but by the other partner it was supposed to be given for a different purpose. The circumstance had been brought under the notice of a magistrate of the city, who had come to the conclusion, that it constltuted an oflbnee under the statute of the 4th of George 1. Since the prisoner had been committed, it had appeared to those who had examined the statute more accuratelv than the snagizttrate had an opportunity of doing, that the indictment could not be RUS- taincd, even if the fact should be dearly proved that the money had been given and received in the manner charged2 becauee no part of the property had been restored. WVithl the permission of the Court, therefore, he would offer no evidence in the case. The Cosemtou SEnGEANT asked, whether any case had been decided on the point to which the learned counsel had alluded? It did not appear to him necessary that any part of the property should be restored, to bring a ase within the statute. Mr. BuoDnIca said that he had not looked into the statute him- self; but he understoo that the point was quite clear. If how ever, the Court entertained any doubt on the subject, he wouQd pro: ceed tvith the case. The Co:srmoX SEa REANT said,the words of the clause were, " if any person take money under pretence of helping," &c. That did not contemdplate the recovery of the goods. IUr. BnOaRcIC said, he was given to understand, that a case had occurred in which the Judges decided it was necessary that some of the property should be restored. The Coinmow SERG EANT saild, he observed it was mentioned in the hooks that the case of n man natned Drinkwater had occurred under the statute. Jonathan Wild was, lie believedl, convictedl on the evidence of a principal. XVas Wild's case reported? Mr. Shelton (the clerk of the arraigns) observel that Wild re- turned part of the goods, and the principal thsef was a witness against him. Air. AN DREWS, for the prisoner, said, thatindependently of the objection on the point of law, AIr. Brodrick had stated a fact which showed the inutility of proceeding with the case,-namely, that one of the partners represented the moniey to have been given for one purpose and the other for another. The UoXtroro SERGEANT observed it woould be for the Jury to decide for wlhat purpose the pristoner received it. illr. ADOLPaIUS, for the prisoner, ias of opinion that the vietv whiich IAly. Brodrick had taken of the statute was perfectly eorrect. The wordswlhich followed tltiase that the Court hiad read, showed clearly what was the intention of the statute. Those words were, " unless such person doth apprehend, or cause to be apprehended, such felon who stole the same." It was evident that the framers of the statute contemplated that those to whomi Its provisions would extendl should be persons in actual communication with the thieyes. His argunent was corroborated by the history of the statute, which wzs framed to meet such capes as that of Jonathan Wild, who kept a kind of office for the ieception of, and dealing with, stolen pre- perty. A person might help another to his goods by his advice and receive money fir so doing, but surely that was not a case which the Legislature contemplated. To bring a case within the statute there must, he thought, be a contract with respect to the goods. T'te Coasatox SiRtGEAisT said lic woulA read the clause in the statute upon which the indictment was framed. Time preamble of the act in the first place stated that there were *' persons who hail secret acquaintance with felons, and made it their business to help the owners of stolen goods to their property, and by that means gain money, which was divided between them anti the felotis, to the grcat encouragement of such offenders." Then came the clause, " Be it enacted, that whenever any person taketli money or reward, directly or indirectly, under pretence, or upon account, of help-.ng any person or persons to any stolen goods or chattels any such person so taking money or reward as aforesaid (unless suchi person doth apprehend, or cause to be apprehendsii, such felon who stole the sanie, and cause such felca to be. brought to his trial for the same. and give evidence against him) shall be guilty of felony, and suffer the pains and penalties of felony, according to the nature of the felony com- mitted in stealing such goods, in thesame manner as if such offender had himself stolen such goods and chattels in the matier, and with sach circumstancesas they were stolen." VlMr. A'eDnlV s observesZ, that tlielattcr part oftheclausestrengtrh cned the argument of Mlr. Adolphus. The CoMMsoN SERGEANT admitted the word " aforesaid" in the clause, coupled with the words "1 such felon," might be carried back to the preaimble wliere the persons taking money were described as sharing it with the thieves. AIr. BRoDnicr; wished it to be understood that the prosecutor had been influenced by no desire to keep back on the present occa- sion. He was present wvith his witniesses, and ready to be examined should the Court think proper. Air. AND nswts also begged to say that the prisoner had taken no measures to avert the trial. I e had throughout the transaction been sincerely co-operating with the officers in endeavouring to discover the thieves, a3d bring them to justice. The indictment had origi- nated in a mnisunderstanding. The COslON-SERGEANT, after smeinecorsideration, said, that he should hilc to take tie opinion of one of the .Jutlges on the point. dir. BstoDrIcx slaied'that Mr. Justice Bayley was unoccupied in the other Court. The COMMON-.SERGFANT said lie would take the opportunityef consulting the learned Judge, rather than stop the triai on liis own authority; indeed, he hardly felt disposed to do so. fle then left the Court; but in a short time returned, and said it was thought proper that the trial should proceed. ir. Bstontcx then sh.,rtly stated the facts to the jury. The prosectitors, Aiessrs. Cramplin and Charleswortl, being about to en- ter Into business as silkinen, hat) taken a warehouse in Wood-street, Cheapside, in which thev deposited goods to a large amount. On the night of the 216th of October the warchouse was broken open, and property to the value of upwards of 7001. stolen therefrom. The prisoner hali an interview with d.ir. Cramplin on the subject of the robbery, and M r. Crainplin gave him 301., which he said the prisoner stated was to be given to the thieves. The otier partner, dir. Charlesworth, it was true, undierstood that the money was given to the lIrisoner fcr a differeitpurpose. The jury would draw their own conclusion from the faets which should be proved, and it would be for the Court to determine with respect to the operation of the statute. John Charles Cramplin was then examined, and deposed as fol- lows :_i am in partnerskip with Bryan Charlesworth. On the 22:1 of October we placed goods to a considerable amount in tar ware- house in Wood-street, Cheapside. On the nighlt of the 26th of Oc- tober, th warehlouse was robbed of goods to the valucof nearly 8001. After the robbery, Mr. Charlesworth brought the prisoner to me, in company with Salmon, the Bow-street officer. 1 then thought the prisoner was an officer, but I afterwards ascertained that lie was the landlord of the Dolphint public-house, on Ludgate-hill, whete I saw him in a day or two after my first interview with him. On that occasion the prisoner said he "was in hopes that our property would be recovered: and thbt if it were in the hands of regular thieves, ly was sure to get it." He also said that lie should see Ikey Solomon on Sunday, and Old' Crowder was frequently mentioned. This conversation took place en Sunday. The prisoner said that Ikey Solomon kept a notorious fence house, nnd that Old Crowder was it great thief. On the next day (Sunday) I oaw the prisoner at Salmon's house, [Rc then told me that they were reon a rg i huunt andhe\vas sure;we shiiull hiave the g6ods back;" .HtoaJi iNethat we munt-tske vtocek and give, him a correctlist of the gooux: which we had -.lot,- Thelitl Wsa made out and delivered to him, sogether-with ~30 sovereigns. I iuked.him what he wanted the 30 sov&rcignsV for, imdJI u6derstood him to say to give -t the thieve.tt The 00NrUo'j SEniwAXT. It it of grent iiportaziee that you should state the particular words whi*tf he prisoner used; - witness..r cantiot recollect the-ptecise words, but Ir thoughit the money was to be given for the greovery Of the kooi, anid I said " Tf you give thrse 30 sovereigns to. the tlieves, puerhaps they will ertn ofwith thern as well as the goods."' He replied. " Oh, no, wve have got them tno fast; they can't do thAt. , sav the prisoner several timei afterwards. (n one occasioII, lie told nme that he had seen Ikey Solonmon, and sbowed him the list, and that lkey- aid there -wasa deficiency of 1,00 y'ards ;n the stolen goods,- as compared with the list. lHe said, that we oduild liave the goods for 4501. fle afterwardis said, " Do not be In a2 hurry, and you m3ay get them for less.", I asked him fot how-muchi; a*id he 5aid for about '01. We never gbt any thing bsck. I saw the prni soner afterw,ards. lie said that le thought the goods ha,d been sold. but he wolid not give thebusRiness up yet.- The prisonersentin a bill, and chargedl 101. foi his scrvitc5. Ile told me that he had not iDtended to charge any Ithing for his services, but lie had resolved to do so in consequence of vihe conduct o a gentleman namcd Shaw, whonm I hat taken to his hIOUse. He said that lie would keep the 30) sovereigns till lisa bill was paid. C:ross.examine.l.. understand thlat.the prisoner is well known to my partner. Air. Chatlesworth was-in the habit of spending his evenings at his house. Salmon, the otficer, took refreslhments at the prisoncrS' house. I never made. a:y-charge of a criminal nature against the prisoner, till he presented liis bill. I objected to tie ameuiit of the bill. Before the bill was sent in, i never stated to any person that the prisoner had obtiined money for the purpose of lelping me to the stolen goods. The prisoner snoke ot Solomnon and Crowder, as notorious rcdeiveis -of stoien goods, throughi ivwiom we might be able to get at the thieves. 1 did not supp6se that the prisoner knew the thieves. He dil nothing more than endcavour to get the zoods back. Wihen he tolU me that the goods could be got fer 4501., said, " Irlad we not better give that?" and hI re- plied, " Do not be in a hurry, and you will get them for less." Fhe officers made out a bil to thieamount of 211.; but we were so satisfied with their exertions, that we, gave them 301; The prisoner was emuployed eight or ten days in the business. I did not think that he would charge any thing fbr his trouble. I have net brought AMr. Charleswbrth luere. He was examiiined before the magistrate. A witness naired Shalw was examiaed, btit his evilence was not matetial. The prosecutor's shopman proved that the warehouse was .obbed on the 26th of October. This was the case fbr the prosecution. WVilliam Salmon was examnined-bv the prisoner's counsel.- I am an officer'of Bow-street. On the 27fth of October, I wat,employed hv the prisoner on account of the robbbry of' Messrs. Cramplin anti Charcsw orth. I communicated witu hbhn every day afterwards for I I days. I used his house. I have seen Al r. Cramplin at the pri- soner's house in company witliu iR partner, and I comntunicated to hitm every thing that was done. fie neverexpressed any dissatisfac- tion at tile prisoner's condutet. I have heard the names of Solo. mon and Crowdelr mentioned, in consequence of soate anony- mous letters whicli were received. The prisoner was meet industriously cmiployed in searchiing for the thieves. He ne- ver represented, in my presence, that hs knew the thieves; lie never professed to do mnare than endc-avotr to find them out. Alr. Cramplin never before me efiarged the prisoner with having received money to help him to the goods. In consequence of some informa- tioncontained in an auionymmotis letter, the prisoner and myself had an interview with Crowuler, and appointed that the prisoner should meet Crowder, in company witll [key Solomon. Thc prisoner went to the place appointed, but Solomnon did not come. I was in attendauice with Perry, the officer, to take Solomon into custody, if it should be found necessary. The pyisoner surely was not, I believe, colluding whitli thieves to obtain money. I never knew the prisonler till lic applied to mie at Bow-street on the subject of this robbery. Peter Perry gave evidence to nearly the samne efFect as that of the precetling witness, and added, that Alr. Charlesworth said that 101. was too small a compensation for the trouble which tie prisoner had. . Clacak, of St. Paul's-church-yard, deposed that lie was accus- tomed occasionally togo to the prisoner's house. lie 1usd seen Charles. worth and Afr. S,ramplin there. fie heard the latter express him- self satisfied vilth what the prisonier had clone. He considered thiat the prisoner exerted himself to serve Alr. Cliarleswortli, because lie was his customer. A great many witnesses, chiefly tradesmen in the city, who had known the prisoner for the last 20 years, gaTe hitn an excellent clia. racter. The CO(0froN- SEIIGEASrT having summed up the evidence, the Jury retired, and after an absence of 25 minutes, they retumed, and the foreman said, " We find the prisoner (4uilfy; but we beg leave mnost strongly to recommend him to mercy on account of his previous good character. The COrescoN SERGEANT said, that lie would reserVe the point of law, whichl was discussed at the commencement of the trial, for the opinion of the twelve Judges. I Ol,D BAILEY NEW COtJRT. S.AT1ATRnr I)'rD A IZNEOTIAT!ON WITII THIEVES FOR THrE ItECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY.