The Sun. — 1845-04-11 (London, England)

ROBBERY.—Joseph Bradshaw, aged 20, was indicted for having on, or about, the 28th of February last, stolen two and a half yards of t seed, two pieces of doeskin, and other articles, value 21., the property of Messrs. Mills and Hill, drapers, of St. Martin's-lane, his employers. Mr. Hill appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson defended the prisoner. From the p‘A.1,,,,-,-, .A. 1.......? :4--..,,,,,,.. Awit, -Lite prisoner's oox was searched, and in it was found the various articles described in the indictment. A portion of these articles the prosecutors spoke to as closely resembling their missing property, but could not swear as to their exact identity. Oa the part of the defence, it was set up that the articles in question had been give.. to the prisoner by his brother—a draper, carrying on business in Marylebone-street, Piccadilly, in whose service he previously had been—in lieu of wages. After Mr. Clarkson had addressed the jury for the defence, Mr. Justice Coledrige summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Another case was raised against the prisoner, for having pawned a piece of blue cloth—the duplicate of which was found in his box on its being searched—which cloth a shopman of Messrs. Mills and Hill spoke to as closely resembling a similar piece which they had missed a short time before the prisoner was given into custody. On the part of / he defence, the brother of the prisoner swore to his having given him the piece of cloth in question more than a year and a half ago, for the purpose of sending it to his father, but afterwards the prisoner asked his brother's permission to send another piece instead, which he accordingly did. After Mr. Justice Coleridge had summed up, the jury re turned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. The grand jury came into Court about three o'clock, and returned a trae bill against Joseph Connor for the St. Giles's murder.  Anne Pendry. 30, was charged upon the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of her illegitimate child. A bill for the same offence had been preferred before the grand jury, but it was ignored. Mr. Hurry defended the prisoner. The circumstances under which the charge was made will be fresh in the recollection of our readers, as they have been recently detailed very fully in the report of the proceedings before the coroner. The prisoner was servant at the Crown public-house, Isleworth, and, on the 28th February, she was seen to go to the water-closet, and, after remaining there for some time, she came out apparently in a very weak and exhausted state, and shortly afterwards the dead body of an infant was found in the soil. There was a slight bruise upon the head ; but it appeared very probable that this was occasioned by the instrument with which the child was taken from the privy, and there was no evidence to show that the child was born alive. When the prisoner was questioned, she said that she had been sudelerrly seized with the pains of labour, and that she was delivered before she could obtain any assistance. Mr. Justice CoLEfunGE, at the close of the case for the prosecution, expressed his opinion that the evidence was insufficient, and, under his direction, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.