The Sun. — 1844-12-14 (London, England)

COLERIDGE.) Benjamin Collinson (out on bail) was charged with having, on the 26th of July last, at Dewsbury, burglariously broken into the dwelling-house of George Earnshaw, and stolen therefrom four pairs of blankets, 20 shillings in silver, and one shilling in copper.—The prisoner was Acquitted. Mr. Wlmums said it wa§ only due to his client to state that ninety-two persons had subscribed their sixpences and shillings towards the prisoner's defence, and he held a testimonial from the vicar of the.parish, giving the prisoner a most excellent character. Peter Higgins was charged with having stolen from the counting-house of Charles Exley, a pocket-book and about 1731. in notes; and Ann Higgins was charged with having, on the 31st of July, at Wakefield, received one 301; sixteen 5/, notes, and one 101. note, the property of the said Charles Exley, well knowing them to have been stolen.  The jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of Guilty against both the prisoners. Peter Higgins was sentenced to transportation for 20 ears. A former conviction was proved against Ann iggins, who was sentenced to transportation for 14 years. Wni. Thompson, alias Luke Thompson, alias Blueskin, was charged with having, on the 22d of January, 1843, feloniously shot at Thomas Carr, of Hall Moor, near York, vtith intent to murder, disable, or to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Wftxxsis opened the case to the jury. He observed that this case was indeed an extraordinary one, and one which he thought was calculated to teach all persons woo might be acquainted with its history a very important lesson. He was sure it would not be a lesson lost upon them in the discharge of their duty on that and all other occasions, and he felt it was a lesson which every man would do well to lay to heart before he came into .a witness-box to speak against a fellow-creature. Already a man named Mason had been tried for this identical offence—convicted and sentenced to transportation. If he (Mr. Wilkins) was well instructed, he thought the jury would be fully convinced that that poor fellow (Mason) had been suffering for the crimes of others, as it would be shown to them from the mouth of the prisoner himself, that he with others committed that offence—that Mason was not present—and that in fact Mason was not known to the parties who committed the robbery. He (Mr. Wilkins) believed some hasty but well-intended observations had been made in a portion of the public press in this city on the conduct of the policeman to whom the information was given in this matter ; but he thought the gentleman who wrote that article, and all who might hear the history of this case, would be of opinion, if they looked into his transaction, that the officer had conducted himself with becoming caution, discretion, and humanity. When the prisoner first imparted the intelligence to the policeman, he was in duty bound immediately to make it known to Mr. Chalk, the superinteudent. Mr. Chalk very properly requested that corroborative testimony should be obtained whereby to substantiate the statement, and at the same time secure the release of Mason. The jury would, he thought, be of opinion that caution was required, and that a little delay was necessary to bring this matter to a successful issue. The principal evidence against the prisoner was a confession made by himself to the police. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to twenty years transportation. (His Lordship, in passing sentence, intimated that immediate steps would be taken for the recal of the innocent convict, Mason, and that Government, in all likelihood, would award him compensation.) (Before Mr. Justice CREsSWELL.) William Barker and John Holden were charged with having, on the Bth of November last, at Stanfield, in the %Vest Riding, feloniously assaulted John Baiston, and stolen from his person one 101. note, two 51. notes, 70 sovereigns, 20 half-sovereigns, 20 shillings, and two books, the property of the said John Baisten. The prosecutor identified Barker as being one of the men who robbed him on the night in question. He also stated that Barker, prior to the robbery having been committed, was in his employ as a labourer. His Lordship having summed up, the jury, after being absent about half an hour, returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners.—Sentence deferred.