The Sun. — 1854-01-10 (London, England)

ROBBERY OF GAS. George Strutt, 31, a hairdresser, was indicted for having stolen 700 cubic feet of gas, the, property of the London Gas Company. When called on to plead, he said—l am guilty of burning the gas, but not in the way of stealing it. I intended to pay for it at the proper time. The Assistant Judge—Very well, that is a plea of not guilty. This was a prosecution of a novel nature, and the facts upon which the charge against the prisoner rested were shortly as follows :—The prisoner was a hairdresser, carrying on business at No 10, York-street, Camdentown, and had a contract with the London Gas Company to supply him with gas for one bat's-wing burner for his shop. On the 23d of December two inspectors in the company's service went there in consequence of some suspicion that all was not right, and on lifting up a pot which was used for the hot shaving water, and was fixed to the window-board, they found a burner under it alight which was supplied with gas by a smell pipe, surreptitiously introduced into the pipe which supplied the burner for which the contract was made. Some playbills were pasted about the board to conceal the pipe from observation, and when the pot was in its place nothing calculated to show that a gas burner was under it could be detected. Newman (one of the inspectors) asked what this was for, and the prisoner in reply said he supposed he could get over it by paying for it, and that it had been done in his absence in the country by a person whom he left in charge of the business, about three weeks before. Evidence was given to show that anterior to that time the pot had been seen in the same place, with water boiling iu it, but no one had ever seen either the pipe or the gas light by means of which the water was heated. Newman even said that he had seen the pot there as much as twelve months previously, before he went into the company's service, having repeatedly been there to be shaved. In answer to questions put by the Assistant-Judge, it was admitted that there was some confusion in the neighbourhood of Camden-town between the Imperial, Equitable and London Gas Companies, and that by mistake one company occasionally tapped a main belonging to another, and actions were now pending in reference to sueh matters. This introduced some doubt as to the right of the prosecuting company to the gas consumed by the extra burner in question, but it was cleared up by a statement of Inspector Larkin, to the effect that means were taken to ascertain the fact, and the service pipe in+the street, from which the pipe. was laid into the prisoner's shop, followed up to a main which he knew to belong to the London Company, as it was of a different size to the main of the Imperial. The main was plugged up, and the gas in the shop was extinguished, thus proving that the supply was from the London Coin pangs pipes.  The Assistant Judge, in summing up, said he thought the jury might take it as proved that the gas was the gas of the London Company, and that it was used by the prisoner ; but the question for them to determine was whether, on the evidence, they were satisfied that he used it with the intention of stealing it. If they were satisfied that he had the pipe put up, or put it there himself, and that it had been in use some time before he said it had, then he thought they should return a verdict of guilty ; but if they were of opinion that the pipe was fixed in his absence, as he had himself said, and that he burned the gas without the felonious intention charged against him, then they must undoubtedly acquit him. After the jurymen had conferred together some little time,  1 The Foreman abruptly turned round, and said, "Guilty, my lord, without the felonious intention." The Assistant Judge—Gentlemen, that is nonsense. That is a verdict of not guilty, though you say guilty. It is the felonious intent that makes the guilt ; and that verdict is like a jury finding a man guilty of murder without wilful design. A juryman said they had not all agreed, and they were locked up in charge of Mr. Sawyer, the beadle. After being absent some time, they returned into court, and found the prisoner guilty. The Assistant-Judge sentenced the prisoner to hard labour for one calendar month.