The Sun. — 1842-04-26 (London, England)

HALL—There is 'but one conversation between them you know. _ '  Mr. Maule—There is one witness who heard a elnversation between the female prisoner and another woman, which proved that she was aware of it; and the conversation between the two prisoners at the George and Guy, shows that Gamble knew of it; and another witness, the waiter at the Spotted Dog, speaks to the same' effect. It is quite clear that both the prisoners were in possession of part of the deceased's property ; they deny having pots, ssion of them at first; then I say the possession of the deceased's property proves that, after the murder, Good hastened to London, and carried off the property of the deceased ; a great part of this he took to the house of Mary Good, and, through her instrumentality, a part of it is taketi to the house of Gamble ; there it is concealed, and there it is found. If. I am right in the conclusions I draw, I say there is ample evidence to put these prisoners upon their trial on the charge of being accessories after the fact of the murder; or it not, that the fact of their having the goods and denying the possession of them without being able to account fur it, is in my opinion quite sufficient to warrant you in putting them upon their trial for being accessories after the fact. Mr. HALL —No doubt if the deceased were the wife of Daniel Good, there would ho an end of the case, and if Mary Good ware his wife, she could not be an accessory either with respect to the murder or the goods. A wife may be concerned in a murder jointly with her husband ; but she would he considered in law sub protestati nisi. There is not however, the slightest evidence of the deceased being the wife of Daniel Good, or to show that Mary Good is, or ever was, the wife of Daniel Good. The case must, ierefore, be treated as if neither of them were his wife. The case against Gamble, with respect to his being found in possession of this property, is very strong. He is seen on the 11th in the house of this Woman, and that is the first time we find them together. On the 12th, too, and on the 14th, he is seen to go into her house and to come out; and on the 16th the goods are found under his bed. I do not mean to say that this implies any attempt at secrecy, because there might have been no other place of safety wherein to deposit the property. I cannot help thinking on the whole that I should have no hesitation in saying that he ought to be put upon his trial as a receiver of stolen property. Under all the circumstances - I think I shall commit him on this part of the ease. With respect to Mary Good, the case against her as accessory after the fact is much stronger than against Gamble. ( The worthy Magistrate teen recapitulated the 'principal points in the evidence, and he then continued) : —These are all very strong facts; but I think the best and safest course I can adopt, is to commit them both as recei ers of stolen property, leaving it to the gentlemen coma rned in the prosecution to prefer any other charge which they may think proper. Mr. Burnaby, the Chief Clerk, then commenced reading the depositicns, which occupied a considerable time ; they were concluded by six o'clock, when the witnesses were all bound over to prosecute, and the prisoners were fully committed to take their trial at the next Old Bailey Sessions on the charge .of receiving stolen property, well knowing it to have been stolen.  Mary Good applied to know if she might have the money which had been tound upon her, and which the police hat taken from her, for the purpose of procuring some comforts for herself whilst in prison. Mr. HA L. t. granted the application, and also male an order that the IL 10s. found on Gamble shoald be given up to him. The prisoners were then removed from the bar, and were shortly after conveyed to Newgate, in the prison van, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,  HOUSE OF LORDS, April 25. Their Lordships met at five o'clock.