Newspaper Transcripts
Some Selected Reports from The Times
18th February, 1852
MIDDLESEX SESSION, Feb. 17.
(Before Mr. Serjeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge, and a Bench of Magistrates, at the Sessions House, Clerkenwell.)
Edwin Smith, aged 34, was indicted for feloniously breaking and entering the warehouse of Christopher Knuth, and stealing therein 276 purses, value �25., his property.
It appeared that the articles in question were stolen on the night of the 11th of October from the warehouse of the prosecutor, and apparently some one had concealed himself inside before the place was locked up, and then got out with the purses during the night.
Mary Benson deposed to seeing the prisoner at the house of a man named Spanwick, about the middle of October, packing up the purses; and a Mr. Abraham stated that be bought some of them from a man who he believed was the prisoner, who wrote a receipt for the money which he produced.
Charles Harris, was was called to prove the handwriting, said that he had not seen the prisoner write for seven or eight years, but that he had corresponded with him lately, and that the receipt was written by him.
Mary Benson admitted that when she saw the prisoner at Spanwick's it was not for a longer time than a quarter of an hour, and she had never seen him before. She knew Spanwick and Brookes, who were now convicted of stealing sealing wax from the Post-office, and her husband and Spanwick, in 1847, before she was married, were taken up on a charge of attempting to pick pockets.
Mr. METCALFE, who appeared for the defence, stated that he was instructed that the prisoner gave information against Brookes, Spanwick, and Mallin, on the charge mentioned in the evidence, and he thought it would appear that this was a conspiracy on their part to convict him on the present charge. Mallin resembled the prisoner, and might have been mistaken for him by the witness Benson, who, he thought, might be an accomplice in the matter. he should prove beyond doubt that the receipt was not in the prisoner's handwriting, and it was much more likely that Brookes, who was a workman in the prosecutor's service, should have had an opportunity of concealing himself on the premises and committing the robbery then the prisoner. He than called.
George Quinnear, 1 P, sergeant of police, who stated that he was present at the Surrey sessions, at Newington, when Spanwick, Brooks, and Mallin were tried. Mallin, he should think, might be mistaken for the prisoner. He had known him for years as a dealer in horsehair. The prisoner informed him that he had seen a quantity of sealing wax and twine in the possession of the other three men, and he had no doubt it was stolen.They did not make use of his testimony on the trial; it was only used as private information.
The learned JUDGE put the witness through a very searching examination as to the motive of the prisoner not being called on to give evidence on the trial, and the different points in his evidence.
This witness also stated that he would not like to swear the receipt was written by the prisoner.
John Sale, a compositor, stated that he had seen the prisoner write, perhaps a dozen times a-day, up to two years back. The receipt was not in the prisoner's handwriting; he never wrote so bold a hand.
The sister and mother of the prisoner were also called, and declared that the writing was not at all like his.
The learned JUDGE having summed up
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and returned the prisoner Guilty
Police Serjeant Quinnear was then recalled, and in answer to questions from the learned JUDGE stated that the prisoner was tried at the Central Criminal Court in June, 1850, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. In June, or July, 1848, he was tried at the Surrey Sessions, and was sentenced to 14 months'; and that up to the time of his last sentence he was a regular associate of thieves, but that since he believed he had changed.
The learned JUDGE said - It was perfectly clear that was the reason he did not take the prisoner's information, for he knew that it was only the evidence of one thief against another.
On a question how he knew the prisoner's mode of getting his living for the last 12 months, the witness stated that he had seen him constantly about, and that he had represented himself to him as jobbing about and dealing in horsehair.
The learned JUDGE deferred passing sentence until next session in order to get full information.