In several cases the complete newspaper articles are quite long and contain more detail than necessary, so when quoting them I’ve had to cut them down – in some cases quite lot. However, since I’d already put the effort into transcribing them, and even with the help of OCR software software thats still a lot of work, I’m going to post them!
The Princess Trial.
The Commital proceedings.
Liverpool Echo – Wednesday 17 June 1914
MAJOR AND A PRINCESS. LADY CLAIMED HIM AS A HUSBAND. SURPRISING CASE.
The recent case in which Princess Seham Yousry, an Egyptian, was bound over at Woodbridge in consequence of her threats against Major W. E. Gunnel Connolly, of Grange Farm, Hasketon, was followed by another astonishing prosecution at the Marlborough-street Police Court.
On this occasion, she was accused of maliciously publishing a defamatory libel concerning Major Connolly.
Mr. E.A. Farleigh, who prosecuted, said the libel was published in 1912 in the form of a letter addressed by the princess to the wife of Major W.E. Connolly’s cousin, Major Arthur Connolly. “It was not until recently,” he continued, “that evidence was obtained of the authorship of the document, but it has now been admitted by the woman herself. The letter is really one of a series, most of which have been addressed to Major W. E. Connolly himself outside this jurisdiction.
MARRIAGE ALLEGED. “The serious part of the matter is that the princess claims Major Connolly as her husband, saying that he married and deserted her; that he married a Soudanese girl; that she has seventy letters quite sufficient to damn him in this or any other court; and that he marries a fresh wife wherever he goes.”
She has written substantially to every place where he has been, and when she recently discovered his address in the country, she followed him there. Although she was bound over to keep the peace, she still continues her persecution. “Major William Connolly said he was now on the retired list of the Army. For ten years he was in the Egyptian Army, serving for different periods at Kassala, Omdurman, Khartoum, and Cairo, where he was Assistant Adjutant-General of the Conscription Department. “I knew the princess in Egypt,” he continued. “Since she was bound over at Woodbridge she has made disturbance outside my house almost every day. I am a married man, and my wife is in a delicate condition.”
THE MAJOR’S DENIAL.
In reply to Mr. North, who defended, Major Connolly denied that the princess had lived with him for four years as his wife, but said she visited him at his rooms for two years. “It is possible,” he said, “that she may in some way related to Yousry Pasha. I do not know that her family discarded her because of her connection with me. I have never been through any form of marriage with her. I used to give her money, but I do not know what other means she had. All I know about her family is what she chose to tell me.” Mr. North said the princess would not deny writing the letters, and would justify them in course. Mr. Farleigh asked that when the woman was committed she should be made to find a surety, and not let out on her own recognisances. “Besides having been deported from the Soudan and bound over as stated at Woodbridge,” he said, “she has been bound over in London for annoying men in Piccadilly. “Mr. Denman committed her for trial, and offered to accept one surety in £25.
Trial report from the Woodbridge Reporter, 17th September 1914.
THE PRINCESS TRIAL. PRISONER FOUND GUILTY. SENTENCE OF SIX MONTHS
At the Central Criminal Court on Wednesday, before Judge Atherley Jones, Seham Yousry, age 25, described as an Egyptian princess, of superior appearance, and smartly attired, was charged with publishing a defamatory libel of and concerning Major William Edward Gunnell Connolly, retired, of Woodbridge. There was a second count of publishing the libel with intent to court money. A plea of justification had been pot in, necessitating evidence from Egypt, and the trial had consequently been twice postponed.
The letter was signed “Yours faithfully, Mrs. Connolly.”
Judge Atherley-Jones overruled the objection on the ground that the Recorder had given permission for the second count to be added. Mr. Austin Farleigh appeared for the prosecution.
“Connolly—I not write to you no more because you are no gentleman. You are very, very rude, and you do not telephone to me or write to me or speak to me. You think I go back to Egypt. No, never! I follow you wherever you go, and if you do not give me six pounds every month I will make it very warm for you.”
Last year prosecutor was married, and prisoner, learning where he was living, visited his house at Hasketon and renewed her former conduct, the disturbance affecting the health of Mrs. Connolly, and prisoner was in consequence charged at Woodbridge Petty Sessions and bounded over. In the course of those proceedings the letters which were the subject of the libel were admitted by the prisoner as having been written at her instigation and sent to Major Connolly who was then placed in the position of being able to bring the present charges against her.
On November 21 1912, the following letter which constituted a very serious libel was written from Oxford Terrace, Hyde Park, was received by Mrs. Connolly, wife of a cousin of the prosecutor. It was addressed to the Army and Navy Club:—
Dear Mrs. Connolly. I came a short time ago with Mrs. White, but had no opportunity of speak, to you. I have called many times at the Army and Navy club. I have also engaged private detectives. I have found particulars of Major: W. E. G. Connolly. I have £35 from my brother every ‘month and intend staying in London all my life to find Major Connolly. I go to the police court and say that my husband has left me, and soon it will be in the papers. I want him for love, not for money. I find that everywhere he goes he marries a fresh wife. I have a daughter four years old.Counsel said that as the Major was unable to prove who wrote these letter, no proceedings were taken.
Major Connolly gave evidence, and denied that he ever went through a form of marriage with the prisoner. It was while he was stationed at Cairo that he made her acquaintance. One night his servant name to his rooms and said a woman wanted to see him. She was the prisoner, who said she wanted to stay. This she did becoming his (prosecutor’s) mistress. He had given her sums of money. He was married in September of last year, and early this year prisoner found out where he was residing at Woodbridge. She created a disturbance, and said she would murder him and his wife. In November, 1912, prisoner wrote a letter which was received by the wife of his cousin, Major A. Connolly, at the Army and Navy Club.
At the conclusion of the Major’s evidence, an effort was made to settle the case, his Lordship remarking that an arrangement was desirable at such a time, because it would be very unfortunate and regrettable if incidents which had taken place years ago should now be laid open to public criticism. Counsel for the juries accompanied the Judge to his Lordship’s private room, but after the luncheon interval it was stated the trial would have to proceed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bamford, Major Connolly was asked;
Did you know this woman to be a Princess?—Major Connolly No, I did not,
Did she not tell you?–No.
Did you not know her brother as Yousry Pasha?—No.
Never met him?—No.
Did you know any of her relatives?—No. She’ only told me that Yousry Pasha was her brother.
Major Connolly was shown a photograph of himself, on the back of which were a number of names. He admitted that be wrote those names. Prisoner had said that these names were those of her brothers, but he did not know of them. Prisoner was his mistress for a little over two years. He never went through any form of with her. She never lived in his house, but merely visited him in the evening. Council suggested that the prosecutor knew that the marriage was invalid because a marriage could not be solemnised between a Christian and a Mahommedan, but Major Connolly denied there was any truth in the allegation at all.
Prosecutor was asked concerning his relations with other women, and counsel read a long and an exceedingly passionate letter from a girl named “Roma,” which, prosecutor declared, was one of several letters prisoner had stolen from his quarters at Cairo, and she had held than over his head ever since.
Counsel: If this lady whom you are prosecuting believed she was your wife, she would he right in asking you for money? Prosecutor: Yes, if she was my wife, which she is not.
Counsel: In Egypt you know that it is often the case for a man to have more than one wife? I do not know the laws of Egypt; I have heard it said that some can have several wives and some can have no more than one. It was not true that he met prisoner at a party at Yousry Pasha’s house.
This was the case for the prosecution, so far as the libel was concerned, and the prisoner gave evidence on her own behalf in justification. She speaks English fluently. She said her name was Seham Yousry; she was the daughter of Ismael Yousry Pasha, and her grandfather was Khedive of Abyssinia. Her mother allowed her £60 a month, and the family moved in good society. She herself being known as Princess Yousry. She first became acquainted with Major Connolly when she was 16 years of age at a house party of her own people. That was in 1905. Two years after Major Connolly asked her to live with him at his quarters. She did not consent, and the Major spoke to her about marriage. One day at his quarters in the old Observatory at Cairo, she and Major Connolly were present, as well as two witnesses and Sheik Mohammed Ali. A certificate was drawn up and signed, and from that time she believed, she was his wife. That certificate she had lost at Venice after producing it for the purpose of obtaining a passport. She had had two children by Major Connolly. While he lived with her he used to receive letters from a girl in England signed “Roma”. Major Connolly used to be very unhappy when he received those letters and was wont to say that he had a skeleton in his cupboard.
Cross-examined: Prisoner denied that she knew a man called Edward Kent in Cairo, or that she had ever brought an action against him. The only Kent she knew “Chatham Kent” (Loud laughter.) The birth certificates of her children were by Major Connolly, The proceedings were adjourned till Thursday.
The trial was resumed on Thursday, when replying to Mr. A. Fairleigh, counsel for the prosecution, the defendant, in further cross-examination, identified a number of photographs but denied one of them was a portrait of her. In 1910 she stayed for a night at the house of Mr. and Mrs. Richardson in London, but it was not true that she had shown Mr. Richardson a photograph of herself, taken with Mr. Kent and her child.
Counsel : Did you tell Major Connolly in 1907 that in February of that year you had brought an action to the Mixed Tribunal at Cairo – against Mr, Kent. claiming £1,000 damages for seduction?
The Accused: No, I never mentioned Kent to Major Connolly ; but who’s Kent ?
Kent was a young English engineer who was then in Cairo; and is it not a fact that you told Mr. Richardson of both Kent and Major Connolly? – No, no ; I wouldn’t tell him my pedigree in one night. But I suggest to you that you stayed with the Richardson’s for a fortnight?—No. I stayed a night, and left, but later returned for my boxes.
PRINCESS TRIAL FROM PAGE ONE.
Did you speak to Mr. Richardson about Major Connolly? – I may indeed have said that I was going to see my husband, Major Connolly, in the Isle of Wight.
Did you tell Mr. Richardson that you were not married to Major Connolly; but that he kept you in Cairo?: there’s no good asking me that, for I didn’t tell him that.
Did you tell him that you were married to Mr. Kent? No. l did not.
Showing defendant a photograph, counsel asked: is this shot a photograph of yourself, your child, and Mr. Kent? —No; I here told you so fifty times.
There is only one family of Yousry in Cairo ?— I beg your pardon; there is it lot of Yousrys in Cairo.
But they are all one family?–Oh, no; different families.
As far as you know yours is the only family of Seham Yousry in Cairo? – I do riot know; I do not know all Cairo people.
Was there any Seham Yousry other than your-self who lived with Major Connolly? – I do not know. I am Seham Yousry, and I lived’ with him.
Where are your children? – I left one in Cairo and one in Alexandria they are staying in the houses of friends, one of them being adopted.
Counsel read extracts from a legal examination, in which it was alleged defendant was concerned, and which had taken place in Cairo. Defendant denied that she had registered child there in the year 1906, in the name of “Alice Edward Kent.” Her daughter, she said, was born in 1908. Major Connolly, she thought, registered the birth. Her son was registered in Alexandria. She had not got the certificates of these births, having left that matter in the bands of her solicitor. She denied that her story was an invention, or that there was any truth in the statement that she was sent to a foundling institution, and was eventually adopted by the Yousry family. It was also untrue that she had stolen a card of invitation Sent to “Her Highness Princess Yousry,” and since then impersonated that lady.
Counsel: Have you ever called yourself Princess Shuka?- No.
Have you ever called yourself “H H Princess Yousry? I am Princess Yousry, and a member of the Abyssinian Royalty.
REBUTTING EVIDENCE.
At the close of defendant’s cross-examination two witnesses, Lady Gorst and Lady Maxwell. who were present on subpoena were called by the prosecution to offer rebutting evidence. Lady Evelyn Gorst, widow of the late Sir Eldon Gorst (who succeeded Lord Cromer as Conrad-General of Egypt), spoke of her residence in Cairo. She believed she had met Major Connolly once, but was uncertain. She had no recollection of having seen the defendant. Witness knew Yousry Pasha and his wife and his daughter.
Lady Maxell, wife of Lieutenant General Sir John Grenfell Maxwell, who commanded the force in Egypt from 1908 to 1912, said she had in never seen the defendant at her husband’s house in Cairo ; but on her return to London the accused called at her town house on two occasions and asked for assistance to enable her to return to Egypt. See refused to give any to financial assistance, but promised to write to the accused’s brother, whose name she gave. Before the reply was received the accused called again, and, saying she was in straightened circumstances, was given a sum of money. Earlier in the case, before this evidence was of taken, it was stated that Lady Maxwell had turned her house into a hospital, where wounded from the front were now being nursed.
Evidence was given by Mr. Richardson, a boarding-house keeper, of Calthorpe Street, Grays Inn Road, London, where the defendant was stated to have lived for some time. He distinctly remembered her saying that a man named Kent was her husband.
Charles Henry Moore, an engineer, who was for some years in Egypt, said that he had lived a door away from the house where Mr and Mrs. Kent lived in Cairo. From the photographs he had seen he recognised Mr. Kent and his child, although he had never seen the defendant without her yashmak, identify her by acting her eyes and hearing her voice. He knew her as Mr. Kent’s wife.
Cross-examined: It was some years since he had seen the woman whom he believed to be the defendant at Mr. Kents House.
Major Connolly was re-called. He said the accused had told him that she had lived with a man named Kent and had brought an action against him in the Civil Court.
A translator of Arabic translated a document which, it was stated, had been signed and witnessed at Port Said. The document read: “I Seham Yousry confess that I have received from William Edward Gunnel Connolly the sum of fifty pounds (English) as damages, and that I have no right to claim anything further from him, Signed at the Police Court, Port Said. April 22nd, 1910.”
A solicitor’s clerk spoke to the enquiries which had been mode to discover the certificates of children registered at Cairo and Alexandria in the names of “Connolly” and “Kent”, but without success. The case was adjourned- till Monday.
On the resumption of the trial on Monday, Mr. Farleigh applied for permission to call a fresh witness to give rebutting evidence. Mr. Tristram Beresford objected on the grounds that the case was closed, and his Lordship upheld the objection.
Counsel for the defence and for the prosecution then addressed the Jury. In the course of his summing up, the Judge said that the defendant had invited the Jury to say that Major Connolly, being a married man, was in the habit of marrying a fresh woman at every military Station he visited. That was a serious libel, and it was for the jury to consider how far the accused had in her plea of justification substantiated those allegations. But it was a positive obligation on the defendant’s part to prove the material statements she had made: but strangely enough, she had produced no evidence of her marriage, nor any evidence regarding the birth of the children. Instead of that it had been shown that at Port Said she had accepted £50 and signed a document waiving all farther claims against him, which was not exactly the sort of thing a wife would be likely to do. Yet after his return to England she had pursued him with relentless severity, asking him to pay her money for her return to Egypt, pay her hotel bill, and even pay her the costs of her defence. But in none of her letters was there any suggestion that she was Major Connolly’s wife, and the Jury had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant had proved her case. and that what she had done in publishing those allegations was in the public Interest. The Jury, however, must on no account allow themselves to be swayed by feelings of sympathy for the prisoner, who, whatever compassion there might be for her, had shown herself capable of carrying out a vendetta of hatred and revenge.
Accused was found guilty, the Jury adding that the plea of justification had not been made out, and the Judge deferred sentence till Tuesday morning.
THE SENTENCE.
On Tuesday morning, before sentence was passed, police evidence was given of the accused having been charged with committing wilful damage. Evidence was also given by Mr. Frank Amer, of her being bound over at Woodbridge Petty Sessions, where she was charged with using threats towards Major Connolly, and assaulting him, as well at committing wilful damage.
Detective Sergt. Hedges, of the Criminal Investigation Department, Vine Street W., said that inquiries had been made concerning the prisoner in Paris, Cairo, and Khartoum, and he asked His Lordship to inspect the documents which had been removed. One of them dealt with a charge for which prisoner had two months hard labour In Paris in 1911.
The Judge said that while it was quite correct for the police to present these reports concerning a prisoner, he was not altogether anxious to see them used as evidence which could not be properly sifted and tested, and accordingly he had no desire to see them. Proceeding to sentence the prisoner, the Judge said that everything that could be said in her favour had been said by counsel engaged for her defence. It had been a matter of considerable anxiety to him as to what punishment the Court should administer to her. The libel of which she had been guilty imputed to the prosecutor disgraceful conduct, unworthy of an officer of the British Army or an Englishman and she had persistently and relentlessly persecuted him since 1910. Further than that, she had deliberately reiterated the charge in a plea of justification, without attempting or venturing in support of it a shadow of evidence beyond her own unconfirmed story. He realised that the prisoner was a stranger to this country and she belonged to another race. But she appeared to be highly educated, and had as proper an appreciation of right sad wrong as any other of His Majesty’s subjects, so that her conduct was altogether inexcusable. Although she had not been animated by a desire to extort money, yet her conduct showed a vindictiveness amounting almost to persistent cruelty, without palliation of any land, and the least he could do was to sentence her to six months’ imprisonment in the second division, and he should make an order recommending her deportation at the expiration of her sentence. Prisoner, without uttering a word, was then taken below, escorted by two wardresses.
Subsequently Sir Ryland Adkins, M.P., (representing Mr. Kent, who is now on business in Central Africa) said he was instructed to repudiate entirely the apparent suggestion that the photograph embodied. He was instructed that the photograph was faked. He was further instructed that the accused had on severe occasions been fined in Cairo for libellous states merits upon Mr. Kent, and he wished to take the earliest opportunity of making a public repudiation. Judge Atherly-Jones said that in the circumstances it seemed only fair that that statement should be made.
Mr. C. H. Moore, re-called at his two request stated that he believed the woman in photograph to be the woman in the dock. He did not wish for a moment to suggest that the woman in the photograph was Mrs. Kent, the wife of Mr. Kent.
Stealing Malt
The Suffolk Chronicle; or Weekly General Advertiser & County Express. – Saturday 06 July 1839
STEALING MALT. George Goldsmith, of Melton, labourer, (37); Benjamin Bilner, of Hasketon, labourer, (28); and John Smith of Eyke, labourer, (26), were charged with stealing 5 coombs [Ed: about 140 litres] of malt on the 27th of June from the Sun Lane Malting, the property of Messrs. Edwards and Son, of Woodbridge.
James Read, of Woodbridge, brickmaker, (34), and William Gowen, of Stowmarket, brickmaker, [24), also arraigned with the above prisoners, pleaded Guilty to the same indictment.
Eden Tyler, of Blaxhall, carrier, (33), was also charged with having received 9 bushels of malt, part of the same property, knowing it to have been stolen.
The case came before the Court with particular interest, from the number of robberies of the same nature which had been committed in Woodbridge and neighbourhood, and the strong impression on the public mind that the present prisoners were the parties implicated.
Mr. PRENDERGAST, (with whom was Mr. O’MALLEY) briefly opened the case for the prosecution, and called the following witnesses:-
John Hart was a maltster in the employ of the prosecutor; “On Wednesday, the 26th of June, I was engaged in screening malt; I quitted work a quarter before nine ; I left the malt in a round heap and swept up clean; the office was well fastened up being locked and barred; I took away the keys; I returned to the malting at a quarter past four the next morning, and found all the doors and windows fast; after breakfast, I went the upper chamber, and in consequence of hearing that quantity malt had been found; I found that portion of the heap hail been taken away, perhaps 7 or 8 coombs had been removed”.
John Ling kept a beer-shop at Melton: “On Thursday, the 07th of June, at 3 o’clock In the morning, I saw Goldsmith, Bilner, and Smith, the prisoners; they came to my house; I was in bed, and was called up ; they asked me if I would take a parcel in, and keep it until man called for it? There were three sacks, of malt brought to me. Who the person was they had to call for it they did not slate. I allowed them to leave the malt. About 10 or 11 o’clock, I saw Eden Tyler for the first time that day, about 20 rods from the door of my house; Tyler lived at Blaxhall, and is by trade a carrier; Tyler held his hand before came up, as if he wanted to speak to me, Tyler asked if there was parcel at my house for him; I replied there was a parcel of malt. ‘That is right’, he said, ‘let’s have it’. I told him the malt was left ‘by George and they’ – that is the prisoners. I returned, and delivered three parcels of malt and some beans. The beans I received from the same persons the previous Monday. I had received coomb of wheat from them the week before”.
Mr. DASENT, for the prisoners, said that he could not allow other matters irrelevant to the case to be brought before the Court. MR PRENDERGAST contended that the charge against Tyler being one especially of receiving, that he was competent to show previous acts of a similar nature with the present.
The Court allowed the right.
Witness resumed: “Tyler had taken corn away from my house 5 or 6 times, each lime left by the prisoners with me. When Tyler had taken the malt, went over Wilford Bridge on the road to Hollesley”.
Cross-examined: “I have kept the beer-shop 4 or 5 months; I lived at Bromeswell before, and carried on the business of a hurdle maker; I am now come from Ipswich Gaol; I don’t know why got there, a police man took me there ; I suppose for having the malt at my house. I have never been in custody before; Barnes, the constable, took me. I gave my first account of the malt on Friday, because I had been charged with something of the kind; I was asked the truth, and told the truth; I have not known Tyler long; he had never any dealings with me; I did not sell Tyler, on Wednesday, any beans; he paid me part of the money to give to the prisoners; there were 3 bushels of beans left in my shed by the prisoners. There had often been things left for Tyler with me; he has called at all times of the day at my house for these things. I know Read and Gowen; I had seen the other prisoners often before, and had several dealings with them; I do not deal in such things they brought me; I never sold any malt; I have sold beans to Tyler, but nothing else ; I have sold beans to a man named Smith who keeps a beer-shop at Alderton; I have sold or exchanged beans with other persons ; I never sold malt to any person. I know a man named Frost,’ and bought an old bushel from a man named Adams, who is in Co. with Frost; Tyler purchased 3 bushels of the prisoners, and paid me ‘2s. 6d on account for this tity : I never professed to sell beans, corn, malt, for 1s than they could be purchased for at maltsters. I think I might obtain these things cheaper myself if 1 tried. When Tyler left me, he went towards Wilford Bridge, and I saw him cross it and go 20 rods beyond it. The name of Smith, of Alderton, was not mentioned when I held convention with Tyler. I never told Tyler, that Smith was to have called for the beans or malt. I cannot recollect how long it is since I had dealings with Smith; I only took in things for him. When I saw Tyler on the road, I did not stop him; he stopped me”.
Re-examined: I was committed to Ipswich Gaol, because I could not find security to give my evidence the present case.
John King, farmer, of Bromeswell, deposed that: “on Thursday morning, the 27th of June, he was standing at his own house, from he could see Lings door; I know Tyler’s horse and cart, and saw it standing Ling’s door on that day, at about 11 o’clock; I saw Tyler leave the place and go over the bridge up the Sutton road. I wondered, because Tyler did not go by his usual road home; he should have come past my house; the cart was laden, apparently, with sacks”.
George Green, on being called, was reported to have fainted away.
Mr. DASENT – Ah! the case is slipping away [laughter].
Benjamin Plant, a stout labourer, with a wonderfully loud voice, which induced Mr. Prendergast to give him the cognomen of ‘The Vigorous Plant’, deposed that he: “Saw Tiler on the morning of Thursday, a little after 8 o’clock. He was on his cart and going toward Rendlesham, Blaxhall, Melton, Woodbridge – all or any of them. I had him order for half a bushel of beans, and he was to leave it at my house; he left me a bushel between and 2 and 3 o’clock of the same day I saw Tyler again; he was on his road home. He must have passed by Riches’s house to have come by my house. Tyler said I should like the beans; they were as hard as shot, and he bought them where he bought his malt. I paid him 5s for them. I heard Tyler say, after he had been taken into custody and examined, that he had taken these parcels of malt from Ling, thinking to meet the Alderton carrier who was to take it to a man named Smith that sold beer at Alderton. I heard this when Tyler was at the Bridewell. He also said, he had gone three miles on the Alderton road and thought he had missed him; just before he got home he heard someone had been at his house, and then he went on to Lionel Riches to leave it, thinking it was another man’s property”.
Cross-examined: “I was examined as a witness at the Bridewell, that is the reason I was found there; I have bad several dealings with Tyler; I have heard a little about his character, but I was never injured by him, and did not care to know much of him”. Witness: “Have you done with me? [Laughter.] Dasent: “Yes, I’ve had enough of you”.
Mary Riches, Blaxhall, is daughter of Lionel Riches: “On Thursday last, I found some sacks in the yard, close against the shed ; this was between 5 and 6 in the morning; there was something in them, but I don t know what; there were 4 sacks. Mr. Barnes, the constable, and Mr. Edwards, the prosecutor, took away the sacks”.
Robert Barnes, Constable, of Woodbridge, deposed that: “on Friday morning between 8 and 9 I went to the house of Lionel Riches, at Blaxhall; I found 4 sacks, 3 containing malt and 1 bran; I took possession of them and brought them to Woodbridge; 1 have samples of each, and of the bulk; on the Thursday previous I went to the house of Tyler, at Blaxhall; Tyler’s barn is about 75 yards from Riches’, I went first about 2 to Tyler’s house, and made a search; I found no malt there. but some articles which have been claimed by others, a new spade was claimed by Mr. Silver, and a sack by Mr. S B Pizzy of Blaxhall”.
Mr. DASANT objected to this evidence, but the objection was overruled.
Examination continued: “On the same day I went again to Tyler’s house at about 3, and found he was not home, but I met him coming from Riches’s house; he had then in the cart two empty sacks; there were no names on them; but there were some particles of malt in the cart; I found that he had other premises about 3 or 4 doors off, and which were kept locked up. I asked for the key, but did not get it; I therefore broke open the premises; this was on the Friday, between 9 and 10 in the morning; I found a quantity of gunpowder in the closet of the lower room; about eight pounds, part in canisters and the rest in paper; the gunpowder was claimed by Mr. Silver of Woodbridge; he identified the things before the Magistrates on the Saturday after, in the presence of the prisoner”.
Cross-examined— I understand that the lower part of the cottage where the powder found, was used as a Ranting Chapel; I did not hear Mr. Silver, answer to a question put by Mr. Churchyard, say that he could not identify it, but heard him say, that could not state that it had been sold at his shop.
The same took place, with respect to the spade. I have been on the premises of the prosecutor, where the robbery took place, it is my opinion that there were more than two persons engaged. I could trace out the footsteps of two.
I patterned the footsteps of two persons in Custody; I have not said there were 5 or 6 footsteps. I do not think other persons other than myself had been on the premises (the malt house) before I was there myself. I have no doubt the footsteps I found were those of the thieves; I have never said there were footsteps of three persons. I never made a speech before the Magistrates; I gave my answers according to the questions I was asked. When I took Tyler, he made no objections to go with me; he denied his guilt, as most men do. I took the other man of Friday; Milner I took at a beer-shop in Melton; they all knew me. Everyone does both good and bad. —By Mr. Prendergast I received three keys from Mr. Fisher if Woodbridge: with one them I opened Mr. Edward’s malting ; it is a skeleton key. By the Court – Did you lock the door with the skeleton key? Yes I did. This is not usually the case with skeleton keys? No it is not. They will unlock, but not re-lock.
William Fink, one of the night-watch at Woodbridge, was on duty the night of the robbery; “I saw two of the prisoners, Goldsmith and Smith, with other persons; they were at the corner of the street; those who were strangers went away. The two, (the prisoners) when I got up, wished each other night, and parted by the Court – Seeing you they separated. Just so”.
Richard Fisher, is a farmer and carter at Woodbridge: On Friday last, the prisoner Milner, was the Bredfield road ; I saw him there; he had a woman with him ; he was feeling his pockets when I saw him, in very great hurry ; he then took something out, and put one hand behind tree; both, soon after walked away ; when he had gone, I went to the spot, and putting my own arm behind the tree, I found the keys produced Barnes, the constable”. By Mr. Dascnt; l am an old hand at finding.
Mr. Henry Edwards, one of the prosecutors, deposed, that on Thursday the 27th June, I found that some malt had been taken away from the malt-house; Barnes was with me; we found part of the trimmed-up heap, left as a maltster would leave it, taken away; the malt had been screened the day before, leaving malt dust the ground ; there were two distinct impressions of foot marks in the dust, and 4 or 5 indistinct impressions ; I did not observe that any had been purposely effaced ; on Friday, I went to Riches’s house with Barnes ; I had searched Tyler’s house on Thursday ; Barnes took away the sack of malt from Riches’s house; I was with him ; It is the fact that maltsters can tell their own make of malt; the malt taken away from Riches’s house, is the property of myself and father; I have sworn to this, and I do now; I have compared the malt taken with the bulk at home ; they are identical; it malt of a peculiar make for the Liverpool market; there is also small sprat barley mixed with it.
Cross-examined: the shoes of the two prisoners that have pleaded guilty tallied with the marks the floor; I can’t swear there were the identical footsteps of a third person—but there were other footsteps ; I believed that these other footsteps were the footsteps of another man, though they were not identical ; there were 6 or 7 footsteps I could match with the shoes; all these could not have been produced by two men, except they had danced reel round the heap.
Mr T T. Silver, ironmonger, Woodbridge, deposed to the spade and powder found in the house of Tyler, one of the prisoners, as being his property. He believed the spade bad never been used ; his mark was on it. There are 4 distinct sorts of the gunpowder found, and I could match all the different parcels from the stock in my shop, and none that I could not match. The powder had never been sold by witness to the prisoner, and he certainly held the opinion that the powder and spade had been stolen from the witness -& other articles to a very considerable amount.
-By Mr. Dasent: Where was the powder found? Mr. Prendergast: Why, in the Methodist Chapel, to be sure.—The Chairman : No, Mr. Prendergast; in the Ranters’ Chapel. [Laughter.] Mr. Dasent, to the witness ; I suppose you only sell powder to those who use it? Witness: I sell great deal more to those who do not use it, than to those who do. I sell to shopkeepers who deal in the article.
Mr. Dasent said, that should take the opinion of the Bench, whether there was evidence to convict the prisoners of the theft. It had not been shown that they had other connection with the case than as receivers the articles. It had been proved they had the possession of the goods, in fact, and that was all.
Mr. Prendergast contra, said that it was hardly necessary he should answer the question of his Learned Friend. But he would ask if the property was not found upon them at 3 o’clock in the morning? What said the first witness? From whom did he receive the malt? Why, from the prisoners. What would his Learned Friend say to the possession of the skeleton key which had opened the malt-house door?
Mr. Dasent said, that he should still press his question upon the Bench. Did the Magistrates think the evidence adduced connected the prisoners with the actual robber? If it did not, they were entitled an acquittal. The COURT would at once say that it considered the evidence distinctly involved the parties charged as principals.
Mr. Dasent then addressed the Jury for the prisoners, charging them to dismiss all those rumours and reports connected with the case, the prisoners, and former robberies in Woodbridge, from their minds. The legal argument the Learned Gentleman went to support the application made by him to the Court. He contended it had not been shown that the prisoners had been connected with the actual theft. He also objected to the evidence of John Ling, as that of a man connected in a guilty manner with the prisoners, though not with the theft.
The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty. There being two previous convictions against Biluer, he was sentenced to 14 years transportation. Tyler, was also sentenced to the same term. The other four were transported for 7 years. The Court awarded Barnes, the officer, Five Pounds, for his active services in bringing these malt stealers to justice.
The Sheeprug Pages. 