Old Bailey Proceedings:
Old Bailey Proceedings: Accounts of Criminal Trials

18th April 1798

About this dataset

Currently Held: Harvard University Library

LL ref: t17980418-4




238. JOHN WILSON proceedingsdefend , ABRAHAM WILMOT proceedingsdefend , and JOHN SELBY proceedingsdefend , were indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 20th of February , two hempen sacks, value 3s. the property of Benjamin Putriss proceedingsvictim and William Edwards proceedingsvictim , and eight bushels of oats, value 8s. the property of Samuel Lucas proceedingsvictim .

CHARLES MILLS < no role > sworn. - I am a cornchandler, in Princes-street, Westminster: On Tuesday the 20th of February last, about a quarter before eight in the evening, Wilmot came to my house, and asked me if I would buy a quarter of oats; I said I was afraid he did not come honestly by them; he said, yes, he did, his two comrades, or two men, or something to that purpose, had picked them up in the street; I told him to go and bring them, and I would look at them, and see what they were; I waited some time, and they did not come; I heard that there were two men with sacks upon their backs going down the street, I went after them, and overtook them; Wilmot was walking before them, the other two had each of them a sack a-piece; Wilson < no role > I can swear to, but Selby I cannot; they brought them to my shop, Wilmot came as far as the step, but I believe did not come in; the other men pitched their sacks in the shop, and I told them they should not take them away, they seemed very much dissatisfied, and wanted to take them away; the sacks were filled with oats; I told them I thought I should have it in my power to find out who they belonged to, and knowing Wilmot, I let the men go; I took a sample to market, and, on the Friday, I found out who it belonged to; the men were taken up on the Friday night, and underwent an examination the Tuesday after; here is another person here, that can swear to Selby; I have kept the oats ever since, except one night that they were left at the Queen-square office, sealed up; I know them to be the same sacks that were brought to me by the prisoners.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knapp. (Counsel for Wilmot). Q. You have known Wilmot before? - A. Yes; two years.

Q. I believe he many years lived in the place where he lived at the time he was apprehended? - A. I do not know where he lived; I know where he lodged in Dartmouth-row, but I do not know where he worked; I live in Princes-street, nearly opposite.

Q. How many years do you think you have known him living there? - A. I dare say ten or twelve years.

Q. Then he, living opposite to you, was unwise and foolish enough to come and ask you to buy these oats? - A.Directly so.

Q. You asked him if they were honestly come by? - A. Yes; and he said that two men, or his two comrades, had picked them up, and applied to him to fell them for him.

Q. And you considered him only as the person to fell them? - A. Yes.

Q. What time was this? - A. About a quarter before eight in the evening.

Q. When you did see them, Wilmot had no custody of the things? - A. No; none at all.

Q. He had no oats upon him? - A. None at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Alley. Q.Wilmot said he had them from the two men? - A. Yes.

Q. But they were not there to contradict him? - A. No.

Q. You let these three men go away? - A. Yes.

Q. And you found them afterwards, at their lodgings, three days afterwards? - A. Yes.

Q. You know the sack was opened at the Public-office? - A. One was opened.

Q.You do not mean to swear to the oats? - A. No.

JOHN LISLE sworn. - I am clerk to Mr. Lucas: On Tuesday night, the 20th of February, I went down to the wharf at Millbank, and being too late to get the oats out of the barge that night, I set Wilson on as watch to watch the oats in the barge; it might be about a quarter before seven at night; I saw him on board the craft, and left him. On Wednesday morning I went down, and saw them landed; some soldiers helped to land the oats, neither of them were the prisoners at the bar; they were all shot down, and the sacks were all counted right, and taken back to Putriss and Edwards's warehouse, in Horselydown; they were hired sacks.

Q. Belonging to Benjamin Putriss < no role > and William Edwards? - A. Yes; and on delivering them, there were three old sacks found, which did not belong to them.

Q. And there were no other sacks than their's in the barge? - A. No.

Q. You did not take them there yourself? - A. No; one of the sacks is one that has been in our granaries a long time, belonging to Putriss and Edwards.

Q.Cross-examined by Mr. Alley. Q. You put Wilson to watch? - A. Yes.

Q. You generally put an honest man to watch? - A. Yes; he had watched for us several times before.

Q. The sacks were all told right? - A. Yes.

Q. The oats were offered for sale on the 20th, and on the 21st you found all your oats right? - A. Yes.

Q. Then, of course, these could not be your oats? - A. I cannot say.

Q. Now, with respect to the sacks, they belonged to Putriss and Edwards? - A. Yes.

Q. He lets a great number of sacks, besides those that were in that barge? - A.Certainly.

Q. Therefore there was nothing wonderful in sacks having his name being found? - A.Certainly not. I do not say the oats were right, the sacks counted right.

Court. Q. On the 21st, you do not know whether the oats were right or not? - A. The oats were not measured; the sacks counted right when they were shot.

Court. Q.Did you examine the sacks, to see if they were right, or was it only the number that you counted? - A. We only counted the number.

GEORGE HAWKINS sworn. - I am a sadler: On the evening of Tuesday the 20th of February, as I was going out, I saw two men under my next door neighbour's window, and in a few minutes after, I saw two men bring two sacks into Mr. Mills's shop, between seven and eight o'clock in the evening; I can speak to the prisoner Selby being one of the men that brought the sacks into Mr. Mills's shop.

Cross-examined by Mr. Alley. Q. This was between seven and eight in the evening in February? - A. Yes.

Q. It was pretty dark at that time? - A. Yes.

Q. There was no occasion to take particular notice of any person that was passing? - A. I did not take particular notice. I mean to swear that Selby is one of the men.

Q. You were not in Mills's shop? - A. Yes, I was, when they brought the oats in.

Q. What sort of dress had he on? - A. I cannot tell; he had on a kind of smock-frock when he was in Mr. Mills's shop.

JOHN GREY < no role > sworn. - I am a lighterman: I took two hundred and fifty-four sacks of oats, and twenty sacks of barley, to Mr. Lucas's wharf, at Westminster; on Tuesday the 20th of February, about four o'clock, I walked up to Mr. Lucas's, to acquaint him that I had brought them there; I waited, and Mr. Lisle came, and said he would get a watchman, and I went about my business; I saw him bring a man to watch, but who he was I do not know.

ISRAEL BERRIDGE sworn. - I am a lighter-man: When the sacks were discharged, on the 24th, these two sacks were found amongst them, instead of the two that are missing, (producing them), that is all I know of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Alley. Q. You say these two were left in the room of two others? - A. Yes.

Q. Were you on board the barge when they were first taken in? - A. No.

Q. Then you do not know whether these two were in the barge at the time the others were in, or whether they were put in afterwards? - A. I say these two sacks came in the room of Putriss and Edwards's.

Q. Then these two sacks must have been at first put into the barge, for any thing you know? - A. They might.

WILLIAM MESSENGER < no role > sworn. - I am an officer belonging to the Police-office, Queen-square, Westminster: I apprehended the prisoners on the 23d of February, Wilmot and Wilson in Dartmouth-row, and the other in Millbank-street, Westminster; I had the sacks of oats from Mr. Mills; it was sealed up, and returned to him in the same state.

Mr. Knapp. Q. You apprehended Wilmot in his lodgings, did not you? - A. Yes.

Mr. Alley. Q. And you apprehended the other two at their quarters? - A. Yes.

WILLIAM BOWYER < no role > sworn. - I am a Police-officer belonging to Queen-square: I apprehended Wilson and Wilmot in Dartmouth-row; that is all I know of it.

Q.(To Lisle). Look at the sacks? - A.These sacks are marked exactly the same as the other sacks that were in the barge, belonging to Messrs. Putriss and Edwards.

Mr. Knapp. Q. I believe there is no more common thing amongst lightermen, than that of lending sacks to each other? - A. I do not know that there is; the sack warehouses lend them out.

Q. And any other person, having sacks from the same warehouse, they would have the same marks? - A. They might.

Mr. Alley. As to these sacks, they are charged to be the property of Messrs. Putriss and Edwards, can you tell me who are the partners in the house of Putriss and Edwards? - A. I cannot say any more.

Q. There may be more partners in the house for any thing you know? - A. I cannot say.

Q. You will not swear to the oats? - A. No.

Q. If you had chanced to lose any of these sacks, you would have been answerable to Putriss and Edwards for them? - A. Yes.

Q. Have you any body here from Putriss and Edwards's? - A. No.

Mr. Knapp objected, that there being that which itwas indispensably necessary the prosecutor should prove, was not proved, and therefore submitted that it ought not to go to the Jury, upon the ground that the property was not sufficiently identified.

Mr. Alley. I apprehend, my Lord, that in all cases, it is necessary that where property is charged to lie in A, B, or C, there must be substantial proof that the property is properly so laid. Has it ever been heard, that when a person comes into Court, and says, we cannot say whether it belongs to A, B, or C, that that is sufficient to convict the prisoner, and it is not a sort of proof which cannot be got at. My Lord, there is another objection: This indictment charges the property to be in Putriss and Company, that is very unnecessary, because the regular, short, and clear way, would have been to have laid it to be in the lighterman, but here it is laid to be in Putriss and Company; and it appears in evidence, that the master of the witness hires the sacks of Putriss and Company, why is it not laid to be the property of Burgess and Company, the lightermen; for they are responsible for the loss for every sack that was deficient upon examination; upon the return of the sacks, they were to pay whatever was deficient. In consequence of the loss of sacks, it ought to have been stated to be the property of Burgess and Company, and not as the property of Putriss and Edwards, when there is nothing to shew that it was so; and, with respect to the oats, the man says he cannot swear to them.

Mr. Knapp. There is another observation, which I forgot to state to your Lordship: That it is necessary to prove the Christian names of Putriss and Edwards.

Court. I have no doubt at all that this is a case to go to a Jury. The first objection is, that there is no proof of identity; one of the witnesses certainly did state the names of both those parties.

Mr. Knapp. I beg your Lordship's pardon.

Court. I have so taken it.

Q.(To Lisle.) Did not you give in the names of the house of Putriss and Edwards? - A. Yes; I said, Benjamin Putriss < no role > and William Edwards. The sacks were marked B.P. and W. E.

Mr. Knapp. Q. Do you mean to swear that B.P. does not stand for Bartholomew Pope? - A. No.

Court. The property of these sacks may be decided by the marks upon them, which contain that property, and if the Jury are of opinion that the oats in that sack are the oats of Mr. Lucas, whether the sacks are sufficiently proved or not, there is a case to go to the Jury.

The prisoner, Wilmot, called two, and Wilson, three witnesses, who gave them a good character.

All Three NOT GUILTY .

Tried by the first Middlesex Jury, before Mr. RECORDER.




View as XML