Housebreaking


William Thurley, 23 and Sydney Thurley, 21, laborers, were indicted for breaking into the dwelling house of William Prior at Great Hallingbury, and stealing a watch, his property - Mr Knox stated the case. Prosecutor examined. I rent a cottage in Great Hallingbury with my brother; on the 24th September I left my cottage about half past 5, having locked the door; I left the key at my sister's who lives near; in the evening I discovered that the window had been broken and an iron bar before it, by which an entry was made; I missed a large silver cased watch from my hutch in the bedroom and also two sovereigns; I had taken the watch a few months before to Mr Pratt, at Sawbridge, to be repaired - Cross-examined by Mr Chambers. I went before the Grand Jury at Michaelis Session, but the bill against the prisoners was thrown out. Mary Bird. I am sister to Prior; II went to their house to make the beds and left the house safe on the 24th. William Dunmow, of Great Hallingbury, proved that he saw the prisoner about one o'clock on the day of the robbery, in the road near prosecutors house - Cross-examined. I have been in custody wrongfully concerning the police and also about the game laws. Anne Archer who lives about a quarter of a mile from prosecutor's, and adjoining the prisoners house, proved seeing them together on the day of the robbery returning in the direction from prosecutor's house. William Pratt, Watchmaker, of Sawbridge. On the 27th October William Thurley, whom I had known before, asked me to purchase a watch, but it being a very old one, I declined; he then went outside to a person with whom he had been before conversing, but whom I did not know, though it appeared to be like the other prisoner - The watch was about 80 years old, and on the maker's name, James Haugue. I after woods recollected that it was Prior's watch, having repaired it in Nov. 1839. I immediately gave information to the police, having understood that Prior's house had been broken into. William Anstle, police constable. I received information from last witness and pursued and overtook the prisoners, both of whom escaped from me. William Thurley having bitten my finger and obliged me to release my hold. I felt something in William Thurley's waistcoat pocket, which I thought was a watch. Charles C. Balley, inspector of police, On the 27th of November, I apprehended the prisoners at Dunow, They asked me what they were in custody for, when I enquired of them how long it was since they were at Sawbridge; they both denied ever being there. - Cross-examined. I did not pronounce the place Sapreror; they did not mention they had been in custody before on the same charge. Mr Chambers, for the defense, commented on the fact of the prisoners having being apprehended in the first instance on such vague grounds that the ground jury through out the bill, and now the fresh evidence now added was that of the watchmaker, He could only speak positively to one party, who for sought knew might be the agent only of the other, as they were observed in conversation just before William Thurley offered the watch. With regard to the falsehood which they had told the inspector, it was only natural after having been sent to prison for some weeks, that they should attempt to avoid a repetition of such treatment, He (the learned council) could not but express hope that such "catching" questions as had been put to the prisoners would not be used by constables in future. The Jury found William Thurley guilty - Sydney not guilty. James Dean against William Thurley then proved a prior conviction in 1839, when he suffered 12 month's imprisonment. His Lordship said, from the serious nature of the prisoner's offence, and from having been before convicted, he could not be allowed to remain in the country, and the sentence was that he be transported for life.