2 individual petitions (both from the prisoner, 1 unsigned and 1 is counter-signed...

HO 17/1/5

1820 June

2 individual petitions (both from the prisoner, 1 unsigned and 1 is counter-signed by 9 people from Southwark, Hatton Gardens, Covent Gardens and area including the prosecutor) on behalf of John Hutton, indicted for stealing 7 pairs of wool cards, value £1:10:0, property of George Fairburn, wire drawer and wool card maker, Clerkenwell. Tried on 26 February 1819. Evidences supplied by George Fairburn, Thomas Giles, [wire drawer]; John Harker, 'officer'; Charles Cameron, engine maker and Charles Brown, 'officer'. Verdict: guilty. Initial sentence, 7 years transportation.

There are 2 sets of Old Bailey Sessions Papers. The first with the details as above, the second with John Hutton, indicted for stealing 7 pairs of wool cards, value £2:2:0, property of George Fairburn and tried on 21 February 1819. Evidences supplied by George Fairburn, Thomas Giles, [wire drawer] and John Harker, 'officer'. Verdict: not guilty. Also included are copies of the depositions from John Bridgford, Sarah Bridgford and James Angus in favour of the prisoner. There is also a covering letter from the prisoner to Sheriff Williams. One of the petitions is really a detailed background of the case. Grounds for clemency: is 50 years of age, has lived in Clerkenwell for many years and of previous good character, the prosecutor had indictments drawn (unusually) for both London and Middlesex separately and acquitted for the first (London) trial but then tried for the same offence in front of a Middlesex jury and found guilty, reference is made to the cases of Robert Haworth and Francis Clarke who were both effectively tried for the same crime and complained of by 'the Twelve Judges', prisoner was innocent of any crime and the victim of the prosecutors lies (having declared elsewhere to not having lost any wool cards), the prosecutor had admitted to being uneasy and had been persuaded (by Robert Marshall and ---- Cameron) to prosecute (believing he would have to pay £40 if he had not) and admitted the prisoner was innocent, the prosecutor would now like the prisoner to have a free pardon, evidence of the cards (being marked in some way) was contradictory, the prisoner had enough property making such a theft unnecessary and Fairburn, Marshall and Cameron brought the prosecution to stop the prisoner 'enforcing his demands against them' (they owed him money for earlier business) and that on the second trial the prisoner (through deafness) heard little of the evidence and thinking it was the same crime relied on his earlier acquittal.

Public Record(s)

English

Open Document, Open Description

Topics

Transportation

Pardons

Crime