AND EAST CUMBERLAND AND WESTMORLAND NEWS. NO. 440 - Eighth Week in Quarter Registered for Transmission ABroad. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1874. PRICE 1D. ____________________________________________________ CUMBERLAND ASSIZES/CROWN COURT THE TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ROBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT SEATON. JAMES DOBIS surrendered to his bail, to answer a charge of robbery with violence, from the person of JAMES ROBINSON, at Seaton, on the 4th of October 1873. Prisoner was charged with stealing a pair of shoes and a hat from the prosecutor, the evidence was of such a weak character that the jury by direction of his lordship, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner wa discharged. ____________________________________ CHARGE OF ROBBERY AT GREYSTOKE. MARY AGNES SIMON, surrendered to her bail to answer a charge of stealing a silver watch and gold chain, the property of WILLIAM MILNER, at Greystoke, in the month of February, 1870. MR. DAWSON prosecuted; and MR. HILLS defended the prisoner. The case for the prosecution, as stated by MR. DAWSON, and proved in evidence, was of a peculiar character. The offence with which the prisoner was charged was committed in the month of February, 1870. At that time the prosecutor - WM. MILNER, who now lives at Whitrigg, Hutton-in-the-Forest, resided at Whitbarrow, near Greystoke. At the period referred to the prosecutor had in his service the prisoner, and four men servants, named WARWICK, ROBINSON, ERRINGTON, and GRAHAM. ERRINGTON had been in prosecutor's service since the previous Martinmas, and was engaged to be married to a woman named SCOTT, who had left at Candlemas to be married, and the prisoner was engaged in her stead. The prisoner entered on her service the Thursday after Candlemas, 1870, and remained only about a month. She became ill, was, in fact, taking fits, and MR. MILNER and his wife sent for a doctor to see her, and in consequence of her illness she left. She returned, however, in about ten days to ask for her wages, and she spent a night or two in the house, but before she returned, the watch, which prosecutor had not see for more than six weeks before, had been missed. The prosecutor and his wife did not accuse the prisoner of stealing it at the time, but it had been matter of talk in the house before her return. ERRINGTON, who was married at the time while the prisoner was there on her return, heard about the watch being missed. It was a silver watch with a gold chain, and was left to MR. MILNER by an uncle of his of the name of TRAVERS. The prosecutor was accustomed to keep the watch in a drawer in the bed-room. On missing it MR. MILNER gave information to the police, but they failed to discover any trace of it. In January of this year, however, an advertisement appeared in one of the Penrith papers announcing that a watch had been found by the father of the prisoner. On seeing the advertisment and remembering the loss of his watch, the prosecutor communicated afresh with the police, and eventually went over to Shap where the prisoner was living, she having in the meantime married a man named SIMON, her name when in the prosecutor's service being DENT. In the prisoner's presence, her father said she gave him the watch as he had no watch of his own,, and she produced it from her box. She gave it to him shortly after her return from Whitbarrow, and said it was given to her by a man of the name of JOHN, a week or two before she left Whitbarrow. The watch was found in prisoner's father's possession, and was identified by MR. MILNER as the one he received from his uncle, whose name was still in the watch when recovered. In addition to the prosecutor and his wife, JOHN ERRINGTON was called, and said he was married to MARGARET SCOTT on the 19th March, 1870. He did not make any present to the prisoner while in the prosecutor's service. He did not give her the watch produced. INSPECTOR STEPHENSON, of Shap, said that when he read the charge to prisoner on apprehending her, she said it was given to her by JOHN ERRINGTON, who was sweethearting her; and asked (the Inspector) to assist her in finding him. MR. HILLS, for the defence, did not at all attempt to deny that the watch produced was stolen from the presecutor. He referred to two or three of the points of evidence, and submitted that the story told by the prisoner was more probable than the one that she stole it. He pointed out also that all the usual motives for theft were in this case wanting - she never using it for her personal adornment nor selling it for her necessities; as for the idea that she stole it for the purpose of presenting to her father, he said that that was a quite inadequate reason. HIS LORDSHIP then summed up to the jury, who returned a verdict of Guilty. Before passing sentence HIS LORDSHIP made several enquiries as to the prisoner and her connections and antecedents. She was recommended to mercy both by the jury and the prosecution. HIS LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, expressed, his pleasure that the prisoner has been convicted, though it might seem a cruel and hard-hearted thing to say, as it proved that they had convicted upon evidence and had not allowed their feeling of commiseration to influence them. It had been stated that at the time this theft was committed, the prisoner was in the family way and subject to hysterical fits, and he hoped that the light sentence he was about to pass would not encourage others to commit like crimes. He thought justice had been met by a verdict of conviction, which was a true verdict. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner be committed to gaol for two days with hard labour. [ Applause in court which was at once suppressed. ]