CHARGE OF ROBBING THE DEAD.

Dunstan Times, Issue 526, 17 May 1872, Page 1 (Supplement)

CHARGE OF ROBBING THE DEAD.

The following singular case was some time since tried before a London Magistrate:—Mary Anne Bailes, aged 45, a charwoman, was charged on remand, before Mr Flowers, with stealing a bag, containing upwards of 30/ under very extraordinary circumstances. John Barry, of Exeter street, Strand, a glass cutter, deposed that the prisoner attended his mother until her death, which recently occurred at his place. About two months ago his mother drew from the bank thirty or forty pounds, which he knew she kept with other money in drawers in her room. After her death (up to which time the prisoner constantly remained with her) he went to search the room for the money. He found some in two canvas bags, amounting to nearly 30/., and some secieted behind pictures and under cups. There was, however, between 30/. and 40/. alleged *o be missing. Robert Holman, a publican, deposed that about a month ago, the prisoner brought to him a canvas bag containing about 19/ and asked him to take care of it for hey together with a necklace, a watch, and thiee rings, which she also left, telling him not to Inform her son of it. Ellen Barry, the wife of the first witness, deposed that she knew the deceased, had 30/. orj 40/, and identified the canvas bay produced by Mr. Holman, as one once belonging to the deceased. Police Detective Phillip Hines said, that from the instructions he received, he went to Mr. Holman’s, and afterwards to the prisoner’s home. He, told her who he was, and accused her of leaving 19/. with the publican, wh’ch she was suspected of having stolen from the deceased, whom she attended. The prisoner said that the money referred to she had drawn from the bank, and it was what she had saved since her husband’s death. Mr. Abrams, who appeared for the prisoner, submitted that in charges of felony of this description, an ownership of property must be proved, and unless such was the case he contended the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction. He (Mr. Abrams) did not consider that there was proved any owner to the money now alleged to be stolen, for the first witness, Barry, the son of the deceased, in cross-examination, admitted that he had not administered to his mother’s estate. He was therefore, not in a position to act as executor. A technical discussion upon this point ensued, terminating with the decision of Mr. Flowers to commit the prisoner for trial. Mr.'Abrams applied for bail. The Magistrate said he would accept two sureties in 20/. each for the prisoner’s attendance at the trial. Bail was at once forthcoming.