Kent Herald, 2 January 1845. EKQS 2.bmp"

Stephen Lee, charged with stealing, at the parish of Baddlesmere, in this County, one dressing gown, one shooting jacket, one dressing case, and other articles, the property of Charles Manners Lushington, Esq.

Mr. Lushington, of Sandling, near Maidstone, conducted the case for the prosecutor, and briefly stated the facts, calling the following witnesses.

Alfred Dadnell, servant to prosecutor, stated that on Monday, Nov. 25th, his master was passing from Norton Court to Eastwell, in his carriage, he, the witness, riding on the box in front; when, on reaching Kingswood Hill, a short distance from Baddlesmere Lees, he discovered that a portmanteau, containing the articles named in the indictment, had been stolen from the hind part of the carriage, and the strap by which it had been fastened cut asunder. The portmanteau was found the following morning broken open, and returned to his master, but without the things it had contained when they left Norton Court.

Mr. W. D. Diprose, a constable of Faversham, and E. Alpine, also a peace officer, deposed to having, on the Sunday after the robbery, questioned the prisoner as to the matter, when he denied all knowledge of the robbery, or of the article stated to have been stolen.

Mrs. M. Chambers, wife of Mr. B. A. Chambers, upholsterer and auctioneer, of Faversham, stated that the prisoner was in the employee of her husband, and had been so for upwards of three years. That on Monday, November 26th, he left for a week's holiday to go to Tenterden, to see his friends, but returned to Faversham the same night. On Monday, the 2nd of December she questioned him as to the report of his knowing something of the robbery in question, when he admitted to her that although he knew nothing of their being stolen, he knew where some of the things were, as he had found them on the road, and had hid them in a garden in Ospringe, intending to give them up when a reward was offered for them. The witness gave the prisoner and excellent character for honesty and propriety of conduct during the time he had been in her husband's employed.

R. Diprose, also met them the same day of Mr. Chambers, stating that at the request of Mr. Chambers, he accompanied the prisoner to Ospringe, where he pointed out the spot where the property was concealed, which he, the prisoner, dug up, and witness took possession of them and place them in the hands of his employer.

Mr. B. E. Chambers, who is also high constable of the hundred of Faversham, produced the articles which had been thus obtained, most of which were marked with proprietors name in full length, all of which were identified by Mr. Honyball and Alfred Dutnall, as having been put into the portmanteau at Norton Court, and forwarded by the carriage on the 25th November as before named.

Mr. Horn examined Mr. Chambers, and also R. Diprose as to the prisoner's previous character, and both gave him a most exceptionable one, and Mr. Chambers, with great emphasis, insured Mr. Horn that the prisoner had been, during the time he was in his employee, as honest a man as he, Mr. Horn, himself was, which expressing excited a smile throughout the court, particularly among the gentleman of the bar. (This observation of the witness was remarked on by Mr. Horn in addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner when he assured them that he took the remark as no mean complement to himself.)

Mrs. Chambers was recalled an examined by Mr. Horn, when she further stated that when the prisoner acknowledged to having the property, he stated that he, on leaving Faversham on the 25th, made rather too free in drinking, and on the road sat down for a time till it got nearly dark, and that when he was about to pursue his journey to Ashford, he saw a man with the bundles, to which he threw down and ran away, and he then took them up and brought them back, and secreted them as above described, with the intention of restoring them to the owner when a reward was offered for them.

Mr. Gibbons, who keeps a public house at Sheldwich, deposed to the prisoner calling at his house on the day in question, when he said he was going that night to Ashford, and onto Tenterden next day; he added that the prisoner was somewhat in liquor.

W. Mutton, of Baddlesmere, saw the carriage passing over the Lees, and observed a man riding behind, who, in person and dress, resembled the prisoner, but witness did not see his face.

H. Ward, a lad, who saw the carriage about a mile from the place where the servant missed the portmanteau, at which time there was a man riding behind, who he believed to be the prisoner, but was not sure that it was him. Witness had been to the gaol to identify the man he saw; and the prisoner was present, and although he thought him to be the same person he could not be certain that it was.

Mr. Horn then addressed the jury in a speech of much force and eloquence, dwelling considerably on the prisoners previous character, and the Chairman most minutely summed the evidence in his usual clear and impartial manner, remarking that if the prisoner had not stolen the articles himself, but found them as he had stated, and knew them to be stolen, he would be guilty of felony; but if he found them, not knowing that they were stolen, nor to whom they belonged, then the keeping them for the sake of the reward that might be offered would not amount to felony; but the case would be different if he did know, and had the means of ascertaining to whom they belonged.

On the latter points Mr. Horn observed that a doubt existed as to the degree of crime committed under such circumstances.

The jury were a considerable time in deliberation, but eventually returned a verdict of "Not Guilty," under appealing to the chairman to know if a verdict could be given other than guilty of absolutely stealing the articles, or a full acquittal, when it was explained to them that they must say either guilty or not guilty.