George Farrow

135

C H on 28th March 2024

Old Bailey Online GEORGE FARROW. WILLIAM ABBOTT. Theft; pocketpicking. 16th September 1839 Text type Trial account Defendants GEORGE FARROW, WILLIAM ABBOTT Offences Theft > Pocketpicking Session Date 16th September 1839 Reference Number t18390916-2589 Verdicts Guilty, Guilty Punishments Transportation, Imprisonment 2589. GEORGE FARROW and WILLIAM ABBOTT were indicted for stealing, on the 12th of September, 1 handkerchief, value 1s., the goods of a man, whose name is unknown, from his person. CHARLES HENRY BAGNALL (police-constable F 31.) On the evening of the 12th of September, between nine and ten o'clock, I was in Drury-lane, and saw the prisoners together—at the moment they passed the end of Charles-street, Farrow took hold of a gentleman's pocket, lifted it up, and let it go again—I followed them on to the end of Great Queen-street, where Farrow put his hand into a gentleman's pocket, and took this handkerchief from it—I could not stop the gentleman, for they both ran into Long-acre, and I was more anxious to get them than the gentleman—directly he got it he put it into his bosom—they ran down Long-acre into Mercer-street, and into Mumford-court—Farrow then went into a marine-store dealers, of the name of Taylor, at No. 1, and was in the act of putting the handkerchief into Mrs. Taylor's hand, but I seized him before he had done it, with the handkerchief in it—I passed the other prisoner in the court, and when I came out I gave him in charge to George Lawler—this is the handkerchief—(producing one)—I do not think there is any mark on it—here is another handkerchief which I found on Farrow, and another I found on Abbott, with fourteen duplicates, six of which are for handkerchiefs—the Magistrate had all the pawnbrokers up, and considered they were not taken from gentlemen's pockets—they consisted of neck-handkerchiefs, not pocket handkerchiefs. Cross-examined by MR. PHILLIPS. Q. Have you ever sworn that you took the handkerchief from the woman in the shop? A. Not from her hand—I am certain of that—it was partly in her hand, and partly in his—(looking at his deposition)—this is my handwriting—(the deposition him read, stated, "I saw him put the handkerchief into the woman's hand, and I took it from her")—they had both got hold of it—the woman never had the whole of it in her hand—they had both got hold of it, and I rusted in at the moment, and took the handkerchief out of their hands—it was partly in her hand, and partly in his—Lawler was with me when they took the handkerchief, but the way they ran he could not speak to the gentleman—he was called out to, I believe—other people saw the transaction as well as me—they are not here—I did not take any body to the office besides Lawler—the woman from the shop is not here to my knowledge—I have known Lawler about two months—he and I were walking together—we had been together about a quarter of an hour that night—he has accompanied me before on walks, when I have been going round—not exactly as an assistant, as a friend—he might have been with me half-a-dozen times in the two months—he has never been a dozen times with me—he once gave evidence in a case with me here, last Session, about a handkerchief—the owner did not appear in that case—the thief ran away then—the gentleman was told, but would not come—I did not ask his name—that is the only case in which Lawler has given evidence with me—he is a printer—there are expenses allowed to policemen—I found Abbott standing in the court where the shop is—I was not in my uniform—I very seldom am in my uniform—some of the division are in plain clothes—we do not always wear our uniform when on duty—we have two or three men generally in plain clothes—we have to inquire about robberies—I never heard of any order for us to appear like the military, or about shaving our whiskers. Q. How did you get acquainted with Lawler first? A. I have seen him with other policemen—I dare say he has assisted them—I did not know he was an amateur thief-taker—I never heard of his assisting more than one policeman—that was Clark, No. 129—I got acquainted with him by his knowing Clark—I have been in public-houses with him, but not while on duty. Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE. Q. Is it not contrary to your orders to be talking to acquaintances when on duty? A. I was not on duty—it is not what we call divisional duty—we are more often two or three together than one—it is not contrary to our duty to talk with acquaintances when we are out of uniform—we are not reckoned on duty then—we receive pay for it—we do not act the same as when we are in dress—we take people up when we see an offence committed, but our chief employment is to inquire about robberies which have been committed. Q. Do you know whether Lawler was a witness for Clark? A. I do not know on what suit it was—I do not know whether he was a witness for Clark—I will not swear it—I believe he has been in one case—he did not tell me he had been—Clark told me so—I do not know whether it was about a handkerchief—I have known Lawler somewhere about two months. GEORGE LAWLER . I am a printer, but was obliged to leave my work to come here—I should have had work if I had not come here—I live in Conduit-court, Long-acre. I was in Drury-lane with Bagnall on Thursday the 12th, and observed the two prisoners following a gentleman—Bagnall drew my attention to them, and said the two prisoners going down were after that gentleman—it was in my way home, and I saw Farrow, when, he was crossing Great Queen-street, pick the gentleman's left-hand pocket of a handkerchief, which he put in his breast—they both immediately started down Long-acre, across Seven Dials—Abbott stopped at the end of Monmouth-court, and Farrow went down the court into a marine store-shop—Bagnall went in and took him—I assisted him to take charge of Abbott—he had hold of him as well. Cross-examined by MR. PHILLIPS. Q. I suppose you had been to work that day at your trade as a printer? A. No, I bad no work that day—I met Bagnall by accident—I was with him about eight or ten minutes—he did not ask me to walk with him—it was in my way home, but when the prisoners were going after the gentleman, then he asked me—I was about four or five yards from the gentleman who was robbed—he was not able to be stopped—if our voices had been raised the prisoners would have been off—I did not call out to the gentleman, nor did I hear any one else do so—his attention was not called in any way to my knowledge, because the prisoners ran off directly they did it, which prevented my calling out—Bagnall asked me to go with him directly to follow the prisoners, or else I should certainly have told the gentleman—I have known Bagnall about six months—I have not been very intimate with him—if I met the man he spoke civilly, and I spoke too—if I met him I bid him the time of day, and he did the same—I assisted him once before in a robbery, last Sessions, against two prisoners, for picking a gentleman's pocket—they ran away, and I could not speak to the gentleman—Bagnall went and took them, and I pursued them also, and the gentleman got away—we had no person to tell him to stop—neither I or Bagnall called the gentleman's attention to the robbery, nor did he refuse to have any thing to do with it—if Bagnall has sworn that, 1 should say it is false—I have not heard Bagnall examined—I never assisted Bagnall in any other case—I never walked with him on his beat, and gave him assistance before to my knowledge—if I met him on my way to work, I have spoken civilly to the man, but I never assisted ton except on these two occasions—I may have met him in the Strand by accident, but I have not gone on his beat walking with and assisting him—I had something better to do—if any one has said I have been half-a-dozen times assisting Bagnall in his walks, it is not true—I work in the City—I was never a witness for any body else—I am not acquainted with any other policeman—I got acquainted with Bagnall by being on rounds where I live—I did not introduce myself, to him, nor did he introduce himself to me—I have to get up very early in the morning sometimes, and was obliged to ask him to call me, and that is the way I got acquainted with him—I never was a witness before—I know other policemen, the policemen who are on rounds where I live, but I am not personally acquainted with any one—I know a policeman named Clark—I have known him about four months, but 1 knew Bagnall first—I have known him six months, and Clark four months—it was not through Bagnall I got acquainted with Clark—I am obliged to ask policemen to call me at all hours—I have to go at all hours to work, at one and two o'clock sometimes—I got 10s. 6d. when I was a witness here before—I do not know whether I expect any thing now. COURT. Q. Did you ever accompany Clark on his beat? A. Yes, once in Long Acre—Farrow was attempting to pick pockets there, and I told Clark—I have not been with Clark when he has been on the look-on—I never walked his beat with him—I might have been with him half-an-hour or so. (George Field wick, plumber, Rockingham-row, Vauxhall John Prendergast, carpenter, Harley-street, Cavendish-square and Henry Massey Parliament-street, gave Abbott a good character: and William Ward, glass cutter, New Tothill-street, and Sarah Lardner, wife of a shoemaker in Brunswick-street, gave Farrow a good character.) FARROW*— GUILTY . Aged 22.— Transported for Ten Years. ABBOTT— GUILTY . Aged 19.— Confined Six Months.