Christopher Malone was Dennis Carrs brother in law.
Dennis Carr was reported within
page 11 of the "London Times" newspaper, dated Thursday March 30th 1865 (Battye
Library film 6837P 1865 MAR-April), as being before Mr Justice Willes in the
Crown Court, as follows:
"Christopher Malone was indicted for burgulary in the dwelling house of Isaac Moss, at Sheffield, and stealing jewelery, to the value of 300l.
Mr Waddy prosecuted; the prisoner defended himself. The only evidence against the prisoner was that the burgulary was committed on the 18th of October, 1864, when a great quantity of watches and articles of jewelery were stolen, all of which are found in February last concealed in the cellar of a house occupied by the prisoner.
For the defence the prisoner called his wife's brother, a man named Carr, who stated that the prisoner was not concerned in the burglary, and knew nothing of the property found in the cellar. On being pressed, he said that he himself had committed the burglary in company with two men named Sykes and Cooper, and that not knowing what to do with the plunder he had concealed it in the cellar in the absence of the prisoner's wife. The witness admitted that although he was only 26 years old he had since 1854 been twice convicted of larceny and twice of housebreaking, and that he was then awaiting his trial for the garrotte robbery upon Mr Burnby at Sheffield, on 23rd of last December, in which the man Cooper, whom he accused of being implicated in the burgulary, is the principal witness against him. The prisoner also called as his witness his father-in-law, Henry Carr, to prove that at the time of the burgulary he was living apart from his wife, and did not occupy the house in question. The witness has been committed for trial jointly with the prisoner for the burgulary at Moss's but the grand jury ignored the bill so far as he was concerned.
On the part of the prosecution it was urged in reply that the evidence of these witnesses was not to be relied upon, and that Carr in accusing himself and Cooper sought to throw discredit by anticipation on the evidence which Cooper would give against him in the garotting case.
The prisoner was found Guilty of receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen, and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, with hard labour."
"The work here progress but slowly. Of the prisoners about 25 have been disposed of, and of the causes 20 have been tried or withdrawn, leaving 54 still for trial."
Dennis Carr had his own problems, as follows;
The
London Times of March 31st 1865 (page 11) refers:
MIDLAND CIRCUIT LEEDS, MARCH 30
CROWN COURT. - (Before Mr Justice Willes.)
Dennis Carr, Edward Hall, and Harry Smith were indicted for a garrote robbery upon Mr Mathew Coulson Burnby, at Sheffield, on the 23rd of December. Mr V. Blackburn and Mr Gully appeared for the prosecution; Mr Shepherd defended Carr; Mr Campbell Foster appeared for Hall; and Mr Fitsjames represented Smith. The prosecutor is mineral agent for Earl Fitzwilliam, and before the occurence in question had been for some time in the habit of carrying home from his place of business in Sheffield to his residence in Victoria-road, Broomhall park, in a satchell the money he had taken in the course of the day, and which generally amounted to from 100l to 200l.
On the day in question the strap of the satchel had broken, and, contrary to his usual custom, Mr Burnby, when he set out to go home between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening, took no money with him except the loose cash he happened to have in his pockets. He had got within 200 or 300 yards from his house when he was pulled back from behind and swung round. He had found himself in the presence of two men, while a third, who in height and appearance resembled the prisoner Smith, was watching at a distance. Of the two men who stood nearest to him, one struck Mr Burnby twice on the side of the head with some blunt instrument, which Mr Burnby believed to be a "knuckle-duster". The other man seized him by the throat and held him while the first man struck him several blows upon and below the ribs. Mr Burnby then became insensible, and was found shortly afterwards lying on the road. He was removed to his house, but remained in a dangerous state for some time, and was not yet recovered from the ill-treatment he had received. Upon examination it was discovered that 2l or 3l in silver which Mr Burnby had in his pocket, a silver watch, and a gold pin with an amerthyst had been taken.
The evidence connecting the prisoners with the robbery was chiefly that of a man named Martin Cooper, a watchmaker, who stated that on the night in question, between 7 and 8 o'clock, the prisoners Hall and Carr came to his house, which was about three quarters of a mile distant from the scene of the robbery. Hall produced a silver watch bearing the same name and number as that taken from Mr Burnby, and Carr a gold pin with an amerthyst in it, which he handed to the witness, saying, "By ---!" be careful with it, for there's 20 years and a good flogging for it." Cooper then, by Hall and Carr's directions, broke up the pin and erased the name and number from the watch, washing it over with aqua fortis to give the scratches the appearance of age. The men asked Cooper if he would give 30s for the watch, which he agreed to do. On the following evening Hall and Carr came again, and were shortly joined by Smith, and subsequently by a man named Skinner. While Smith was out of the room Hall said to Cooper, in the presence of Carr, "Can you pay for that watch and pin?" Cooper then gave Hall the 30s, and Hall having given Carr 10s said, "It's a fine lot for five of us to be in at. We expected to get 100l." The next morning Cooper saw an account of the robbery in the papers, and, taking the watch to Smith, asked him to hide it. Smith did so, and kept it for some days, until Cooper went to him again, and, having obtained the watch, laid it in a hedge bottom. He then went to the police and gave information which led to the apprehension of the prisoners.
Upon cross examination Cooper admitted that he had been charged with burglary at Mr Myer's at Sheffield, when 5,000l worth of jewelery was stolen, but was acquitted. In last January he was apprehended along with two other men named Silvester and Jones, having been caught in Mr Furness's grounds as they were about to attempt a burglary; but he stated that he had himself given the information which led to the capture and had borne testimony against the other two when they were convicted. He said that, finding himself getting more and more deeply implicated with Hall and Carr, and men of similar character, his conscience pricked him and he had resolved to give information. He denied that he had himself taken any part in the attack upon Mr Burnby.
This witness was corroborated in some of the particulars of his account by his wife and his brother-in-law, who, were present at one or other of the conversations between Cooper and Hall and Carr. In consequence of Cooper's revelations Carr was apprehended, when a knuckle-duster was found upon him. Hall also was taken after a desperate resistance, and in his possession was found another knuckle-duster and a life preserver. At the close of the case for the prosecution.
Back To The Top
The learned COUNSEL for the defence contended that there was no evidence against the men for whom they respectively appeared, except the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, and Mr Campbell Foster cited a case of "The King against Neale," in the seventh volume of Carrington and Payne's Reports, in which Mr Justice Parke reported to have held that the testmony of the wife of an accomplice is no confirmation of the evidence of the husband, and that when there is no other corroborative evidence the prisoner ought to be acquitted.
His LORDSHIP observed that that was contrary to all his notions. He did not think that because a wife knew that her husband had stolen property in his house and did not at once go to the police she was not to at once go and give information to the police she was not to be believed upon her oath. He must suppose that the case referred to had been misreported. Moreover, he was of the opinion that in this case there was corrobrative evidence inependent of that given by Cooper's wife and brother-in-law.
For the defence it was contended on behalf of Hall and Carr that they had nothing to do with the robbery, that Cooper could not be credited, and that his evidence was not sufficiently corroborated to make it safe for the jury to rely upon it,
For Smith, against whom the case, so far as it depended on Coopers evidence, was weaker, witnesses were called for the purpose of establishing an alibi.
The trial was not concluded till 4 o'clock, when the jury retired to consider their verdict. After an absence of 25 minutes they returned into court and found Carr and Hall Guilty of robbery, and Smith Guilty of receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen.
All of the prisoners had been previously convicted.
Carr was sentenced to penal servitude for life, Hall for 20 and Smith for five years.