logo1

Police Intelligence, Bow Street.

DOG-STEALING.-- A person named Stapleton, a dairy man, cow-keeper, and cab proprietor, with two or three others, was charged by Chadwick Jones, Esq., the barrister, with having been concerned in stealing from his residence in Serjeant's-inn, a fine Newfoundland dog, his property.

Mr. Jones stated that at about half-past seven o'clock on the morning; of the 27th of April his dog was taken away. He had made several inquiries about it, but all in vain. Handbills had been circulated among the city and metropolitan police, but he heard nothing of the dog until yesterday, when, from a communication which he had received, he went to the house of a person named Slaven, a hair-dresser, living in the Edgeware-road, where, upon enquiry of Slaven if he had a young Newfoundland dog to sell, he was answered in the affirmative, and his own dog was shown to him for sale. He immediately knew the dog to be his property, and upon asking Slaven how he had come by the animal, he said that he had purchased it for twenty-five shillings, and produced a receipt to that effect. Upon further enquiry, he (Mr. Jones) had traced the dog to Stapleton.

Stapleton said that the dog had followed a little boy in his service from the Strand. He (Stapleton) had not taken any means to conceal it; in fact, he had been most anxious to get rid of it. He knew nothing whatever of the dog. Finding that no person had claimed him, he gave instructions to Philips to sell him, to whom he had given nine shillings for his trouble, and out of the fifteen shillings that remained, he had the little boy's shoes soled and heeled. He had carried on the business of a respectable tradesman for ten years, and many of his neighbours were present to speak to his character.

Stapleton, in reply to a question from Mr. Jones, said he had not the slightest hesitation to refund the money, and placed two sovereigns on the desk for that purpose.

Mr. Minshull objected to that course; although he did not approve of Stapleton's conduct, he did not at the same time think that any guilt attached to him.

Mr. Jones said that be considered himself justified in bringing the case before a magistrate. It was rather derogatory to the character of a respectable tradesman, not to have communicated the fact of his having had the dog in his possession to the police, if he had done that, he (Mr. Jones) would have had the dog restored to him almost immediately. However, he would leave the case in the hands of the worthy magistrate.

The case was eventually dismissed; leaving it open to Mr. Jones to prosecute if he thought proper.

True Sun (London, England), May 23, 1836.