Theft by servant at Wateringbury Place (1868)

Post date: Mar 22, 2013 11:16:50 AM

Extract from Maidstone Telegraph 7 March, 1868. William Brown was the occupier of Wateringbury Place (owned by Samuel Lancaster Lucas ) in the 1860s along with his wife,Mary, 8 children and many servants.

PRISONERS.

First Court.—Before Sir B. Bridges, Bart, M.P., Susannah Smith, (on bail), was charged with stealing two table cloths and other articles, value £2, the property of Wm. Brown, her master, at Wateringbury, on the 20th Jan. Mr F. J. Smith prosecuted.

William Eden, carrier, of Mereworth, called at Mr Brown's house, on the 20th of January last for several boxes. They were the property of Mr. Brown. He also received a parcel from prisoner on that day. She directed him to take it to Maidstone, and send it on by John Larking, carrier. On his journey the parcel got loose, and a little cloth and two candles fell out. It looked like a table napkin. He thought the parcel contained stolen property and took it back to Mr. Brown, and gave it into Mr Brown's hands.

William Brown deposed that prisoner had been his housekeeper from August or Sept. She was to quit about the 25th or 26th of January. The carrier, last witness, brought him a brown paper parcel, and he called prisoner's attention to it. On opening it he found two table cloths, some toilets, some kitchen cloths, some candles and a piece of carpet. He identified the two table cloths, the carpet, and one toilet, as his property. The kitchen cloths he could not identify, nor the candles, but the latter were similar to those burnt. On charging her with stealing them she said she did not like to give the table cloths back, because she thought Mrs Brown might be angry. The candles she said were her own. She made no remark about the other articles. The table cloths he put at the nominal value of £2. If purchased new they would cost about six or seven guineas. Neither Mrs Brown nor himself gave prisoner any portion of that property. This was the case for the prosecution.

Prisoner, who was undefended, said that the table cloths were Mrs. Brown's property and also the toilets. The articles were missed some time previous, but as she was leaving she did not wish to create Mrs Brown's displeasure, and so jeopardise her character for neglect. After she had obtained her character she intended to have returned the articles. The piece of carpet was an old cut one and given to her to do with what she wished with. After she had given warning to Mrs Brown that lady's displeasure increased, and still further increasing she concealed her neglect, in giving a wrong number. She (prisoner) never had a blemish her character, and ladies, after she had left their service, oft times sent for her. She had now left her children in charge of one of those ladies.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. Prisoner was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.