and to have been taken in the above way.  Mr. Allen questioned the eldest girl about the robbery, but she positively denied any knowledge as to how, or in what manner, the calico and muslin had got into her basket, frequently appealing to her little sister to confirm the truth of what she declared.  When asked if she had ever been charged with any offence, she replied, ’O yes, sir, some time back I was accused of stealing a watch from a house, but I did not do it.’  The magistrate observed, that the father should be made acquainted with the circumstance, and, in the mean time, gave the gaoler instructions that the two little delinquents should be taken care of.

“Hall, the officer, stated that he had information that there was a quantity of goods, which had been stolen by the prisoners, concealed in a certain desk in the house of the father; and that a great deal of stolen property would, in all probability, be found there, if a search warrant were granted, as the two unfortunate children were believed to be most extensive depredators.

“Mr. Allen immediately granted the warrant; and Hall, accompanied by Mr. Cornell, proceeded to the residence of the father of the children, who is an auctioneer and appraiser, at 12, Lyon Street, Newington.

“Hall returned in half an hour with the father in his custody, and produced a great quantity of black silk handkerchiefs, which he had found on the premises; but the desk, which had been spoken of by his informers as containing stolen property, he had found quite empty.  The father, when questioned by the witness as to whether he had any duplicates of property in his possession, positively denied that fact.  At the office he was searched, and about fifty duplicates were found in his pockets, most of which were for silk handkerchiefs and shawls.  There were also a few rings, for the possession of which the prisoner could not satisfactorily account.  He was asked why he had assured the officer he had no duplicates?  He replied, that he had not said so; but Mr. Cornell, who was present during the search, averred that the prisoner had most positively declared that he had not a pawnbroker’s duplicate in his possession.

“Mr. Watt, a linen-draper, of Harper Street, Kent Road, stated that he attended in consequence of seeing the police reports in the newspapers, describing the two children; he immediately recognised the two little girls as having frequently called at his shop for trifling articles; and added, that he had been robbed of a variety of silk handkerchiefs and shawls, and he had no doubt but that the prisoners were the thieves.  It was their practice, he said, to go into a shop, and call for a quarter of a yard of muslin, and while the shopkeeper was engaged, the eldest would very dexterously slip whatever article was nearest, to her little sister, who was trained to the business, and would thrust the stolen property into a basket which she always carried for that purpose.  Mr. Watt identified the silk handkerchiefs as his property, and said that they had been stolen in the above manner by the prisoners.