Boys stealing Gold Rings

On Monday May 7 1860 a boy aged just 13 was brought into the court house in Rotherham, in front of magistrates Messrs T B Bosville Esq., Mr A B St Leger Esq., and the Hon and Rev W Howard. His name was John Crowder and he worked for pawnbroker Mr Bibbs, who had charged him with stealing three gold rings. Mr Whitfield was the prosecutor and the boy was defended by Mr Hirst. Before any evidence was heard, Mr Hirst stated that the boy’s employer was reluctant to press the case against him, but he would be quite satisfied if he was ordered to be whipped by the magistrates. The bench stated that they had better hear all the evidence before deciding on the boys punishment. Mr Bibbs took the stand and told the court that the boy had been employed by him in December 1859 on trial as an apprentice, but he had never been officially bound to him.

He said that in consequence of information which had been given to him on Saturday the April 28, he found three gold rings to be missing. He told Crowder that he had heard that he had given a boy named Joseph Hamlett one of the rings to sell for him. Crowder denied the charge, but admitted that he had stolen one of the rings. When he was asked what he had done with it, the boy told him that he still had the ring in his possession. Mr Bibbs asked him to show it to him and when he produced it, the pawnbroker identified it as being one that had been pledged to him.

He told the court that the rings had been kept in a plate chest in an upstairs room above the shop. Crowder told him that when he took the ring, he tore up the ticket belonging to it, and had burnt the remains in the fireplace. The next day a boy named Hamlett visited the shop, and in the presence of  Crowder told Mr Bibbs that the two remaining missing gold rings were in pledge at the pawnshop of Mr Hammond. Both boys were taken into custody, but the case against Hamlett was weak and he was discharged a few days later.

Mr Bibbs stated that under normal circumstances Crowder would not have access to the plate chest, as it was always kept locked and the key was placed on his own watch chain. However he admitted that when articles were required from it, he would give Crowder the key to unlock it. The next witness was Joseph Hamlett who gave evidence that he was 14 years of age, and was an errand boy for a shoemaker at Rotherham. He told the magistrates that six weeks previously he had been given a gold ring by the prisoner, and asked to pawn it for 5s. Hamlett refused to do so, and urged Crowder to have nothing to do with it.

About a fortnight later the prisoner had asked him to pledge another plain, simple, gold wedding band at Mr Hammond shop. On this occasion Hamlett had agreed, but when he went to the pawnshop the owner refused to receive it. He claimed that another time Crowder had given him a third ring which he took to Mr Taffinder’s shop but when they also refused it, he gave it back to Crowder. In return for these services the prisoner gave him 6d and some cakes.

Police enquiries had established that although Crowder had tried to pledge a ring at Hammonds’ shop, it was refused, however when a search was made another ring, the property of Mr Bibbs had been found at the same pawnshop. When taken into charge for the offences, the prisoner had admitted his guilt. His solicitor Mr Hirst told the magistrates that under the circumstances the boy would plead guilty and again suggested that the best way of dealing with the case was for the boy to be whipped. He also placed much of the blame on Mr Hammond who had not only taken rings in pledge from the prisoner, a young boy, but also because he was very aware that the prisoner was the servant of another pawnbroker.

He stated that: “If such conduct was to be allowed, pawnbrokers could be robbed of any amount'.” The magistrates stated that having listened to the evidence, they had no power to have the boy whipped, but they would give their decision at the rising of the court. Ultimately they ordered the boy to be discharged.