indicted for stealing in a dwelling-house lace which she had offered to sell for twelve guineas, and for which she refused to take eight: the jury, however, who found her guilty, found the lace to be worth no more than thirty-nine shillings. William Sherrington, in October, 1732, was indicted for stealing privately in a shop, which he had actually sold for 1l. 5s. and the jury found they were only worth 4s. 10d.
"In the case of Michael Allom, indicted in February, 1733, for privately stealing in a shop forty-three dozen pair of stockings, value 3l. 10s. it was proved that the prisoner had sold them for a guinea and a half, to a witness who was produced on the trial; and yet the jury found him guilty of stealing what was only of the value of 4s. 10d. In another case, that of George Dawson and Joe Nitch, also indicted in February, 1733, it appeared that the two prisoners, in company together, at the same time, stole the same goods privately in a shop; and the jury found one guilty to the amount of 4s. 10d., and the other to the amount of 5d.; that is, that the same goods were at one and the same moment of different values. This monstrous proceeding is accounted for by finding that Dawson, who was capitally convicted, had been tried at the same sessions for a similar offence, and had been convicted of stealing to the amount of 4s, 10d. The jury seem to have thought that, having had the benefit of their indulgence once, he was not entitled to it a second time; or, in other words, that having once had a pardon at their hands, he had no farther claim upon their mercy." p. 67.
We in these cases see oaths violated, laws evaded, the several duties of judges and juries neglected, and the juries usurping the place of the letter of the law, and decreeing indeed what punishment they think fit in lieu of the death of the offender, by English law ordained.
The third use of punishment may certainly be fulfilled
