"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.

"The father was asked where he had got the handkerchiefs? He replied,
that he had bought them from a pedlar for half-a-crown a piece at his
door. However, his eldest daughter contradicted him by acknowledging
that her sister had stolen them from the shop of Mr. Watt. He became
dreadfully agitated, and then said--'What could I say? Surely I was
not to criminate my own children!'

"Mr. Allen observed, that there was a clear case against the two
children, but after consulting with the other magistrates, he was of
opinion that the youngest child should be given up into the charge of
the parish officers of Newington, as she was too young to go into a
prison, and desired that the other girl should be remanded, in order
to have some of the pledged goods produced. The father was committed
in default of bail for receiving stolen goods. The child has since
been found guilty. The prosecutor stated that the family consisted of