Based on the case brief, explain in academic paragraphs, if justice was served? Incorporate feelings on the case. How does it compare to criminal proceedings today? Incorpate topics from a criminal law class to explain the reasoning.

Case Brief:

Case: James Howared, James Elliott, Philip Edy. Theft; Housebreaking. February 1, 1841. Reference #:t18410201-691

Facts:On the evening of January 9, 1841, police constables John Eaton and James Hersey, in plain clothes, observed the three defendantsJames Howard, James Elliott, and Philip Edyacting suspiciously in Tottenham Court Road, London. The trio was seen looking into shop windows, specifically jewelers and linin-drapers, until they passed by the prosecuters shop window 2 or 3 times. They followed the trio through several streets until they reached Bedford Street, near the shop of John Ballantyne, a hosier. Howard was seen tampering with the shop window. The trio was later seen interacting with two young boys, who were also near the scene.

After some time, the officers witnessed Howard removing handkerchiefs from the window of Ballantyne's shop, while Elliott appeared to be covering for him. Edy was seen in their company throughout the incident. As the police closed in, Howard threw six stolen handkerchiefs onto the pavement, and the trio attempted to flee. The shop window had a large piece of glass missing, just large enough to fit a hand. Howard was caught by Eaton, while Elliott was chased down by Hersey and caught after a short pursuit. Edy was later arrested on January 12 at a beer shop. The stolen handkerchiefs, valued at 30 shillings, belonged to John Ballantyne and were recovered at the scene.

John Fryer (a police constable), met with Eaton and Hersey that night at their request, to watch the three prisoners. Fryer did not see the interaction but he was certain the prisoners were the persons stealing in question. Henry Ramsden (works for John Ballantyne), was in the shop on Saturday the 9th of January, and heard cracking at the window but he assumed it was the frost. He later heard "Stop Theif" and he ran outside to grab the stolen 6 handkerchiefs that belonged to his master, they were on the ground next to the broken glass window. Benjamin Langham (16) lived on the street over from Bedford Street, near Mr. Ballantyne's Shop, and he reported seeing Howard and Elliott at the shop window. A minute before they were at the window he saw the three prisoners whispering to the two young boys. He saw Howard pulling the handkerchiefs out and Elliot standing near by attempting to hide him, but he saw no sight of Edy during the crime, he chased after Elliott once he heard the police yell and he watched him get detained. Langham claimed to not pay attention to other people there during the crime and only noticed the young boys a good distance away while the crime was taking place. Georoe Trew (policeman) took Edy into custody in a beer-shop in Chruch-street on Sunday the 12th or 13th. Benjamin Bevis (parochial constable) brought a certificate of Howards former conviction, he had him in custody and was present at the trial.

Howard (19), Elliott (22), and Edy (19) were all found guilty on the charge of theft and housebreaking, they were then sentenced to 15 years in transportation. (Transporttation was relocating criminals to different places or colonies as a deterrent, in hopes of reform and an alternative to the death penalty)

The Issue: Were the three defendants were guilty of breaking and entering John Ballantyne's shop and stealing handkerchiefs, and whether Howard had a previous felony conviction?

The Holding/Rule:All three defendantsJames Howard, James Elliott, and Philip Edywere found guilty of the charges of housebreaking and theft. Howard was charged with an additional felony charge due to his prior conviction.

The Reasoning:The court found the evidence against the defendants to be substantial and credible. The constables provided consistent testimonies about witnessing Howard tampering with the window and stealing the handkerchiefs. Elliott's role in covering for Howard and aiding in the theft was evident, and although Edy was not seen handling the stolen goods, his constant presence with the other two throughout the night implied his participation in the crime. There were multiple civilian and police witnesses that saw the men acting in suspicious activity and directly committing the crime. The presence of the young boys was noted but did not affect the conviction as they did not directly engage in the theft. Howard's previous conviction was proven through a certificate presented by a constable, confirming that he had been convicted of a similar felony in the past.

Dicta:There was no significant dicta noted in the case report. The judgment focused on the direct involvement of the defendants in the crime and their subsequent conviction based on clear evidence.