On 27 November 1843, one of London’s central courts, the Old Bailey, opened its doors to hear a theft that began in a quiet house and ended in a hurried flight — for a man named John Lee.
Lee stood accused of having stolen a tea-pot and a sugar-basin from the home of Joshua Wigley Bateman, Esq., a respectable London gentleman. The total value of the stolen items was recorded as £7 10s for the tea-pot and 12s for the sugar-basin, a sizeable sum for such domestic utensils.
🕯️ What happened
Bateman had left his house for the day, leaving servants in charge — and, presumably, the doors as secure as an 1840s home could be. But by the time a maid returned, the silver-plated tea-set was gone, and a window or back door showed signs of forced entry.
A neighbour spotted a suspicious figure leaving the street with a bundle under his coat. The description matched that of John Lee. A constable was sent; within hours Lee was arrested, package in hand, the stolen items inside.
The discovery was dramatic: the tea-pot, the sugar-basin — once shining and domestic — now clanged like evidence of betrayal and need.
⚖️ The trial — 27 November 1843
In court, Lee wore the worried look of a man caught with his own alibi in tatters. He pleaded not guilty.
Clerk of Arraigns: “John Lee — you are indicted for stealing one tea-pot and one sugar-basin, the property of Joshua Wigley Bateman. What say you, guilty or not guilty?”
Lee: “Not guilty, sir — I found them in the street.”
But the prosecution’s case was tight:
- Witnesses identified Lee leaving the house area just before the theft was discovered.
- The stolen items were clearly those belonging to Bateman — engraved or bearing marks known only to the household staff.
- The bundle in Lee’s coat was dripping faintly with tea-stains and had the unmistakable weight of metal.
The jury needed little time.
Foreman: “Guilty.”
🏛 Sentence and aftermath
For theft of items valued the way Bateman’s tea-set had been, the sentence was severe:
Lee was given transportation for seven years — a fate shared by many convicted of property crimes, sending them far from London’s lanes, likely to penal colonies. The tea-pots that once filled a genteel drawing-room would linger only in memory; Lee would embark on a journey into forced labour, perhaps never to return.
⚒️ What this tells us
The case of John Lee homes in on a truth of Georgian and early-Victorian London: property was fragile, justice swift.
- Everyday household items — tea-pots, sugar-basins — had real value and losing them meant real loss.
- The legal system viewed theft from a dwelling with harsh eyes; the penalty was exile, not just imprisonment.
- The Old Bailey’s records capture these small tragedies as sharply as the dramatic murders or highway robberies.
This day in 1843 shows that sometimes, a stolen tea-set was enough to change a man’s life forever.
📚 Source
- t18431127-54 – John Lee, indicted for stealing a teapot and sugar-basin from Joshua Wigley Bateman, Esq. — Old Bailey Proceedings, session 27 November 1843. oldbaileyonline.org
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
The Sage Page 