We are glad to learn that the thieves who broke into Mr. Hay’s shop in Leith Street a few nights ago, carrying off about £300 worth of watches, &c., were apprehended on Saturday through the exertions of M’Levie. The closest search had been made for them for some days previous, and as no trace of them was to be found in any of their old haunts, it began to be supposed that they had left town. On Saturday, however, M’Levie was in the course of searching for a woman who had committed some offence in Greenock, and who was supposed to have come to Edinburgh; among other places he went to a notorious lodging-house in Ink’s Close, West Port; and after going over the greater part of the premises without discovering the object of his search, he came at last to a trap-ladder, leading to a sort of garret. The keeper of the house seemed anxious to dissuade him from going there, assuring him that there was no woman there. This of course only increased his suspicions; and on going up he found three men in bed, whom he immediately recognised as the persons charged with Mr. Hay’s robbery, and having procured assistance he took them into custody. In the pockets of one of them he found £13 : 10s. There are now six persons in all in custody for this robbery; a man and his wife for the reset; a boy that was in Mr. Littlejohn’s employment, who is supposed to have assisted the thieves in getting access to the premises; and the three apprehended by M’Levie; two of whom, named Cowan and Kelly, are notorious characters, and are suspected of having been engaged in most of the housebreakings which have recently taken place.—Edinburgh Courant.

Glasgow Herald Friday,  May 17, 1844

The Chief Superintendent wrote to The Times

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—Having observed a lengthy police report in your paper of Monday last, giving an account of the examination of two men, charged with being concerned in the robbery at Mr. Hay’s, jeweller, Leith-street, Edinburgh, where it is stated that a reward of 300l. had been offered for their apprehension, and that the value of the stolen property amounted to 1,500l., and also containing some severe comments by Mr. Broughton, the sitting magistrate, as to the motives by which I was influenced in refusing to become responsible for the detention of the prisoners, I have to request that you will allow me, through the medium of your widely circulated journal, to contradict the above unfounded statements, and lay the real facts of the case before the public.

No communication was made to the London authorities as to the value of the stolen property, which, however, was not supposed to exceed 250l. instead of 1,500l., as stated, and no reward whatever was offered in the case; the whole of my information to the London authorities regarding the two men in custody being merely a request that they should be inquired after, and if any of the stolen property could be traced to their possession they were to be apprehended.

I remain, your most obedient servant, H. HAINING, Superintendent of Police. Police-office, Edinburgh, June 5.