A larcenous dancing master, 1694-1696

I came across the larcenous late-seventeenth century dancing master Daniel Phillips while browsing through the criminal proceedings at Old Bailey Online, which houses the records of London's central criminal court from 1674 to 1913.  He first turns up in the records on April 18, 1694, after purportedly stealing a tankard:

Daniel Phillips was Indicted for stealing a Silver Tankard, value 5l. from Edward Tendring. The Prisoner and another man were drinking at Mr. Tendring's house and the Prisoner was seen to take the Tankard from the Bar, and run away with it; which they threw into the Thames, (being pursued) and at 11 of the Clock the same night, the Prisoner and another were seen Rowing in a Boat upon the Thames, in order to search for the Tankard, with their naked Swords drawn in the Boat. The Prisoner urged that his Employment was worth 300l. per annum, (being a Dancing-master) and he had no need to steal. That it was meer malice in the Prosecutor to Indict him, for that he had arrested her for a Scandal, some time before she took him up. There was but one Witness against him, and he good Evidence for his Reputation: so he was Acquitted.  (source: Old Bailey Online)

Note that the female "Prosecutor" is the crime victim, presumably some relative of Tendring, not a prosecutor in the modern sense of a lawyer for the state.  (Extensive information about how criminal proceedings at the Old Bailey worked may be found here.)  There are frustratingly vague hints of intrigue here: he had previously prosecuted his nameless accuser for something, making this accusation potentially some sort of retaliation, though of course there's also the matter of suspiciously rowing around the Thames late at night.  She doesn't seem to have convinced the jury, however; between his alibi and his claim of enough income as a dancing master to not need to steal tankards -- and 300l. per year was quite substantial -- he was acquitted.  

That acquittal becomes less convincing, however, when one discovers that on December 9, 1696, Phillips was once again on trial at the Old Bailey, this time accused of the theft of clothing and "divers other Goods" from his employer, a playhouse, incorporating what we'd now describe as breaking and entering and armed robbery, not to mention jumping bail and fleeing:

Daniel Phillips of the Parish of St. Brides, was Indicted for Felony and Burglary for Breaking the House of Sir Thomas Kipworth Baronet, and Christopher Rich Esq; it being the Play-House in Salisbury-Court, on the 19th of June, in the 7th year of his Majesty's Reign, and taking thence a Purple Velvet Coat, a Red Cloth Suit, with divers other Goods to a great value. It appeared that the Prisoner was a Dancing-Master at the Play-House, and by that means came acquainted where the Goods lay. The Evidence declared, That the Prisoner and three more broke in at a Window, and that the Prisoner came to his Bedside, and said, Sirrah, Lie with your Face down upon the Bed, or I will shoot you through the Head: Then they went up and broke open the Wardrobe, and took the Goods away, and carried them to Buckridge-street in St. Giles's, and from thence to White-Friers: The Prisoner denied he [sic] Fact, and the Evidence was positive: Besides he had absented himself from his Bail, and fled. The Jury taking it into consideration, found him Guilty of Felony and Burglary.  (source: Old Bailey Online)

His flight becomes understandable, given the harsh sentences of the seventeenth century.  Phillips was sentenced to death:

The Tryals being over, the Court gave Judgment as followeth

Received Sentence of Death, 23.
William Archer, Francis Archer, Edward Abbis, John Braseburne, Philip Biddal, John Hampton, William Holliday, Richard Hadley, John Marshall, John Mawd, Robert Powel, Richard Pollynton, William Penny, Daniel Phillips, James Pritchard, John Pool, Alexis Shad, Thomas Walton, Joseph Wynne, and Mary Wood, Dorothy Abbis, Mary Chambers, Ann Hampton: The 3 last Women to be Burnt.  (source: Old Bailey Online)

There is no record of the sentence being carried out, and many apparently were not.  As far as I can tell, the only way to be certain is if the Ordinary (chaplain) of Newgate prison recorded the prisoner's last words and death, as described here.  The surviving Ordinary's accounts for 1696 appear to be incomplete, so it's impossible for me to determine whether Phillips died for his crimes or not.