EDWARD LAWRENCE LEVY, Deception > forgery, 26th May 1879.

Reference Number: t18790526-562
Offence: Deception > forgery
Verdict: Guilty > no_subcategory
Punishment: Imprisonment > no_subcategory

562. EDWARD LAWRENCE LEVY (53) was again indicted (See page 68) for feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 29l., with intent to defraud.

MR. GORST, Q.C., and MR. A. B. KELLY Prosecuted; the SOLICITOR-GENERAL and MR. BESLEY Defended.

LORD DORCHESTER. In November, 1876, an application was made to me in writing by, I believe, some one named Fisher in Leicester Square; but I am speaking from recollection, for an account that had been owing by the Hon. Mrs. Carlton—I have searched for it, but have not found it—in consequence of that I sent this cheque in a letter, to the best of my belief, and it was acknowledged—I have not found the receipt yet, but I can swear to having had it—I have not found it for reasons which I can give. (The letter was dated 23, Leicester Square, November 23, 1876, from J. C. Fisher and Co., and stated: "My Lord,—We beg to hand you a receipt for your cheque for Mr. Worth's account; we are at a loss to conceive the reason

of your lordship complaining that her ladyship is not to be trusted, &c.," and complaining that the cheque was drawn 10d. short, as no interest hod been asked for.)

CHARLES FREDERICK WORTH . I am a dressmaker, of 7, Rue de la Paix, Paris—I do not personally take any part in the financial part of my business—my regular financial manager is Mr. Mantel, who has been with me 21 years, and my son Gaston takes an active part in the business—I never saw the prisoner and never gave him authority to sign my name on cheques or bills—my initials are C. F., and this signature C. J. Worth on this cheque is not mine; nor did I ever give any one authority to place it there—the letters which passed between my firm and the defendant were not written or signed by me—the general course of business was for the letters to be signed by Mantel—this letter, dated Paris, 1st September, 1877, is mine, (This was in French, addressed to Mr. Levy, requesting him to hand over all matters' and papers to Mr. Andrews, of the firm of Andrews and Mason, 78, Iron-wonqer Lane, with a detailed account of all proceedings taken, signed C. F. Worth.)

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Mr. Mantel made the arrangement with the prisoner on his own authority as to conducting my affairs—I personally knew nothing about it—I was not consulted in any way.

GASTON WORTH . I am a son of the last witness, and am in business with him—I remember negotiations taking place in the summer of 1876 between our house and Fisher and Co.—they were in writing—I saw this letter after it arrived, but I did not myself transmit any accounts to Fisher and Co. for collection, or receive moneys transmitted by them to us—I remember going with Mr. Andrews to Leicester Square in the first week of October, 1877 we saw Mr. Levy and one of his sons, Mr. Daniel Levy I believe—I asked Mr. Levy for an account—he said "I cannot give it to you now"—I believe I went on a Wednesday—I said, "When can you give it to me?"—he said "Next Friday"—I asked him to give me an approximate account at once—he got into a temper and used hard words, and said "Do you expect I shall give you an account of 1,400l. or 1,600l. in a minute?"—I said, "Haw you not a ledger, and cannot you tell me in a second, as I would myself, what you owe me and what I owe you?"—he said, "I don't keep a ledger, I have to look all over my books for two years, and I cannot do that in a second"—I asked him to be faithful and give the account on Friday next, as I was obliged to go to Paddington, and I begged him to send it to Mr. Andrews at once—ho promised faithfully to do so on the Friday—Mr. Andrews said nothing that I remember—Mr. Daniel Levy was present—I did not hear from Levy then or at any other time anything about Lord Dorchester's cheque.

LOUIS PHILIPPE MANTEL (Through an Interpreter). I am financial agent to Mr. Worth, of Paris, holding a power of attorney—all correspondence on commercial matters passes through my hands—I had an introduction to the prisoner in the autumn of 1876, and had negotiations with him as to his undertaking to collect debts in England for Mr. Worth—as the result of my negotiations I received this English letter of 23rd August from Mr. Levy—the arrangement in it was not changed afterwards; it was confirmed; this letter, dated 19th October, 1876, was written by one of the clerks in my office by my authority, and he signed it after I had read it (This being translated, enclosed 12 accounts amounting to over 1,0001. to Mr. Levy,

among which was one due from the Hon. Mrs. Carleton of 29l. 0s. 10d., requesting him to obtain payment for them with costs in case of non-payment. Signed,"Blancherdet") All sums which have been received have been acknowledged, and we can prove that by copies of the acknowledgment—if the defendant has not received our acknowledgment for the amount due from Mrs. Carleton, then we have not received it—I have got my books here—I never received this cheque (produced)—the name on the back of it is not written by me nor by my authority—the defendant called on me in February, 1877, and handed me a sum of money, giving me at the same time the names of the persons from whom the money had been received—I have the names here, but Mrs. Carleton's name is not one—Levy did not tell me then or at any time that he had received a cheque from Lord Dorchester—I did not see Levy again in May, 1877—I did not give him authority to endorse Mr. Worth's name on a cheque.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. I took a note in writing of the sums paid; this is our cash-book; it contains all the items which have been written in; a clerk wrote these items before me—this is another cash-book with the summary of all the receipts—this item of 17th February, with the total sum was written by me, it is headed "par Levy"—it is a general summary consisting of many debtors, but here is the name in the margin, of the sum which Levy paid; the last line is not in my writing, it is written by Blancherdet by my authority—he is not here, because he has not been asked to come—he gave me this account which he received; there was 1,500 francs in money, and a cheque for 8,368 francs, or 297l. 10s. 5d., for the balance—this is Levy's account (produced)—there is a sum of 5,000 and odd francs to be added to it—it is on a piece of paper torn from a block-book which I keep for the purpose; it was written in my presence in the office by Mr. Levy, who gave me at that time a cheque for the balance on the block-note 297l. odd—no book is kept in our establishment which will show in what form a clerk has received money; it would simply be in franc money. no. sayin. th. nature o. it—i. th. cler. receive. an English chequ. o. an English banker he would enter the equivalent in Frenc. money—. ca. tel. by th. bloc. not. tha. thi. 1,500 franc. wa. receive. i. English money and the rest in a cheque—that block note is produced by Mr. Levy, and you must see that the sums correspond—if there was no block note I could tell by the dossier in what form we received this money; this (produced) is the letter which shows when Mr. Levy began; we believe we had to do with Mr. Levy and we always corresponded with him in that name—this is endorsed to Mons. Levy, not to Fisher and Co.; this produced is the first book of notes of accounts; the cash book which you have seen will show the receipts of February 16th, the cheque proves that the clerk received the 297l. 10s. 5d. by cheque—he gave it at the' same time as he gave the 1,500 francs, and I recollected it myself, it took place in my presence—I received the sums, and Blancherdet entered them in my presence—the cheque was immediately transferred from English money into French and credited in French; the first book relative to that is the cash-book; we are able also to show the memoranda of the purchaser of the cheque; it was M. Rodrigues frere, a gentleman to whom we commonly give cheques for that purpose—this is my signature on the back of it—I have produced my power of attorney as representing Mr. Worth, for that purpose—Rodrigues no

doubt sold it to Belperre, whose name is on it; we do not know the other names on it, we only know Rodrigues, who changed it for us; there are two names on the block note which do not appear in the book, you will find Malcom at the top in the large book, his name was entered in another book because it was carried to the bad debtors' account; it was considered as a bad debt, and for the sake of the regularities of the books it has been carried to the account of the bad debtors—the reason that this 565 francs is not entered in the small cash-book is because Malcom has been entered among the bad debtors, and when money was paid on his account it had to be entered in the large book; all the sums are there; you will see the total of the sums of 16th February there, and all those sums total are entered by myself in this large cash-book, and consequently all the large sums—there is also a large ledger in Paris which will show how this large total is made up—the gross total of receipts on 16th February, by the large book, is 25,997 francs in money, and 294 francs in paper, but there is to be a deduction of 565 francs for Malcom—Malcom was entered under date of 15th February for the regularity of entries in the book, because on the 15th there were three different items to be entered, and that was included. Q. Is it the fashion in France to enter the receipt of a sum of money before it is received? A. It is not exactly a regular piece of business, but it hat been done to make one total sum of the different sums received—the big book was made up on the same evening, 16th February. Q. Do you mean to say that making up the books on 16th February you actually wrote on purpose that it had been received on the 15th? A. Possibly it may be an error in date—I came over here to give evidence before the Magistrate—I gave evidence about 16th October—I cannot say whether the prisoner complained that it had been arranged by the Magistrate that the case was not to be taken on that day—I don't know that it was promised on my behalf that I should come back again to be examined—I was not served with a subpoena that day—I don't remember receiving a summons to reappear—I think Mr. Hall was with me in the street—I do not recollect being served with a subpoena to attend, and being cross-examined on the prisoner's behalf—I came over twice, but I was not in Court—I was in London—this is my signature on this cheque, not Mr. Worth's—it has been sold and cashed in the same way—it is rather difficult for me to say whether this produced is a piece of my block note—the pieces resemble each other very much—I don't think Mr. Levy has received credit for this 40l.—I sent him over this cash, order produced—if this 13l. and 40l. are not entered they have not been received—the cheque which was passed through our changers, Messrs. Rodrigues, and signed by me, resembles the other certainly; but we have no entry of the receipt—the signature resembles mine, but that of Mr. Rodrigues does not—I cannot say that "Belperre" resembles his signature because I only know Rodrigues—Mr. Levy came on 24th February and took away 40l. in cash and gave this cheque—he said "Take that cheque and give me that 40l. in cash for my journey; "but this block note is false—I first suggested that it was not Mr. Rodrigues's writing because there are two brothers, and the other brother has signed it—there are only the other witnesses, the employes, the clerks who were present, and Rodrigues, who have a memorandum of account at the time—I must ask them to give me it—I have not got it—I say that this "C. Worth" is my writing—I believe this 13l. was paid on my behalf by Mr. Levy, but I must look at my books—I must

see the ledger, and that is in Paris. (The authority was here read:—" Paris, 14th November, 1876. Mr. Levy,—I beg to inform you that I yesterday handed Mr. George Seamer and Co. of London an order on you for 13l., which please be good enough to exchange for this order. You will deduct this sum from the first remittance you may have to make to me. Blancherdet for Messrs. Worth.") I have said before that I must look at the large book to see whether I have received credit for that 13l., and that book is in Paris—the cash order seems to me to be a receipt by his hand—I do not contest it at all, but I contest the receipt of the two sums—Mr. G. Seamer is a silk merchant in London—I do not know whether I owed him any more than 13l., but it was to settle an account which I owed him—he has never asked me for it since, but I cannot recollect it because we have had other transactions with him since—I beg to remark also that the date has nothing at all corresponding to the order in November with the payment in February—this cash order was November—I saw Levy on 24th February when he came and brought the cheque, and asked me to give him the money—I said no doubt before the Magistrate "In February, 1877, the defendant called on me in Paris at our office; I do not recollect seeing him again since. I saw him again in May, when he said he did not come on our business, but he had other business to transact; at the interview in February Levy handed me certain sums of money. I have a list of those sums; the figures in the list produced were written from the books by M. Blancherdet in my presence:" but seeing this cheque causes me to make an explanation which I hope the Court will allow me to make—it is true that I saw him in May; very likely it was a slip of memory when I said that I did not—on 16th February he brought me the five sums which have been mentioned—on the 24th he came again and asked me to take the cheque and give him 1,000 francs for his travelling expenses, consequently that cheque has nothing to do with our account—he may have left Paris between the 16th and 24th and came back again—I did not see him between those dates—this cheque reminds me of the transaction, it was in exchange for money—there is no book here which will show that transaction—Mr. Levy cannot prove the receipt of the 40l.—the large book would show the transaction of 16th February, but there is no book in existence which would show a transaction of this kind, which is only an exchange of money—M. Blancherdet never received money in the ordinary course of things, but in my absence from Paris payments would be made to him; but he would immediately certify me of it, and hand me the money over—all letters are filed and kept in the archive room.

Re-examined. In the small cash-book the entry of February 24, 1877, is Blancherdet's writing—it might be done in my presence or not—I was present when the cheque of 40l. was given to him, and I gave Levy the cash for it—if these two amounts, Dorchester and Crocker, had been paid at that time they would immediately have been entered to the credit of those persons—there is no such entry on the 24th February—this is Mr. Worth's letter-book (produced)—this letter of 6th June, 1877, is an impression from Blancherdet's writing—I read all the letters (looking at it); this was written by my orders—all the letters are sent off every evening by a servant—I cannot recollect whether I received this letter (another) but if I did it ought to be on the dossier—it resembles Mr. Levy's signature. (The Solicitor-General stated that he admitted it to be Mr. Levy's writing, and it was put in and translated; it was dated 7th June, 1877, from E. Levy to Mr. Worth, stating that Mr. Crocker had written to ask him to accept his conditions, which he could not do, not being able to depend upon his word, and was therefore taking measures to have him declared bankrupt.) When I paid the cash for the 40l. cheque Blancherdet and another clerk were present—I did not receive a letter relating to Lord Dorchester's cheque about 19th December, 1876—I do not think Mrs. Carlton's name is written in the bad-debt ledger, but I must consult the big book for that purpose—no sum corresponding with the two amounts of Carlton and Crocker is entered on the 24th in either of these two cash-books—any sum paid in respect of the bad-debt ledger would be entered specially.

EZRA LIVERMORE . I am manager of the Covent Garden branch of the London and County Bank—on 12th October, 1876, an account was opened there by the defendent in the name of Fisher and Co., 28, Leicester Square—the drawing signature was given as J. C. Fisher and Co., and the name of the individual partner John Cambridge Fisher—I should say that at that time I did not know that the defendant's name was Levy; I thought it was Fisher—I know now that he is the man who opened the account; he signed J. C. Fisher, and it was operated upon by the same signature and no other—on 23rd November this cheque of Lord Dorchester's for 29l., endorsed C. J. Worth," was paid in to the credit of J. C. Fisher and Co. in a total of 54l. 17s. 8d.—I have the paying-in slip here.

FREDERICK THOMAS HALL . I am one of the firm of Denton, Hall, and Barker, 15, Gray's Inn Square—in December, 1877, I received a communication from Mr. Worth in Paris, and addressed this letter on 17th December to Mr. Levy: "Sir,—Yourself v. Worth. Enclosed we send you a copy of a power of attorney which has been sent to Mr. Worth of Paris to our Mr. Hall to require you to give a full account respecting the debts which he placed in your hands to collect, and Mr. Hall will call upon you at 28, Leicester Square, on Wednesday next. &c. Signed, Denton, Hall, and Barker." That letter enclosed this list of the debts in question (produced) with blank columns opposite—it contains among other entries "393, Hon. Mrs. Carlton 29l.; amount remitted to Mr. Worth. 355, J. Crocker, 130l.; carried out 3,250 francs; amount remitted to Mr. Worth" I had some correspondence with Levy as to a personal interview, and on 3rd January I had an interview with him at 28, Leicester Square—I made a memorandum of what took place immediately afterwards—I showed Levy the original receipt from Mr. Worth—the left-hand side consists of the debts, of which I had previously given him a list, and the right side the payments or credits, which Messrs. Worth gave him, and he produced a copy of another account which had been sent him with the questions—this is what I had to go by—among other entries here is "Nov. 16: Ch. Seamen par M. Levy pour notre compt 13l. 325f."—I showed them all to him—next day, January 4, I wrote him this letter, and enclosed a copy of this' side of the account. (This informed Mr. Levy that it was necessary to put in writing the exact position in which affairs stood, reminding him that Messrs. Andrews and Mason had been unable to obtain from him the particulars of his receipts and payments for Mr. Worth, who had therefore executed a power of attorney to Messrs. Hall, under which they demanded to know whether certain sums due to Mr. Worth had been collected or not, and the nature of all proceedings them pending.) I received the following

answer. (This was dated Jan. 7, 1878, from the defendant to Benton and Hall, stating that his refusal to account was by Mr. Worth's admission untrue, and that he was about to take proceedings in Paris against Mr. Worth for his breach of agreement, and that his agent would be instructed to deliver to Mr. Worth direct particulars of the account, and stating that Fisher and Co. had not to his knowledge received any moneys for Mr. Worth except such as he (Levy) had sent to him, or such as would be credited to him in the account then being made out.) In consequence of that I made a communication to Lord Dorchester, and received from him the cheque which has been produced to-day.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. I was at Bow Street when M. Mantel was in the witness box—I don't know whether I was there the whole time—I believe Mr. Edward Lewis, the attorney, was defending Mr. Levy—I believe no promise was made that M. Mantel should come back again to be cross-examined—I believe, on the contrary, that an application was made that he should come back, and the Magistrate refused to grant it—Mr. Wontner was conducting the prosecution, and I was there to assist him—he has a letter from Mr. Levy to me of 2nd February, 1878. (This being produced stated: "In reply to yours of yesterday's date, you must be aware how absurd your demand for 512l. 2s. 6d. is in pursuance of the particulars delivered to me, inasmuch as I personally paid at Mr. Worth's part of the items which you set out. You may adopt any proceedings against me in bankruptcy that you may think lit, but I give you this notice for your Mr. Hall, that I hold him personally liable for any injury I may sustain by reason of these malicious proceedings, &c. E. L. Levy.") The 29l. is included in that list, but I should prefer seeing the letter to which that is a reply—(Looking at it) yes I presume Mrs. Carleton's or Lord Dorchester's name was included in it—I received Lord Dorchester's cheque about 10th January, 1878—the letter is dated 9th January, from Coxail; the postmark is January 10—I had a long correspondence with Mr. Levy and received many letters from him in 1878—I thought the C. Worth on the cheque in question was not Mr. Worth's natural writing—I thought it was his writing, but what I did think was that it was the same name—it looked like an imitation of a French signature; it has a tail which the French generally put to their signatures, but which Mr. Worth only puts to a limited extent—I think it is Mr. Levy's writing—in July, 1878, I proceeded in one of the Courts at Westminster and annexed this cheque to an affidavit—I know that in July or August Mr. Fisher died—I do not know when this charge was first preferred against Levy, but I presume it was shortly before Mr. Wontner communicated with me—I first saw in the papers that Mr. Levy had been charged with some other offence—I have never been charged with forgery—I have heard of Madame Valentine—you were my Counsel in that matter—I should like to explain—as solicitor I had in the course of the proceedings to put a document in in evidence; the solicitor on the other side, Montague Leverson, took the extraordinary course of giving me in charge and afterwards accusing me of tendering a document which was forged, not of forging it—the merits of the case were tried before the Lord Chief Justice for a whole week, and it was decided that the document was genuine—the prosecutor was first charged with the offence in October, I believe, and he was acquitted—I believe Mr. Montague Leverson was articled clerk to the prisoner—I was only tried on one indictment, but

there were three—it was in the Queen's Bench—after a six days' trial the Jury were not out of the box 20 minutes—it was the 13th June, 1867—I wrote the letter of 4th January for the purpose of putting upon record what had taken place, because I knew what kind of man I had to deal with; and for the same reason I took the note which I have here, because I knew he was connected with Leverson—Leverson did not prosecute me; he had been the solicitor, but he absconded next day, and has never come back.

The following Witnesses were called for the Defence.

LOUIS FONTENOY (Through an Interpreter). I am an embroiderer in gold, and live at 385, Rue de Pyrenees—I remember going with Mr. Levy to Mr. Worth's in 1877—I met him on the Boulevards—I knew him before—he told me that he was going to see Mr. Worth, and I asked him to introduce me, believing that he would want some embroidery done—it was at the end of February, but I cannot say the day we went to Mr. Worth's—I did not know the name of the gentleman who was there; all I can say is, that Mr. Levy had to do with a man who took snuff—he was about my size, but he was sitting down, and therefore I did not remark him much—he was looking over some papers, and Mr. Levy took off something from what is called a block note, I think, and wrote something on it and gave it to the gentleman, and Mr. Levy took out his pocket-book and took out of it what I believe to be a cheque, which he filled up and handed it to the gentleman, and in exchange for it a large sheet of paper was given to him, on which the signature of Mr. Worth was requested by Mr. Levy—I believe I heard it mentioned that the cheque was for 40l.—it was the same shade of colour as the one produced—of course I don't know what Levy's business was; all I know is that they were laughing a great deal, and 1 heard it mentioned about a Lord, whose Lady ordered some goods and would not pay—when Mr. Levy asked for the signature they said that Mr. Worth was absent, but that Mr. Levy was to continue to act as he had previously done for the interests of the house, and the paper was not signed—when we went out Mr. Levy said, "Since I have been in Paris, I have already paid over 10,000 francs"—one or two other persons were present in the room besides me and Mr. Levy—this paper is the sort of thing on which Mr. Levy wrote—it had been detatched from the little book—I did not see any money given to Mr. Levy by the gentleman there, in paper or cash—I shook hands with Mr. Levy at the corner of the Rue Neuve des Petits Champs, and he said that he was going back that night.

Cross-examined by MR. GORST. I first stated the tale I have told to-day when Mr. Levy's son called on me in February last, begging me to come and speak for his father—Mr. Worth was not at home, and therefore he could not introduce me—I have never seen Mr. Worth in Paris, and never had any business transactions with him—I first made Mr. Levy's acquaintance in October, 1876, at the Hotel Berger, Rue Bergor, Paris—one of my relatives procured me some work, and Mr. Levy undertook the recovery of the money—I handed him several invoices at the hotel which were due to me in London; one was from a lady called Burt, who lived at 40, Circus Row, but the acquaintance was through a relative of mine, M. Bayard, who is now in Paris—I don't think he gave evidence at the polioe-court—I know that it was in February. 1877, that Levy and I went to Worth's because my brother-in-law wrote to me and told me to go and see Mr. Levy at this hotel—I have not got my brother-in-law's letter, but I know it was in

February, because I know it was cold weather, and it was at the end of a month—he told me to meet Mr. Levy at the Hotel Berger—we went from the hotel along the Boulevards to Mr. Worth's—I have sot recognised any one to-day who saw us when we went there—I do not know M. Mantel.

Re-examined. That is not the gentleman who took snuff and sat down, he was a broad-chested gentleman, showing a great deal of white shirt.

LOUIS PHILIPPE MANTEL (Re-examined). I do not take snuff, only sometimes when I want to sneeze.

ALFRED LAVIGERIE . I am a teacher of languages at several establishments—I have no establishment of my own—I have sent it over to a company for three or four months—I was formerly in the prisoner's employ, not as a clerk, but for the purpose of writing letters in French and translating them—I left him at the beginning or middle of March, 1877; I am certain it was before the 20th—here are two letters on this page of the press letter book which are in my writing; the one on the left is dated 18th December, 1876; I wrote it at the time it bears date and posted it to Mr. Worth at Paris—this is the posting book produced, it was kept by myself; here is my writing here and the name of Messrs. Worth, and my initials—I have some recollection of some matters of 'mine which I had to do on that day, that is how I remember it; having read the letter I called to mind the circumstances under which it was written—I called on that day at the office as usual, and I was instructed to write a letter; it was rather late and I was going away; I was called back when I was on the staircase, by the prisoner, who said "You must write another letter, and quick," and he gave me the substance of it, which I pencilled out, and wrote it at once and sent it off—it was not part of my duty to copy it, but he said "Will you copy it? which way are you going?"—I said "To Camberwell"—he said "Will you post it at Charing Cross?" and I did so—I copied it; I had some pressing business that evening at Camberwell, and not being used to the copying press, here are two or three words which, though it is my writing, I cannot read, because it is rather blotted, and that makes me remember I had to do it in a hurry—I have no interest in Mr. Levy or connection with him, I never saw him more than once after I left, there is no friendship between us—I am under a subpoena to prove this letter. (The letter was translated as follows: "18th December, 1876. To Monsieur Worth, 7, Rue de la Paix, Paris. I see that my son in writing to you to-day sending you cheque for Gagner has forgotten (notwithstanding I had told him to do so) to inform you that Lord Dorchester (Carleton) had sent a cheque for your account at the end of last month, and that I had endorsed it and passed it to your credit, having paid your draft upon us for Seaman. We will balance our account when I am in Paris, I think at the end of next month. I thought you had been advised of this receipt by my son, and I regret this involuntary omission the more so as his Lordship wrote that you were not to give further credit to his wife. Accept, &c, E. Levy." I had written another letter for him before that day.

Cross-examined by MR. GORST. The entry in the posting-book is "Messrs. Worth, 6.40, Charing Cross"—that is my writing in here, or my initials; I made that entry on leaving the office—I meant to say that I made that entry on 18th December, 1876, before I left—I stopped till the following mail—I have said that I was called back again; a clerk was in the office when I left, and the prisoner was in his room; I cannot remember whether

Daniel Levy was there—I have posted a few letters, but it was not a part of my duty—I don't know M. Mantel—I never had any private correspondence with him—I do not know any other M. Mantel besides the one at Mr. Worth's—I cannot say whether I ever posted another letter to M. Mantel in that way at a late hour in the evening unless my initials are to the letter—I posted a very few letters, and when I did I put my initials—I don't think I ever wrote one to him, if I did it was in French, but I did not write the whole of the letters—this entry of the letter on 11th December to M. Mantel "6.30, Charing Cross," is my writing—this letter of 11th December to M. Mantel (looking at the letter-book) is my writing—I had to write several letters to him in French—I am satisfied that I posted it, because my initial is there—I wrote two letters on 18th December; I wrote the first in the office; I have no room there; I used to sit in the office, or go into Mr. Levy's room—I had no place fixed; this letter was copied by me immediately after it was written, and it is soiled—I do not know whose charge the letter-book was in, it was always left in the office—I wrote those two letters that day with ink from the same pot, I think with copying ink—I am certain I was first spoken to at Bow Street nearly six months ago about giving evidence about the letter; I cannot say the day; the posting-book used to be on the shelf; the clerk in the office would be the party in charge of it—I was told to make the entry of what time I should post it, and I did so, and put my initials—the case was commenced when I was asked to give evidence, because I remember reading of Mr. Levy being brought before the Magistrate, and a few days afterwards I was called upon, and asked to attend the Court, which I did.

Re-examined. I gave my evidence, and had my depositions taken, after being kept a long time—(Notice to produce the letter of 11th December having been given and not complied with, the Court permitted the Solicitor-General to give secondary evidence of it, and it was read to the witness in English)—that is a correct translation.

DANIEL LEVY . I am the prisoner's son, and a clerk in Messrs. Fisher's office—I remember M. Mantel being examined at Bow Street—Mr. Lewis, the solicitor, was not present that day, and M. Mantel was not cross-examined—there was no one there to do it.

MR. GORST in reply Re-called

LOUIS PHILIPPE MANTEL . I have seen Louis Fontenoy to-day for the first time—I did not see him or anybody come to Mr. Worth's with Levy—I have read the press copy of the letter of 11th December, and I do not recollect ever receiving it, and I am sure I never received the letter of 18th December.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. I am quite sure I never received the letter of llth December; it would not be addressed to me, but to Mr. Worth—he never wrote to me personally, except on one occasion, and that was when I wrote a very feeling letter to him saying that I was responsible for what happened, and hoped he would render an account faith-fully; he answered that to me personally—I did not look for a letter of 11th December, because it is useless to do so—this letter of 28th October, 1876, was written by Blancherdet, and received by me; it says" Would it not be possible in cases of simply demanding payment from those ladies, you should write your letters on private paper without a heading of your house of business. It would not frighten so much. It would only be after

many ineffectual attempts that you should use your headed paper"—I not only wrote that, but I told him verbally—I would not have authorised him to have paper with that heading—I was to act as private agent, not as solicitor—I say that he could not have written such a letter to me just because he acted as solicitor—he did considerably wrong and that was the way we found it out—he did not pay us the money he received—he was written to, and told not to act as solicitor: he was only to sue people or take proceedings, with our consent (A letter from the defendant to Mr. Worth, dated 30th October, 1876, was also put in, alleging a conversation with Mr. Worth in Mr. Mantel's presence, in which he said that he would not charge for his expenses, and that he adhered scrupulously to his engagements.)

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.


View as XML