WILLIAM HOWE, WILLIAM THOMPSON, GAVIN RICKARDS, Miscellaneous > conspiracy, 18th September 1854.

Reference Number: t18540918-997
Offence: Miscellaneous > conspiracy
Verdict: Guilty > no_subcategory; Guilty > no_subcategory; Guilty > no_subcategory
Punishment: Imprisonment > no_subcategory

997. WILLIAM HOWE, WILLIAM THOMPSON , and GAVIN RICKARDS were indicted for unlawfully conspiring, by falsely swearing and false representations, to procure the discharge upon bail, of one Mary Ann Blatchford, then in custody on a charge of felony; in 5 other COUNTS the same charge was further stated; in 6th COUNTS, the defendants were charged with conspiring in like manner to procure the discharge of one Charles Roberts; and in 7th COUNT, with conspiring to procure the discharge of one John Collins.

MESSRS. BODKIN, BALLANTINE, and SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.

(After MR. BODKIN, in his opening, had stated the particulars relating to the first case of conspiracy alleged in the indictment, MR. PARRY, for the defendant Howe, interposed, and objected to the other cases being gone into; as the indictment contained no general Count for conspiracy, he submitted that the prosecutors were bound to elect upon which case they would proceed. He

could not point to any precedent which would support his application to the letter; but it was reasonable and fair that persons should be tried only for one offence upon one indictment; here there were three distinct charges, having no connection with each other, separately alleged in different Counts, and affecting differently the parties charged; and although the latitude was allowed at common law of placing any number of misdemeanors in one indictment, yet that had been rather for the purpose of stating in various ways the particular offence (the facts of which might not be thoroughly understood until proved in Court), and adapting some of the several Counts to the nature of the case, according to the judgment or skill of the pleader. MR. BODKIN contended that this was an objection which, if sustainable at all, was apparent upon the face of the record, and the defendants should have demurred, or taken the opinion of the Court at an earlier stage. It was perfectly clear in law that any number of misdemeanors might be included in one indictment; and by a modern act, more than one case of felony might now be included in the same indictment; he therefore submitted that the objection was not tenable. MR. JUSTICE ERLE was of opinion (in which MR. JUSTICE CROWDER concurred) that the prosecutors clearly had a right, according to law, to lay before the Jury, separate misdemeanors, and if there was any ground for interference in respect of convenience, it could only be done when the case had been heard. MR. BODKIN then stated the facts of the other cases to the Jury, after which MR. JUSTICE ERLE expressed an opinion that although by the strict rule of law, these cases might each be laid before the Jury, yet it might be inconvenient where the evidence affected the parties charged, in a different manner, and therefore it would be better that the prosecutors should elect upon which case to proceed. MR. BALLANTINE suggested that in the event of their electing to proceed upon any one Count, autrefois acquit might be pleaded as to the others.

MR. PARRY did not think that possible, but was willing, in conjunction with Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Horne for the other defendants, to consent that the Jury should be discharged from giving any verdict upon the other Counts. That course was accordingly adopted, and the case relating to Blatchford, was elected to be proceeded with.)

WILLIAM CLARK . I live at No. 11, Richmond-terrace, Islington. I am clerk to Mr. Justice Coleridge—I produce an affidavit purporting to have been made by the defendant Howe, on 19th April last—it merely verifies certain depositions taken against two persons named Blatchford and Scott—I know Howe—I have frequently seen him write—I believe the signature to this affidavit to be his writing—I cannot say that he was present when the affidavit was used; I presume he was.

(In this affidavit, Howe described himself as clerk to Mr. Reuben Simpson, of No. 107, Blackfriars-road, attorney-at-law, and stated that the copy of the depositions annexed to his affidavit, was a true copy. The depositions were put in and read, and stated the particulars of the robbery alleged to have been committed by two persons, named Blatchford and Scott, upon Mrs. M'Arthur, the wife of Col. M'Arthur, of No. 25, Francis-street, Woolwich.)

WILLIAM CLARK (continued). I produce another affidavit, purporting to be the affidavit of Blatchford—I have no recollection who produced that, but I presume Mr. Howe did; I cannot say positively—they were laid before Mr. Justice Coleridge—I have a memorandum, that a writ of certiorari was directed to issue; that is the usual mode, it is an indorsement upon the affidavit in Mr. Justice Coleridge's handwriting; it directs a writ to issue, and summonses to the committing Magistrate, and to the prosecutrix, to show cause why Mary Ann Blatchford should not be discharged upon bail—I have

no other affidavit of Howe's—this one was sworn before me; I am a Commissioner for taking affidavits—this memorandum directing the writ to issue, was made on 22nd April—on 27th April, I was in attendance at the Judges' Chambers—I saw Howe there—he presented a paper to me (looking atone)—the summons was heard before Mr. Justice Wightman, and his clerk has the affidavit (they were produced)—I cannot swear to the defendant Thompson's handwriting—I have a slight belief about it; I know him, and very likely I have seen him write, and acted upon his writing, but I cannot call it to mind—as far as my belief goes, I think I have seen him write, and I believe this signature of "William Thompson" to be his writing—the signature to this other affidavit I believe to be Howe's—they appear to have been made before Mr. Justice Wightman; I believe they were sworn before Mr. Morris.

(The affidavits were here read, they were dated 25th April, 1854; both Howe and Thompson described themselves as "clerk to Reuben Simpson, of No. 107, Blackfriars-road, attorney-at-law;" Howe deposed to serving Mr. Hardwick, the Magistrate, with a true copy of the summons, who had not attended to oppose the same; and Thompson deposed to serving a copy of the summons upon Mary Elizabeth M'Arthur, by delivering the same to a female servant at her dwelling house, No. 25, Francis-street, Woolwich, and that no one attended on her behalf to oppose the same. The summons dated 22nd April, 1854, was to attend at Chambers on the Friday following, to show cause why Mary Ann Blatchford should not be admitted to bail.)

WILLIAM CLARK (continued.) The paper that Howe produced on the 27th, was a notice with a consent at the back—I am certain that Howe produced it; this is it (read: "Notice. 25th April, 1854. The Queen against Mary Ann Blatchford; felony. Take notice, that I shall tender as bail for the abovenamed Mary Ann Blatchford, on Thursday, 27th April, at half past two o'clock in the afternoon, William Hughes, of the Sportsman beer shop, Grange-road, Bermondsey, beer shop keeper, and William Rock, of No. 4, Beaumont-square, Mile End-road, bookseller, pursuant to the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Wightman, here-unto annexed. Signed, Reuben Simpson, No. 107, Blackfriars-road."—That order is, "Upon hearing the affidavits of William Howe and William Thompson, I do order that the prisoner, Mary Ann Blatchford, be admitted to bail as to this charge, William Blatchford, her husband, in the sum of 100l. and two sureties of 50l. each; the prisoner to give forty-eight hours' notice of bail to the prosecutrix"—I really do not know whose handwriting this "Reuben Simpson" is; I do not know Mr. Simpson's handwriting—I should rather think it is Howe's handwriting, but I could not swear it; it was produced to me by Howe—I really cannot say whose handwriting it is—that order would operate as a discharge of Blatchford, upon bail being put in—bail would not be accepted if the forty-eight hours' notice was not given, unless the parties come and consent—if no consent is given, then we require proof of the forty-eight hours' notice; but where consent is given, and parties appear on both sides, it is dispensed with—at the time Howe showed me the notice, he told me that he had got a consent to the bail; and at the same time he produced this paper (read: "I consent to the within bail. R. Hare, 27th April, 1854")—upon seeing that, I said, "Who is R. Hare," or "Mr. Hare?"—Howe said, "The prosecutrix's attorney"—I said, "If so, he must state himself as such," and I gave him back the paper—at that time there were several persons standing round; I did not notice any one, not to know the person—in the course of a minute or two Howe returned the paper to me with these words, "Prosecutrix's attorney" added to it—I did

not notice anybody write those words—I cannot swear that I saw a person write the words; the paper was returned to me immediately by Howe, wet, the ink was not dry; he certainly did not write it himself—I know Gavin Rickards very well—I did not see him there on that occasion that I know of—upon that consent the order was made for the discharge—I have known Gavin Rickards acting at the Judges' Chambers for many years, as clerk to different attorneys—I think I know his handwriting—I could not swear to this being his handwriting—I have no belief as to the hand writing, I cannot say one way or the other—I could not say I believe it to be his handwriting—I am not sufficiently acquainted with his handwriting to say so—Howe certainly did not write it, he was so close to me that I must have seen him, and I should not have received it if he had done it—the ink was wet when it was handed to me; I remember blotting it up.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. I take it from you that the affidavit verifying the copy of the deposition is the usual mode of making these applications? A. Yes; an affidavit verifying a copy of the depositions is not required in all cases—it is very frequently done—the other affidavit of Howe is simply of the service upon the Magistrate—I did not know Mr. Simpson—Howe always professed to act as clerk to Mr. Simpson—I should say I have known him professing to act as clerk of Mr. Simpson for some years at the Judges' Chambers—I should think I have known him acting in civil proceedings as well as in criminal—it is the constant practice for attorneys to act at Judges' Chambers by their clerks—the majority of them act there through their clerks, and they have audience before the Judge just the same as an attorney or barrister—I should say that the managing clerk more frequently attends to business than the principal—some of the great attorneys, I should think, I may never have seen—clerks have frequently signed the names of their principals—I believe the majority of consents given are signed by clerks—I think a consent to release a party from custody for debt may have been frequently signed in that way—I cannot call to mind any particular occasion.

COURT. Q. Would you take a consent for the discharge of a prisoner out of gaol for debt, signed by a clerk, as a sufficient authority for his discharge? A. I should say, if that clerk had been in an office that I knew, and had been conducting the proceedings throughout, I do not know that I should have had any objection, up to the present time—I should not in future, of course.

MR. PARRY. Q. As a general rule, the majority of summonses purporting to have the consent of the principals are signed by the clerk? A. In the majority of cases; but for the discharge of a prisoner for a large sum of money, I should not take it—I have known Howe practising for many years in the Judges' Chambers, and should say in all sorts of proceedings—when there is a summons at the Judges' Chambers, and one party is waiting for the other, it is the practice to call out the name of the cause over and over again—I did not on 27th April hear Howe call out, "The Queen against Blatchford," that I know of; I did not notice—I do not remember how long Howe was there upon that day—I cannot say whether he called out over and over again, "The Queen and Blatchford"—I do not remember at what time in the afternoon the order for the discharge was made—I have some-times known the clerks of Magistrates attend before the Judges with the depositions on questions of bail—it is a very noisy place sometimes outside the Judges' Chambers—I do not know that Magistrates' clerks have attended to oppose bail; they may have gone in—I do not attend inside, unless I am required to go in—another gentleman attends inside, but I take

it he would not take any notice of what was going forward before the Judge—applications are frequently made to admit persons to bail, who have been committed for trial—counsel have frequently attended to make such applications, and have handed in affidavits—attorneys have attended as well as attorneys' clerks—I do not remember a book of practice being looked at at the time these recognizances were being entered into—I do not remember assisting them as regards the form of the recognizance—they might have asked for the book of practice; I do not remember it—they would have had it if they had asked for it—sometimes it is asked for.

Cross-examined by MR. HORNE. Q. You say you have known Rickards for some years? A. I have; I cannot say for how many; it may have been fifteen or twenty—I do not remember his acting as clerk to Milne, Parry, and Morris, or to Poole, Greenfield, and Gamlin, or to Messrs. Rogers—I do not know to what particular parties he was clerk—I do not know how long I have known him acting as clerk to Mr. Hare—I did not know for whom he was acting—I do not mean that he was acting as clerk to different attorneys at the same time—he has changed from one office to another—I have no recollection what offices he was in—I have seen him in the habit of attending Chambers many years—he is very well known there—he has acted before this, in criminal proceedings—I do not recollect any particular instance—I can state positively that he has, but I cannot say in what instance—the person who wrote the words "Prosecutrix's attorney" must have stood not far from me—Howe was the nearest to me—he handed me the paper—I gave it him back again, and in the course of a very short time he handed it to me again, with those words added to it, and not dry—that leads me to infer that the person who wrote it was standing near to him, and certainly not far from me—I did not see Rickards that day to my knowledge—I believe he lives in the same neighbourhood as I do—he once came to me to swear an affidavit—he said he lived near.

MR. BALLANTINE. Q. You have been asked about Rickards and Howe acting as clerks to attorneys; do you know anything about their being clerks to any attorneys at all, except from what they described themselves? A. From their attendance there as clerks to attorneys; from their own representations—I know now that there is such a person as Mr. Hare—he was pointed out to me at Bow-street by somebody—I have seen Mr. Hare at Chambers, if it was Mr. Hare who was pointed out to me at Bow-street—I do not know, except from what Rickards himself represented, that he was clerk to Mr. Hare at all.

Q. Do you know whether there is any such person as Reuben Simpson? A. A person was pointed out to me this morning as Mr. Simpson—I do not know, except from Howe's representations, that he was clerk to that person; I have no knowledge of it—I was in the lobby of this Court when somebody said, "There is Mr. Simpson"—Howe has on many occasions, indeed I believe always, represented himself as clerk to Mr. Simpson—it is a very common case, so many summonses as we have, to take the signature of a clerk representing the principal.

Q. Do you mean that you would do so in such a case as the one in which the signature of Hare, as the prosecutrix's attorney, was signed? A. Knowing the party in this case, Mr. Howe, who has attended us upon so many occasions, and coming through his hands, I accepted it, because I did not know who gave the consent, I supposed it was given by Mr. Hare—I supposed it to be Mr. Hare's writing—if I had not supposed it to be Mr. Hare's writing, I should not have allowed the writ to issue.

Q. In the discharge of a person out of custody who has been charged

with a felony, is or is not the principal's signature necessary, or would the clerk's be taken? A. I say again, that would depend upon circumstances—in some offices where I know the clerk, and where he has conducted the whole of the proceedings, and I know that he is authorized to proceed and act in the matter, I should take his consent—until Mr. Hare was pointed out to me the other day, I did not know him as Mr. Hare—I knew him personally—I certainly should not have taken the signature of a clerk of a Mr. Hare—I should not have taken any signature but the principal's in that case, but in some cases, where I am acquainted with the office, and where I know the clerk is authorized to conduct the proceedings, and where he has conducted them throughout, I should take his consent—in this case I should not have taken the consent of any person representing himself to be clerk to a Mr. Hare, because I did not know Mr. Hare—if Howe had not represented this to be Hare's signature, I should not have allowed it to pass.

JURY. Q. If Howe had called out "The Queen against Blatchford" several times in the Chambers, should you not have heard him? A. I very likely might have heard him, but I should have taken no notice of it; perhaps there may be fifty persons calling out at the same time the names of the cases in which they are attending; we pay no attention to it; it does not apply to us—I do not know who it was that pointed out Mr. Hare to me at Bow-street—it was when we were attending in this case before the Magistrate, and some one said, "There is Mr. Hare."

MR. METCALFE. Q. It was the Magistrate himself, was it not? A. I do not know; some one said, "Here is Mr. Hare, brought here in custody from the Queen's Bench"—that was while I was being examined—I do not know that it was Mr. Hare.

MR. PARRY. Q. Has not Mr. Reuben Simpson also been pointed out to you? A. Yes, to-day, in the lobby—MR. Allen was not present at the time—some one said, "There is Mr. Simpson"—I cannot say who it was that said so.

FREDERICK MORRIS . I am clerk to Mr. Justice Wightman, and am a Commissioner for taking affidavits in the Queen's Bench. I administered the oaths to Howe and Thompson upon these affidavits on the day they bear date—they were afterwards handed to Mr. Justice Wightman, who was then sitting.

Cross-examined by MR. HORNE. Q. Have you known Mr. Rickards? A. Personally—I cannot say that I have known him acting in the different firms that have been mentioned—I knew him acting for Messrs. Rogers, of Westminster, I should say fifteen years ago, as their managing clerk—I do not remember how many years he acted for them—I do not know anything about his acting for Mr. Hare, further than was represented upon the day in question, the 27th.

COURT. Q. Do you know of his acting for Hare on the 27th? A. No, cannot say that he acted for him on that day.

MR. HORNE. Q. Then you have no knowledge of your own, of his acting for Mr. Hare? A. No.

JAMES ROGERS . I am a solicitor, carrying on business with my brother at Westminster. Rickards was in our employment—I think he left in 1841—I know his handwriting perfectly well—I have no doubt that the signature to this affidavit is his writing.

COURT. Q. Which is the part that you say is his writing? A. The whole of this: "I consent to the within bail. R. Hare, 27th April, 1854. Prosecutrix's attorney."

Cross-examined by MR. HONE. Q. That is his natural usual hand-writing? A. Yes—I recognized that as his writing at once—I think he was in our office five or six years.

THOMAS GOODMAN . I am a boot and shoe maker, and live in Chapel-street, Lamb's Conduit-street. I know Howe and Rickards; Howe I have known since the latter end of Oct., or the beginning of Nov. last; and Rickards from about the latter end of Nov.—I have been in the habit of seeing them frequently together at the Ship public house, in Clifford's Inn-passage; that is near the Judges' Chambers—I have heard them addressing each other as if they were acquainted—I have seen them there I may safely say upon twenty different occasions—I consulted Howe about getting my mother out—I went to him, thinking that he was a lawyer; I did not ask him the question, neither did he say that he was or was not—he undertook the business that I went to him upon—Rickards had nothing to do with that business—in the course of my communication with Howe, he told me that he could get me bail—I told him that I had bail—this was about Nov. last—he said there was an error in the case relating to my mother, and he would go through the case and get her out, and find bail for a certain amount of money, and the bail would not come to much—I said I did not require bail, as I had got two bail of my own, who had stood bail for my mother upon a former occasion—he said nothing to me about the bail swearing, or about money.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Is the public house in Clifford's Inn-passage frequented by the persons who attend the Judges' Chambers? A. I cannot say—I have seen a great number of persons there that I have seen at the Judges' Chambers when I have been there with Mr. Howe—my mother was then in prison—before she was taken into custody, she lived at No. 13, Brydges-street, Covent-garden—I live at No. 29, White Hart-street, Drury-lane—I do not live with my mother; I used to visit her regularly—I did not take my meals there regularly, I did sometimes—she was charged with keeping a brothel.

Cross-examined by MR. HORNE. Q. Will you swear that you have been upon as many as twenty or fifteen occasions to this public house? A. Yes—I went there on business with Mr. Howe—I have only spoken to Rickards upon one occasion; that was not at the public house, it was at my house—there were many other persons at the public house when I was there—I cannot tell you the name of one, except it was Rickards, Thompson, and Howe, and parties who went with me—I might know the parties by sight, but not by name.

MR. BODKIN. Q. On what occasion was it that Rickards came to your house? A. On the last morning that I was subpoenaed to attend here—he asked for Mr. Goodman, and I opened the door and said, "l am Mr. Good-man"—he said, "Do you rent this house?"-—I said, "Yes, I do"—he said, "Who is your superior landlord?"—I said, "I do not think proper to inform you"—he said, "I don't ask it out of any insult, but I am pressed by those who are conducting my business, to ask you"—I said, "I do not think proper to answer the question"—he said, "Do you know me?"—I said, "Yes, you are Mr. Rickards;" and that was all that passed.

GEORGE SMITH . I am waiter at the Castle Tavern, King-street, Cheapside. I know Howe and Rickards; I have known Howe for about eight or nine months, and the first time I saw Rickards was, I think, about seven months ago—I saw them in front of our bar; they were together drinking at lunch time—I knew they were solicitors; at least, I knew that Mr.

Howe was a solicitor, or a solicitor's clerk, I did not know which—I did not hear what Rickards was—he appeared to be in the same capacity as Mr. Howe—sometimes he had papers with him, and sometimes not—they were known to each other—I have seen them together two or three times; I won't say more, because I don't always notice persons there.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Is your house near Guildhall? A. Yes; the sittings there were on once when I saw Mr. Howe—our house is frequented by persons attending the police court and the Nisi Prius courts, attorneys' clerks and others—they were taking their luncheon.

CHARLES SMITH (policeman, F 87). I am the summoning officer at Bow-street. I served Rickards with a summons on this charge—I told him it was for conspiracy with Mr. Howe, and others—he said he did not know Mr. Howe, he did not know anything about it—I also served Howe, and told him the same—he said, "Gavin Rickards, who is Gavin Rickards? I don't know that I know Gavin Rickards"—I then described to him, as well as I could, what sort of a man Gavin Rickards was, and he said, "Well, I might have seen Gavin Rickards; I don't know that I have; I might have seen Gavin Rickards; it is very likely that I might have seen him"—I said he frequently attended Judges' Chambers—he said, "It is very likely I have seen him at Judges' Chambers when I have been there."

FREDERICK WILLIAM HILL . I am keeper of the House of Detention, Clerkenwell. I produce the commitment of Mary Ann Blatchford to that gaol—I also produce a discharge signed by Mr. Justice Coleridge—she was discharged on 27th April last, pursuant to that order.

JOHN M'ARTHUR . I am a colonel in the Marines, and reside at No. "25, Francis-street, Woolwich. I have lived there just a twelvemonth—a person named Blatchford was charged with having committed a robbery upon Mrs. M'Arthur, and I was bound over to prosecute—I employed Mr. Pearce, a solicitor, of Woolwich, to conduct the prosecution—I first instructed him on 17th April.

Q. Did you at any time employ or instruct a person of the name of Hare to act as your attorney? A. I know of no such person—I never heard of such a person until the name transpired in Court—I never received, or heard of any one in my house receiving any notice in reference to the discharge of Blatchford on bail—I had one female servant in the house, named Wilson—I had no other servant living in the house—on 22nd April there was no other servant in the house—I think I can conscientiously swear that I was at home the whole of that day, and my persuasion is that no kind of document was delivered at my house—I never saw one, and never heard of one—I have a memorandum here in my own handwriting, concerning the state of my health at that time—I should not wish it looked at—I was under a particular treatment of medicine at the time—it was made that evening—looking at that, I am able positively to say that I was at home all the day, and did not go out of the house—it was a wet day—I never heard of any application to discharge the woman until I got to the Sessions, and found that she was not there—I think that was on 4th May.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. My friend asked you whether you? had any other inmates; I believe you confined your answer to servants? A. I had a nephew there, and my wife; and a son slept in the house who came home at 8 o'clock in the evening—there was nobody else whatever.

MAY ELIZABETH M'ARTHUR . I am the wife of Colonel M'Arthur. In April last I was robbed by a person named Blatchford, who was committed for the offence—I never received any notice that any application was about

to be made to admit her to bail—I never heard of any such application being about to be made.

Q. Did you, in the course of that matter, ever employ a person of the name of Rickards or Hare to act for you or on your behalf? A. I did not even know such parties.

HARRIET WILSON . I was in the service of Colonel M'Arthur in April and May last. I remember hearing of my mistress being robbed—I attended at the Westminster Sessions when the trial of the woman who was charged with robbing my mistress, was to come on—no notice or paper respecting that woman was ever brought to me at my master's house by anybody—I never took any paper in at all—I have left the Colonel's service, and am at home now—I was the only servant in the month of April—I always answered the door when anybody came—I do not remember any man, or any one at all, bringing me any paper or notice, or anything of the kind—I never saw Thompson before I saw him at Bow-street, that I am quite sure of.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. How long was it before this matter was called to your attention, before you were asked about it? A. About a month—there are tax and other papers left occasionally, but then the gentlemen come in—I do not go out on errands to the shops; the tradesmen always call for orders—I very seldom have to go out—the beer is always brought by a boy; he brings the same quantity every day—I may go out, perhaps, now and then, but very seldom, except it is on Sunday afternoons to church.

MR. BODKIN. Q. If you do go out, would Mrs. M'Arthur be the only female left in the house? A. Yes.

COLONEL M'ARTHUR re-examined. I am not aware that there is any other No. 25 in the street—perhaps I may mention that the numbers have been changed since I have been in the house; my house was No. 17.

MR. METCALFE. Q. At what time was it No. 17? A. I could not pretend to say at what date it was altered; I should imagine that it was some time before this matter happened—there could not be another No. 25 nearly opposite my house, because there are no houses opposite it; it is the dead wall of the Marine Barracks—I do not know of any other No. 25—I would not pretend to swear what the number of the houses are, for I really do not know—I never asked why the numbers were altered—I found on my door one morning No. 25, instead of No. 17—whether the house that was previously No. 25 was altered or not, I know nothing about.

MR. BODKIN. Q. On 22nd April last was No. 25 very plainly to be seen upon your door? A. I cannot say as to 22nd April, or as to any day in April—I cannot say when I saw it, whether it was in April, May, or June—I cannot say when it was altered, or whether it was before or after the robbery.

MRS. M'ATHUR re-examined. I remember seeing the No. 25 upon the door—it was altered before this transaction took place; I am quite certain of that—at that time No. 25 was on the door in brass figures.

MR. METCALFE. Q. Are there not some houses on the other side, before you come up to the Barracks? A. There is the Lieutenant-Colonel's, the Second Commandant's, but no numbers—I do not know of "No. 26, late No. 33," being on any house on the opposite side of the street—I cannot tell whether it is so or not; I can only say that there are no houses opposite us—as to any number in the street besides our own, that T cannot say anything about.

EDWARD WANDERER TOWNSEND (police inspector, M). I know the defendants Thompson and Howe—I have repeatedly seen them in company together in the City, and in the borough of South wark, generally at the police courts, up to within these three months.

JAMES PEARCE . I am a solicitor, at Woolwich. In April last I received instructions from Colonel M'Arthur, touching a robbery which had been committed upon his lady—I never heard that any application was about to be made to a Judge to admit the woman Blatchford to bail—my managing clerk went to the Sessions in reference to the case—up to the time of the trial I heard nothing about any application being made.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. You never made your appearance in Court in the course of these proceedings? A. No—I was not present at the police court, nor was any one there on my behalf—I was not at the Sessions, my managing clerk attended there—I was instructed on 17th April; that was some time after the committal—I am not aware that any one attended for Colonel M'Arthur before I was instructed.

HENRY SMITH . I live in Beaumont-square, and have done so twenty-two years. There was no person named William Rock living at No. 4, Beaumont-square, in April or May last.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Do you live at No. 4 yourself? A. I do.

BENJAMIN WEBSTER . I keep the Sportsman beer shop, in Bermondsey New-road. In April last there was no such person as William Hughes keeping that house.

JAMES WOOD . I am in the office of the clerk of the peace for Middlesex. I produce the depositions and recognizances in the case of Blatchford—(These recognizances appeared to be acknowledged on 27th April, before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and the parties bound were, William Blatchford, William Hughes, of the Sportsman beershop, Grange-road, Bermondsey; and William Bock, of No. 4, Beaumont-square, Mile End-road, bookseller.)

WILLIAM CLARK re-examined. I cannot tell in whose handwriting these recognizances are—I have no belief about it—they were taken before the Judge through me—these parties attended, and entered into recognizances—not being opposed, they did not go before the Judge.

MR. PARRY. Q. Was William Blatchford with Mr. Howe? A. I believe he was; he was produced by Mr. Howe, as the husband of the prisoner—it was because he was her husband that he was ordered by the Judge to become one of her bail—I only saw him once—if the woman had not been represented as a married woman, her own recognizance might have been taken.

HOWE— GUILTY .

THOMPSON— GUILTY .

RICKARDS— GUILTY .

Confined Eighteen Months.


View as XML