CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
CUBITT, MAYOR—SECOND MAYORALTY.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court.
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE,
REVISED AND EDITED BY
ROBERT ORRIDGE, ESQ.
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
SESSION VII. TO SESSION XII.
BUTTERWORTHS, 7, FLEET STREET,
Law Publishers to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.
On the Queen's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY,
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, May 12th, 1862, and following days.
BEFORE the Right Hon. WILLIAM CUBITT , Lord Mayor of the city of London; the Hon. Sir William Fry Channell, Knt., one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; the Hon, Sir James Shaw Willes, Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; Thomas Challis, Esq.; Sir Francis Graham Moon, Bart, F.S.A.; Thomas Quested Finnis, Esq.; and Sir Robert Walter Garden, Knt., Aldermen of the said City; Russell Gurney, Esq., Q.C. Recorder of the said City; William Anderson Rose, Esq.; Thomas Gabriel, Esq.; James Abbiss, Esq.; Thomas Dakin, Esq.; and John Sills Gibbons, Esq.; Aldermen of the said City; Thomas Chambers, Esq., Q.C. Common Serjeant of the said City; and Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq., Judge of the Sheriff's Court of the said City; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
The following Prisoners, upon whom the Sentence of the Court was respited at the time of Trial, have since been sentenced as under:
Vol. lvi page sentence.
CUBITT, MAYOR. SECOND MAYORALTY.CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—an obelisk (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures, after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
OLD COURT.—Monday, May 12th, 1861.
PRESENT—The Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR; Mr. Ald FINNS; Sir
Before Mr. Recorder.
PLEADED GUILTY .
Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor.— Confined Twelve Months l., and two sureties in 50l. each, to be of good behaviour for Two Years.
MESSRS. GIFFARD and POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM SMITH (City-policeman). On 20th March, from information I received, I went, about the middle of the day, to 19, Blue Anchor-alley, the prisoner's shop and residence—I saw him on the other side of the counter—I told him I was an officer, and said, "Have you any uppers in your possession?"—he said, "No; I have nothing of the sort"—I said, "Have you any uppers at all; or anything of the sort?"—he said, "No; I have not, who do you mean?"—I said, "Messrs. Hickson's, of Smithfield"—he I said, "No; I have none of their's"—I said, "I have reason to believe you have some here, will you allow me to look?"—he said, "Where is your warrant?"—I pulled out my book and showed him my warrant-card, which plain clothes officers carry with them as an authority—he opened the door, and I walked in behind the counter—he went to a corner, and took down a curtain which covered a recess—I commenced searching, and the first lot I laid hold of were some of Messrs. Hickson's, and two pairs of uppers, and two pairs of soles tied to them—the soles had Messrs. Hickson's stamp upon them—I asked him to account for those goods—he said that he could not, no more than that he bought them—I said, "Who did you buy them off?"—he said, "I do not know; if they want them back again I will sell them with a little
profit to myself"—I found a great quantity of uppers, but I called his attention to these first—I said, "Do not you keep a book?"—he said, "Only that one"—this book (produced) was lying on the counter, and I said, "What does this relate to?"—he said, "To a few shillings which I lend to the neighbours in the court"—I searched further, and found 152 pairs of uppers, 132 soles and pieces of leather for making soles, and about 21 pairs of boots unfinished—there was some of Mr. Josephs' among them—here are three pieces of leather, and an odd boot, not quite finished, stamped with Josephs' stamp—I took possession of all the articles, and took the prisoner in custody—while I was talking to him one of Hickson's men came in—after I had made the charge at the station, the sergeant asked what account he could give of the articles—he said, "I know who I had them of, but I do not know where they live"—he was asked the names, and said that he knew them, but he did not tell them to us.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. He did not tell the names, but did you not find them on the tickets? A. Here is, "4, Ball, 2s." on this ticket, and "Stone" on this—there were tickets, I believe, on some articles, not on every one, because they were tied up in bundles—they have been untied, and I believe the tickets have been taken off, there have been so many people to look at the property—I believe there were tickets on all the lots, each showing a sum of money, and the name of some person and a date—I do not think there was any number—I do not think there are other packets also claimed by Mr. Josephs, besides these in the names of Ball and Stone—these are the only tickets I can find—the prisoner said that he regretted having had anything to do with the business—after I went in I waited for the arrival of Mr. Hickson's man, two or three minutes after me—I beckoned him in with my umbrella, and his wife afterwards came in with Mr. Batten—I mean to convey to the jury that I first asked the prisoner whether he had any uppers at all—he keeps a sham pawnbroker's; what we call a leaving shop—I got the Excise-officers down to the police-court by instructions of Mr. D'Eyncourt, the Magistrate, when the case was heard—I do not know whether the attorney for the prosecution endeavoured to induce them to prosecute; I was not present—the Excise-officers were down there before we had an attorney in the case—we could not prove a pawning or redemption—the Magistrate did not discharge the prisoner on this charge—Joseph's charge was not gone into—he was there, but did not give evidence; and the evidence in his case has never been gone into till today—I believe the Magistrate committed on Messrs. Hickson and Bent's charge.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Is there any indication to the public at large that there is a pawnbroker's business carried on there? A. Not at all.
JOSEPH TAYLOR . About two years and a half ago, I was foreman to Messrs. Hickson and Sons, wholesale boot and shoe manufacturers—the prisoner was in their employment three or four months previous to my leaving, and was there when I left—he behaved very well, and was very regular—he was honest as far as I know.
DAVID JOSPHES . I am a wholesale boot and shoemaker, of Skinner-street, Snow-hill—these uppers are my property—I have a very large stock—I should be unable to miss a few, but I never sell uppers till they are converted into perfectly made boots—they must have been taken by some of our cutters, packers, errand-boys, or warehousemen—this boot bears my stamp, and is mine; it is unfinished, and in an unsaleable condition—the last is still in it—(Taking it out)—this last has my stamp on it, "J"—I had
no persons named Ball or Stone in my employment in March—the articles I identify are worth 14s. or 15s.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you know the names of the workmen? A. Pretty well—I can say that I have had no workman named Ball for the last six months—I have not gone so far back as two years, because this boot has been cut out within the last six months—the names of all the workmen are entered in the work-book by a clerk, named Castle—he is not here—he could only tell you by the list the same as I do—he does not make a list of the names so that he might omit one; but he enters the names of the men in their accounts—the book is not here—I have had no such person as Stone, a workman, during the last seven or eight months—work like this is given out to workmen to be made into boots, which they bring back made—these uppers were cut out on 21st February, and these others about, the middle of January—I know that by certain marks on them, which lead me to the men, and by referring to the men's books I know the time—the cutter is not here, or his book; but there are several references as to each individual cutting—I also recognise them as bearing my stamp, and as cut from my leather—I cannot tell when any of them were taken away—the cutter is in my service still—I take security from the workmen when work is given out, and if they do not return it we get the price of it, when we can, from the security—we very rarely have to come upon the security—the workmen never get a loan on the deposit of their work with my permission or knowledge—they have to find thread and wax, and those trifling things, but nothing more—I have heard of shops where they get supplied with those things, and leave the leather until they can take it out with the money they obtain; they are called "leaving shops," and are a great curse to our trade, for the money is generally obtained for drink—our principal reason for taking security from a workman, is that he shall not run away with the work, or dispose of it—uppers and soles are to be bought separately, but not stamped with the initial of any particular firm—they are regularly dealt in to a very large extent—from inquiries I have made, I can say that these have not been given out to be made up.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. How would you become acquainted with the names of the workmen in your employment? A. From the work-book—that is the book kept by Mr. Castle, and which I have to look at frequently for the general superintendance of the business—this is the book (produced), and that gentleman sitting under you is Mr. Castle—I had not the least idea that he was here; he must have been sent for.
MR. METCALFE. Q. How often do you see those entries? A. I look at them from time to time, frequently over a fortnight, but sometimes three or six weeks may elapse—I can undertake to say that I looked at that page within a fortnight of it's date, April 28th—the book was never at the police-court.
EDWARD CASTLE . I keep this book—I have not looked at it to ascertain whether any person named Stone or Ball have been in the employ during the last six months—I know of my own knowledge that they have not.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you know whether such persons have been in the employment of Mr. Josephs at all? A. Not since I have been there, which was last August—there is a William Hodges to whom work has been given out, and he has some women's work out still—these boots are women's, and these others, men's—workmen sometimes pawn their work, and we then call upon them to pay, and if they do not, we come down upon the security—I never knew a workman to come for work again when he has made away
with the goods, and we have got the amount from the security—if I say that 5l. has been paid by defaulter's securities in the last six months I shall be within the mark—we give out work value 1l. and 30s. and 2l.—Hodges has not paid for any work, nor has anybody on his behalf—I cannot tell, by reference to the book, that this work has not been paid for during the last six months, because we have so many pairs alike—I enter work when it goes out and when it comes in—I can tell by my book how many pairs are out, and can come down upon the security if it is not brought in—I know what every man makes, because one man seldom makes two or three kinds—there is stock unpaid for at the present time, but I cannot say whether it is this or some other portion of the stock.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Who would know what money had been received from the sureties? A. I should—I do not know of their paying for any such work as this, but women's work is very much alike; but as to the men's I could tell by referring to the book.
COURT. Q. Can you tell whether this stock has been given out? A. I cannot swear to that pair as being the pair given out—by referring to the cash-book I can tell whether they have been paid for—this is not the cash-book.
MR. METCALFE contended that there was no case against the prisoner, as in order to prove a receiving, a stealing must first be shown; that there was no proof of their being taken out of the stock, and that if they had been given out to a workman who had become a defaulter, he would have purchased through his surety the right to the goods; and even if the surety had not paid for them, the workman only received them as a bailee, and his committing a breach of trust would not make him guilty of larceny. MR. GIFFARD submitted that it was a question for the jury in what way the goods left the establishment.
COURT to DAVID JOSEPHS. Q. When work is given out, do you supply the lasts? A. Yes—only those persons to whom work is given out are called journeymen.
THE COURT could not say that there was no evidence that the goods were stolen from the premises, but would reserve the point if it became necessary.
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. GIFFARD and POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
The evidence of William Smith was read over to him, to which he assented, and added: I also found nine pairs of uppers, and twelve pairs of soles—I found a ticket on some of the articles, I cannot say which—they were tied up in separate lots—there were two tickets in the name of Ware, one dated October 28, and the other, I think, October 26—I do not know what has become of them, the things have been so pulled about with one and another looking at the property—I heard from Mr. Bent of a person named Ware—I could not find him, but I found his wife.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. You found the things ticketed? A. Yes; I cannot say every one—they were arranged on shelves, from the bottom to the top—the recess was full.
pairs of uppers and ten pairs of soles, to be made up by her husband—I know that by looking at my book—it is not here, but I also know it independently of my book—it was this sort that she had, but here is only a portion of them—I identify these six pairs of uppers with the blue lining, as given to Mrs. Ware; they are just in the same state as when I gave them out—I can also speak to these nine pairs of soles—they ought to have been worked up and returned to me, but they have never been returned—that is the only instance of goods going out and not being returned within the last two years—I went in search of Ware, three days after giving her the work, but they had moved away, and I could get no tidings of then—we have not taken security from the workmen for the last two years—we do not sell uppers or soles in this state.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you mean to say that you cannot buy uppers in the market? A. Not children's plain leather—I have not had notice to produce my book; it is at my father's—it was not at the police-court—we enter in it the names of the persons—the numbers are the only mark we put upon them, but I know these because they are the only ten pairs we lost during that order—I know by the book that they were intended for that order—I have not seen Mrs. Ware since she had them out—I went to where she had lodged, but made no complaint—Ware had only worked for us a few weeks; he had nine or ten pairs—they ought to have been returned in two days or so—if a workman does not return them, we make him pay for them, if we can find him, and if not we have to put up with the loss—my father would not take any trouble about them—he is not here.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Does your father take any part in the management of the business now? A. Not much; he never cuts out anything—Ticket read, "October 28—6, Ware."
COURT. Q. There are one or two others, do yon know anything about them? A. They were given out to another man, not to Ware; they belong to my father—these three pairs of soles have his stamp upon them, and the figures on the toe are my own mark—there were some tickets on the boots at the station, but they got mis-matched—the name of Reynolds was on some of them.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Was Reynolds in your father's service? A. Yes; my father turned him off after these goods were seized; he was working for us up to that time.
GUILTY on the second count. — Three Years' Penal Servitude.
There were three other indictments against the prisoner.
MESSRS. SLEIGH and ORRIDGE conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES JONES . I am groom to Mr. Joynson of North Gray, Kent—on 28th March, I went by his direction to a stable in Cleveland-row, St. James's—I had this advertisement with me—(Read: "For sale, a pair of handsome dappled-grey geldings, six years old, fifteen hands three inches high; step and go well together, fast action, good hunters, warranted sound, a trial allowed, price moderate. To be seen at 1, Russel-court, Cleveland-road, St. James's")—I did not see the defendant that day, but I went on the Monday following and saw the groom, who said he would fetch his master, and brought the prisoner—I told him that I had come about that advertisement—the prisoner told me that his name was Henry Sinclair, he had had the horses two years, and driven them at Malvern and Bath last summer,
that they were perfectly free from vice, and he could warrant them perfectly sound in every description; and that they had never been in any dealer's hands—he said that his estate was in Leamington in Warwickshire, that his son had ridden one of the horses in hunting, which was the reason he did not carry so much flesh as the other, that his daughter had ridden the other, but had given up doing so, as she was under medical treatment, and that was the reason he was parting with them—he asked me if his servant had told me anything respecting the horses, and I said that he had given me a very good character with them—the groom was the man whom I had seen on the Saturday—Mr. Dorkin went with me, on 1st April, to pay for the horses—I did not see him pay for them, but I heard the prisoner tell his servant to deliver them up to me, which he did—the prisoner told me not to go away without seeing him, and after the horses were paid for, he came back, gave me a sovereign, and told me to get some refreshment, and then I took the horses home—on the Monday the prisoner gave me the note to take home to my master—(This note stated that Mr. Sinclair had many times refused 100 guineas for the horses, the price of them being 120 guineas, that they were six years old, and he would warrant them free from vice or blemish, and would return the money at any time within three months if the horses were not approved of)—The prisoner said, on the Monday, that he was in no particular hurry to sell the horses as he should not require the stables till he and his family came up from Leamington at the end of May, when he should require them for a pair of cobs—I took the horses away, and by the time I got to Westminster-bridge, I found that they were both roarers, but I took them home—I went back to the stables next day, but could neither find the prisoner or the groom—nobody knew anything of them—I believed that he was a private gentleman at Leamington, and told my master so—if I had known that he was a dealer, I should not have advised my master to buy the horses.
Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. Q. There was nothing in the stable but the two geldings? A. No—the groom had a room upstairs—he came down when I rang—they were very fine horses to look at—they are now in the possession of a farmer, a friend of my master's, and are turned out in a straw-yard—I swear that Leamington was mentioned on the Monday, 31st March—it was the appearance of the prisoner and of the horses that caused me to recommend my master to purchase—I told my master the prisoner was a perfect gentleman, that he lived at Leamington, that his estate was there, and therefore my master thought he was dealing with a gentleman—Leamington was mentioned before the money was paid—I am certain of that, but I did not think of it at the first examination—the prisoner mentioned it on the Monday—the bargain was concluded on 1st April; he agreed what to pay on Monday, but he was to let me have the horses on trial—I gave him my master's note, and he said that he would not go across the stable door to inquire at master's bankers, as several people wanted the horses—I was not present when the receipt was given—he said nothing about Leamington when he gave me the sovereign—my master is a papermaker, and has large mills; he is a gentleman all the same for that—the veterinary surgeon who valued the horses is here—I have ridden them with a saddle two or three time—I next saw the prisoner at Vine-street.
HENRY DORKIN . I live at Upper Tooting, and am a private gentleman—Mr. Joynson is an intimate friend of mine—he gave me, on 1st April, what money he had, about 90l., and asked me to pay for these horses; I made up the amount, 115 guineas, and met his servant at the prisoner's stable by appointment—the prisoner was sent for by the groom who had charge of the
horses, and on his coming, I said that I came on the part of Mr. Joynson to pay for the horses—he said that they were horses which he had a great regard for, he had had them some time, they were quiet to ride and drive in single and double harness, and had been used by his daughter and wife, but on account of ill health he no longer wanted them, haying another pair which were more suitable for his purpose; and he spoke of Leamington, in Warwickshire, where he had some place or estate, and where the horses were very well known—the other person was dressed as a groom; he had a blue coat with bright buttons, and when I asked fur Mr. Sinclair, he said he would fetch his master, and went away, and returned with the prisoner, who gave directions to him as a groom, saying, "Mind you feed them before they go out of the stable," and the groom said, "Yes, Sir"—I paid the 115l. 10s., and he gave me this receipt on black-edged paper, "1, Russel-court, St. James's, 1st April, 1862. Received of W. Joynson, Esq., 115l. 10s., for my two grey geldings, which I hereby warrant sound and free from vice or blemish of any kind, and if not approved of in one or three months, I will take them back at the price I now receive for them. Henry Sinclair"—I should not have parted with the money if I had not believed that he was not a horse-dealer, but that they were his own private property—I believed his statement that they were used in his own family—he said that it was usual to give a gratuity to the grooms each—I said, "Very well, I shall give your groom a sovereign"—he said, "I shall do the like."
Cross-examined. Q. Your authority was simply to pay the money and get the receipt? A. The receipt and the warranty—I had nothing to do with exercising any judgment about it—the prisoner told me about Leamington before the money was paid, and I do not think he mentioned it afterwards.
WILLIAM JOYNSON . I live at St. Mary Crav—I sent my servant, James Jones, up to London, in consequence of an advertisement I saw in the Times, on 31st March, to look at a pair of geldings—he came back and said that he had seen a pair of very fine horses belonging to a gentleman who had considerable property at Leamington, who had lately lost his wife, whose daughter was very ill, and under the care of some of our great professional men; in consequence of which these horses were useless to him, and he wished to get rid of them, having a pair of cobs which would answer his purpose—my man's impression was that he was a gentleman, that all was right, and therefore he never tried the horses, as he ought, as the prisoner said when he asked for the carriage to try the horses, that it had been sold, and they had no harness—I paid the 115l. 10s. in consequence of the impression made on my mind that they were really valuable, good horses; that it was a gentleman who wished to give them up; that they had been driven two years; that one of them had been ridden by his daughter; and that they were worth the money—I had not time to go to London to buy them—I should not have bought them had I known the prisoner to be a dealer.
Cross-examined. Q. Have they been tried? A. No, because my coach-man could not get them along—I sent them to a farm-house to a gentleman, who has driven one of them, but the other he cannot get to go at all—it was in consequence of the report of my groom that I gave Mr. Dorkin the money to pay for them—I have never applied to get the money from the prisoner, because I could not find him—I have never spoken to him yet—I do not know that an offer was made to return the money.
EDWARD WHITE (Policeman, D 16). I took the prisoner, on 12th April, in Whitefriars, and told him I apprehended him on a charge of obtaining 115l. 10s. from Mr. Joynson, of St. Marv's Cra on the sale of two horses
—he said, "What horses?"—I said, "That pair of greys at Russel-court"—he said, "You are quite mistaken"—I said, "I shall take you on suspicion of being the man"—he said that he had never sold any horses there—I have known him between four and five years by the names of Tom Cook and Old Tom, and have seen him, on an average, two or three times a week regularly, and some weeks every day—I have seen him showing horses, and about places where I have seen horses advertised for sale—I believe he has a wife, but he has no daughter to my knowledge.
JOHH LUND . I have been chief superintendent of police at Leamington between three and four years—previous to that I was a superintendent in London, where I knew the prisoner, but I have never seen him in Learnington—I knew him for seventeen or eighteen years in London by the name of Cook, and connected with horse-chaunters—I know Leamington well—he has no estate there.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you ever see him sell a horse in your life? A. No—I was twenty-four years in the metropolitan police—I knew the prisoner to be the constant associate of a horse-chaunter, who I had convicted at this Court—a horse-chaunter is a penon who sells broken-winded horses—I know all the rateable property in Leamington, because the poorrate book is kept in my office—that gives the occupiers, but the owners' names are also inserted—the book is not here—I do not know all the owners, but I know all those of the name of Cook—there are four Cooks, but no Sinclair; I have searched the book within these three days to see—Leamington is all one parish—it extends half a mile into the country on each side, but it is all in the parish.
COURT. Q. If the prisoner had constantly driven a pair of horses there, must you have seen them? A. Yes.
Cross-examined. Q. How did you try them? A. By giving them a little more exertion than walking exercise—I had them exercised up and down the road, on purpose to listen to their wind—a horse may not be a very good one, and yet a roarer—roarers are used by their owners, but they are not valued—they are not very fit subjects for racing—I never knew a roarer run a race—I do not know that a roarer ran for the Two thousand, a few days ago.
WILLIAM RITCHIE . I reside at Staines, and am managing clerk to Mr. May, of Russel-square—I have known the prisoner seven years, under the names of Mr. W. T. Cook, the Rev. Mr. Clark, and Mr. Sinclair, engaged in selling horses—I saw him on each occasion.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you mean that you yourself were engaged with him in selling horses? A. No; I was employed to bring actions against him—on the first occasion he told me that he had sold a horse; on the second he offered me a horse; and on the third he offered me these very horses which Mr. Joynson bought—that was about the beginning of April—the last time was about four years before that, and the first time was seven years ago.
NICHOLAS ROBERT BROWN . I am a colonel in the army, and live at 4, Cleveland-row, St. James's—the prisoner hired this stable of me, personally, in the name of John Clark—I sent the agreement to him, which he returned to me signed, and I gave him his copy to keep—it is dated 25th February, but I think he took possession a day or two before, as
he was anxious to get his horses in—he has not given up possession—the stables are locked, and he left the place altogether somewhere about 1st April.
Cross-examined. Q. Have you the agreement here? A. Yes, that and a note he wrote me is the only mode I have of knowing his name—the agreement is for a year, but the rent is payable in six months.
MR. SLEIGH. Q. Is this (produced) the note he wrote to you? A. This is the note I received—I do not know whose writing it is, but it is a similar siguature to that on the agreement—when I saw him before the agreement was signed, he gave the name of John Clark.
GEORGE PHILPOTT . I am managing-clerk to Messrs. Aldridge and Bromley, the Crown Solicitors in Bankruptcy—I know the prisoner; but as to whether he is William Thomas Cook, I cannot say—I have seen him in Whitecross-street Prison—these proceedings relate to the bankruptcy of William Thomas Cook, who I believe to be the prisoner—(The petition was dated March 17th, 1862, from William Thomas Cook, commission agent, a prisoner in Whitecross-street, of 13, Princes-street, and of Lambeth, in the County of Surrey; which was accompained by his affidavit, stating that he had not the meant of paying the fees.)
JOHN CHARLES AUSTIN (Cross-examined). Q. Is he not compelled, under the new Act, to petition? A. Not at all—it is not one of the cases where the Registrars went to clear the gaols—there would be no petition there—the prisoner was not there when the Registrar went, but the Registrar might go again after the prisoner had filed his petition—I believe it is not usual to ascertain whether a bankrupt has given the right address—he has to swear to the truth of it.
EDWARD WHITE (re-examined). I found this paper in the prisoner's pocket—(This was a protection order of the Court of Bankruptcy to William Thomas Cook, dated 6th April, 1862.) GUILTY. **—Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his age. The officer stated that the prisoner had been three times charged with similar offences, but had compromised the matter by returning the money, and that he had had Seven Years' Penal Servitude for stealing a horse and chaise and harness.
Confined Nine Months.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
PLEADED GUILTY.—Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor. — Confined Nine Months.
507. THOMAS WILLIAMS (19) , Stealing 1 glass shade and stand, and 22 pencils, the property of Frederick Charles Fisher and another, having been before convicted; to which he PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Eighteen Months.
508. CHARLES TAPSON (16) , Embezzling the sums of 1s.—1s. and 7 1/2 d. the moneys of George Hollis Brett, his master; to which he PLEADED GUILTY .—and the officer stated that he had been embmling small sums all the time he had been at Mr. Brett's.— Confined Six Months
NEW COURT.—Monday, May 12th, 1862.
PRESENT.—Mr. Ald. FINNIS; Mr. Ald GABRIEL; Mr. Ald. DAKIN;
and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
PLEADED GUILTY .
SHEHAN.**— Confined Twelve Months.
REGAN.— Confined Nine Months.
CATER, HAYES, and QUINLAN.— Confined Six Months each
510. JOHN MCIVAN (25) , Breaking and entering the dwelling-house of George Haanant, and stealing therein 1 watch, 1 coat, and other articles, his property, having been previously convicted; to which he
PLEADED GUILTY . **— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
CHARLES WINTER . I live at 13, Sydenham-park, and am a gentleman—on 14th March I was at the corner of New Oxford-street, about ten minutes to 10 at night, waiting for an omnibus—the prisoner seized me by the coat, and then, with his right hand, I think, he took a valuable brooch form my scarf, and then struck at me and I fell on the ground—it was a thrusting hit from him, not a severe blow—he turned and ran away immediately—I saw him within two minutes afterwards in custody—I was shook very much—when I got up he was in custody of the police—I am quite sure he is the man.
Prisoner. You were in liquor, and there was a crowd of people round you.
Witness. I was not in liquor at all; it is not true that I was drunk and that the bus man would not take me; there were several people round watting for omnibuses; I was not flourishing my umbrella about, but merely holding it in my hand; I could have caught you if my hand had been at liberty; my umbrella was not up; merely by my side; it was not raining.
WILLIAM SMALLMAN . I live near Gray's-inn-lane, and am a porter—on 14th March I was coming down by New Oxford-street about 10 o'clock—I saw the prisoner take a brooch out of Mr. Winter's scarf—Mr. Winter fell down—the prisoner ran away, and I ran after him from the corner of Tottenham-court-road to the corner of Crown-street—I had him in sight all the while
—I put out my hand to catch him, but missed him, and he ran—I caught him a second time and we struggled together—he tried all he could to get away, but I was his master—he tried to kick me, but missed the first time, the second time he kicked me violently between the legs—he aimed the blow there; and he also tried to kick me a third time—when he was on the ground he tried to bite me, but could not—I was a-top of him when policeman, E 32, came up—we were both on the ground—I did not see anything of the brooch—he was taken in custody—if I had looked for brooch I should have lost him—I am all right now, but I have lost my situation through attending the Court, and have been out a month and four days.
Prisoner. It is quite false; he knocked me down directly he got hold of me, and put both his knees on my chest.
Witness. That is not true.
EDWARD FISHER (Police-sergeant, E 32). I saw the prisoner running near New Oxford-street and the last witness after him—I went in pursuit, and when I got up, I found Smallman and the prisoner on the ground, kicking at him, I took the prisoner in custody—I saw nothing of the brooch.
GUILTY . †— Confined Twelve Months.
The Court directed a reward of 2 l. to be given to Smallman.
MR. GENT conducted the Prosecution.
THEOPHILUS WESTHORPE . I live at the Manor House, East India-road—on 12th April the prisoner brought this paper (produced) and showed it to me to obtain the money—my clerk was present—I said, "I do not think this is Captain Whitney's writing; I am sure it is not"—he said, "No; Captain Whitney did not write it, but he signed it; I got another man to write it, and he blamed the man for writing it so badly"—he went on to say that Captain Whitney was suffering from severe rheumatism, which I knew to be the case—I said I had men on board the ship which Captain Whitney commanded, could they identify him—he said, "I was not at work on board the ship, but at Captain Whitney's private house"—believing that to be his signature, I ultimately directed Mr. Taylor, my clerk, to give him the money—I had seen the prisoner before—he gave the name of Russell
ANDREW MURRAY TAYLOR . I am clerk to the last witness—I was present when the prisoner brought this paper—I have heard what Mr. Westhorpe has said about it—that is correct—he said that he was working at Captain Whitney's private house—I am pay-clerk, and gave him the money—I saw him again and got back the money, and then got Mr. Westhorpe's authority and paid it a second time—I paid him 3l. 6s.—Mr. Westhorpe was not in when I first paid; it then I got the money back and afterwards paid it a second time.
THOMAS CHARLES WHITNEY . I am captain of the ship Southampton belonging to New York, and now lying in the London Docks—this paper purports to be an order by me upon Mr. Westhorpe—it is not my writing—I did not write it, or authorise anybody to write it—I had never seen it before I saw it in Mr. Westhorpe's possession—I have known the prisoner for years—he has been about the ships—he would know me certainly—he worked for me several times—I never gave him any authority to get or transact anything relating to this order.
HENRY EDGILL (Policeman, K 318). On 17th April I took the prisoner in custody, and said he was charged with forging an order on Mr. Westhorpe—he said, on the way to the station, "I am guilty of it"—at the station he
said that if Mr. Westhorpe would take it, he would pay it weekly by instalments.
Prisoner's Defence. I was intoxicated at the time.
GUILTY .— Confined Six Months.
PLEADED GUILTY .—MR. SLEIGH, for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner had given up the note immediately on being taxed with it. MR. METCALFE, for the prisoner, stated that he had for a long time borne a very respectable character.— Confined Three Months
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, May 13th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. Ald. FINNIS; Mr. Ald. GIBBONS; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR, Esq.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
PLEADED GUILTY .
Roger Godson, solicitor, Steven Hugh Price, solicitor, and John Simms, solicitor, in each of whose employment the prisoner had been as clerk, deposed to his good character. Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, believing it to be his first offence, and that he had been led astray by bad associates.
Four Years' Penal Servitude.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
PLEADED GUILTY . **— Six Years' Penal Servitude.
It was stated that the prisoner had been seven times previously convicted.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
A Warder from the House of Correction stated that the prisoner had been eleven times previously convicted.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
PLEADED GUILTY **†— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
The prisoner had been twice before convicted, besides ten summary convictions.
522. EDWARD GISS (17), and HENRY JOHNSON (18) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Edward Pritchard and another,and stealing therein 2 bags, value 4d. and 49l. in money, their property. Second Count, Feloniously receiving the same.
MR. METCALFE conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM SMITH . I am a detective City-officer—on 26th April, at a quarter to 9 in the morning, I was sent for to Messrs. Pritchard and Burton's, and found that an entrance had been effected by the removal of a pane of glass, after which a hand had been put through to remove the sash, by which means a person had got in—there is a high wall in St. John's-court, adjoining the premises, from that to the window is a wall with iron spikes at the top—they had got on to the palisades, tied a rope to them, and let themselves down to the window—three desks had been broken open, one in the private counting-house, and two in the clerks counting-house—I found in the yard two pairs of socks, and a bit of a lucifer-match under the kitchen window—these two pieces of matches were handed to me in the counting-house—they have been lighted—I cut the rope from the railings, and took it to the station—I received this chisel from Mr. Burton—Inspector Leonard examined the floor with me, he was then going to Camomile-street, and on my way to the station I accompanied him to Jewin-street, and when we were at the Fore-street end, I saw the prisoners and another person on the other side of the way—it was then about 10 o'clock—they had new boots on, and I thought new caps as well—I followed them into Aldersgate-street, to the end of Edmund's-place, where there is a pawnbroker's shop—Giss went in at the side door, and Johnson and the other man stood at the end of the place; I passed them and then went into the lobby of the pawnbroker's, and saw Giss present a duplicate to the pawn-broker's assistant—I went in front of the shop to look what the duplicate related to, and found it related to a coat—I went back to the box where Giss was, and beckoned him out into the passage—I told him I was an officer and should like to know where he got the money from to buy those boots with which he was wearing—he said, "I worked for it and saved it"—I said, "Where do you work?"—he said Taylor and Greenings, of Grey-stock-place—I said, "You have got some parties waiting outside for you at the end of the place"—he said, "I have not"—I said "You have, for I saw you come together along Jewin-street"—he said, "I have never been near Jewin-street this morning"—I said, "Go in and get your coat"—he went into the box, and I stepped aside and beckoned to Johnson, who came up to me—I told him I was an officer, and should like to know where he got the money from, to buy the new boots he was wearing?—he said, "Worked for it and saved it, to be sure"—I said, "You are waiting for some one here"—he said, "I am not"—I said, "You are, for I saw you come along Jewin-street together"—he said, "I am not waiting for anybody"—I caught hold of his collar, and we commenced struggling, he lifted up his fist but I stopped the blow—while the struggle was going on, Giss came out with the coat under his arm, and I then noticed that his lefthand trousers pocket was very bulky, I put my hand on it and it appeared to contain money—the assisant came to my assistance, and ultimately Gale, No. 670, seeing the struggle, came up, and we took the prisoners; Johnson endeavoured to put his hand into his pocket—I told him, on the way to the station, that I should charge them on suspicion of committing a burglary, at Messrs, Pritchard's, King-street, Snow-hill—they both said "We will make you prove it, and you shall pay for this"—I searched Giss at the station, and found, in the watch-pocket of his trousers, this bag containing 15l. 10s. in gold, and in his pocket I found 7l. 13s. 9 1/2 d. in silver
and copper—I also found this key on him—they were asked at the station where they got the money, they said that they had saved it—I saw Johnson searched, and 21l. 7s. 6 1/2 d. I think, found on him, 13l. of it was in gold—Mr. Burton said that he thought the bag found on Johnson was his, but that some of his clerks would be able to identify it no doubt, when Johnson said "That is my aunt's bag"—the prisoners both refused to give their addresses—the fourpenny and threepenny bits found on them both, amounted to 4l. 19s. 6d.—this one with a hole in the centre was found on Giss—I have ascertained Giss' address, but could hear nothing of him at the place he said that he worked at; I met Mr. Taylor—I know him personally.
Johnson. I bought the boots of Mr. Gees, of Golden-lane, on the Friday. Witness. They were bought that morning before 10 o'clock.
ELIJAH GALE (City-policeman, 670). I was called about 10 o'clock, and found Johnson struggling with the pawnbroker's assistant outside the shop-door—he got away, but I stopped him—I took him to the station, searched him, and found 8l. 7s. 6d. in silver in this canvas bag in the inside breast pocket of his coat, and in his trousers pocket this tobacco pouch containing 13l. in gold, 6 1/2 d. in copper, and a little tobacco—he refused his address.
ALFRED BURTON . I am a tobacconist and cigar manufacturer, at 33, King-street, Snow-hill, in St. Sepulchre's parish—I have one partner—we have a housekeeper named Susannah Reed—there is a warehouse door leading to the street, and a private door at the side of it—St. Johns-court runs at the side of our premises, and we have a pair of gates into it—on the night of 25th April, I left the premises secure, leaving the housekeeper there—the window which was afterwards broken, was then shut and bolted—next morning, at a little after 8, I found a burglary had been committed and the desks broken open, but some of our people were there before me—I ultimately missed nearly 50l. and a cigar case, from a desk in the private counting-house—I missed coppers to the amount of 8s. or 9s., and a small bag containing 7s. 6d. in silver—it was not broken open, it had not been locked—the traveller's desk had been broken open, and a bag of cash taken away which had been brought home the previous night—I found a chisel in a disk, and gave it to the constable—a box of cigars was also taken away.
CHARLES REED . I am clerk to Messrs. Pritchard and Burton—on 26th April, at 8 o'clock, I went to the premises, and was admitted by the housekeeper—her apartments are distinct from the warehouse and shop—I was the first to arrive, I opened the shop-door leading from the passage, and saw a parcel of tobacco, about 11b. lying on the counting-house floor—a window was broken, and two of the clerk's desks forced—everything was left in the same state until Mr. Burton arrived—I afterwards missed the traveller's money, which had been deposited there the night before, to the extent of about 50l.—the tills were empty, except a few stray coins—one till, of which I had the charge, which had contained about 30s. in silver, loose, was entirely empty.
WILLIAM HENRY SAUNDERS . I am a traveller to Messrs. Pritchard and Burton—on Friday evening, 25th April, I left in my desk 23l. 7s. in gold and silver, and 5s. in copper; there might have been 5s. or 6l. in silver—the money was in this bag (The one found on Giss)—I have not the slightest doubt of it—I have had it under my eye every day for three months—next morning I found my desk broken open, and the money gone—there were a number of 3d. or 4d. pieces; one 4d. piece had a hole in it similar to this, it attracted my attention when taken.
Giss. I bought this bag down the lane, and gave a halfpenny for it. Witness. It has never been out of my possession from the time it was new, nearly three months.
WILLIAM GURNEY . I am a traveller to Meesrs Pritchard—on 25th April, I deposited in my desk 21l. 4s. 6d.; there was a quantity of silver among it and a great many 4d. and 3d. pieces—I found the desk broken open next morning and the money gone—a great many of the 4d. pieces were in a paper and some in a bag of this description, but this is not the bag.
JOHNSON. Q. I am positive it does not belong to you; how can you prove it? A. From it's general appearance, and it only having one string most of our bags have two.
THOMAS IRVING (City-policeman, 267). On the night of the 25th, about 11 o'clock, I was near Messrs. Pritchard's premises, and saw Giss and six or seven others, standing about two yards from St. John's-court, and a hundred yards from the place where somebody afterwards got in—I did not notice who the others were—about 3 o'clock in the morning Johnson came up to me in St. John's-court, about the same place as I saw the others—I go up St. John's-court into West-street.
JOHNSON. I was never there at all. Witness. I am sure of you both.
Giss' Defence. I saved the money up. I used to go out with a cart selling fruit. I got it by hard work.
Johnson's Defence. I saved up the money with the intention of buying stock for the winter.
GUILTY on the second Count *†— Four Years' each Penal Servitude.
PLEADED GUILTY.— Eight Years' Penal Servitude.
524. THOMAS JARVIS (40) , Feloniously uttering a forged 5l. Bank of England note; also another forged 5l. Bank of England note; also feloniously having in his custody 2 forged Bank of England notes, having been before convicted at this court, in October, 1853; to all of which he
PLEAED GUILTY .— Six Years' Penal Servitude.
PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully wounding. — Confined Twelve Months
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, May 13th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. Ald. CHALLIS; Mr. Ald. ABBESS; and Mr. COMMON
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Fifteen Months.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and COOKE conducted the Prosecution.
ELIZABETH NORMAN . I am the wife of William Henry Norman, who keepe the Queen's Arms, at Knight's bridge—on Saturday, 19th April, the prisoner came to the bar, between 8 and 9 in the evening, and called for a half-quartern of gin, which came to 2 1/2 d., and tendered a bad crown—I bent it in the detector, which made a mark on the edge of it—I said that it was bad, and returned it to the prisoner, as she said that she had taken it for wages having drank a little of the gin, she put down a penny for it, took up the crown, and left—I sent my waiter after her.
MARY MOORE . I am barmaid at the Rising Sun, at Knightsbridge—I was serving in the bar on 19th April, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening, and a woman named Hopkins came in, and asked for three-halfpennyworth of rum,—I served her; she tendered a bad half-crown—I told her it was bad—she said nothing, but turned and went out of the house—she had drank the rum, but did not pay for it—I kept the half-crown and gave it to Mrs. Williams, the landlady; it was given to the oonstable the same evening.
JOHN CLARK (Policeman, A 273). On Saturday night, 19th April, I was on duty in the neighbourhood of Knightsbridge, near the Queen's Arms public-house, and in consequence of something that was said to me, I watched the prisoner—she was alone; she stood against the barracks for twenty-five minutes or half an hour—I had followed her about two hundred yards—the then crossed the road, in company with Hopkins and a man named Johnson, and they went towards Kensington—Johnson went to the Rising Sun public-house, and M'Donald and Hopkins went on to the Trevor public-house, about a hundred yards from the Rising Sun—I went up to them, and said to the prisoner, "I shall take you in custody for attempting to past a bad 5s. piece to Mrs. Norman—she said she had not been anywhere, but I saw her hand move and saw something drop—I picked up a 5s. piece and a halfpenny, close to where she was standing—I said, "I expect this is the bad 5s. piece you have been to Mr. Norman's with"—she made no reply—I said to Hopkins, "I shall take you in custody for passing a bad half-crown at the Sun, Mr. Williams'"—she said she had not been there—Johnson then came up; I took him and told him it was for being concerned with the two women in uttering counterfeit coin—he said he did not know them, and had patted no bad money—I searched Johnson at the Sun and found on him a florin, six shillings, eight sixpences, two 3d. pieces, a 4d. piece, and 1s. 3 1/2 d. in copper, all good money—on M'Donald was found a basket and tome bread; this half-crown (produced) was given to me by Mary Moore.
Prisoner's Defence. I hope you will have mercy on me, it it my first time.
GUILTY .—She was further charged with having been before convicted.
JAMES GALL (Policeman, N 276). I produce a certificate—(Read: "Central Criminal Court, May, 1859. Eliza M'Donald, convicted of feloniously uttering counterfeit coin.—Confined One Year)—The prisoner it the person—I was the constable in the case, and was so also when she was convicted in 1858.
Prisoner. I never was convicted before.
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and COOKE conducted the Prosecution.
The evidence of Mary Moore, Elizabeth Nortnan, and John Clark, given in the former case, was read over to them, to which they assented.
COURT to JOHN CLARK. Q. What did she say when you charged her with passing the half-crown at the Rising Sun? A. She said, "I have not been in the house at all."
MR. COOKE. Q. Were you in uniform? A. You; it was about half-past 9 when I saw then together.
Hopkin's Defence. I have no knowledge of either Johnson or M'Donald.
Johnson's Defence. I deny all knowledge of it, and I knew nothing about these two women. I was going home to my lodging.
M'DONALD— GUILTY . *— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
HOPKINS— GUILTY .— Confined Six Months.
JOHNSON— NOT GUITLY .
MESSRS CRAWFORD and ROWDEN conducted the prosecution.
JOHN TUNBRIDGE . I am a clerk in the money-order office, Chancery-lane—on Wednesday, 30th April, between 2 and 4 o'clock, the prisoner came and asked for three shilling's worth of postage stamps—he gave me a half-crown and two threepenny-pieces, and left—I directly took up the half-crown, and detected that it was counterfeit—I put it by itself, and next morning gave it to the policeman F 178—next day, Thursday, 1st May, the prisoner came again, about half-past 12, and asked for three shilling's worth of stamps—I recognised him immediately—I gave him the stamps, and he put down three shillings—I looked at them—one was counterfeit, two were good—I told him I had been anxiously waiting, and wanted to see him, for he gave me a bad half-crown last night—he said he had never been at the shop before—I detained him, and gave him in custody with the bad shilling.
Prisoner. I was never the shop on the Wednesday.
JAMES STANLEY EYRE (Policeman, F 198). The prisoner was given into my charge on 1st May, by the last witness, with this half-crown and shilling (produced)—the prisoner said that he had never been in the shop before; that a gentleman who was standing over the way at the corner of Bream's-buildings had sent him for three shilling's worth of postage stamps, and that if he got them he would give him 6d.—I looked, but there was no one there—on the prisoner was found two good shillings, two halfpennies, and a tobacco-box.
Prisoner's Defence. I never passed any had money anywere. I always got my living honestly; I have got masters to prove it. The two shillings on me were two of the three shillings.
COURT to JOHN TUNBRIDGE. Q. Did you return the two shillings to him?
GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and ROWDEN conducted the Prosecution.
should say, at night, and asked for a glass of ale, which I gave him—it came to 2d.—he put down a florin, and I gave him change—he drank about half the ale, and left with the change—I then examined the florin, and found it was counterfeit—I put it in a bureau, where there were shillings and sixpences, but no florin or half-crown, and kept it by itself till Friday sight, 2d May, when he came again, and asked for a glass of ale—I drew it, and be gave me a florin, which I was quite certain was bad; I tried it—I went out from the bar, took hold of his collar, and said, "How many more of this sort have you got?"—he seemed confused, and did not know how to answer—he said, "What do you mean?" or something to that effect—I said that he had passed another on me the night before last—he made no reply—I sent for a constable, detained the prisoner, and gave him in custody with the two florins.
ANN ROGERS . I am the wife of the last witness, who also keeps a tobacconist's shop, No. 47, next door to the beer shop—I always attend to the tobacconist's shop—on Thursday, 1st May, the prisoner came for half an ounce of tobacco, and gave me a shilling, and I gave him 10 1/2 d. change—I put the shilling in the till for a moment till he was gone, and then took it out and examined it—there was no other shilling in the till—I found it was bad, and gave it to the policeman on the Saturday—I did not put it in the drawer again.
WILLIAM FARLEY (Policeman, D 297). On 2d May, the prisoner was given into my custody on a charge of uttering counterfeit coin, and I received these two counterfeit florins (produced) from Mr. Rogers, and next day I received from Mrs. Rogers, his wife, this shilling (produced)—I searched the prisoner, and found on him a penny, a key, a knife, and some tobacco.
WILLIAM WEBSTER . These coins are bad—the two florins are from the same mould. The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate was here read as follows: "I deny being at that man's house on Wednesday, or on May 1st. I was at the Exhibition on 1st May."
Prisoner's Defence. On the Tuesday evening, as I was returning home, I met three men, who asked me to go to a concert in Vauxhall-road; they said they would pay my share. We went, and stopped very late, and I drank too much, and was very ill the next morning. I went that afternoon to Notting-hill, and stopped there all the afternoon. As I was coming back, I met my brother, and stopped with him till about a quarter to 9, when I left him, and went to a house in Piccadilly to have some stout. I went home, and was in bed before the dock struck 10. On Thursday we started from home at half-past 10 to go to the Exhibition, where we remained till half-past 6 in the evening, and then my wife went home. I went to St. James's-street, and stayed there till about half-past 9. On the Friday, I went out to try and get something to do. I went up to the Edgeware-road. A man said, "I will give you half-a-crown and something to drink if you will help beat these carpets." I said, "Very well." It was about half-past 1. We stopped till nearly half-past 6, and then came back as far as Port-man-market, where I said, "I can't go any further," and we parted. He gave me the half-crown, and I bought threepenny worth of cheese with it, and received a two shilling-piece and a threepenny-piece change. I went to St. John's-wood, where I stopped about two hours and a half, and then I came back by this man's house, and, feeling rather thirsty, I went in and asked for a glass of the best ale. He drew it, and I was going to drink it when I saw him looking at something in his hand on the other side of the
bar. I was going to ask him if it was a bad coin, but he came round and collared me, and gave me in custody. I have a seven years character from one of my employers, and it is not likely I should forfeit that for a two shilling piece.
GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY JAMES PAXTON . On 22d April, I was at home at my father's, for the holidays; I generally go to school—my father is a stationer, and sells receipt stamps—on 22d April, about half-past 12 in the day, I was in the shop—the prisoner came in, and asked for a pound's worth of receipt stamps—I got them, and was folding them up when my father came up to the counter.
WILLIAM PAXTON . The shop at 23, Skinner-street is mine—on 22d April I was in the shop, and saw the prisoner come in, and heard him ask for some receipt stamps—my son went to get them, and they were brought to the prisoner—I asked the prisoner for the money, and he threw down what appeared to be a sovereign, which I at once perceived to be spurious—I took it up, and found it was bad—I did not tell him it was bad—I said, "Who are the stamps for?"—he said they were for himself—I said, "What are you going to do with them?"—he said, "To send them to my brother at the Cape of Good Hope"—I said, "Where did you get the money from?"—he said he had saved it up—I called in a police-constable, and gave the prisoner in custody—I said nothing about the sovereign being bad, I felt so convinced he knew it—I gave it to the policeman—I stood at the door when I called the policeman in—the prisoner made no answer as to where he got the sovereign from.
JOHN BAKER (City-policeman, 255). I was called into the shop, and the prisoner was given into my custody—I took him to the station, searched him, and found on him a good two shilling-piece, two shillings, a sixpence, a threepenny-piece, and 5 1/2 d. in coppers—I asked him how he came by the sovereign—he said the same as to Mr. Paxton—I asked him where—he said, "45, Charles-street, Drury-lane"—I asked him what his father was—he said, "a tailor," and that he was known at 45, Drury-lane, by the name of Clogger—a small key was found on him, which I took there, and it opened a box belonging to a boy named Clogger—I could not learn anything of any George Green, who occupied that room—I received this sovereign (produced) from the last witness.
Prisoner. Where I was lodging, they did not know me by the name of Green, but by a nickname; the landlord knew me by the name of Green. Witness. It was the landlord that I saw—I do not know the difference between the landlord and the deputy landlord—it ia a very low lodging house—the policeman with me said the person I saw was the landlord—the box was a small one; this is the key.
Prisoner. I was called Clogger because I wore a pair of clogs at one time. The box was what I kept my clothes in. My father is a tailor. I used to work with him; he could not maintain me, and I left him and went to sell fish.
WILLIAM WEBSTER . This is a bad sovereign—it is of the ordinary kind, made of the same metal as the shillings, and then coloured—it is as near as possible about two-fifths of the weight of a real sovereign—it is cast in a sovereign mould, and afterwards gilt over by the ordinary process.
Prisoner's Defence. I expect I look the sovereign down in Billingsgate; I go about selling fish.
GUILTY.Strongly recommended to mercy by the jury, who considered that he had been an instrument in the hands of others. — Confined Four Months
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES LEGGATT WHITTAKER . I keep the Blue Last public-house, Dorset-street, Fleet-street—on 4th April the prisoners came in together—Blackmore asked for half a quartern of gin and hot water, which was 2 1/2 d.—I served her—she gave me a half-crown and I gave her change—I put the half-crown in the till, where there was no other half-crown—they drank the gin and water, and both left at the same time—a few minutes afterwards I went to the till, and the half crown was given me by the barmaid—I never left the bar—I looked at the half-crown and found it was bad—I had not received any other in the mean time—I kept it apart from other money, and afterwards gave it to the constable—on 22d April the prisoners came in again together—Blackmore asked for half a quartern of gin and peppermint, which was 2 1/2 d.—I served her, and she gave me a half-crown—I looked at it, and found it was bad—I said nothing particular, but went to the door, and sent for a constables—gave them both in custody with the half-crowns—I have not seen them in the house before, except on 4th April—I am quite certain they were the same two that were there on the 4th.
Williams. Q. How can you swear I was in your house on 4th April? A. Because I found the half-crown directly afterwards, and knew I took it of you—I knew you, and expected you would come back again—I knew you by your features—I said at the police-court that I was rather busy on 4th April, and that was how I came to take the half-crown—I did not notice it particularly. Witness. I was not too busy to notice the women—I am quite certain of them—the barmaid took the half-crown out of the till, and give it to me—she made some remark about it—I marked it at Guildhall.
Blackman. You said at the other Court that you were not certain that I was the person? Witness. I never said so—I did say that I was not sure which of you gave the first half-crown, but my belief is that it was you.
PHILIP MONK (City-policeman, 334). On 22d April, I was called to the house of last witness, and the prisoners were given into my custody—the landlord said they had attempted to pass a bad half-crown, and had also passed one on 4th April—I said, "Well, under the circumstances, you must come to the station-house"—Williams said, "We are as well there as any where else"—I took them to the station—on Williams I found a halfpenny and two duplicates—they gave correct addresses, but they had only been living there about three weeks—they were both Irving at the same place—Mr. Whittaker gave me one of these half-crowns ( produced,) and produced the other at the station-house.
Williams. Q. Did not the man say "No," when they asked him whether he had marked the half-crown? A. No; the chief clerk there told him to mark it so as to know it again—I gave him something to mark it with, and he said he had already marked it.
Williams's Defence. I am not guilty of being in that man's house on 4th April, and I think he has sworn to me very falsely.
Blackmore's Defence. I am not guilty of the first half-crown; I am of the
other. I had it given to me, and did not know it was bad, or I should not have given it to the gentlemen.
BLACKMORE— GUILTY . **— Confined Nine Months.
WILLIAMS— GUILTY .— Confined six Months.
MR. DICKIE conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY WARRINGTON (Policeman, G 141). On Thursday morning, 17th April, about half-past 3 o'clock, I was on duty in Leather-lane—I missed the padlock off the iron gate leading into the cellar of No. 82—I also found the window pushed back, and the gate tied up with a piece of twine—I had seen the padlock safe about twenty minutes before—I got the assistance of another constable, and we undid the twine, opened the gate, and turned our lights on into the cellar, and I saw the prisoner trying to hide himself under a shelf which projected out from the cellar window inside—I reached down, and said, "Prisoner, all right, come out of it"—I took hold of him, and he said, "All right; I'll come out"—I called up the proprietor, who gave him in custody—I took him to the station, searched him, and found a small penknife and some matches (produced)—he gave no explanation of his being there.
ROBERT MILLER (Policeman, G 178). About a quarter past 3 o'clock, on the morning of 17th April, I was called by Warrington to Mr. Josephs"—I went down into the cellar and found this spike formed into a jemmy—it was bent at the end—the prisoner was endeavouring to conceal himself—I also found this wax-taper at the same spot, and this padlock out in the street, which he had wrenched off the front gate—the prosecutor was called up, and gave the prisoner in custody.
RAPHAEL JOSEPHS . I live at 82, Leather-lane, and am a metal dealer—on 17th April my cellar was properly padlocked—I was called up by the police about half-past 3, and round the cellar broken open and the prisoner in custody—he had no right to be in the cellar—I kept some old metal there—a person can get from that cellar into my house; it is part of my dwelling-house—it also gives access to some of the neighbouring houses, by coming up the cellar stairs—I have not lost anything that I am aware of—the prisoner gave no explanation of his being there—my house is in the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn.
Prisoner's Defence. I was walking in Leather-lane, between 2 and 3 o'clock, and I found the cellar door and the window open. I had been walking about all the previous day; it was coming on to rain, and I went in to get some rest. I had no intention to rob Mr. Josephs or his house. I never saw these articles before they were produced in Court.
COURT to RAPHAEL JOSEPHS. Q. Was this spike in the cellar the night before? A. No, and there was no taper in the cellar.
GUILTY .—He was further charged with having been before convicted.
MICHAEL FLANNAGAN (Policeman, S 229). I produce a certificate—(Read: Central Criminal Court, April, 1861, George Franklin, convicted on his own confession, of burglary.—Confined One Year)—the prisoner to the same man as the Franklin there mentioned—I was present, and had him in custody.
Prisoner. It is not me; he has made a mistake. Witness. I will swear he is the person.
GUILTY. **— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. ROWDEN conducted the Prosecution.
THOMAS EDGINGS . I am a paperhanger, and live at 18, William-street, Stepney—between 12 and 1 o'clock, on the morning of 26th May, I was in High-street, Whitechapel—I had been spending the evening with some friends at Lambeth, and having something to drink, but I was sober—I knew what I was about—as I was walking in the High-street two females came up to me, and I had some conversation with them—I walked a little distance with them—they wanted me to go somewhere, and—went to Flower and Dean-street—we were standing outside the house—I would not go in—I did not like the place, and I said, "No, I am going home"—I was then suddenly seized by the prisoner Lucking—he put his hand round my neck—when he let go I called out "Police!" but I could not call out while he was holding me—he held me too tight—I was put in that fear that I could not halloo nor speak—before he came up, I had a silver watch in my right-hand waistcoat-pocket, this metal tobacco-box in my left-hand pocket, and a silk handkerchief my coat-pocket—they were all gone when Lucking went away—the watch was fastened to my dress by this silver chain, which was round my neck—when he went away it was broken as it is now—I saw some one else about that time, who I believe to be Percival, but I will not swear to him—he was, it might be, two or three yards from Lucking at the time it happened—the handkerchief and the watch all went while Lucking had got hold of me—as soon as Lucking's hand was removed from my throat, they both ran away; one, one way, and the other, the other—I can swear to the man that held me—when I was released, I met a policeman walking up the street—I said, "I have been robbed of a watch"—I had called out "Police!" before that—I do not know whether they ran in the same or different directions—they were not brought back at all—Percival was shown to me by a constable some few minutes afterwards—the constable said, "Should you know the man again?"—I said, "Yes, I should"—I went with him, and said, "That is the man"—the constable did not take me to Lucking's house—after he had taken Lucking, he went and fetched Percival—I did not accompany the policeman to a house—I gave four guineas for the watch.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKIE. Q. Do you still adhere to the story that you were not in the house? A. I was not in the house—I did not go in—I was outside—I told no policeman about Lucking seising me by the throat—the policeman took me to the house—the person that robbed me had a blue jacket on, something of the sort that Lucking has on now—I do not know what they call it—that is the man—when he was shown to me, I at once swore to him—I had not seen him before that night, but I know him to be the man who throttled me—his body was close against mine when he was throttling me—I will not swear to the other one handling me, but I believe him to be the one that took my handkerchief out of my back coat-pocket—there were several other men and women, but they were away from us—I was not turned out of a house with two girls—I did not invite them up to some room, and get turned out by the landlord—there was no quarrel about money—there were two girls when I was stopped on my road home—they said, "Where are you going?"—I said, "I am going home"—they said, "Won't you go with us?"—I went, and when I found the place I was in, I said, "No, I won't stop here"—I had been at work at Lambeth before
I spent the evening there—we had porter and gin and water there, that was all—I did not treat these people to anything, when I met them in Whitchapel—I did not have a drop with them—I had nothing to drink in Whitechapel, nor in that neighbourhood—when I got to the house, I said, "Is this the place you are going to take me into?"—they said, "Yes"—I said, "Then I won't go"—I had money in my pocket—I did not lose my money—this case was before the Magistrate twice before I made my appearance—I declined to come on the two first occasions—I was at last taken by a police-officer with a warrant: a summons first and a warrant afterwards—I was locked up there all night, the day before I gave evidence—it was about three weeks afterwards that the examination of these men took place at the police-court—I meant to put up with the loss—I have not recovered any of my things—it was a few minutes from the time I was robbed, to the time I saw Lucking and Percival—I drank nothing after I left Lambeth—I do not know how many miles it is from Lambeth—I can walk it in about three quarters of an hour.
MR. ROWDEN. Q. Are you sure Percival was the man who was within two or three yards of you when Lucking was robbing you? A. Well, I won't swear to Peroival, but I believe him to be the man—there was no one else there but he.
COURT. Q. But are you sure it was he? A. Well, no, I am not sure—I won't swear.
RICHARD EBONS (Policeman, X 297). On 26th March, I was in the H division of police, No. 96—on that night, or early on the following morning, I was on duty in Flower and Dean-street, Spitalfields—I saw a crowd and heard a cry—I saw Lucking and Percival coming out of the crowd, running—one went one aide of the road and the other the other side—as soon as they saw me they stopped and walked—I asked Lucking what was the matter up there—he said, "Nothing particular"—about ten minutes afterwards Edgings came up to me and said, "Constable, I have lost my watch"—I said, "Would you know the men that took your watch if you saw them"—he said, "Yes; I would"—I said, "Come with me;" and I took him to Lucking's house at the corner of George-street, Spitalfields—I knocked at the door and called Lucking out, and as soon as he came to the door, Edgings said, "That is the man that has throttled me, and taken my watch"—Lucking made no reply to that—I then told him he must come with me to the station, and took him there—I then went back to search for the watch, and saw Percival amongst the crowd, opposite Lucking's house, just in the centre of the road—I told Percival he must come with me down to the station, that I wanted him down there—he made no reply, but came with me—the prosecutor was at the station.
COURT. Q. Did you tell Percival the charge? A. Yes; I said, "You must come with me, you are charged with being with Lucking and robbing a man"—he made no reply—I then took him to the station, and the prosecutor said, "That is the man that was along with the man that took my watch; I will swear to him being in company with the man that took my Watch"—Percival made no reply—the crowd in Flower and Dean-street was about fifty yards from Lucking's house—Lucking's house is just at the corner of George-street, that runs out of it.
Cross-examined. Q. When you saw the prisoners running, were they not in their own street first of all? A. No; Percival lived at a lodging house—they both lived in Flower and Dean-street—the prosecutor said he could not positively swear that Percival did take his handkerchief—he charged
Lucking with stealing his watch—I heard the cry of two or three voices—I suppose there were about twenty people there when I got up—I was about fifty yards off when I first heard the cry—the prosecutor was sober, but appeared very much flurried and hurt, as if he could not speak very plain when he first came up to me—he was quite sober—he gave me no description of the prisoners—the going to Lucking's house was my own idea, seeing those men run out of the crowd, as soon as the man mentioned that he had lost his watch, I fancied it was those two—I went to Lucking's house and called him out—that was in George-street, Spitalfields, leading into Flower and Dean-street, between Whitechapel and Spitalfields—I searched the house after I went back, but found nothing—I have not up to this time found anything connected with the robbery—I had to take the prosecutor on a warrant—I had a summons first, and then a warrant to make him appear—it is about six weeks ago that it took place—I have had to watch the prosecutor all the while—I had a great deal of trouble to keep him here to day.
MR. DICKIE called
SARAH SMITH . I live at Brick-lane, Sarah's-place—about the end of last March, I met the prosecutor in Bishopsgate-street, about 9 o'clock at night—there was another female besides myself—we got into conversation and were two hours 'with him, and he spent half-a-crown with as—we went to two or three different public-houses, and when we came out he would not leave us, but would follow us—he drank old ale during that time, nothing else—he treated us, and kept following us—he invited us to a house—we did not go in—we did go in with him but he had not any money, and we came out again—I made a mistake when I said we did not go in—we were turned out of that house by the landlord—no one attacked him in Bishopsgate street when he came out—he said he would go with us, and then three men came up—one had on a blue Guernsey, and another had a shepherd's plaid—I never saw them before—I could swear to one of the men—the one that went against the prosecutor—I interfered, and called out "Police! murder!"—neither of these prisoners are the men—I do not know either of the prisoners—I could swear that they are none of the three—the police did not come up then—I do not know whether they did afterwards—I was so afraid that I went home.
Cross-examined by MR. ROWDEN. Q. How long have you been living at Sarah's-place? A. Five years—I know Fashion-street—I go through there a great many times—I know a public-house called the Queen's Head—I have had a glass of ale there—I know nothing of either of these prisoners—on my oath I do not know Lucking—I have never drank with him in my life—I have never been in the Queen's Head with Lucking—I do not know a constable or detective named Deeble—I have not been in the Queen's Head with Lucking and seen Deeble there.—(Deeble was here pointed out to the witness)—well I have seen him—he does not know anything of me, I am sure—I have never seen him in the Queen's Head public-house—he has never met me walking with Lucking—I have never seen him before—I have never seen him before to-day, to my knowledge—I was not at the police-court—I do not know the man—it was at the corner of Archey-lane, in Bishopsgate-street, that I met the prosecutor, about 9 o'clock by the clock in the beer-shop.
MR. DICKIE. Q. Is Lucking a friend of yours, or not? A. No; no friend of mine—it was Bishopsgate-street, not Whitechapel.
COURT. Q. You do not know Lucking? A. No, not before; I came here because I was told.
LUCKING— GUILTY . †— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
PERCIVAL— NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, May 14th, 1862
PRESENT—The Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR, Mr. JUSTICE WILLES; Mr. BARON CHANNELL; Mr. Ald. FINNIS; Mr. Ald. ABBISS; Mr. Ald GIBBONS; and ROBERT MALOOLM KERR, Esq.
Before Mr. Justice Willes.
MR. METCALFE, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM WARREN (Police-sergeant, D 27). On Thursday, 1st May, about half-past 1 in the morning, I heard cries of "Murder" and "Police," in Carlton-terrace, Harrow-road—in consequence of hearing those cries I went there—I saw the prisoner's wife in her night-drees, or chemise, standing in front of the terrace, with her night-dress saturated with blood—she complained of some one to me—in consequence of what she said I went with her to where she lived, and knocked at the door—the landlord of the house opened it—while we were waiting for the door to be opened, she was bleeding very much: I should think there'was a pint of blood on the stone in front of the door—when the door was opened, I went up stairs to the third floor front-room, and found the prisoner there dressing himself—I said, "This is a very serious case; you are charged with assaulting your wife with some blunt instrument"—his wife was then in the front-room—he said, "It is a good job she got away from me, or it might have been worse"—I then took him to the station, and sent for a surgeon to attend the wife—at the station she said, while the prisoner was by, that he had struck her with the axe on the side of the head—she said, she saw the axe coming and stood on one side—she also said, he had tried to stab her with a file, more than once—I saw several wounds, one on the neck, and one on the finger—in consequence of what I heard then, I went back and searched the prisoner's room, and there found this axe (produced) under some fire-wood in a corner of the room—there were marks of blood on it then, and now—I also found this file (produced) under the bed—there were no marks on that—there was blood on the floor of the room.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. Q. Where was he when you entered the room? A. Standing by the side of the bed—he had got his trousers on, and was putting his waistcoat on, but had not got his boots on—there was a candle in the room—he was not in an excited state at that time—he got more excited after he was at the station—I noticed that after he was locked up, when I went to see how he was getting on—his hands where trembling—there were no other signs of excitement—he was not shouting or calling out—his eyes did not look wild—he was only trembling—he was not at all like a man insane—of course he felt very sorry for what had occurred—he answered every question that I put to him reasonably enough—there were other constables there who saw him—they are not here—he
remained in the cell from half-past 4 o'clock till 1, and then I took him to the police-court—he was quite well then.
MARIA WAITE . I am the prisoner's wife—on 30th April, we went to bed about 10 o'clock—about half-past 12 my husband awoke me for the purpose of giving him some medicine—he had not been well; he was in a very strange state—I gave him his medicine, and got into bed again after a short time; he told me to come to bed—after I had got into bed again he tried to pierce me with a file in the stomach—he had not said anything before he did that—he did not pierce me with the file—I got it from him after a long time, and threw it under the bed—I had several scratches from it about my body—I tried to get away from him as much as I could—he then got the axe from behind some fire-wood—we were out of bed at that time; in the struggle we got out on to the floor—he struck me on the left side of the head with the axe—I was standing up at the time, trying to get out of the door away from him—I could not say what part of the axe he hit me with—it out my head, and the blood flowed on to my chemise—when I got from him I ran down stairs as fast as I possibly could, and he threw the axe after me on to the first landing, but it did not come near me.
Cross-examined. Q. Had he been in a strange state for some time? A. Yes; from the Saturday night—this happened on Thursday, 1st May—he could not work—he had not been confined to his bed—he could not sleep, or rest at all—there did not seem any rest in him—he had been drinking very hard for a fortnight, continually, every day—it was on Saturday night that he was first taken so ill that he could not go out—I had no one to attend him—I offered to go for a doctoring of parties being in the room: he even went down to my landlady's room and looked about her private apartments, and in the cow-shed, and underneath the cows—he had never done such a thing before—that was in the morning part of the Wednesday—sometimes he was a great deal worse than he was at others—after he had slept in the afternoon he seemed much better, and I was in hopes that he had overcome it—he said nothing more about it before we went to bed about 10—I can't say whether he went to sleep—I fell asleep myself—he was a very good husband to me when he was sober—I never gave him any ground of complaint—he is a timber sawyer—the axe is used for the timber—it was placed in a corner behind some fire wood with other tools—the file is used to sharpen the saw—I don't know where he took that from; he generally carried it in his pocket—he had got out of bed before he tried to stab me with the file.
GEORGE BROWN . I am a surgeon at Kensal-green—on 1st May, about half-past 9 in the morning, I was called to examine the prosecutrix at her house—I found two incised wounds on her head, one over the left ear three inches in extent, and one over the right ear about an inch in length; they
were to the bone—this axe would be calculated to produce such wounds—I found a great number of scratches and bruises on the belly, as if caused by the sharp point of a file—there was also a blunt wound on the right side of the belly, as if produced by the blunt edge of the file—I afterwards saw the prisoner at the station—I asked him how he came to do it—he said, he had had delirium tremens, and it was through jealousy of one Jem Trotman.
Cross-examined. Q. I suppose you are familiar with what is called delirium tremens? A. Yes; a very aggravated state of it makes a a man insane, so that he would not know what he was doing—he would not then know the difference between right and wrong—I have heard the evidence of the prosecutrix—if I had been called in I might have advised some stimulants to be administered—suddenly depriving a man of stimulants after he has been drinking might bring on delirium tremens—it may last some days, until the man gets a good sleep—I did not see him in a tremulous state—the symptoms described by the prosecutrix are such as occur in an aggravated state of delirium tremens—the only way in which I can account for there being no recurrence of the fit, was his getting plenty of good sleep—possibly his being locked up might have some effect, but delirium tremens if a formed disease, and I should hardly think it would have been so.
COURT. Q. Was he suffering from delirium tremens when you saw him in the morning. A. No; if the delirium was the mere result of drunkenness, it would pass away.
MR. RIBTON. Q. Was his appearance consistent with having been suffering from delirium tremens the night before. A. Yes; quite so—he might have been suffering from it even up to 12 o'clock on the Wednesday night—the comparatively quiescent state in which I found him, I took to be the result of finding himself in the position in which he was; and the excitement had passed off.
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. Recommended to mercy by the
prosecutrix.— Confined Eighteen Months
MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.
GUILTY .— Four Years Penal Servitude.
MESSRS. SLEIGH and OPPENHEIM conducted the Prosecution.
GUILTY .— Penal Servitude for Life.
MR. OPPENHEIM conducted the Prosecution, and MR. METCALFE the Defence.
GUILTY of the attempt. — Confined Twelve Months
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, May 14th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. BARON CHANELL; Mr. Ald. ROSE; and Mr. Ald. GABRIEL.
Before Mr. Baron Channell.
PLEADED GUILTY .
He received a good character, and Mr. John Day, hotel-keeper, of Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, engaged to take him into his service.
Confined Six Months.
MESSRS. GIFFARD and MATTHEWS conducted the Prosecution.
The evidence was interpreted to the prisoner.
JAMES OAKLEY . I am foreman to Mr. Hodges, of Oxford-street—on 26th March, about 8 in the evening, the prisoner came and looked at a pair of boots—the young man was going to look for some more, but he said, "Never mind, these will do"—he spoke English; I could distinctly understand him—he took out his portmannaie, but said that he had not enough silver, and asked if I would change this note (produced)—I identify it by this endorsement—it did not appear to be genuine, and I went and spoke to Mr. Hodges, and in consequence of what he said, I went out, crossed the road to get the opinion of a neighbour, from whose shop I tapped a policeman on the shoulder, who was passing, and directly I did so, I saw the prisoner outside the shop, talking to a second man about twenty yards from me—I had left the prisoner in the shop, saying, in his hearing as I went out, that I must go for change—when the prisoner saw me touch the policeman he started off running as fast as he could—from the first shop I went to I went to a second neighbour; and if the prisoner had been at the door of our shop, he must have seen all that I did—I immediately cried "Stop thief!" and the policeman caught the prisoner.
Cross-examined by MR. PATER. Q. I suppose he could wear the boots? A. Yes—I do not think Mr. Hodges took the note in his hand, the endorsement on it was spelt in French: there was an "A" for "Half"—Mr. Hodges was not capable of giving an opinion about the note—he is not here—he was not before the Magistrate—I was away from the shop about ten minutes—I took the note to Mr. Gardiner the money changer—he is not here—the prisoner was taken three or four minutes after I spoke to the policeman—I did not charge him with stealing the boots; the charge I made was trying to pass a forged note—he was brought back to the shop in four or five minutes—he made no reply to the charge—he speaks English imperfectly, but I could understand him quite—I lost sight of him for a moment turning the corner—I do not know the other man, but I saw him afterwards at the police-court, in company with a woman, who instructed Mr. Lewis to defend the prisoner—Mr. Hodges has been in business forty years, and I have been in his employment fifteen years.
MR. METCALFE. Q. How far were you from him when he turned the corner? A. Twenty or thirty yards; and when I turned the corner I saw him again, and have no hesitation in saying that he is the man—I took the note from the prisoner's hand and walked with it to Mr. Hodges—I went first to Gardiner's the money changer's, but the note was not out of my sight there—he was not at home, but his young man was—I next went to Johnson's the hosiers, it was out of my sight for a moment there, while the assistant had it; he just took it to the back of the shop and showed it—he was out of my sight as well as the note—I am sure I got back the same note from him; I know it by the endorsement.
me in the street, and said something, in consequence of which I went towards Mr. Hodges' shop—I there saw the prisoner—as we walked towards the shop Mr. Oakley shouted, "Stop thief!" and I noticed the prisoner running from the pavement into the road—I had not noticed him before—I ran after him three or four hundred yards, and caught him—he turned out of Oxford-street into Union-street—I did not lose sight of him—he turned round when I got within a few yards of him, and said, "Me done nothing"—I took him into custody—I took him first to Mr. Hodges' shop; he was there charged with uttering this note, and then I took him to the station.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you know whether the prisoner ran after "Stop thief" was called, or before? A. I did not Bee him before "Stop thief" was called—I saw him running after "Stop thief" was called—he said, "Me done nothing" when he was in the street—he did not persist in saying that when he was in the shop—I cannot remember what he said in the shop—he might have repeated more than once, "Me done nothing"—I was about thirty yards from the shop when I first saw him, and he was about three or four yards from the pavement.
COURT. Q. Did he stop before you got up to him? A. He stopped when I got within three or four yards of him.
JOSEPH RICE . I am a shoemaker, of 384, Oxford-street—on 4th February, I came home and found the prisoner in the shop, being served with a pair of boots—I went up, fitted him, and then took the boots to pack them up—he was fumbling about with his portmonnaie, as I supposed getting the money to pay for them, and all at once he said, "Me not money enough," at the same time showing me his portmonnaie, which contained a few shillings and what appeared to be a 5l. note—he took the note out and presented it to me—I took it and said I would change it—I took it to the desk and endorsed my name on it, "J. Rice"—this is the same note; it has my signature—this "Mr. Rice" on the back was written by another person—I gave the prisoner four sovereigns and 7s. 6d. change; 12s. 6d. was the price of the boots—he went away with the change and the boots—the note was returned to me on 7th February—I next saw the prisoner at the police-court, on 17th March, in custody—he was first shown to me the passage leading to the Court—it was very dark, and I did not recognise him—I afterwards saw him in the Court where it was light, and became certain, and I recognised his voice—I have not the least doubt he is the man who passed that note—I said in Court, "He has got on the same boots that he purchased of me at the time."
Cross-examined. Q. I believe when you heard his voice, it was after you expressed your uncertainty as to his being the man? A. Yes; but I saw him in Court ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after that, and recognised the general character of his person, though I was not sure of him until he spoke—it was not by his broken English that I recognised him, because he did not speak English at all, it was by the general voice, not the words—not by his voice alone, but by his general character as well—I did say before that I did not notice what dress he wore at the time he purchased the boots—I also know the marks inside the boots—they were made expressly to my order, by Mr. Hatton of Northampton—I do not think there are any others of the same class—I have a boot here which will match them—the marks on them are "7 C. S." which constitues the quality and the size—the private mark was outside and would be worn off—when I first entered the shop my shopman was serving—I had him at the police-court, but the Magistrate refused to hear further evidence, and he is not here to-day—the prisoner
handed the note to me, and I endorsed my name on it, "J. Rice," at the moment—the prisoner was standing at the back of the desk, while I went to the front of it to do so—I did not notice this endorsement, John Dellanoir, on it—it was between the lights—I immediately sent my shopman to a shop-keeper, across the road to ask him if be would change it, and he brought me back five sovereigns—it was about a month after the prisoner entered the shop that I saw him—I had not seen him since.
COURT. Q. Can yon take upon yourself to say that you did not receive any other 5l. note that day or the day after? A. I can—I always put my name on a note before I send it out to get change.
Cross-examined. Q. Are the numbers the same? A. The numbers are put on afterwards—it is not a water-mark at all, only an imitation.
GUILTY .— Six Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. GRESHAM conducted the Prosecution.
ADAM DHAN . I am a civil engineer—on 4th April, I was staying at Gregory's Hotel, Cheapside—on that morning I met with two women—the prisoner is one of them; I will swear to her—I met them in Long-acre, and accompanied them—I treated them, and afterwards accompanied one of them to her house, which I afterwards ascertained was at No. 9, Coal-yard, Drury-lane—it was the first door out of the passage to the left—it was both a sitting-room and a bed-room—after I had been there some time there was a knock at the door, and the girl that was along with this woman went out—I said, "Where is she going?"—the prisoner said, "I will go and fetch her"—she went away and brought another—I said, "I am going to leave, I sha'nt stop here;" and when I said that, two men came in and made an attack on me—the prisoner was with me then—I said, "I am going;" and the men stopped me—I said, "It will take you all your time"—they rushed on to me; I struck light and left; they struck too; and one of them said, "Have you got it?"—I had an overcoat on—I belong to a country town where they know how to use their feet, and I believe I could have licked the whole four—I knocked one of the men over; I dropped him—the women got hold of me by the collar of my coat, tore my scarf off, and hung on to my throat—I had the men under me; I was giving it to them; I meant mischief—I did not like to lose my property—they got me down, and when I was on the ground my gold watch and guard were taken out—the prisoner was throttling me at this time—it is a very difficult position to be placed in—I rushed out of the house after the men—I was after the man to knock him down—I had seen my watch and chain safe perhaps about an hour, or half an hour before this—I looked at it when I left a party, a little after 12—I met the women, perhaps, an hour afterwards—when the man said, "Have you got it?" I heard no reply, all I saw was a dart—they put their hands up and made a dart—they opened my overcoat while I was standing on the defensive, and I felt my watch go, but did not see it—I felt in my pocket and missed it—the men then left me, and I followed them—I did not succeed in catching the prisoner—I met the policeman, returned, and pointed out the house to him, but it was closed—we had had a drink, and I cannot tell you how long I was in the prisoner's company before the men came in.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Had you had a good deal of drink before you met her? A. Yes; and I might have had one glass of ale or a dozen glasses with her, for anything I know—she assisted me in drinking—I do not know how many glasses I have had since I came here—I dare say I have had a bellyfull since then, for I have been hero every day since Monday morning.
JOHN MATTHEWS (Police-sergeant, 13 F). I took the prisoner on the night of 4th April—I asked her if she lived at 9, Coal-yard—she said, "Yes"—I said I should take her for being concerned with two men and a woman in robbing a gentleman of a watch and chain, about 3 o'clock that morning, at 9, Coal-yard—she said nothing then—I took her to the station, fetched the prosecutor, and placed the prisoner with three other females, and he identified her—I saw him that morning about 3 o'clock; he was then slightly under the influence of liquor, and very much excited, but he appeared to know perfectly well what he was doing—the watch has not been found.
Cross-examined. Q. What state was she in when you took her? A. Quite sober.
JAMES COSTELLO (Policeman, 129 F). On 4th April, about 3 in the morning; I met the prosecutor in Drury-lane, and accompanied him to 9, Coal-yard—he pointed out a room to me, the door of which was locked—I got in by the parlour-window, and found there his hat, brace, collar, and neck tie.
HYAM FIRSH (Policeman, 156 F). On 5th April, about 3 o'clock, I met the prisoner at the top of Coal-yard—she was quite sober, to all appearance—I said, "What is the matter?"—she said, "Nothing," and went away, and shortly afterwards I saw the prosecutor with his clothes torn and without scarf or collar—his waistcoat was torn, and he had only one brace, and no hat—the prisoner was meeting me, coming from No. 9, towards Drury-lane, and as I got nearer to No. 29 I met the prosecutor standing in the middle of the street—he made a complaint to me.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate was here read as follows: "The prosecutor had been drinking with me and others; two bottles of gin were brought to my place; if I had not been drinking such a thing would not have occurred in my place; I do not know whether it occurred or not."
GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
MESSRS. SLEIGH and GIFFARD conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES MILLS . I live at 103, Edgeware-road, and am a pawnbroker—I occasionally deal in Irish and Scotch bank notes—on Saturday, 19th April, the prisoner called at my shop with a note in her hand—she asked me if I changed Scotch notes—I said that I did, and gave 19s. 6d. for them—she said, "Yes, that is right, I have six of them"—she produced the other five from her purse, and placed them on the counter with a half-crown and sixpence—I had had some information, in consequence of which I looked at the notes and asked the prisoner her same—she said Eliza Anderson—I asked her where she lived the said 32, Grafton-place, Camden-town—I asked whose notes they were—she said, "My own"—I asked her where she got them from—she said that they were given to her by a gentleman with whom she had been staying at Windsor for a week—I asked his name—she said, "George"—I asked his other name she said
she did not know—I asked her what be was—she said that he held a situation in the City, but she did not know what—I had previously sent for a constable, who then arrived—I told him, in her presence, that I had heard there were a number of forged Scotch notes about, and I had reason to believe these formed a part of them—she was then taken to the station, and I handed the notes to the officer.
Cross-examined by MR. PATER. Q. Have you any Scotch notes in your window to inform the world that you change notes? A. Yes; and Irish notes as well, and a little bowl with foreign gold and silver coin, and I have it written up as well—there are different charges made for changing notes: we should do a number of them at less than one—I did not tell her that I should send for a policeman—I did not leave the shop; I only went to the back of it, and celled some of my people—the prisoner could have opened the door and gone out—the shop is divided as pawnbrokers shops usually are, the pledging part at the back, and the sale part in the front—when I went to the back I was behind the division—it is a large shop—my assistants were most of them down at dinner, and I called through the door to them to come up—I went out of the prisoner's sight, but was scarcely absent a second—the prisoner gave her answers with great readiness—I have not inquired whether Anderson it her maiden name.
COURT. Q. Can you recollect at what part of the conversation it was that you stepped back and spoke to your assistants? A. I asked her her name and address, and then went to the back and called my assistants.
—TOMPKINS (Policeman, D 221). On 19th April, about 2 o'clock, I was called to Mr. Mills's shop, and found the prisoner in front of the counter—he asked me, in her hearing, if I knew anything concerning some Scotch notes, which had been stolen or forced—I said no—he said that the prisoner came and asked him if he changed Scotch notes; that he told her he did, and offered her 19s. 6d. for one, upon which she produced five others, with 3s.—the had the 3s. in her hand—he told me to ask her where she got them, as his modesty forbad him to tell me—I asked her, and she said she had been staying with a man nemed George for a fortnight at Windsor—Mr. Mills said that he was not satisfied with the answer she gave, and I took her to the station, detained her while I made inquiries, first at 37, Haymarket, and then in the City—Mr. Mills then charged her with uttering forged notes—she said that it was very hard that she should be charged—she gave her name Eliza Anderson at first, but six hours afterwards, when I had made the inquiries, and the charge was being taken, she gave the name of Clark—I went to Camden-town, but could not find Grafton-place—I found Grafton-place, Kentish-town, but there was no No. 32; the highest number was 12—I made inquiries about there, but could learn nothing of any woman named Elisabeth Anderson or Clark.
Cross-examined. Q. Did she not say in your hearing that Clark was her marriage name, and Anderson her maiden name? A. No—she told me she was living separate from her husband—that was when she made the change of name—I was outside the office when Funnell was there—he made no inquiries in my hearing.
MR. SLEIGH. Q. Are these (produced) the notes Mr. Mills gave you? A. Yes—I wrote my name on them.
JACOB PERKINS BACON . I am manager of the firm of Perkins, Bacon, and Co. of Fleet-street—they are printers to the National Bank of Scotland—these six notes are our genuine work, as far as the printing and numbering it concerned—we have missed from our premises a packet of notes with
the top number 176 T, which we have never sent to the bank for issue—they were on our counter, waiting to be sent to the Bank, and when we looked for them, having our suspicious aroused, they were gone.
COURT. Q. The letter T and the 176 would apply, I suppose, to all the impressions of 1l. notes? A. No; T does, but 176 applies to our books—the bottom number varies, and runs on numerically—these notes were printed with the view of being reissued—we did not miss the packet till 10th April, but it might have gone any day between the 3d and the 10th—No. 500 would be the highest number we should strike off—we were sending 5,000 out, but, after 500, the top number would be changed—when we finished the impression we should send them to the Bank of Scotland direct in a box, and not to any London agent.
JOHN GIFFARD . I am cashier to the National Bank of Scotland, at their head office in Edinburgh—it is an incorporated bank—the issue of notes is under my special superintendance—the signatures to these six notes are not genuine—I know a person bearing one of the names, Mr. John Addison—he signs for the manager, "pro" but this is not his signature—there is a Mr. A. R. Warner in the bank, but not H. R Warner, nor is this Mr. A. R. Warner's signature.
COURT. Q. Have you any persons in the bank of the names of Addison or Warner, but the two gentlemen named? A. No—I keep a book in which I enter the notes I issue, and then place them before those gentlemen to sign—it is my duty to regulate the issue—there are notes with the letter T in my possession, but not issued—the series of notes come down to the bank, and then I determine whether I issus the old series or the new—I place the new notes before somebody for their signature—I never received any notes T 176—they could not be issued without passing through my hands—I then take a note of the numbers, and after signature they are rehanded to me for issue.
Cross-examined Q. How are you able to say that notes with the numbers of these series have not been entered? A. Because I have not them in the book—the book is not here—I never received the blank forms of series T 176 from the engraver, and it it my duty in the first instance to receive them for signing and issuing—these notes are dated 11th November, 1861—that is according to the instructions which we give to the engraver.
COURT. Q. There would be no entry in your books until you received the notes? A. No—I begin by crediting the bank 500 on one side, and 500 on the other, but before they are issued they must bear the signature of two accountants—it is my duty to receive the forms.
EDWARD FUNNELL . I am a detective City-officer—on 19th April, I was at the John-street station when the prisoner was charged—I asked her where she got the notes from she had there—she told me a gentleman gave them to her, who she had been staying with for a weak at Windsor—I said, "Where at Windsor?"—she said, "Eaton-place"—I asked her what number—she said that she did not know the number, but that it was at an eating-house—I asked her what the gentleman's name was—she said that she knew him by the name of George—I asked her where she was in the habit of meeting George—she said, "In an Alton ale-house in Newgate-street"—I said, "Where in Newgate-street?"—she said, "Down a passage, where he goes and has his lunch, ale, and sandwiches."—I do not know such a place as that, and 1 am pretty well acquainted with Newgate-street—I asked her what part of Newgate-street—she said, "On the other side of the Blue Coat School"—I went down to Windsor, but could find no Eatonplace
—I found one at Eton, but no eating-house or place of refreshment—I have searched for the passage described in Newgate-street, but have not been able to find one which corresponds with the description.
I COURT. Q. Then there is not near Christ's Hospital, any passage leading to a house of refreshment? A. Not to an Alton ale-house—the prisoner, when before the Magistrate, said that there was a passage leading down a court to the Post-office; 1 said, "Well, I know that house; that is kept by Mr. Gibson"—the hotel is in Newgate-street, and the passage leads into St. Martin's-le-grand—when you get into Newgate-street, and go a little way down, Christ's Hospital is on the left—there is no passage opposite that point leading to a house of refreshment, but a little further up, on the right hand side, there is a passage leading to two houses of that kind, the Salutation and the Grapes.
Cross-examined Q. I believe you have been very active in this matter? A. I have made all the inquiries I could—I have seen the prisoner's father—I have not offered him a reward to give me information—I swear I have made no proposition to him—the prisoner said she was in the habit of meeting him down a passage opposite the Blue-Coat School—there is a passage opposite the Blue-Coat School, known as Three Ton's-passage; there is one entrance to it out of Ivy-lane, another from Newgate-market, and another from Newgate-street, with a butcher's shop at the corner—there is in that passage, besides the Grapes, a house called the Ship, and another called the Dark House—I did not call and make inquiries at a gay house in Windsor: I do not' know one—I inquired for Eaton-place, at the Post-office, the police, and the bankers—no number was given of Eaton-place; No. 32, was Grafton-place—I inquired at the Ship.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Did she make one statement or two about the passage? A. She made another statement before the Magistrate—she said that it was not opposite, but on the same side as the school, and that she went down the passage by a hairdresser's shop at the corner, which led through to the Post-office, and I found an Hotel there kept by Mr. Gibson I—that statement was after I had been examined as to her first statement, she said that I was wrong and this was her correction of my statement.
MR. PATER. Q. Did not the Magistrate observe to you that your statements were very unsatisfactory? A. No; he made no such remark—I have got the prisoner's landlady here; I found out where she lived.
Cross-examined. Q. You do not know everybody who takes lunch at your bar? A. No.
ANN HOWLE . I live at 5, Little Charles-street, Hampstead-road—the prisoner lived in my house about six months, till Easter, when I missed her—until that time she was not absent from the house for a week together, except when she had an illness—they had company in the room on Good Friday, but 1 do not know who was there—I do not recollect seeing her after Good Friday, but it was a day or two after before I actually missed her, and I inquired and heard that her mother-in-law was ill, and she was attending her—I have not seen her since, until this morning—I live on the first floor, and she in the parlour—I do not think she was absent for a day
up to Good Friday—she was generally out in the day, and came home after I was in bed at night—they went by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Hayward, husband and wife as I understood
Cross-examined. Q. You say that you missed her some time in Easter week? A. yes; and I asked her sister where she was—I did not see her after that—she had never slept away from the house to my knowledge—they did not get up till 11 in the morning—their little parlour is close to the street door, and they have a key—I did not wait on them—I never knew them till they came after the apartments—they appeared to be living as man and wife—they occupied one little parlour at 2s. 6d. a week—I never heard that she ran away from him.
Cross-examined. Q. How far is the Ship from your place? A. I only know the Ship in Aldersgate-street; I know no house of that name in that passage.
MR. PATER to JOHN GIFFARD Q. Are there a great many parties who sign for the manager of the bank? A. Yes; but they each sign his own proper name, and not one for the other.
COURT. Q. Do you know any of those whose signature is attached to this paper? A. No; there are about 150 persons in the Bank—it is necessary for notes to be signed by the manager, by procuration of somebody, and by the accountant, by procuration of somebody, and until it has those two signatures it is not a note, but only a piece of paper—this is not the signature of the person authorized to sign for the accountant, and he has no power to give authority to anybody else to sign a note.
GUILTY.Recommended to mercy by the jury believing her to be the tool of another person.
Confined Eighteen Months.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, May 14th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. Ald. FINNIS; Mr. Ald. GIBBON; and ROBERT MALCOLM
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and LLOYD conducted the Prosecution
CHARLES JOHN SUNMAN . I keep a general shop at 14, Mate-street, Bethnal-green—on 7th April, the prisoner came and asked for a penny candle, and tendered a counterfeit shilling—I broke it in two, chucked it back to her on the counter, and asked her how many more she had got like that—she said, "What is the matter with it?"—I said that it was a bad one, and that I thought she had paid me a visit before on Saturday night, for we had one of the same date then—she picked up the pieces and went away, taking them with her—I followed her down the street, and at the corner of North-street, she sat down on a door-step—she had not sat there long before three young men joined her—I heard some awkward words from them; they saw I was watching them; I let them go up one street, and I went up another; I saw the prisoner leave the three men; she went up the Bethnal-green-road, and into Mrs. Howes shop—I was standing outside the window and saw her tender a shilling, and saw Mrs. Howes break it in
two—I went to the door, and said, "Hallo, my lady, this is the second uttering; I will give you in charge"—and then she declared she had never seen me before—a constable was called in, and she was given in charge.
Prisoner. When I went into the shop I spoke to a young woman first
Witness. Yes; you asked her for the candle.
COURT. Q. Did the young woman take the shilling into the parlour A. Yes; and gave it to me—it was a piece of counterfeit money, which I broke in two—I showed it to the prisoner first—I saw the shilling chucked on to the counter—I was just inside the bar parlour at the time, and I saw the young woman take it up, and I never lost sight of it till it came into my hand—I am certain of that.
MR. CRAWFORD. Q. When the prisoner left the shop did she take the candle with her or not? A. No; I could see from the parlour what was taking place in the shop; it is all glass.
SAMUEL HOWES . I am a baker, at 180, Bethnal-green-road—on 7th April, the prisoner came into the shop; I was at one counter and my wife was against the scales—the prisoner asked her for a half-quartern brick—when it was weighed she put a shilling down; my wife took it, broke it in two, and threw it down—I still kept my position, and Mr. Sunman came in, put his two hands across our door, and said, "Hallo, my lady, we have got you now; you were just in my shop and gave me one"—I came round to the door, picked up the shilling, called a policeman, and gave the prisoner in charge with the pieces of the shilling.
COURT. Q. Did Sunman say, "That is the very same shilling she offered to me." A. No; he said she had been in his shop with one, and he broke it in pieces, and she took them away—his shop is more than a quarter of a mile from mine.
GEORGE TUTTY (Policeman, X 206). I was formerly 309 of the K division—I took the prisoner on Monday, 7th April, and received these broken pieces (produced) of a shilling from Mr. Howes—I told the prisoner the charge—she said, on the way to the station, she was sorry for it, if I would let her go she would never do the like again—she was searched and nothing found on her.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate was here read as follows: "It is the first I passed anywhere, and the first time I have been in prison."
Prisoner's Defence. I did not know it was a bad shilling.
GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
MESSRS. GIFFARD and REES conducted the Prosecution.
STEPHEN MILLER . I reside at 7, Red Cross-street, and am clerk to Messrs. Harmar and others, distillers and rectifiers, who carry on their business in that street—the prisoners were, last month, in their employ as carmen, and had been so, I think, rather more than three years—Mr. Chapman of the Gate-house Hotel, Highgate, is a customer of Messrs. Harmar and Pearson—on Monday morning, 17th April last, I was about to send a cask of gin to Mr. Chapman's—it left the warehouse about 9 o'clock in the morning—the prisoners were the carmen who were to take it—I have nothing to refer to now, but I think it contained 101 gallons when it left the warehouse—I put down at the time, how much it contained—I have not that entry with me—I tested that gin about 8 o'clock that morning, and
found it seventeen under proof—it is not possible that anything could have been taken out of that cask between the time I tested it and the time was sent away, without my seeing it—the cask was under my eye from half-past 8 to 9—no one could have touched it between that time without my seeing them—I did not see it between 8 and half-past; I was not there—Mr. Frederick Pearson was there—he is a son of one of the partners, and is a partner himself—the cask was quite full when I tested it, with the exception of the sample that was taken out—that deficency was filled up from the vat that the gin was drawn from originally—the deficiency was about a pint—I saw the prisoners leave the distillery with the waggon—Mr. Chapman's name, the contents, and the strength, were written on the cask with chalk—we always send out a delivery-note with casks sent out in that way—the delivery-notes are kept in a book—we do not usually tear them out—the book is delivered to the carman, and he gets the receipt signed—the delivery-note that was given to the prisoners is not in my possession—the carman should deliver it to the publican, and he would sign it—the carman, if he comes home after the warehouse is shut up, would deliver it to me the next morning; if not, he would deliver it when he came back—the delivery-note was brought back to me by the prisoners the same evening, Monday, 7th April, about 7 o'clock—the whole book was given to me—the note was not then torn out; it was in the book—this (produced) is the same delivery-note—Church gave it to me—it mentions 102 gallons as the quantity, and the strength seventeen under proof—Robinson was present when Church gave me that—Church gave me the book, and said that he had had a row with Mr. Chapman at the Gate House, Highgate—he had accused them of tampering with the gin, and that he had said to Mr. Chapman that he had never been accused of anything of that kind before, and he threatened to kick Chapman—Church said, in Robinson's presence, that it had been raining all day, all the time they had been out, and a little water might have got in the cans, which they supposed accounted for the deficiency that Mr. Chapman found—he meant deficiency in the strength—Robinson corroborated the statement of Church—the prisoners appeared sober—they said that Mr. Chapman accused them of being tipsy—I received a telegraphic message the same evening from Mr. Chapman, about ten minutes before the prisoners arrived—Mr. Chapman came the next morning, and gave me a bottle sealed up, containing gin—I tested it's contents in order to ascertain the strength, and found it fifty-three per cent under proof—I tested it with the hydrometer and thermometer together—those instruments sometimes get out of order, but we always keep a standard in our office—I do not know about there being many hydrometers made inaccurately—they get inaccurate.
COURT. Q. Did you test it, and find it fifty-three under proof with the same hydrometer that you had tested it with in the morning, and found it seventeen under proof? A. Yes.
MR. REES. Q. When you sent the prisoners away with this gin, did you give them an excise certificate and also an invoice? A. Yes, these two (produced)—if you put a gallon and a half of water to two gallons and a half of gin of seventeen under proof, it would reduce it about thirty per cent in strength—it would bring it down from seventeen to about fifty or thereabouts—I afterwards went to Mr. Chapman's, at Highgate, the day after Mr. Chapman came; I think, the Wednesday—I tested the contents of a twelve gallon cask that I saw there, and found it thirty-seven under proof—this that I am looking at is a calculation made by myself to tell me how
much gin must have been taken out of that cask, (supposing it to have been full originally of gin at seventeen under proof,) and replaced by water, in order to bring it down to thirty-seven—I cannot tell when I made this calculation—it is necessary to take out about three gallons of gin, and replaces it by three gallons of water.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. (For Robinson). Q. Did you test it with your own instrument? A. With the instrument belonging to the firm, a similar one to that with which I had tested the gin, and found it seventeen under proof but not the same—the instrument that I tested and found fifty-three per cent with was the same that I had tested the seventeen per cent with—there was also a vat at Chapman's, which I tested at forty-four under proof—I was not asked about that on the part of the prosecution—there was nothing at fifty per cent that I tested; nothing besides the bottle and the twelve-gallon cask which I have mentioned was fifty-three under proof—I did not say I had tested a gallon and a half—when I tested the cask, I had it stirred up, and took it from both the top and bottom—I took a separate sample from each, and tested them separately, and both top and bottom tested at forty-four—I did that because it might not have been stirred up, and of course then there would have been a difference—there wit also 250 gallons of gin, seventeen under proof, sent out that day—there was no sweetened gin sent out that day by the prisoners; I am sure of that—I do not know what was sent out on the previous day—sweetened gin is gin sweetened with sugar—the quantity of sugar varies; some people put more than others; it depends on the kind of gin—we have various kinds of gin; say about half a pound of sugar to a gallon—that would not reduce it in strength at all—there were not fifty gallons of sweetened gin sent that day—I have not got the book here—I think I made a mistake; I think there was fifty gallons, which they were to deliver to a customer in these very same cans—they would not have to deliver that immediately before they went to Mr. Chapman's—I am sure about that—I did not know you would require the books to be brought; we should have had to bring three or four—I was not told to bring them—it is all entered—the load that they took out is not entered in three or four books—that can be produced if you wish it—this loading list (produced) will tell me all that the prisoners took out—it is not what is called a way-bill in other businesses—it is made by Mr. Pearson.
COURT. Q. Did you check it? A. Yes, I entered the prisoners' load, all the goods they took out from this, and saw that they took these goods.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Then you do find from that that they did take out unsweetened gin? A. Yes, fifty gallons—they took 200 gallons of unsweetned gin, and 50 gallons, to Mr. Kent, of St. Pancras-road; I am not sure whether that was sweetened or unsweetened; 100 gallons of unsweetened, and 50 of sweetened, to Mr. Davis, of the Edinburgh Castle Tavern, Mornington-road; 100 gallons of unsweetened to Mr. Chapman, and five bottles containing cordials—I made an error; the first fifty was taken to another man—this is only a rough thing—the book I have left at home would tell whether it was sweetened or unsweetened gin—Mr. Chapman tested the vat with me—I told the solicitor for the prosecution that I had tested the vat, and the quantity and proof at which I had tested it.
Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS (For Church). Q. How many gallons of gin would the vat contain? A. About seventy—I should think it would take about ten gallons of water to reduce seventy gallons at seventeen under proof to forty-four under proof—it would take about ten gallons of water to reduce the vat to the proof at which it was, I should think—I tested
altogether 102 gallons or thereabouts—I should think altogether about fifteen gallons of gin must have been removed, and fifteen gallons of water, or diluting power, put to it to average the test at which I found it—the gin in the vat was represented as being gin which had been delivered by our men, with the exception of a small quantity which was in the vat before—the small quantity was, I should think, about two gallons—the remainder of the gin was put into a cask in which there were fifty gallons, which I tested and found twenty-nine under proof—the men brought me home the receipt, on which was written, "Received 102 gallons of something called gin, fifty-five per cent under proof"—I did not know what to believe when they brought me that paper; they told me one tale, and that said another—the men said it had been raining all the time they were out, and they accounted for the deficiency in strength by saying that water had got into the cans—I did not believe, when I received their statement and the telegram of Mr. Chapman, that it was fifty-five under proof, knowing that it was seventeen when it went out—we sent the men on duty the next three days—I showed this piece of paper and a telegram to my superiors—the men were continued on the duty after I came back, having tested the gin myself—I do not know that they were watched in the mean time.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Is there any book at Redcross-street from which you will be able to tell us the exact contents of everything that delivery-order refers to? A. Yes, it is in one book—(MR. GIFFARD directed the witness to fetch it at the close of his examination)—I tested about eleven and a half gallons in a twelve-gallon cask—I ascertained the quantity in that cask—that was thirty-seven under proof—the next that I tested was in the large vat—I ascertained that there were ninety-two gallons in that—Chapman told me he had put in seventy gallons, and when I got there, there were ninety-two gallons in, of what Mr. Chapman called "something"—that was forty-four under proof—I tested another cask, but did not take any means to ascertain the quantity that was in it—I should conjecuture that there was about fifty gallons in it—that was twenty-nine under proof—that is all, except the bottle, which was fifty-three under proof.
FREDERICK PEARSON . I am a partner in the firm of Harmar end Co.—I was at the warehouse between 8 and half-past 8 on Monday morning, April 7th—I have heard of the cask that was sent to Mr. Chapman's—if any one had touched that cask between 8 and half-past 8 on that morning I must have seen it—nobody touched it—it was under my eye.
Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS. Q. What are your duties from 8 to half past 8? A. To be in the place and see the people who come in—no one came in—I was not watching close over the cask—I was io the counting-house where I could see if it was touched—there were not many persons about the place—there were two men in the warehouse whose duty it was to fill the casks up, and after that they had nothing more to do with them.
JOSIAH CHAPMAN . I keep the Gate House Tavern at Highgate, and am a customer of Messrs. Harmar—on Monday, 7th April, the two prisoners came there—I received this invoice and permit (produced)—the gin is not allowed to be removed without an excise certificate—the prisoners came and reported having brought the gin—they said they had some gin for me—Church spoke, I believe, but I should not like to swear it—I told him I was going down in the cellar on some business, and would open the flaps in about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and take the gin in—before opening the flaps I came out of the cellar again, and had occasion to go into the garden—upon going along the passage I met Robinson with two large stable pails, capable
of holding about three gallons and a half each—they were not full of water—I asked him what he wanted—he said that he wanted some water for his horses—I then took the trouble to show him where the pump was to get it—the pump was inside the house, in the passage—I then left him—I saw Thomas Lee just previous to opening the flaps, and stationed him at the flaps, and told him to be sure and not leave them, but to watch these men; more especially to see that the cans were full—when I was in the cellar I chalked the number of the measures that were delivered—the measure was a four-gallon measure—a few minutes after I had been in the cellar, Lee came and made a statement to me, upon which I looked at one of the copper cans, standing on the pavement, and one that was under the syphon, apparently full of gin—I then returned to the cellar and directed Robinson to fill a twelve-gallon cask first—he said we had better fill the vat first, containing sweetened gin—I said, "No;" I wished the small cask to be filled first to retain it for unsweetened gin—the large vat contained sweetened gin—he again objected to do it, and said that it would be just as well to fill the small cask last, it would be more convenient to him—I insisted upon his filling the small cask and he commenced doing so, and put ten gallons in it—I did not measure what was in the small cask, there might be about from three quarters of a gallon to a gallon, of strong unsweetened gin, in it before he began to fill it—I asked him to give me a sample out of the second four gallon can that he brought down—we were then filling the little cask—it was from the second four gallon can that was poured in—Thomas Lee, the pot-boy, was by me at time—I put the sample aside on a cask—the jug was an empty one—I fetched it myself—it was hanging up in the bar, and was quite clean and dry—the first can full, was put into the twelve-gallon cask—the second, out of which I took the sample, was one of those that I had seen on the pavement either filled or being filled—the remainder of that from which I took the sample was put into the twelve-gallon cask, making the second can that had best emptied into it, less the quantity which I took out for the sample—we put ten gallons, two cans full and a half, into the small cask, and I then bunged it up—we then began to fill the vat—I said nothing to Robinson or the other man about the sample—after the small cask was filled, Robinson said it was not right for me to take a sample out of that can, as he had been doing something with gin at Holloway, and wanted me to take it out of another—that was just after filling the small cask, while we were filling the vat—I told him that whatever he had been doing with gin at Holloway it could not possibly affect mine, as mine was in one cask by itself, and it ought to be all alike—he said several times afterwards that it was not his fault, and that he had had nothing to do with it—I do not know what he alluded to as not being his fault, except it was the sample—Church was drawing it from the cask, and was not within hearing—I heard some conversation between Lee, Church, and Robinson, in fact, I entered into it myself, because they disputed the tally, both before and after Robinson made that statement to me—the men had both been drinking—they were just sober enough to carry the cans along—Robinson had spilt about a gallon of gin in the cellar; he could not hold the can steady to pour it in—there was a dispute about the gin, the sixteen gallons; they wanted to make it eighteen, and they kicked up a row with the potman, and swore at him very much, and the man came to me, and I told them that if they did not deliver their gin in a proper way, I would not take any more in—I keep a tally down stain, and every can that came down, I chalked on the cask it went into—after taking all the gin, I tested the sample that I had taken—the cask was empty, turned bung down in the waggon, drained out;
I saw it—I closed the flaps and called Thomas Lee, who was down in the cellar, to come up to me in the bar parlour—I received 102 gallons within a little; I suppose there might have been a quart or so, short—I tested the sample and found it 55 per cent. under proof, instead of 17—that was taken from the four-gallon measure before it got into any of my vessels—the test was made from the sample—I then poured it into two bottles and sealed them up in Lee's presence—I sent one to the distillery, and gave the other to Lee—one of them has been sealed up ever since—I told the prisoners what the strength of the gin was—Church was abusive; I told him he had attempted to rob me, and that he was a scoundrel—Church, or both, I should not like to swear which, said that it had been raining, and that some rain water must have got in the cans—it was not raining at the time—there had been very little rain in Highgate that day, and if it had been raining the whole of the day, not a quarter of a pint would go into those cans, for they are so small at the mouth and they expand at the bottom—Miller came on the Wednesday and tested the twelve-gallon cask, into which the ten gallons had been put by the prisoners.
COURT. Q. Had it been disturbed? A. It had never been touched—I locked the cellars up and gave the distillery notice of the fact—I objected first to give a receipt at all, but upon second consideration I thought I was in duty bound to give a receipt for something, so I gave that one, and immediately afterwards telegraphed to the distillery—when they left, Church said he would kick my b—so and so, if he lost his situation through it.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. When Robinson asked you about the pump, he told you he wanted the water for his horses? A. Yes—I have not measured the cans, but I should say they would hold fully three gallons and a half each, and perhaps more—I did not hear him say that he had had sweetened gin at Holloway in his cans—I do not remember his saying anything about sweetened gin—he might have said he had sweetened gin in the cans at Holloway; I should not like to swear positively—he said he had been doing something with gin; I will not undertake to swear whether he said it was sweetened gin or not—it was out of the copper can that I took the sample—I put ten gallons into the twelve-gallon cask, seventy-four gallons of the strong mixing gin in the vat, and eighteen gallons in the Old Tom cask, making in all 102 gallons—I suppose there might have been about thirty gallons in the Old Tom cask previously—it is a very strong gin—that which was in there previously was very strong—it is the strongest gin we sell, only it is very much sweetened—I did not then sweeten the eighteen gallons which I put in the Old Tom; it is sweetened now—the gin which was previously in there was sweetened—the eighteen gallons was sweetened by mixing with the sweetened gin—we have put in sweetening material since, to make it Old Tom, to make the cordial—I cannot test sweetened gin—at the distillery they can, because they re-still it—I can test unsweetened gin—Mr. Miller tested the unsweetened gin with me, and the strong mixing-gin—he did not test the Old Tom—I took it up to the distillery, and left it there—I took five gallons of each, to see the strength of it; that was afterwards—Mr. Miller tested the twelve-gallon cask, and attempted to test the gin in the large vat, where we had put the seventy-four gallons; there was only about two gallons of sweetened gin in previously, which would not affect it very much, still it would affect it—you could not test it correctly on account of the sweetening—three gallons in seventy would perhaps make a differerence of 6 or 7 or 10 per cent.—there was none put in after the seventy-four gallons—I have never measured the vat—I should say it
would hold quite 160 gallons, perhaps more—I cannot swear what he tested that at—I think it was 44 per cent, but I should not like to swear to it—he did not attempt to test the Old Tom, because it was no use—he did not test it at my place—if he did I did not see it—I did not see him test any other besides the twelve-gallon cask and the vat—it would be matter of impossibility to test the strength of the Old Tom at anything approaching to the truth—the sugar destroys the effect of the instrument—no water was put into the vat after the gin was put in, and no more gin at all—I locked the cellars and did nothing till after I had communicated with the distillery—I told Mr. Miller that fifteen gallons of water had been put into a hundred the day before to reduce the strength—no more gin had been put in—we don't sell gin so strong as they do at the distillery—wears obliged to reduce our spirits; sometimes we get rum at 44 over proof, which we are forbidden to sell.
COURT. Q. The fifteen gallons of water was to reduce the hundred that you expected to come in? A. Yes, this very hundred—gin seventeen under, proof is very strong, the strongest the distillers send out.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Was the hundred gallons to be mixed with the fifteen gallons of water so as to make it less strong? A. If it is to be done I like to have the pleasure of doing it myself—it is done throughout the trade—I do not know that Mr. Miller tested as a very strong gin at twenty-nine that which we sell as Old Tom—if he did, I did not see him—there was not water put in that—sugar was put in—there was not a drop of water in the twelve-gallon cask—it was ail genuine—that is a more expensive gin; we get a higher price for it, you can buy gin at any strength—they disputed the tally—I got 102 gallons, or within a fraction, but they admitted they were wrong—if I had admitted I was wrong, I should have lost sixteen gallons of gin—it was either at six or seven, and they wanted to put it down at sixteen or eighteen, and if I gave way to them I should have lost sixteen or eighteen gallons—I went up and saw the cask turned over, and that proved that I was right.
Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS. Q. Assuming that there had been sweetened gin in the cans, the mouths of which were so small, that would have reduced the strength at once, would it not, of the gin? A. I cannot see that that was possible—the sweetened gin in the vat reduced it 10 per cent.—it is not very likely they would leave gin in the cans—I cannot say anything as to whether, if there had been some sweetened gin in the four gallon measure, it would reduce the strength of that which was poured on it—I do not know how it would act on the instruments—the fact of a little gin being in the can I do not think would affect it at all—if there had been water in, of course that would have diluted the gin which was poured on it—if there were sweetened gin it would depend on whether the sweetened was watered or not—I sent this receipt home, "Received 102 gallons of something called gin, 55 under proof"—that is true—the men said the sample was not a fair sample—I could not test that which was in the large vat, nor what was in the Old Tom.
STEPHEN MILLER (re-examined). I have got my book now, and can state the destinations and the quantities that I sent out by the prisoners on the morning of 7th April—there was nothing entrusted to them for Holloway that morning.
COURT. Q. Have you tested the hydrometer while you have been gone? A. I tested it, after I had tested Mr. Chapman's gin, at Highgate—I tested the hydrometer I had used there, with the one I had used at home, and
tested them with the standard which we keep in our office, and found them right.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Is this your book which shows what you have sent out by the prisoner? A. Yes—the leaf which you see torn out it the receipt which Mr. Chapman signed—it is the delivery-book in which I entered the things that went out, and in which I entered the prisoner's load—the following items constituted their load, "Mr. Davis, 101 gallons of 17 gin, and 50 gallons of Old Tom;" that is the sweetened gin I mentioned; "Mr. Kent, 253 gallons of 17 under proof gin;" that was unsweetened; "Mr. Crosland (A private customer), 4 gallons of old Tom and 4 gallons of British brandy;" they were in sealed bottles—I have read all that were in the casks—Mr. Davis' address is the Edinburgh Castle, Mornington-road, Regent's-park.
THOMAS LEE . I am potman to Mr. Chapman, of the Gate House Hotel, at Highgate—on Monday, 7th April, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, Messrs. Harmar & Co's. waggon came there—the two prisoners came with it—Robinson asked me for a pail to give the horses some water—I went to the stables, fetched him an empty pail, and directed him where to go and get the water from—he went and got some and brought it back in the pail—I only noticed the cask of gin in the waggon—I do not know whether there was any name on it—there were two copper cans on the road which had come with the waggon—when Robinson returned with the pail, he emptied the water into one of the four-gallon cans, and then returned for more—he fetched two pails full of water, one of which he emptied into the other four-gallon can—he did not quite fill the cans—I then went to my master to tell him what I had seen—he was down in the cellar—after I had told him I came up the cellar steps to the flap—I did not notice any pails there then—I did not see the horses watered at all—I never noticed any water on the ground under the horses' heads—Church was there when I returned—I saw him just fill one can up with gin and put it on the pavement, and then fill the other up from the syphon, from the cask—those were the two same cans I had seen before—I saw him begin to fill both of those cans from the cask—they did not take as long to fill as they usually do when they are empty, a much shorter time—shortly after this my master came up out of the cellar, and Robinson took one of the cans down into the cellar—I took the other can myself—when I got down with the second can I saw Robinson emptying the first can into a twelve-gallon cask—I then gave him the can which I had—he was about emptying that into the twelve-gallon cask, when my master asked him to give him a sample—Mr. Chapman had a jug to put the sample in, and Robinson filled it from the second can—I then left the cellar and went up to the flap—Robinson came up shortly afterwards—Church was there, and Robinson said to him, "He has had a sample out of my can; I don't know how you will like it"—Church made no reply—the prisoners had been drinking—when five cans had been taken down Church said it was seven—I kept a score of the cans as they went down—when sixteen had been taken down, Church said it was eighteen—he and I had some little dispute about it—I then left to speak to my master, and we agreed as to the number of cans that had been taken down—the gin was taken out of the cask till it was perfectly empty—Robinson told my master he had better have another sample, as that was not a fair one that he had got—he said nothing about where the sample should be taken from—after the gin had all been emptied out of the cask, I went with my master to the bar-parlour, and he gave me the sample that had been taken out of the second can, and sealed
it up—I saw him making a test of it—I did not look and see what proof it was—after the sample was tested it was divided into two bottles, which were sealed—I have got one of them—it is not here; I have not brought it—it is still in the same state as it was when it was sealed—Church asked my master to sign the delivery-note, and he said he would not, at which Church used an expression.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. As soon as you saw the water put into the cans you went down into the cellar? A. Yes; and told my master—I remained down there three or four minutes—I cannot tell you whether the hones were watered—I did not go to their heads—I noticed no water on the ground; I did not look for it.
WILLIAM JARVIS . I am a city detective police-officer—on Friday, 11th April, in consequence of something, I went to Messrs. Harmer and Pearson's premises, about 9 o'clock, in the morning—the prisoners were called before Mr. Harmar, who was then in the counting-house—he said to them, "I have had great complaints about the gin delivered by you; these are two officers, and you must consider yourselves in custody"—Church was about to make a reply, and Mr. Harmar said, "You must explain that before a Magistrate"—I took them to the station, searched them, and found on Robinson about 7s., and about 2s. 7 1/2 d. on Church.
Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS. Q. Chruch gave you a correct address, did he not? A. Yes; both of them did.
Church received a good character.— GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Month each.
MR. DICKIE conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN ALLISON . I was servant to Mr. William Moss, a butcher of, Worm-wood-street, London, but have now left—about 10 minutes past 8, on 27th April, I was minding the shop—there were then several quarters of mutton hanging on hooks in the gateway near the shop—I saw one of the hooks swinging, and looked up the court and saw two men, and the prisoner who had the mutton under his arm—I saw him clearly—I went out after him—he ran up the steps at the top of the court—he saw me coming and ran away—the two men tried to stop me—I could not see whether the prisoner had the mutton then or not—I did not see him throw it down—he ran into St. Helen's-place, where there is no thoroughfare—I saw him at the top, and I know it was him, because I watched him as he ran—he had a cloth in his possession when the constable took him—the value of the mutton was 16s. I believe.
Prisoner. Q. Did you not say before, that I had thrown it down the area or over the wall? A. I said you had thrown it away.
Prisoner. I never had the meat in my possession.
COURT. Q. What a clock was this? A. About 8 o'clock at night—it was rather dusk—it was so clear that I could see—there were no other men running up the court—I have no doubt whatever about the prisoner.
CHARLES RATCLIFFE (City policeman, 635). On 27th April, about 8 in the evening, I was on duty in Peahen-court, and saw the prisoner running out of that court with a long cloth flying under his arm—he ran into St. Helen's-place, Bishopsgate—there is no thoroughfare there—I went after kirn, and took him—I told him what he was charged with, and he said had made a mistake, he thought—I found nothing on him but the cloth—it was a large butcher's cloth, perhaps a yard and a quarter square—he gave me a false address—I did not find he lived there.
Prisoner. Q. The cloth I had in my possession was used for horse rubbing? A. No; it is similar to a butcher's cloth.
GUILTY . *— Confined Two Months.
OLD COURT.—Thrusday, May 15th, and Friday 16th, 1862.
PRESENT.—Mr. JUSTICE WILLES; Mr. Ald. ABBISS; and Mr. Ald. GIBBONS.
Before Mr. Justice Willes.
MESSRS. SLEIGH and GIFFARD conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN MATTHEWS . I am in the service of Mrs. Massey, a money-changer, of Leadenhall-street—on 29th April, the prisoner came to our office with two Scotch notes, purporting to be two notes of 1l. each of the National Bank of Scotland—she held them in her hand, and said, "Will you change these?"—I looked at them, and immediately saw that they formed a portion of notes that I had had information respecting—I asked her where she got them—she said, "I brought them from Edinburgh nine months ago in a box—I said, "These notes have not been printed nine, months; how can that be?"—she said, "Indeed, I did"—I told her they were forged notes—she said, "I beg your pardon, they are good"—I said I must detain them—she said, "Well, then, you must detain me too"—I said, "A policeman will soon settle that"—she did not make any reply to that—I sent the boy for a policeman whom I saw passing the door at the time, and gave her in charge to him with the notes.
Cross-examined by MR. PATER. Q. Who was present besides you and the prisoner while you were having this conversation? A. The boy—he is not here—I am sure that what the prisoner said was not that she ought to have had them nine months ago, and had only got them just now—she said most distinctly, that she brought them from Edinburgh nine months ago, in reply to my first question where she got them from—I do not remember her saying anything to the effect that she ought to have had them some months ago—this was about 5 o'clock in the afternoon—I did not leave the shop at all—I did not decline to change the notes and hand them back to her—she was about three minutes in the shop.
JACOB PERKINS BACON . I am manager to the firm of Perkins, Bacon and Co., bank-note engravers, of Fleet-street—these notes are part of a batch of 500 with the same top numbers, that were stolen from our premises—the number at the top is 176; the bottom number varies with each one—we have nothing to do with the signatures; only the printed forms—we print the forms all but the signatures, and send them to the bank—we have not sent these two to the bank—they have been missed from our premises.
Cross-examined. Q. What are the numbers? A. T 176 is the top number of each, and the bottom numbers are 117 and 193—I cannot tell at what date they were printed—the date is a nominal date, put by order of the bank—it has nothing to do with the real date—it is in the printing 11th November, 1861—the note was complete with the exception of the two signatures—this batch of notes was lost some time between the 3d and the 10th of April—we did not find out that they were gone until the 10th—our letter book would show when they were sent to
the bank—we should send a kind of Invoice and letter with them—we do not keep such a book as a bank would keep—we have letter books and receipt books which show everything we send out.
JOHN GIFFARD . I am cashier to the National Bank of Scotland, at their head office, in St. Andrew's-square, Edinburgh—it is my duty to issue the notes of the bank—the bank has not issued any notes of this series—I distingnish the series by the upper number 176 and the letter T—there is a gentleman named Addison in the bank, who sometimes signs notes—the signature of John Addison to these notes is not his signature—we have another gentleman in the bank named Warren, whose initials are A.R.—we have no gentleman of that name whose initials are H.R.—this signature to these notes is not Mr. Warren's—these notes are forgeries.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you speak to the handwriting itself, or only from the initials? A. I speak to the handwriting—I am quite certain neither of the initials are those of the gentleman I speak of—I have seen him sign frequently and know his signature perfectly.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Is that signature like Mr. Warren's writing? A. No; it is not a good imitation.
COURT. Q. Do you say that no notes of the series T 176 have been issued? A. No; they were never even received from the engravers.
CHARLES RATCLIFF (City-policeman, 635). On the evening of 29th April, I met the prisoner in Leadenhall-street—she asked me if I could tell her where she could get some Scotch notes changed—I told her most likely at Mr. Massey's—she went there—I followed her, and stood against the door outside—I heard Mr. Matthews say the notes were forged, and tell his boy to fetch a constable—I went in—the notes were handed over to me, and I took her into custody—on the way to the station I asked her where she got them from—she said she had received them that morning of a man named McDonald, who lived with her in Edinburgh about three years ago, and that she had given him 10s. change, and she was to meet him by the Royal Exchange about 5 o'clock that day—she said she did not know where he lived—she gave her own right address.
Cross-examined. Q. I believe you directed her to Mrs. Massey's shop? A. Yes—I was in uniform.
EDWARD SALTER (city police-inspector). On 29th April, the prisoner was brought to the Bishopsgate station-house a little after 5—I told her the charge against her—she said she was a widow, and had received the notes, in part payment of rent, from a man of the name of Wilson, who had lodged with her about two months at Glasgow—she further said that she had then an appointment to meet the man by the Royal Exchange, to receive a further sum of money from him.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you hear her say anything about a person of the name of McDonald? A. I did not—it is our invariable practice to ask any party charged with an offence if they have anything to say—supposing a prisoner gives a satisfactory account, I should discharge her—I am quite positive that Wilson was the name the prisoner mentioned—I mentioned the conversation within five minutes to Foulger, my brother-inspector.
JOHN FOULGER (City police-inspector). After the prisoner was locked up I went to her, in consequence of not being able to find out the address she had given—I said to her, "It is of importance to you to find out this man who you say gave you the notes"—she said, "I do not know where he lives; his name is Jack McDonald; I met him in Cheapside about 2 o'clock today; he gave me the two notes for lodging that he owed me in Edinburgh,
about three years ago; he wanted some change, and I gave him 10s., and was to meet him again at 5 o'clock by the Royal Exchange, to receive some more money"—at a subsequent period of the same evening, I went to her again with another officer—he said to her, "You say you got these from Jack McDonald; I know him very well; he is a fighting man"—the said, "No; it is not Jack; his name is Joseph McDonald"—she afterwards said at the Mansion-house that his name was Thomas Mc Donald.
Cross-examined. Q. I believe the address was found to be correct? A. Yes; I found it the second time—I did not hear her say that Wilson was the employer of McDonald; I heard nothing about Wilson.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate was read as follows: "If I had any guilty knowledge I should not have asked the constable where I could change the notes, and then go to the place where I knew I should be detained with them; I might have left the notes and gone away if I had not insisted upon staying where my money was. I did not know anything about their being bad."
The prisoner was further charged with having been before convicted at the Surrey Sessions, in March, 1854, of larceny from the person, when she was sentenced to Six Months' imprisonment. To this she
PLEADED GUILTY. **†— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.
In the course of his opening, Mr. Sleigh, having stated that he proposed to call Mr. Netherclift and other experts who had examined the document in question, with glasses, with a view of explaining to the Jury the manner in which the alleged forgery was effected, MR. JUSTICE WILLES interposed, and expressed his opinion that such evidence could not be received in a criminal case. Algernon Sidney had been convicted of high treason upon such evidence, and at the Restoration, an Act of Parliament was passed reversing that conviction; in civil proceedings such evidence was admitted, but he could not receive it in a criminal case: it was a question for the Jury to decide upon, they might, if they desired it, have the aid of glasses to assist them in the examination, but he could not permit them to be influenced by a scientific lecture in the witness box.
WILLIAM EDMUND JONES . I am a clerk in the branch Bank of London, 450, Strand—the prisoner kept an account at that bank—on 18th December, 1861, he gave me instructions as to the payment and non-payment of certain cheques, this (produced) is the letter, it is in his handwriting—that is the letter upon which I acted (Read: "2, Robert-street, Adelphi—Dear Sir—I gave a Mr. W. Brittain three cheques for 4l. 10s., 7l. 5s., and 7l. respectively, to enable him to purchase some building materials for some works upon which he is engaged; from information just received, I have reason to believe that the whole of those cheques have been misappropriated, and unless I hear to the contrary, of which I will apprise you, I will thank you to refuse to pay them upon presentation")—On the 23d of that same month, these three cheques (produced) were presented through the Islington branch of the London and County Bank.
COURT. Q. Were either of the three one of those mentioned in that letter? A. Yes; the one for 7l. 5., it is dated 17th December, 1861, (marked B)—the other two cheques are for 7l. 5s. 6d., dated December 11th, 1861 (C), and the third is for 7l. dated 14th December (A)—the two latter were paid.
MR. SLEIGH. Q. Subsequently to that 23d December, between that and in early day in January, did the prisoner call and get his pass-book? A. Yes; I believe he did—in the course of business the pass-book is returned to the customer with the cancelled cheques—on 3d January, he came to the bank and brought with him these three cheques—he stated that the cheque for 7l. was a forgery, and that he believed Brittain, the payee, was the man that forged it—he then gave or sent to me, immediately afterwards, a written statement—this (produced) is the document he left—I handed that and the cheques to Mr. Mullens.
Prisoner. Q. On what day did I receive the pass-book from the Bank? A. That I cannot say—I do not know who I delivered it to, or whether I delivered it at all; you must have had it away or you could not have become possessed of these cheques—I think a day or two previous to the 3d January, you came to the bank and asked to see Mr. Rogers the manager; you called on the 3d January—I do not recollect your accompanying him into his private room—he did not send for me into his room and tell me that you had brought back the cheque for 7l. stating that it was a forgery, and ask me how I came to pay it—it was not Mr. Rogers that first named the matter to me; you first mentioned it when Mr. Rogers was not there, a day or two previous to 3d January; I don't think he was in when you first called, for I told you had better refer it to him, and you made an appointment for the 3d—I might have said that if the cheque had come through a private hand I might have remarked the signature more closely; that was not in reply to Mr. Rogers asking how I came to pay it—I received this written statement from Mr. Rogers—I first saw it on the same day that I took it to Mr. Mullens, on Saturday, 4th January; I can't say for certain whether I received it on the 3d or 4th, or whether I received it from you or Mr. Rogers, I was there at the time you brought it; I think it was sent by post the night before, and I saw you next morning with Mr. Rogers—you either sent it or brought it—I can't state positively when I received this note dated, 18th December, it was sent to Mr. Rogers, and he handed it to me (Read: "Particulars relative to forged cheque for 7l. On the 14th December last, William Brittain, having left my employment as foreman of works at Bennett's-court, Drury-lane, and having taken a contract to the amount of 150l., to do certain works for the Central London. Dwellings' Improvement Company, Limited, asked me to advance him 7l. to enable him to procure some deals and timber to carry out his contract. I told him it was inconvenient for me to do so. He pressed me very hard, and I told him if the person of whom he was going to purchase the good, would take my cheque, dated for the 21st of December, I would oblige him. On the afternoon of that day, ie. the 14th, he told me that he could do with a cheque dated for the 21st, and thereupon I gave him one for 7l. dated the 21st December. This cheque, by his own statement, he was going to pay to Mr. Putney, timber merchant, Elm-street, Gray's-inn-lane. On the morning of Wednesday, December 18th, about noon, Brittain came to me, and said that Mr. Putney's bankers would not take the cheque dated the 21st; and he asked me to give him in exchange a cheque for 7l. of the current date, on the understanding that it should not be presented until the coming Saturday, the 21st of December. I did so, and he presently sent me the cheque which I had given him on the previous Saturday, and which cheque, believing the transaction to be quite regular, I destroyed. In consequence of information which I received on this 18th of December, I requested the Bank of London not to pay this cheque, and two others,
dated the 17th instant, in Brittain's favour, for 7l. 5s. and 4l. 10s. respectively. On Friday, the 20th of December, I gave Brittain in custody on a charge of obtaining money by false pretences, and he was remanded for a week; and on the evening of the name day, Mrs. Williams, the land-lady of the Harlequin Tavern, Drury-lane, called upon me and stated that she held my cheque for 7l., dated the 18th December, which cheque I produce, and said as follows, viz.: that on Saturday, December 14th, Brittain lad asked her to change a cheque for 7l., and she had said that she could not do so, and that on Monday he had made a similar request to her, and that she changed it for him. That she paid said cheque away on Tuesday, December 17th, and that it was returned to her and refused, by reason of its being post-dated for the 21st December. That she there-upon applied to Brittain for a cheque of the current date, which he promised to procure for her, and that shortly afterwards he brought her a cheque (now produced), dated the 18th of December, whereupon she gave him back the post-dated cheque. This cheque Brittain returned to me, and I destroyed, same as before stated. I gave Mrs. Williams' cheque for 7l. (now produced) in lieu of that of which payment had been stopped. The first intimation which I had of the existence of the cheque for 7l, which I say is a forgery, was on Wednesday morning last, January 1st, when a Mr. Smith, baker, of 10, Peter-street, Islington, called upon me and stated that he was the holder of the cheque for 7l. 5s., the payment of which I had ordered to be stopped, and that he had cashed for Brittain three cheques, viz., one for 7l. 5s. one for 7l. 5s. 6d., and one for 7l.; that he had sent them in together to his bankers, the London and County Bank, Islington branch; that the two latter had been paid, but the former had been returned to him on the 23d ult. Since which time be said he had applied to Brittain and his wife for my address, and that he could not and did not obtain it until the afternoon of that day. I told him that I knew nothing of any cheque of mine for 7l. being out; that I had only given Brittain one cheque for that amount, which cheque I had found out that he had cashed at the Harlequin public-house, Drury-lane. On the following morning, Thursday, January 2d, I obtained from the Bank of London the cheque for 7l. produced, and which I presume is the cheque referred to by Mr. Smith, as it appears to have passed through the Islington branch of the London and County Bank. I at once recognised it as a forgery. No part of it is in my handwriting, although, in many respects, it has ft similarity. I believe the cheque to be in the handwriting of Brittain, although I cannot speak positively on this point. This much I know, that on the 14th of December I gave him no other cheque for 7l. than that whioh was dated the 21st of December, and which cheque, it can be indisputably proved that he changed at the Harlequin Tavern, as before stated, and afterwards received in exchange for same the cheque dated the 18th of December, also before stated. I was in the habit of carrying a few blank cheques in my pocket for business purposes, and about the 14th of December I lost or mislaid a roll of these. Brittain was daily at my office, and my impression now is that he found them, and that the cheque in question is one of those which I lost. I named my loss to him. I had such confidence in him that I would have trusted him to any amount at that time, and therefore took his word that he had not seen the cheques I had lost. On searching at Brittain's office, in the works at Bennett's-court this day, I found a piece of paper (herewith produced), on which certain attempts to copy my signature are made. I believe them to be in Brittain's handwriting. He is at present out on bail, being
committed to take his trial at the next Middlesex Sessions, for obtaining money by fraud and false pretences, full particulars of which charge have appeared in the newspapers. I believe the total amount of his frauds upon me, as discovered to the present date, are about 60l. There are one or two charges of embezzlement, and several of forged receipts. I have not the least doubt that he forged and uttered the cheque in question.
"THOMAS H.J. BROWN, "January 3d, 1862. 2, Robert-street, Adelphi, W.C.")
RICHARD MULLENS . I am a solicitor carrying on business at 7, Poultry—I am solicitor to the London Bankers Association—the Bank of London are subscribers to that association—on 4th January, I received from Mr. Jones the statement which has just been read, with the cheque for 7l. dated 14th December, alleged to be forged, and one or two other cheques which were either annexed to that statement, or which he brought in his hand as specimens of Brown's handwriting—in consequence of that, I saw Mr. Brown that name evening, at his office in Robert-street, Adelphi; I had the statement with me, and I went through it with him, paragraph by paragraph; he repeated to me almost in the same words as are in the statement, the facts which are alleged in it, with many others, relating to his money transactions with Brittain; be particularly pointed out to me the paper of signatures, which is annexed to this statement, which he said he had found in Brittain's desk at his (Britain's) office in Bennett's-court, where he was clerk of the works—he told me that Brittain was to surrender at Clerken-well Sessions on the Monday, this being Saturday evening; and I made an appointment to meet Brown at the Clerkenwell Sessions-house at 10 o'clock on the Monday morning—he told me that Brittain had been committed for obtaining money by false pretences; charging more for the men's wages than he had paid—I met him at the Sessions's-house on the Monday; he then made a more detailed statement of his money transactions, for the purpose of showing why he thought Brittain should have committed the forgery, and he handed me this cheque for 6l. (marked K), either on that occasion, or on the Saturday evening, I will not be positive which, he said he had given to Brittain, on 14th December, and also this cheque for 7l. dated 18th December (marked O)—I made some inquiries during that day, on the Tuesday. I placed the matter in the hands of Sergeant Packman, and on Wednesday, 10th January, Brittain was taken into custody for uttering the cheque for 7l. dated 14th December—the examination took place that same day, and there was then a remand, Brown being examined as a witness—I was present when he was sworn and saw him sign both these deposition—(The depositions were here put in and read, together with a paper of signature annexed thereto)—in consequence of a statement that he made to me about other forged cheques, which he said he believed Brittain had uttered, I applied to the bank for information as to what cheque, had been presented, and then I wrote to Brown a letter, dated 8th January—the prisoner has had notice to produce that letter (it was here handed in by the prisoner and read; "Do you know anything of the undermentioned cheques, viz. 3l. 3s. to Doxey, 5l. to Palmer, 3l. to Spratt"—in reply I received this letter from Brown, dated 9th January—he says, "Palmer and Short's cheques an right, Doxey's I know nothing of"—the letter contains a long explanation of some transactions with Doxey, which has nothing whatever to do will this case; but, at the latter part of it, he says, "I inclose you a cheque for 13l. 9s. 6d., which Brittain yesterday asked for, and also the cheque for 7l. 5s. given to Brittain to purchase bricks"—that is the cheque marked B,
which had been returned, and which had afterwards come into his hands—my clerk wrote a letter to him, by my direction, and I received this answer to it on 11th January—"I cannot come into the City this morning, my cheque-books are at your service when and where you please"—I, or my clerk, wrote to him on 13th, 'telling him to call on me, and bring his counterfoils, cheques, and so forth, and he called on me on the 13th previous to the examination (referring to hit diary), I find I did not see him till the 16th—I wrote to him, requesting him to call—he did not; but I received this letter from him on the 14th, explaining circumstances which had occurred to him in the meantime—I next saw him on the 16th, the day of Brittain's second examination—on that occasion he brought me Brittain's receipt for 13l. 9s. 6d. of which he had previously sent me a cheque, and he also had with him two books of the counterfoils of his cheques—we went at some length into a statement of accounts between him and Brittain, and be read to me from the books several of these counterfoils, I cannot now tell which; he had the book in his hand; and he read occasionally counterfoils to me, and then we went together, or shortly after each other, to the police-court—I dare say I might have had an opportunity, if I wished it, of looking at the counterfoils, but he had the book in his hand—at the second examination Brittain repeatedly stated that the 7l. cheque, which he was charged with uttering, he had received from Brown—it was stated in the presence of the prisoner and the magistrate—he said, I received that cheque in part payment of 20l. which the prisoner owed me for my work"—after the examination I asked Brown to send me a statement showing how the 20l. had been paid to Brittain, as he denied that the 20l. had anything to do with the 7l. cheque—I afterwards received from him this letter, dated 24th January, inclosing Britain's contract (Read: "2, Robert-street, Adelphi, January 24, 1862. Dear Sir,—I forward the required particulars as to the 20l. I have to apologise for not doing so before, but I have been so busy with other, matters that it escaped my memory. On 3d December last Brittain, much against my wishes, having induced the Company to let him have some work on contract, as his term of employment was nearly ended, signed the contract which I inclose; he had no means with which to procure materials for the work, and he borrowed of me for the purpose. He commenced the work in the week ending December 14th, and during that week he borrowed of me as fellows:—December 9th, cash, 2l. 14s. 6d. 10th, cheque, 4l. 11th, ditto, 7l. 5s. 6d.; total, 14l."—there are two crosses against these items, with a note at the bottom, "you (meaning myself) have both these cheques"—("On 14th December, I gave a certificate to him to receive 20l. on account of his contract, and he gave me a receipt for 20l. when I gave him a cheque for 6l. which was the balance then due to him, and at the same time I returned him an I.O.U. for 14l. (exactly of similar kind to the one you now hold of his), the two sums of 6l. and 14l. making up the sum of 20l. for which I had given a certificate, and received his receipt, which receipt I handed to the secretary of the company. He then, December 14th, as I have before stated, wanted to borrow some more money, and I let him have a cheque, dated on the 21st, for 7l. On Tuesday, the 17th December, I went to the works at Bennett's-court, about 10 in the morning, and found that he was not getting on so fast as I could wish, and complained to him about it He said that he was standing still both for bricks and cement (I had not at this time an idea of anything being wrong with him), and that he could not procure them without cash. He said that both Messrs. Scoles and Wood, and
Mr. Ferguson, would take my cheques, and accordingly I went into the office in Bennett's-court and there wrote, him two cheques, one for 4l. 10s. 0d. (which you have) to be paid to Messrs. Scoles and Wood for cement, and one for 7l. 5s. 0d. to be paid to Mr. Ferguson for bricks. Neither of which, as we know, he so appropriated, but cashed one with Mr. Smith, and the other with Mr. Putney, and actually got both the bricks and cement in my name, notwithstanding he was supplied with the funds to pay for them. His gave me an I.O.U. for the 7l. on the 14th December, and when he came to my office early in the morning of the 19th December, I gave him back the I.O.U. for the 7l. which he put into the fire, and then he gave me the I.O.U. which you now hold, for 18l. 15s. 0d. with authority to deduct the amount of it from the next payment received by him on his contract. But of this money I have been completely defrauded. It was on the evening of the 19th December that I became convinced that the charges alleged against him, of which I first heard on the afternoon of the 17th, for falsifying his paysheets, while in my service, were unfortunately too true, and after some further investigation, on the morning of the 20th, I gave him into custody on that charge. There is another charge of forgery now to be preferred against him. It is forging a signature to a receipt, and thereby obtaining from me 5l. It is my intention to prefer a bill for this on Monday")—The I O U for 8l. 15s. referred to in that letter is this: "London, December 19th, 1861; I O U Mr. Brown 18l. 15s., which I agree that you shall deduct from the money I may receive on my contract at Bennett's-court, on Saturday next; 7l. 7l. 5s., 4l. 10s.: total, 18l. 15s. (Signed) WM. BRITTAIN, 19/12/61"—he had stated in the letter of the 24th that one of the cheques for 4l. was in my possession—I could not find it, and sent him a telegram that I had not got it, and he sent me a letter stating, "I find, on looking over my papers, that the 4l. cheque is with me, and I inclose it"—on Monday, 27th January, the indictment against Brittain was preferred at this Court—on that morning, I asked the prisoner for further particular about the receipt which he said Brittain had given him for the 20l., and who the person was to whom he delivered it, the letter having stated that he had delivered it to the secretary of the company; and on that day he wrote out this paper in the waiting-room of the grand jury-room, while we were waiting to go before the grand jury: "Mr. S.C. Bosanquet, of 6, Old-square, Lincoln's-inn, is the person that bad the receipt. I received from Brittain, December 14th, receipt for 20l.; I took this to Mr. Bosanquet, told him I had advanced Brittain 14l. on account of the contract, and he gave me open cheque for 20l., telling me that I could pay myself; I then gave Brittain cheque for 6l., and returned him his I O U for 14l."—In consequence of that statement, I subpœaed Mr. Bosanquet to produce the receipt for 20l.—I think it was on the morning of Wednesday, while I was waiting in Court for the trial to come on, that the prisoner put this paper (produced) into my hands—it purports to be a receipt for the 6l., the subject of the present indictment: "London, Dec. 14/61, 6l. memorandum, that Mr. T.H.J. Brown has by cheque for 6l. paid to me the balance due to me out of the sum of 20l., for which he gave a receipt on account of my contract for works in Bennett's-court, for the Central London Dwellings' Improvement Company. Dec. 9th, cash, 2l. 14s. 6d.; 10th, cheque, 4l.; 11th, 7l. 5s. 6d.; 14th, 6l.: total, 20l. Received the above, WM. BRITTAIN, 14/12/61."—He told me that he had forgotten that Brittain had given him a second receipt, but that, on looking through his papers, he had found this and brought it to me—I had never heard of any receipt given by Brittain,
relating to the 20l., except the one which had been given to Mr. Bosanquet, until he brought this paper—on the Friday Brittain was tried, on the two charges preferred against him by Brown, in the New Court, before the Common Serjeant—he was acquitted on both—the trial for the forgery of the 7l. cheque was to have taken place on the Saturday, but Brown was taken ill, and not able to get to the Court, and the trial was adjourned till the following session; the result was, that no evidence was offered, in consequence of something which occurred between me and Brown—Brittain was also acquitted on that charge—that was on Monday, 3d March—I next saw the prisoner on 20th February—I had an interview with him of several hours, in consequence of the facts which had come out on his cross-examination on Brittain's trial, to see if they could be explained away—I knew that he would be subjected to a like cross-examination on Brittain's remaining trial, and I wished to see if the circumstances could be explained—on that occasion he told me that he wished to prefer another charge of forgery against Brittain, and he put into my hands certain documents which, after looking at, I returned to him; one of them was a receipt, purporting to be signed by Brittain—those documents are in the possession of Mr. Avory, who has been subpœnaed to produce them—I examined the different documents which have been put in evidence—(MR. SLEIGH proposed to ask Mr. Mullens at to the alleged alterations in the document, but THE COURT was of opinion that it was altogether a question for the Jury)—among the papers which I found belonging to the prisoner, I produce a paper, purporting to be a note written by Mr. Bosanquet—they were found among Brown's papers after his arrest by Packman and myself—Packman brought a large parcel of them to my office—I examined them in his presence, and found this amongst them.
Prisoner. Q. On the evening of 4th January, when you called upon me, did not I produce the book of counterfoils, the ledger, and some others? A. Only your ledger—you showed me that account written on pages 37 and 38—there are several items on those pages having reference to the sums contained in the receipt and the I O U—there is an entry here; headed "Bennett's court contract, 1861: Dec. 9th, cash on loan, 2l. 14s. 6d; 10th, ditto, cheque, 4l.; 11th, ditto, 7l. 5s. 6d.; 14th, ditto, for deals, 7l.; 17th, ditto, cement, 4l. 10s.; ditto, bricks, 7l. 5s.—the letter to Mr. Rogers that has been read, dated 18th December, was written nearly three weeks before you showed me this book—there is no item there of your having paid Brittain 6l.—there is on the debit side of the ledger a credit given to Brittain for 14l. received by you from Mr. Bosanquet—that 14l. and the 6l. would make up the sum of 20l.—the 6l. being due to Brittain from Mr. Bosanquet, it would not be necessary for you to enter it in your ledger, supposing the entries to be genuine entries; there is no reference to any cash-book here—there was no cash-book whatever among your papers—the whole of these entries that I have read in the ledger were evidently written at the same time—I saw that they were there on 4th January—you gave me this cheque for 6l. (marked K) either on Saturday evening or Monday morning—you did not tell me at that time that you had a receipt from Brittain for the 6l., but that you had mislaid it; nor did you tell me that Brittain was indebted to you in the sum of 18l. 15s.—you put this book on the table—I saw it, and it was then in the same state as it is now—we did not go into the account—you told me that Brittain owed you over 80l.—(Prisoner. I say so now; he owes me over 100l.)—No sum of 18l. 15s. was mentioned on that occasion—you put the book before me to show the state
of Brittain's account with you, but we did not go into any details of it—I think you produced several other cheques of yours on that occasion—I did not look at those cheques with a magnifying-glass—I am not in the habit of carrying a glass, only an eye-glass—I did not look at these cheques, and say that looking at them through the glass, the forgery became more apparent—I am not certain whether some person who opened the door to me was not present on that occasion—your wife was not present; she merely looked into the room just before I left; she was certainly not there during the greater portion of the time—the next time I saw you was a little before 11 in the morning; we were talking together for more than an hour on that occasion upon your transactions with Brittain, and the circumstances which you conceived threw suspicion upon him, and you related to me his mode of carrying on his business, and your mode, and so on—you did not tell me at that time that you had called at Mr. Goodson Smith's shop, but had not been able to see him—that was on the Tuesday—I do not recollect telling you then that I had called, and was unable to see him, and that I was going to call in the evening—I could not have told you so, because I did not call upon Mr. Smith at all till the Monday evening—I did call on him on the Monday evening—I did not see him—on the next morning (Tuesday) I saw you again at the Sessions House, Clerkenwell—I think I had arranged to meet you there for this reason, that if I had seen Mr. Smith, and he had told me he had received the cheques from Brittain's hands, I should have given Brittain into custody on the Tuesday morning, but as I had not seen Mr. Smith, I declined to do so.
Q. Did you not tell me on that occasion that Mr. Smith had treated you very cavalierly; that he had refused to give you any positive information, and had told you that he had not paid the cheque into a bankers, and refused to tell you to whom he had paid it, and you wished me to see him? A. That was later in the day—I think I saw you three times that day—I told you that Mr. Smith had behaved rather roughly to me—I don't recollect wishing you to go and see him, and to meet me in the City, and tell me what had taken place—I believe something of the sort took place, but whether you offered to go, or I asked you to do so, I am not sure—when you called on me in the afternoon, I do not recollect that you told me you had seen Mr. Smith—you did not tell me that he had refused to give you the name of the party to whom he had paid the cheques—I do not recollect anything of the kind—I rather think you came to me that afternoon to know whether I had made up my mind to give Brittain into custody or not—I had told you on the Monday evening that if you saw Moss, the detective, to tell him to come to me—I did not say it was for the purpose of giving Brittain into custody—Brittain was examined at the police-court, on 8th January—you had your book of counterfoils in your hand there—you produced it before the Court—it was not handed to the Magistrate; you offered to show it to him—there was not the slightest concealment about it—when you called on me, on 16th January, I was not looking over your cheque-book—I am certain that I did not see the cheque-book until after you came—I am not aware that you had left it with Mr. Base, my clerk, the evening before—the book was never in my hands, or on my table—you had it in your hands, and as I went over the facts, you turned over the counterfoils—I do not think I even cast my eyes upon the book: it was a book I could not make any use of—there was no appearance of withholding the book from me—I did not notice any attempt at concealment on your part—Brittain's contract came with one of the letters; I think the
one dated 24th January—my object in applying for it was in consequence of Brittain's repeated statement before the Magistrate—you sent it me as part of the statement relating to the supposed payment of the 20l. by you to Brittain—there was no attempt on your part to withhold documents from me; you inundated me with documents—when I met you at this Court, on 27th January, you did not tell me that Brittain had given a receipt for 20l. in the course of the day, which you had handed to Mr. Bosanquet, and that at the time you paid him the balance you took his receipt for 6l.—you did not give me the receipt on the Tuesday; not until the Wednesday—I speak with some degree of certainty, because by entries in my diary I was not here on the Tuesday—(referring)—I beg your pardon, I was here on the Tuesday—you did not give me the receipt on the Tuesday—I am all but certain that a day intervened before I had it—Monday, the 27th, was the first day of the Session—the indictment against Brittain was preferred then—I had a conversation with you about the receipt referred to in your letter, which you said you bad given to the secretary—no reference was made in our conversation to any other receipt than that—the documents were in my possession from the dose of that Session until I saw you on 20th February, but they were not opened by me at all—it was only on the approach of the March Session that I sent for you and opened the documents—it was after my interview on 20th February that I made what I supposed to be the discovery that they were not genuine—I refer to cheque A—it remained with me six weeks—I think I told you at the conclusion of Brittain's trial that Mr. Bosanquet had said something about my conduct being very improper in prosecuting Brittain at all, and that he should make some complaint upon the subject—I overheard him say that as he left the Court—I did not tell you a few days Afterwards that I had had an interview with Mr. Glyn, and that I had said something to him about the fact of my having been threatened—you saw me several times between 20th February and 1st March—I do not recollect that I asked you to furnish me with other documents—I received no farther papers from you—I may have done so, but I cannot recall it—this letter of 26th February (produced) is my writing—this states, "I think you said you had some memorandum signed by Brittain about his debt to you; if so, be so good as to bring it with you"—that was after I had discovered that these documents were not genuine—I did not consider that all the conversations that took place between us were of a confidential character—on Thursday, 20th February, you promised to send me a copy of all your correspondence with Mr. Bosanquet—you called at my office on Saturday, the 22d, but did not see me—I did not ask you on that day to furnish me with a statement of matters as regarded Mr. Bosanquet and Brittain, and copies of the various letters you had received from Brittain and had written to him—that was on the 20th—I afterwards received that statement from you—you called on me after I received that statement—you called continually up to the morning of 3d March, and I particularly drew your attention to a portion of the correspondence respecting the arrest of Brittain—I do not recollect remarking that nothing could be more fair or straightforward than the course you had pursued—I do not think I made any such observation with reference to the letters; I had not got the letters at that time—I recollect seeing you upon this correspondence on Thursday, 27th February—that was after I had got this copy correspondence—I recollect reading over two or three letters relating to Brittain's arrest, and pointing out to you that the dates seemed to be inconsistent, and then you said that Mr. Bosanquet pretended that
one letter was written by him after he knew of Brittain's arrest, and asking you not to arrett him—this is the letter (produced)—it was found amongst your papers—at the latter part it states "the bearer of this can bring back Mr. Beaumont's contract, and anything else you may have to send me"—there is an entry of Mr. Bosanquet's name in your call-book on the 20th—I do not know who made it—you called on me on Saturday, 1st March, and had a long conversation with me—I do not recollect producing, or proposing to produce to you, several of the papers—the principal part of our conversation was with reference to the additional charge which you said you intended to press against Brittain—I don't recollect asking you to tell me, when I gave you the paper referring to Mr. Bosanquet, in order to refresh my memory—I did not produce a bundle of papers, and find one or two missing—I will not say I might not have sent for Mr. Base, my clerk, and said, "I cannot think where this paper has got to"—I kept part of the papers, and my clerk might have some—as you were going away, I asked if you would be at home in the evening—I said I was going to a consultation with counsel, and probably I should have to see you in the evening—I did not say I wanted to see certain letters of Mr. Bosanquet—you did not tell me I was welcome to see anything you had—you were trying to find out what I was going to do on the Monday, and I did not choose to tell you—I sent you a letter to the effect that counsel had advised under the circumstances that no evidence should be offered against Brittain on the Monday morning—you came to my house early on Monday morning—I did not tell you that, in consequence of his having been acquitted upon two other charges, counsel thought there would be a prejudice in his favour, and that consequently an acquittal might possibly be the result—this is the letter that was written to you by my clerk, at Mr. Giffard's chambers, immediately after the consultation, "Temple, March 2, 1862, half-post 4. Sir,—Mr. Mullens desires me to inform you that the result of the consultation is, that counsel are of opinion, under all the circumstances, that the Bankers' Committe should not further press the prosecution against Brittain; it will, however, be open to you to continue the prosecution on your own account, if you think fit; and I send you this information at once, in order that you may instruct Mr. Abrahams, or any other gentleman, without delay"—You called on me after that with that letter, and asked what was meant by the last part, and I told you that although the Bankers' Committee did not wish to press it, it was open to you, if you pleased to instruct counsel on your own behalf—I do not recollect your saying if it was useless for me to carry it on, it was folly for you to do so—I do not know that it was in consequence of the receipt of that letter that you did not appear as a witness—you made an appointment to meet me at this Court—I did not, at that interview, tell you that I had reason to suppose any of the documents in question were not genuine—on the afternoon of that day, I gave you into custody on the charge of forging this cheque—the police had instructions on the subject before Brittain's acquittal—I have a letter of yours dated the 26th, and one dated the 24th, but none dated the 25th of February—I have no letter from you stating that you had heard it had been put in circulation by Brittain, or his party, that you were guilty of the forgery of this cheque; this is the letter I got from you on the 25th, "I could not manage to spare time to give you a call yesterday; I was told last night that a charge of forgery and perjury is to be preferred against Brittain to-day by a man named Edkins, of Bow-street, with whom he had some transactions;" I hare no letter of the 25th; that was the last
letter I had from you until 18th March—no such letter as you refer to was sent to me—this is your letter-book—I do not recollect the contents of this letter in this book at all—it is not with my papers, and I believe I have brought every paper here—you told me something about one Julia Ryan—I have every paper here, and the letter you speak of is not among them—you gave me a paper in which something was said about your servant, Julia Ryan—you put it into my hands in Court—I am afraid I have left that paper behind me—I had no lien of any kind whatever on those documents of yours.
JOHN ABRAHAMS . (This witness being called upon to produce certain documents upon a subpcena, duces tecum, stated that he had been professionally retained by the prisoner to conduct the prosecution against Brittain, and the documents in question had come into his hands in the course of those proceedimgs, and under these circumstances he desired to know whether he ought to produce them. MR. JUSTICE WILLES (after hearing MR. SLEIGH upon the subject) considered that the witness was bound to produce them. They were accordingly handed in.)
Prisoner. Q. On 27th December, I believe, Mr. Bosanquet met me at your office? A. I cannot charge my memory; he might have done, so—I recollect seeing Mr. Bosanquet once, but I cannot speak as so the day—I think you were with him, but I should not like to say positively.
RICHARD MULLENS (re-examined). With the exception of the instructions for the indictment, these were the documents which the prisoner produced to me on 20th February, upon which be requested me to institute a prosecution against Brittain, which I declined.
THOMAS EDMEADS . I am clerk in the branch bank of the London and County Bank, in High-street, Islington—Mr. William Beckingham, of Southgate-road, Islington, keeps an account with us—on 23d December last, he paid into our bank, to his own account these three cheques for 7l., dated 14th December, 7l. 5s., dated 17th December, and 7l. 5s. 6d., 11th, marked respectively A B C; they are crossed cheques, and all on the Bank of London—the cheques for 7l. and 7l. 5s. 6d. were paid; the one for 7l. 5s. was returned unpaid—I noticed the cheques when they were paid in—I believe the cheque for 7l. 5s. is not in the same state now as it was when it was paid into the bank—the words "for bricks, 20, Bennett's-court" have been added—I believe they were not there when the cheque was paid into our bank—I returned the cheque to Mr. Beckingham.
WILLIAM BECKINGHAM . I live at Sussex-terrace, Southgate-road, Southgate—on 23d December, last, I received from Mr. Smith, a baker, of Islington, these throe cheques for 7l., 7l. 5s., and 7l.. 5s. 6d.—I paid them into my bank, the Islington branch of the London and County Bank, on 23d December—on the 24th the 7l. 5s. cheque, marked B, was returned to me dishonoured—I returned it to Mr. Smith—that cheque is not now in the same state as when I handed it back to him—the words "for bricks for Bennett's-court" were not on it at that time.
GOODSON SMITH . I am a baker, of 10, St. Peter-street, Islington; in December, 1861, I received these three cheques from Brittain—he was a customer of mine—I used to change cheques for him when hs asked we—the cheque for 7l., dated 14th December, I received from him on Saturday the 14th—the one for 7l. 5s. 6d. I received on the 11th, and the other on the 17th—I kept them until the 23d, and then paid them to Mr. Beckingham, my landlord—next day I received back from him this cheque for 7l. 5s.—I went with it to the prisoner's office, in Robert-street, Adelphi,
on the 30th, and told him that I had had the cheque returned dishonoured; and he said he would send me an open cheque for it by post, and I could return this; I did not get one—I went to see him again on the Friday, but did not see him—at last I got this note from him, dated 3d January: "Sir, I am sorry that I was not at home when you called this afternoon; have the goodness to call here on Monday morning with the cheque, and I will settle the matter"—I called on the 6th and got a crossed cheque from him for 7l. 5s., and returned the other—he asked me what cheques I had changed, or what others I had in my possession—I think he asked whether I had changed the cheque for 7l.—I said, "Yes;" and he said, "That is a forgery "—this cheque marked B is not in the same state as when I gave it to the prisoner—the words, "for bricks, Bennett's-court" have been added to it—those words were not on it when I first had it, or when I returned it to him.
Prisoner. Q. When do you say you first called on me with reference to this cheque? A. On Monday, 30th December—it was not the 31st; it was in the evening—I do not know the time—it was about 7 or 8; I had to wait about half an hour before I could see you—I took a friend with me—you did not at that time state to me that the 7l. cheque was a forgery—I did not state at Clerkenwell that you had told me on the 30th that you had not given Brittain the cheque for 7l.—(the witness deposition was here read)—there is a mistake there; I remember it well—I did not know whether it was at the first or second interview that I had with you, and it was put down as the first; that was on the 30th, but you never stated anything to me about the cheque being a forgery until 6th January—I received the dishonoured cheque back from Mr. Beckingham on 24th December—it remained in my hands six days before I communicated with you, because I did not know where to find you—I could not get your address—Brittain did not refuse it—I asked Mrs. Brittain, and she said she would go with me to your house one evening—at that time Brittain was in the House of Detention—there was no correspondence going on between me and Brittain at that time—I did not know him—I knew his wife—I had not seen him above once or twice before then—I had only known him a very few weeks, while he had been dealing with me—I knew him when he brought the first cheque to be cashed—he was not a stranger to me; he was a customer, but he had of been in the neighbourhood many weeks—I had cashed other cheques of yours, and they were all right—the first cheque I cashed for him was to oblige you, his master—I am not aware that he made any particular statement to me—I think he told me that his baker at Notting-hill had been in the habit of doing it for him—he said they were his master's cheques, Mr. Brown's—he said that you were in the habit of paying him with cheques—I cannot tell you about what time it was that I cashed the first cheque for him—sometimes I was not at home, and they were left till the next morning—I found the cheques all right until the last one—when I first went to you, I asked why you had ordered the cheque not to be paid—the words "Ordered not to pay" are written across the cheque—I forget what you said—I don't recollect your saying it was in consequence of the misappropriation by Brittain of three cheques which you had given him, of which that was one—your wife was not present at this conversation—I took a friend with me, but I left him in a back place—what I said was, I had got one of your cheques dishonoured, and I should be glad if you could pay me—I was examined at Clerkenwell Police-court—I remember Mr. Moald, the cheif clerk there, guaranteeing to see the cheque paid, but it has never been paid
—I did not ask you on 30th December why you had written on the cheque "Ordered not to be patd"—I aaked you the reason it was returned—I did not tell you that I had paid it with two others through my banken—I told you that I had paid it to my landlord—I remember calling on you on 6th January—I went three times one day, and could not see you; you came to me—I do not know whether it was on the 7th—I forget now what you called for—you asked me if I had paid the cheques into my bank, and I said no, I had got no bank—you said, "Who did?" and I said, "I do not know, you must go to the bank and see"—I did not know who had paid them into the bank; I knew who I had paid them to—I do not think I told Mr. Mullens who I had paid them to—I forget now whether I refused to tell him how I had disposed of the cheques—I don't remember your saying when you called, "You have had a gentleman calling on you about the forged cheque; why tell him one story and me another?"—I did not reply that I had a right to say what I liked—I did not refuse to give you the name of the bank where they were paid in—I told you I had received the 7l. cheque on the Saturday evening, and deducted a small account out of it of 11s. or 12s.—my books are at home.
WILLIAM BRITTAIN . I did live at 17, Hanover-street, Islington—I have removed from there now, I lived there at the time these matters were pending—I now live at 2, Grosvenor-street—I am a builder in a small way of business—I have known the prisoner about five years; two or three years ago I was unfortunate and had to pass through the Insolvent Court, since then I have done several little jobs by contract for the prisoner, and he recommended me as clerk of the works in Bennett's-court—in the latter part of last year he was appointed as architect and surveyor to the Central London Dwellings Improvement Company—I occupied the position of clerk of the works there, so far as Bennett's-court was concerned; the secretary engaged me; during the week it was my duty to make petty disbursements, and on the Friday to render an account to the prisoner of what those disbursements were, and also to furnish him with a pay-sheet of the wages of the men—I generally drew about 2l. on the Monday for the petty cash, and rendered an account of it, about 10 o'clock on the Saturday, on the pay-sheets which be used to give me—I took a contract to do a portion of the work myself about the latter end of November or the beginning of December, I cannot say the date—I continued to act as clerk of the works, as regards the remainder of the works—a person of the name of Beaumont was contractor for that part of the works of which I was clerk, and another builder; they were doing the work for the company—the prisoner had nothing to do with the contract, beyoud certifying when the work was done—I could not charge money on account of my contract unless I had a certificate—on Friday, 13th December, I handed to the prisoner this pay-sheet, amounting to 13l. 9s. 6d., but it has been altered since I delivered it; there was a balance-sheet filed with the time-sheet—I had been previously doing some work on my own portion of the contract—on the Saturday, I went to his office about half-past 9, and told him I wanted 25l.—he said he could not let me have more than 20l.—he wrote out a receipt and asked me to sign it—I did sign it, and he said if I would come at 10 o'clock, the usual time, he would give me the money; the receipt was for 20l.—I went to him in the afternoon—according to his statement there was an amount of 13l. 9s. 6d. due for the men's wages, for the day workmen—he gave me a cheque for that amount, that settled the wages part of the matter—he said he could let me have 13l., and that was by an open cheque for 6l.
and a crow-cheque for 7l., and he could let me have some more on the Tuesday following—I said I would make shift with that; this cheque for 7l., dated 14th (marked A), is the cheque that be gave me that day—he owed me 7l. previous to this Saturday—he had not advanced or lent me an amount of 2l. 14s. 6d. on 9th December—I cannot recollect his giving me a cheque for 4l. on 10th December—I think it is very likely he might have done so—I got this cheque (produced) from him, if I recollect right it was on account of petty cash, the balance-sheet to be given on the following Saturday, and I think he had 2l. out of this, but I cannot recollect for certain; I did not have it or any part of it as a loan, or advance for my own private use, it was received on account of petty cash accounts for the week, and I think Mr. Brown had 2l. out of it; he was in the habit of giving me the cheques for a certain amount, and I was in the habit of taking certain portions of it back again to him—I cannot recollecd whether he had any money out of this or not, if not, it is accounted for in the balance-sheet—I received this cheque for 7l. 5s. 6d., dated 11th December, from the prisoner; that he had the money for; I bad the cheque discounted and gave him the cash, that I can swear to distinctly—I frequently got cross-cheques cashed through Mr. Smith, nearly every week, I gave Brown the money; I got this 7l. cheque cashed the same evening I received it, I think on the 14th, by Mr. Smith the baker—previous to his cashing it, I asked Miss West, the barmaid at the Harlequin, if they could do it, and they could not—I remember the Tuesday following, the 17th, I went to the prisoner that morning for some money, and he said he wanted to see me as he wanted 15l. or 16l. that day very badly—I said I wanted some as well, and he then wrote out three cheques, one for 7l. 5s., one for 7l., and one for 4l. 10s. and he said, "Here are three cheques for 18l. 15s., bring me 15l. 10s. out of that, and keep the rest yourself," that was on Tuesday the 17th—he said, "Bring me 15l. 10s. and keep the rest yourself "—I had 3l. 5s.—I took the 7l. cheque to Miss West, and in the afternoon they cashed it; they were not all dated the 17th, the 7l. cheque was a post-dated cheque, but I was not aware of it at the time, it was dated the 21st, the Saturday following; in the afternoon, they got it cashed for me, by the landlord signing his name to it, and I took that 7l. directly down to Mr. Brown and gave him the seven sovereigns which I received—Mr. Osborn, a carpenter, and his brother, were with me at the time I got the money; I got the money in gold—Osborn went with me as far as Brown's, and stayed outside while I went in—I saw Brown and gave him 7l., and then rejoined Osborn—he and I went back to the Harlequin, and had a pint of ale; after paying for it in coppers, 1 missed a sovereign, there was a search made for it, I turned out every pocket of course, it was the only piece of money I had about me; in the presence of Osborn and his brother; the sovereign was afterwards fount by Miss West among the copper, I had given it her in mistake—I took the 7l. 5s. cheque to Mr. Smith, and he gave me the money next morning; before I took that to Mr. Brown, I took the 4l. 10s. cheque to Mr. Putney's and bought some timber, I gave them the 4l. 10s. cheque, and they gave me the difference out—those two cheques are before me—I gave Brown eight sovereigns and four half-crowns out of the other two cheques, making the 15l. 10s. as he required, and keeping 3l. 15s. as he had promised me—that was on the 18th—on the Wednesday I received a message from the Harlequin which caused me to go there—in consequence of a communication that was made to me there, I went to the prisoner and told him he had given me a post-dated cheque—he said, "I thought you asked for one"—I said, "Certainly
not"—be then gave me another one which I took to the Harlequin, and the landlord sent me over to the post-office—I got the post-dated one away, inclosed it in an envelope, and sent it by poet to Brown—this is the substituted cheque—there is this memorandum on it, "Paid Mr. Brittain, in exchange for cheque dated 21/12/61—I did not, on 14th December, ask him to lend me a cheque post-dated for the 21st—I did not tell him that I was going to buy timber at Mr. Putney's, and that they had told me if I would bring a cheque dated 21st December they would take it—I never on any occasion asked him to lend me a cheque for 7l. dated 21st December—I did not on that 14th December receive any cheque from him for the 7l., save and except the 7l. cheque that has been placed in my hands to-day, dated the 14th—that was the only 7l. cheque I received that day—I was not in the habit of giving him receipts on blank paper—I have lent him my acceptance several times, but have always had his acknowledgment for it—in the course of business he used always to make out the receipts for me, and I have then signed my name across the penny adhesive stamp—I always did that when I received the pay-sheets—this is the receipt for the 20l. on account of my contract, which I gave the prisoner to hand to Mr. Bosanquet—(Read:"Received this day for payment of Mr. Brittain, for contract of work to be done in Bennett's-court, 20l. 14/12/61.")—that is the paper I signed in anticipation of receiving the 20l. from him as I expected—the body of this IOU, told the writing on the stamp, is mine, I believe, but the other is not—I never signed that stamp on that paper, and I never owed Brown 18l. in my life—we handwriting in the body of it is Brown's—I certainly never wrote my name across that stamp, when it was affixed to that paper—I never saw this paper until after Brown was in custody—I believe the writing on the stamp is mine; indeed, I have no doubt of it, but when I so wrote on that stamp it was not on that paper—the letters just before the stamp, and the finishing of the letters after the stamp, are not mine, or made by my authority—there is no truth in the statement that is made on this I 0 U about my owing him that sum of 18l. 15s.—it is entirely false—the body of this paper, which purports to be a receipt for 6l., is in the prisoner's handwriting—the writing on the stamp which is affixed to it, I believe, is mine, but when I se wrote on that stamp it was not affixed to that paper—it must have been affixed to one of the time sheets—whatever there is that is genuine on this stamp written by me, when I so wrote it, was not affixed to that paper—just before the stamp there are portions of the words "Received the above"—that is not in my handwriting, or written by my authority; nothing but what is on the stamp—the word "Received" is on the paper, and "the above" is on the stamp—the word "Received" is not in my handwriting at all—the "Wm." is not in my writing; the words "the above" are mine, except the final "e" of the word "above"—I always signed the pay-sheets on a stamped receipt, with the words "Received the above," the date and my name—here is one of the pay-sheets for 18l. for November, 1861-that is my writing—there is no receipt to that—when I parted with that I should say it was not on that half-sheet of paper as it is now—it had no receipt to it when I handed it to the prisoner—I used to hand them to him on the Friday night, and then affix the stamp on the Saturday, when I received the money—I have not the least doubt in the world that when I received the money on the Saturday I put a receipt to it over the receipt stamp—this paper seems to have been out since I delivered it—this (produced) is one of the pay-sheets entire, receipt and all; that is how I used to sign
them all—I never gave a pay-sheet without a receipt but once, and that was when Brown had been out all night, and he asked me to go home and make friends with his wife.
MR. MULLENS (re-examined). I only kept the pay-sheets of November and December—the prisoner's attorney applied for the others, and they were returned.
WILLIAM BRITTAIN (continued). On 19th December, Mr. Bosanquet came to my office on the works—I do not know whether he went to Brown's office—at that office there were no books and papers belonging to Brown; they belonged to the company, which I kept my accounts in—Mr. Bosanquet made an examination of certain books and papers there in Brown's absence; that was Mr. Charles Bosanquet, not Mr. Samuel Bosanquet, the secretary—I cannot recollect whether or not I communicated to Brown, on his return, that Mr. Bosanquet had been there and examined the books and papers—I fancy I did, but I could not say positively—it was on the next morning that I was given into custody, Friday, 20th December—the body of this memorandum of September, 29, 1860, is Brown's writing—the signature across the stamp is not mine, or written by my authority—I did not see Brown again until after proceedings were instituted against me
(THE COURT was of opinion that this evidence could not be pursued, as it raised a collateral issue).
Prisoner. Q. Whereabouts was my banker's office situated? A. 450, Strand, at the corner of King William-street, about two minutes walk from your office—on 11th December, I received from you a cheque for 7l. 5s. 6d. which I cashed for you, and handed you the proceeds—(The prisoner requested that his pass-book might be handed to the Jury to show that he had an ample balance that day at his bankers)—on 12th December here is credit given you for 2l. on the balance-sheet—I have not given you credit here for 4l. on the 10th—I used to get you money so often that I cannot say whether any part of the 4l. cheque was placed to your credit, but I am quite certain our account has been rendered correctly, and I have not the least doubt that that credit of 2l. on 12th December is in reference to this cheque for 4l.—I only received money on account of petty cash once a week—on December 2d I have given you credit for 2l. petty cash, and on December. 12th 2l.—I sometimes used to have a cheque for it—(Looking at the book) here is no cheque for 2l. on 2d December—I always received open cheques from you for petty cash if it was only the amount asked for; if it was only 2l., but sometimes you gave me a larger cheque—here is no cheque booked to me at all on 2d December—on 3d December, here is a cheque for 7l. 12s. 4d., which I got cashed, and gave you some out of it—in this book (The prisoner's diary) here is a cheque for 2l. entered on 2d December, but it might be 200l. or 2,000l.—I never saw the book before; how can I tell what you put down?—I did not receive the 7l. 5s. 6d. from you on my own account—I entered on this contract for 150l. on 3d December—I was then decidedly worth 5l. both in money and other things—when I was taken in custody my wife had 2l. and I had paid away between 17s. and 18s. on your account that very morning which I have never had back—I was in a position to carry out the contrast of 150l. without borrowing—I did not want to borrow of you, I asked you to let me have 5l. to buy some joists, on 4th or 5th December to go to Osborn's building, because I had been lending Osborn money—I told you at the time that it was irregular to take the certificate and the receipt, unless I was in your debt, and you said that you were going there for
the wages, and would bring the money—you asked me if I was afraid to trust you, and I said, "Certainly not"—it is usual when builders are in difficulties to do it in that way, but it was not so then, and I complained at the time that it was not a regular way of doing business—on 13th December, I owed you 5l. which I had lent you on 4th December, but that was irrespective of my contract, and you agreed to take it back at 10s. a week: I have no memorandum to show that—I always obtained from you an under-taking for the bills I accepted for you except two—I know that I was equally liable on those cheques, which I cashed for you, and I always asked you if they were right—I have no memorandum from you to show that I have received the money from you—I was led foolishly to trust you, and bitterly I have paid for it—I have no books to show it, it was not business transactions with the Company, it was done to oblige you—I have no other papers or documents to support my statement—on 14th December you owed me 20l.—I did not receive a 6l. cheque in payment of the balance—I received the 6l. cheque, and the 7l. crossed cheque, and I believe the cheque-book will prove it—I received three cheques on 17th December, and you then owed me 7l. the balance of the 20l.—when I got your cheques cashed I did not think there was any necessity to ask you for a memorandum, the more fool that I was, but I thought you were an honourable man—your own cheque-book will substantiate my statement—on 14th December, when I called upon you, your wife was in and out of the office several times during the interview; she was not there the whole time—she was speaking about the beer-money for the men—I called to give you the 7l.—on the afternoon of Tuesday, 17th December, I called on you and told you of the reports which were going about, that I had not been paying the men the amount that had been booked to them, and said that you ought to clear my character; I did not say that Mr. Bosanquet had been making inquiries about me, and wished to know what your opinion was—I believe it was on the 20th you gave me the cheque, or I brought you the money, I should not like to say for certain—Mr. Fergusson, of Paddington, was supplying me with bricks directly I began the contract at 33s. a thousand—I do not know that I only had 4,500, I paid him 6l. 13s. for them—I did not order any quantity, but when I wanted any I sent him an order—4,500 bricks would come to 7l. 8s. 6d. and not 7l. 5s., the amount of the cheque you gave me—nothing was said to me about discount—I do not know your arrangements—what bricks I had were delivered in my own name, and I paid for them—I believe I can swear I never gave you the tickets, but I may be mistaken—I had at that time had some dealing with Messrs. Schole's and Wood for the purchase of lime—I did not take an order for those goods, amounting to 4l. 10s.—Mr. Wood did call upon me at Bennett's-court, to know under what circumstances I required them, but that has nothing to do with you; they were goods to go to Notting-hill—I recollect a conversation about it, and I may have said that if he would supply them, I would get an order from you making them all right, and be delivered at Bennett's-court, on 16th or 17 th, one yard of grey lime, and seven sacks, thirty bushels of Roman cement, amounting to 4l. 10s. 4d., and I used that lot on the work set forth in my contract—I did not obtain those goods in your name—being in your employment at Bennett's-court, in October, I went to Mr. Wood and opened an account in the joint names of Brittain and Osborn; that was for goods to go to Notting-hill—I stated that I would pay for them on the Saturday week, but I did not—I owe Mr. Wood 4l. 10s.—I think I can swear it is not over 5l.—I did not make use of your name in order to obtain those materials—I did not represent myself
as being in partnership with Mr. Osborn, I said that he was going to build, and I was going to lend him some money, which I did—the goods were supplied in our joint names, because Mr. Wood had had business with him before—I have had several transactions with Mr. Osborn at various times—this letter, (produced) addressed to you is my writing—the Mr. Osborn mentioned in it is the same person—I told you that Mr. Osborn had had me arrested, but afterwards I found that he was innocent—I do not know a Mr. Allen—there is a Mr. Allen named in this letter. (Produced by the prisoner, and dated Whitecross-street)—it says, "Allen was discharged today," but who he is I do not know, it must have been some of your acquaintances, I never had any business with him—this letter is addressed to Mr. Taylor; I know him—I do not know of any transactions between him and me—a bill of exchange for 21l. 10s., dated 17th May, 1860, and accepted by Willett and Co. was put into my hand when before the Magistrate, and I admitted it to be my writing—I did not say, "I have not made an affidavit stating that it is a forgery, because the bill I believed to be a forgery was not that bill at all—(The affidavit was here put in by the prisoner) the bill shown to me at Bow-street was not the same bill that I was sued on—I do not know whether this bill (produced) is the one shown me before the Magistrate—I do not believe it is—I swore before the Magistrate that I was not at your house at all on 19th December; I only saw you in the street—I do not know whether your little boy was christened on 19th December—I called at your house and saw your wife, who said that you had gone to Bennett's-court, and I saw you about 2 o'clock, which was the only time I saw you on the 19th—I did not come into your private office, nor did your wife give me a glass of wine, and tell me to drink the boy's health as he was going to be christened—I called, but I did not see you that day till I met you in Drury-lane between 1 and 2 o'clock; Mr. Osborn was with me—it never happened but once that I did net give a receipt to the pay-sheet, and that was when yon came on a Saturday and brought me four 5l. notes, and I had not got the pay-sheet with me—this pay-sheet of 6th December has no receipts to it—I think there has been one to this pay-sheet of November 8, but I should not like to say—there is some writing on it which is not mine—I never received any money from you—you lent me 5s., but you had it back within a month—I have been a bankrupt once and got an immediate certificate—I have been insolvent twice—Mr. Lewis, of Wilmington-square, got me through the Court—the first time was in the name of William Brittain, and the second William Richard Brittain—it was not five times; it was about the same number of times that you have been, but mine has been through misfortune—I have not been in the habit of taking building ground and running up carcases and leaving them—I have not built at Holloway or Highgate; I have at Kentish-town—I received 100l. upon them, and ought to have had 360l., but I never had anymore—I received the materials as part of the improved ground-rent—I have not built at Islington or Hackney—I was building at Finchley when I became bankrupt—I built four carcases at Stratford and sold them—Mr. Hammitt, the surveyor, did not accuse me of obtaining the bricks for those houses, but I gave him bill of your's for them—it was repudiated, and I sued you, and got judgment against you for it—I commenced an action against Mr. Hammitt, and lost it—that was for taking my bricks—previous to going into Whitecross-street Prison, I had some transactions with Mr. Gold; I got him to advance me money on bills—I may have represented that they were genuine bills—I wrote you a letter at Whitecross-street, concluding, "I feel very uneasy
about Wednesday, and shall feel obliged If you will call on me in the course of the day, to let me know what course Mr. Lowe means to adopt"—he did not accuse me of having obtained money from him on fictitious bills—he says that of all the bills I brought him he could only find the acceptor of one, because two of them had run away—one of them was not a relative of mine—it was Mr. Lance, and it was for money I lent him—"he went through the Insolvent Court, and lives there now, and I lost the money through it—I had not bill-transactions upon Osborne, in which Messrs. Kidder and Willetts took me in execution—they are not numerous—I could not put the bill of 21l. 10s. in May, 1860, into my schedule, because I did not know anything at all about it—I stated before the Magistrate that I had never been in custody before; that was true—I did not receive a cheque from you, in March 1st, for 3l. 3s., to pay for some laths; it was for work I had done—I did not go and pay Mr. Pye, of Hammersmith, for the laths; you paid him, and stopped it off me—I did not, on the day after you gave me in custody, 28th March, agree to arrange and settle for those laths—I was bound down to keep the peace, because I came to demand my money, which was owing to me—I did not, after I came out on bail, use a number of threats to various people, as to what I would do with you—I charged you 4s. 6d. a load for a man named Forsyth casting away rubbish—I paid him 4s. 6d.—I am not aware that Forsyth gave you information that he only received 4s.; you have got the bills, and his own receipts to them—Matthews has been paid the various sums which are charged, except one or two little jobs owing for now—I did not, on 2d March, pay 16s. to a man named Short, for shoves—I do not know him, and never had transactions with him—I saw Mr. Samuel Bosanqnet at the Sessions-house, Clerkenwell, on 2d January—he gave me some money to engage some one to defend me, because he knew you were prosecuting me for what I was not guilty of—I have not got the letters I received from him with me—while I was in Pack-man's custody, I met Mr. Edward Dyer, and asked him to come and identify your writing—he said that he had seen the cheque, and did not think it was your writing, but it was not produced—with reference to 17th December, you gave me the cheques, and told me you had an account—you said that you wanted to keep a good balance, and as you said that you had a balance there, I got them discounted—I have done that week after week, because you said that you wanted to keep your name good, and did not want to draw your account too close—I brought you 7l. 10s. that night, and 8l. next morning:
MR. SLEIGH. Q. Look at that cheque for 7l. 5s.; is that in the state in which you received it from the prisoner? A. No; the words, "Re bricks, Bennett's-court," have been written in since—it was paid away by me; and in this cheque for 4l. 10s. the words, "Re coals and wood," have been added since.
EMMA ASHBY WEST . I am the niece of Mr. Williams, the proprietor of the Harlequin public-house, Drury-lane—I have seen the prisoner there occasionally—I know Brittain; he used to come there generally during the day—on Saturday, 14th December, he came there, and asked me to change a cheque—I took it into my hands—this cheque looks like it—I declined cashing it; handed it back to him, and he left—I particularly noticed that it was dated the 16th, the very day on which it was brought to me—next day, the 17th, he came again with Osborne, and brought a cheque—I did not look at it, but sent a servant out with it, and it was cashed by a neighbour—I took the money, 7l., from the servant, handed it to Brittain, and
he left with Osborne—they both came back the same evening, and had something to drink—he missed a sovereign; a search was made for it, and it was found among some coppers—he turned his pockets inside out, and I do not think there could have been any other money in them—on the next day the cheque was brought back, and I made a communication to Brittain, who afterwards brought me another cheque, and I gave him the origial one.
Prisoner. Q. I think you called on me on 20th December in reference to the cheque? A. I cannot tell you the date—I am positive of the date of the cheque, because it was a money transaction—I called twice on one day—I had heard then that Brittain was given in custody, but I cannot say it was that day.
COURT. Q. What did you do? A. I called to inquire of Mr. Brown how it was that the cheque was dishonoured—I am speaking of the cheque which was given instead of the post-dated cheque—it was not brought back by Brittain—it was sent from the bankers, and "Not to be paid" written on it—the cheque I changed on Tuesday, the 17th, came back to me, because it was post-dated, and I gave it back to Brittain in lieu of another dated the 18th, which was given to Mr. Hales, the person who had first of all cashed the cheque—the first cheque was not paid, in consequence of which it was that I went to the prisoner on 20th December.
Prisoner. Q. Did I not tell you that it was in consequence of some cheques which I had paid to Brittain being misappropriated that I stopped payment? A. Yes; I said that it was inconvenient, for me to cash it at that time—on the following Monday morning, when he came in for some ale, I made it convenient to cash it—he said that he had not got it with him then, his wife had got it—his wife came down about 1 o'clock on the Monday—it was on Tuesday the cheque was cashed—he did not apply to me for it till Tuesday, about 4 o'clock, and I was under the impression that it was the same cheque, though I did not think it necessary to look at it, but it could not have been, because I am quite sure the one I looked at on the Saturday was dated the 14th—I cashed it at 4 o'clook on Tuesday afternoon—it was not returned to me about 7 in the evening—I do not recollect telling you anything at that time about Brittain being short of money—I do not think I had the second cheque in my hand till after it was returned—it was my impression that it was the 7l. cheque, nothing was said to the contrary: in fact. I did not think much about it.
HENRY OSBORNE . I am a carpenter, residing at Hammersmith—I have known Brittain for some years; I was with him in the middle of December; when he went to the Harlequin public-house and obtained change for a 7l. cheque—I did not exactly see him receive 7l. in gold, but I saw the cheque sent out—I went with him to his office and waited outside while he went in—he was absent about half an hour—we then went back to the Harlequin and he had a pint of beer, and missed a sovereign—he turned his pockets out to see if it was there, and I saw that he had no money there—the sovereign was found by Miss West among some coppers.
Prisoner. Q. You cannot say the date? A. No; just previous to that I had asked Brittain to lend me some money to ride home by omnibus, and he told me he had none—I afterwards said, "You said just now that you had no money; "and he said that he had got it to pay away—he had no cheques when he turned out his pockets—I was never in partnership with him—I was not building houses jointly with him at Notting-hill—I paid a joint account to Scohles and Wood, for two yards of lime, but he was
never a partner of mine—I remember your coming to Nottlng-hill, on December 20th, with a police-constable—I do not know whether it was for some iron piping which had been removed from Bennett's-court, Drury-lane—I offered to remove it, and I ran away as I told you would have to do—I have never been insolvent or bankrupt—I know Messrs. Kidder and Willett, of Calthorpe-street, Gray's-inn-lane—I did not take them a certain bill of exchange and tell them I had received it for building a stable.
WILLIAM REDRUP . I am in the employ of Mr. Hale, of 100, Drury-lane, who keeps a post-office—on 17th December, I changed a cheque for 7l. dated 21st or 22d December, which was brought to me by the servant of Mr. Williams of the Harlequin—next day I noticed that it Was post-dated, and got back one dated 18th December in lieu of it.
ROBERT DOLLING . I am in the employ of Mr. Picktering, a builder, of Elm-street, Gray's-inn—on 18th December, Brittain bought some timber I there, and gave me in payment this cheque for 4l. 10s.—these words "Re Scholes and Wood, "were not on it then.
Prisoner. Q. I think, on 28th December, you called at my office and I gave you cash for that? A. One day in December.
SAMUEL COURTHOPE BOSANQUET . I am a member of the Bar of Lincolin's-inn, and one of the Directors of the Central London Dwellings Improvement Society—we employed the prisoner in 1861 as surveyor and architect, and Brittain as clerk of the works, and he afterwards had a contract on his own account—on 14th December, the prisoner called on me in reference to the works, and handed me this receipt for 20l. signed by Brittain, telling me that he had advanced the money to Brittain—this letter of 19th December, directed to the prisoner, is in my writing—before I wrote it I had had some conversation with the prisoner about some charges against Brittain—the date has since been altered to the 20th without my authority—(This letter stated: "We hope, if you find the charges against Brittain are true, you will not take any steps against him till we have talked the matter over together.")—the prosecutor was arrested on the 20th without my authority—I know the prisoner's writing, and should say that this 7l. cheque, marked A, is his writing; it resembles it, and I believe it to be his—I have had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with his writing—I believe none of these papers (produced by the officer) are my writing—I am sure two of them are not, but they are very like it—this one purports to be the beginning of a letter of some sort; it is not in my writing, but it is very like it—this letter to Brown, "December 19th, 1861," signed S. C. Bosanquet:—"Dear Sir, I decline to see Brittain; we propose that if you find he is guilty you shall give him in custody according to promise; please let your clerk bring me Mr. Bowman's contract;" is not my writing—I never wrote such a letter as that
Prisoner. Q. I think at this time there are two actions in which I am plaintiff? A. I do not recollect seeing more than one writ myself—I have received one personally and one in my capacity of Secretary—there was a a suggestion made by our solicitors on one occasion to pay some money into Court—I have never looked at your books or papers—Mr. Mullens showed me a pay-sheet in Brittain's writing, and another paper that contained some accounts—I suppose they had been taken by Packman—I cannot say when it was resolved not to pay anything on account or into Court—I very strongly objected to it from the beginning, and I believe our solicitors have declined—I do not remember finding fault with you while employed by the Company, except for not sending the account in—I told you on one occasion that the
works were going on too slowly—when you called on me on 14th December, the impression you conveyed to my mind was, that you bad advanced 20l. and I gave you another cheque for 25l. I think, and I believe, I said, "There, I have made it an open cheque, it will not require Brittain's endorsement, and you can pay yourself"—I think it was on 17th December that you attended at my office by appointment, at about half-past 11 or 12 o'clock I should think—we spoke about the charges against Brittain, and we told you that charges bad been made against him by certain workmen, and we thought it desirable that you should know it—I do not think you informed me that you had a high opinion of Brittain, and did not believe he was guilty of anything of the kind—you may have said that he was unfortunate in buisness, but was still an honest man—I do not remember saying, "Well, Mr. Brown, if Brittain has been defrauding you, we have been defrauded too," but it is very possible you said that you could find out whether it was true or not, and parted from me with the clear understanding that you were to sea a policeman—I believe I received a communication from you on the subject that afternoon—you saw me next day, the 18th, on the same subject, and I think it was understood that if you found there was no question on the subject, Brittain should be prosecuted—here is a letter dated the 19th or 30th, I can say positively that it reached me before the 20th—I believe it was sent by the hands of my clerk, but I had an answer from you, that is here—I know that it was received—no letter was sent before the day that Brittain was taken up—you had not my instructions, on 19th December, to give him into custody, it was the 18th I saw you last—I de not remember receiving a letter from you, asking whether I should not like to see him first—I know I wrote you this letter telling you not to proceed without our instructions, and I subsequently received another saying that what we wished should be done—I never wrote a letter instructing you to give Brittain in custody—on 27th December, I wrote you this letter. (Looking at it)—the transaction had not at that time my entire approval, you had proceeded without our authority—I met you at his office, and you showed me a number of papers, and mentioned several charges against Brittain—I cannot say whether you produced an I.O.U. for 18l. 15s. 0d., you went fully into nothing—you told me that you had received information that after instigating you to prosecute Brittain, I was defending him—I denied that the Company were assisting him—I cannot say whether you called on me, on Saturday, 11th January, about half-past 11 in the morning—I remember you calling—you said something about my having acted towards you in an unfair manner, instigating you to prosecute Brittain, and then finding him the means of defence—I remember that by letter, or word of mouth, you said that persons bad seen me giving Brittain money, on Monday afternoon, at the Sessions-house, Clerkenwell, and that it was useless to deny it any longer; but I do not remember saying that I did it as a matter of charith, though it would be very true—I did give him something, I do not deny that; but I do not think I said so—I made an appointment for you to see me on the afternoon of that day, at your chambers—I told you that if you wanted the money, you must bring me the account by 2 o'clock that afternoon—I have seen Mr. Bowman's writing—I do not know that I could swear to it, I have had much more of yours—his address is, 19, Lincoln's-inn-fields—I called on you once to ask you to give me up a paper—a girl, named Julia Ryan, came to my chambers in reference to the charge against Brittain—I do not remember using any threat to Mr. Mullins with reference to the prosecution—I never laid that I should
bring the fact of Mr. Mullans prosecuting Britain before the Banker's Association.
ROBERT PACKMAN . I am a City detective-officer—on 5th January, I took Brittain in custody, on a charge of forgery—I took the prisoner on 3rd March, on a charge of forgery—I searched him, and also his rooms, at Robert-street, Adelphi—I produce a quantity of papers which I found, they are marked No. 1 to 40 inclusive.
Prisoner. Q. When you took me did I not request you to search a black bag in my presence, containing a least and some other documents? A. I have no recollection of it; there was such a bag, and you asked me on the next day, at the waiting-room at Bow-Street, to produce certain papers and documents which were in it—they were not produced—you gave me notice that you required their production on the next occasion, and I made an entry of it—these accounts were produced before the Magistrate—your solicitor came down, and some arrangement was made between him and Mr. Mullens—I do not recollect to whose account the papers related the books, papers, and documents, have not remained in my possession ever since—Mr. Mullens selected what he thought proper, and I marked them—I cannot say whether they are in the same state now—these are some of them, here are my initials on them—I am not answerable for the custody of documents after they leave my hands.
MR. SLEIGH. Q. Were you present when Mr. Mullens searched the papers? A. Yes—the solicitor for the defence bad access to them—I was in Mr. Mullen's office on one or two occasions when Mr. Abrahams was there.
The prisoner handed in a paper objecting to the reception of the scraps of papers produced by MR. BOSANQUET; he having received no notice of any such evidence, and knowing nothing wharever of the papers.
ROBERT PACKMAN (re-examined). These scrape of paper with writing upon them, were found in the. waste-paper basket under the writing-table in the prisoner's office—they were in the same state as they are now.
Prisoner to WILLIAN BRITTAIN. Q. You stated that you had sued me upon bill of exchange, and obtained judgment against me; can you give me the name of the solicitors you employed. A. Yes; Garnett and Lynch, of Gracechurch-Street—it was at the latter end of 1859 or 1860—I am not sure which—the judgment was filed with my affidavit when I made you a bankrupt.
The prisoner, in the course of a very long address, entered into the circumstances of his acquaintance and connexion with Brittain down to the time of his employment on the works at Bennett's Court, and contended that the statement which he had all along made in relation to the manner in which the cheques and other documents, was the true one, and that the inspection of his books and papers (which he called for and handed to the Jury), would corroborate that statement. He entered into a detailed account of the circumstances connected with each of the cheques and paper in substance to the same effect as his cross-examination of the witnesses; and with respect to the alleged tampering with the returned cheques and the counterfoils of his cheque-book, he stated that it was his habit to enter upon them the purpose for which the cheques were given.
GUILTY .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
There were other indietments against the prisoner.
NEW COURT.—Thursday, May 15th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. BARON CHANNELL; Mr. Ald. ROSE; and ROBERT MALCOLM
Before Mr. Baron Channell.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
MR. DICKIE conducted the Prosecution.
CAROLINE COX . I am the prisoner's wife, and live at 42, High-street, Spitalfields—on 13th April, my daughter came home about half-past 9 o'clock, and before she came in the prisoner told her that she should go out of doors—I said, "Where is the little girl to go to with no father to protect her?"—he said that she should go in the street, he would be d—d if she should not," and ran to kick her—she was in the room then, but she ran out into the passage—he then locked the room door that she should bide out—he took the key out and then knocked me down, and after I recovered myself I got up and made her come in—the door was not looked, I took the key out before he locked it—he then gave me more blows with his fists and knocked me along the room—he then twisted the leg off his arm-chair and beat me about the head, and shoulders, and arms, with it, and I cried for mercy—he beat me with it a number of times, till he split it in two, and it went in half—my daughter was in the passage up to this time, and the door was wide open, she was half in and half out, she was afraid to come in—I implored for mercy, and he said, "Yes, I will give you mercy you b—r," beating me all the while with the leg of the chair (produced)—I was almost exhausted with screaming, and he took me up and threw me across the room like a cat, he then jumped on my stomach till the blood gushed out of my mouth—I said, "Oh, I shall die"—he said, "You, never die," and he took this flat-iron (produced) and gave me several blows with it on the back of my head—as soon as my daughter saw the iron used, she ran for a policeman—I then became insensible; I felt him take me up, but my eyes were so blinded that I could not see, and he flung me over the stairs—I was taken by the police to Spital-square, where Dr. Edwards examined my head, after which I did not know where I was for some days, till I found myself in the hospital—I am still an out-patient, but am too ill to go there as I cannot see.
Prisoner. Q. Where did I find that flat, it was never in my sight since you hammered the table to pieces with it? A. You had it on Sunday to fling at your little child—I did not hit you on the head with it—it was all over blood the next day.
COURT. Q. How lately before this attack had you seen the prisoner? A. I saw him two or three times in the day—he was in the room while I was trying to get my supper, we were not more than usually good friends before my daughter came in, he was never kind to me—he had been drinking ever since Saturday, but was not drunk then; this was on Monday—he always told me he would be hung for me—we lived on the first flight, but there are two pairs of stairs and a landing between.
CAROLINE ARCHER . I am seventeen years old, the prisoner is my father-in-law—on 14th April, about half-past 9, I came home, he was at home and said that I should go out to the street, for I should not have anything there to eat unless I did—I would not go out, and he got up to kick me out, my mother tried to prevent my being put out, but I ran out into the passage that he should not hit me—my father-in-law and mother then took to quarreling with each other—the door was half open and half shut—I was just inside the door peeping in—my mother went to take the key out of the door and the prisoner struck her twice with his fist, and she fell on the floor, he also struck her with this chair leg, which he twisted off, he then took her up off the floor and threw her across the room like a cat, to the fire-place—she cried for mercy, and he said, "Yes, you b—r, I will give you mercy"—she said that she should die, and he said, "No, you won't die," and took up this iron from the fire-place, where she was lying, and hit her on the head with it—I then went out to get a policeman, leaving her lying there, and when I came back I found her lying at the front-door—we live up two pain of stairs, and she had been thrown down two pairs of stairs—she was wounded and was bleeding very much from the back of her head, and from her nose and mouth: she was insensible, and remained so for two days; I got a policeman, and she was taken to the hospital, she remained there speechless for, I think, three days—she was there upwards of a fortnight, and was an out-door patient after that.
Prisoner. Q. Were you not in the street when this row occurred? A. No; you took the flat from the corner of the fender, it was always there, it was kept there; you had it the night before going to hit the child.
EDWARD GWYNN . I am house-surgeon at the London Hospital—on 15th April, the prosecutrix was brought there in a state of great prostration, and unable to speak—I found extensive bruises all over her chest and abdomen, and a large bruise on the back of her head, a lacerated wound—her face was much swollen and contused, the left side especially, which was caused, most likely, by the fist—an iron like this, used edgeways, would be likely to cause the cut on the head, but the flat part would only bruise—the injuries to the chest and abdomen were very serious, it seemed as if some heavy body had fallen upon her—a jump or a persons knee would be just the sort of thing to do it—for the first two days I was afraid she would die from the shock—she remained in the hospital till the 3d May, nearly three weeks, when she was made an out-patient—the sight of her left eye is permanently injured owing to a blow.
EDWIN ROUSE (Policeman, H 145). On the night of 14th April, I was taken by a girl to 18, Old Montague-street, and found the prosecutrix lying behind the street door insensible, and bleeding from a wound in the head—she could not speak—I went up stairs and found the prisoner on the first-floor—I asked him if he knew that he had very nearly killed his wife—he said, "A b—y good job too, I will murder the b—r before I have done with her"—I took him in custody, and had him and the prosecutrix conveyed to the station—the prosecutrix was taken to the hospital on the next afternoon, between 1 and 2 o'clock—Caroline Archer gave me the iron next morning.
Prisoner. Q. How can you stand there and say that I said that, did not I say that I would come with you directly? A. Yes.
Prisoner's Defence. This girl of hers will go out to nurse children at 2s. a week, when she can earn 7s. or 8s. a week at binding boots; I have told her if she will be a good girl what kindness I will do her, but if her mother locks the door, as soon as my back is turned she jumps out at the window;
her mother complained to me about her, and called me a b—y Irish bastard, though I am not Irish, and flung a cup of hot tea at me; if I buy anything she breaks it all to pieces. On this evening we went out and had a glass of ale apiece, and both got very nearly drunk; we took three quarts home with us. The girl wanted to be in the street, and I said, "Let her bide, we have always had this bother about her, let her go and get her living the best way she can. Her mother kept calling me names, and pulled my whiskers and nose, and shook me; I said, "If you do not let me alone I shall knock you down;" she said I am a b—y soldier's daughter, and so long as I have got blood in me, I will fight She struck me and I hit her, she got a poker 18 or 22 inches long, but I took it out of her hand and put it under the grate. I said, "I will go out;" she took me by the collar and threw me back, and said, "You b—r, you shall not go out till I have revenge. She fell against the box, and I on top of her, but as to striking her on the head, I did not know it was done till I got to the station house. I had not seen the flat for two months or ten weeks, since she hammered the table to pieces with it.
COURT to CAROLINE COX. Q. Have you heard what the prisoner has stated? A. Yes; I deny it all—I did not strike him or call him names—I am on my dying oath, I would not tell a lie before God to deceive you—I did not see him bring home any beer that night, we had no beer together, I was frying beef steaks for supper.
GUILTY of feloniously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Five Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. PLATT conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES LUCAS . I am potman to Mr. Ward, who keeps the Hoop and Grapes, 112, St. George's-street, Whitechapel—on 9th April, between 10 and half-past, some comic singing was going on in the large room—the prisoner was there with two companions, and I bad two young men with me, friends of mine—two Germans went up to the stage, to give the players some money, and the prisoner malted some of the company—Mr. Ward, my master, asked me to put him and his two companions out, which I proceeded to do with Mr. Ward at my elbow—I persuaded them to go, and they went quietly till they got to the threshold of the door, when the prisoner made a blow and a kick at me—I prevented the blow, but received the kick on the shinbone—I went over the threshold, and asked him what he meant by kicking me—he stepped into the road, and struck me a deliberate blow—I tried to save it with my left arm—I could not see whether he had anything in his hand, but I received a very heavy blow at the top of the muscle of the left shoulder—I found I was wounded, by the blood pouring out—I staggered to the kerb, and then ran after him as well as I could—he had a belt round him like mine, like a sailor—I could not see whether there was any sheath to it, but I afterwards saw the policeman with it—a constable stopped him at the corner of Pennington-street, 200 or 500 yards from the house—I remained in the hospital ten or twelve days.
JAMES FERGUSSON . I am a labourer, of 112, St. George's-street—I was in the concert-room—the prisoner was there with three friends—a disturbance took place, and Mr. Ward asked the last witness to put the prisoner and two of his friends out—I told them to go quietly—they made a blow and a kick at Lucas at the door—he said, "What did you do that for?"—the prisoner put his hand behind him, and I saw Lucas receive a blow on the shoulder—
he cried out, "I am stabbed!"—I saw no weapon in the prisoner's hand—he ran off very fast, and the people after him—he was brought back by a policeman, and charged at the station with stabbing the potman—they found a belt and an empty sheath on him, and he said he had got a b—y sheath, but no knife—he appeared sober—the knife is usually worn behind, on the right hip.
Prisoner. Q. As soon as my companion iusulted the Frenchman, did not I say, "Come on, and do not fight?" and did not you say, "You can't shine here?" A. I said, "Why do not you go quietly? you can't shine here?"—that is a phrase among the Americans.
RICHARD THOMPSON . I saw the prisoner stopped by a policeman at the corner of Old Gravel-lane—I afterwards picked up this knife (produced) at that place—it is 200 or 300 yards from the public-house—I gave it to the policeman.
Prisoner. Q. You said at the Thames Police-court that you saw me strike the man on the shoulder, and I had no knife? A. I distinctly saw you strike him, but could not see what you bad in your hand—I saw blood follow when you took your hand away—it was not for want of light that I could not see.
RICHARD NEALE (Policeman, A 504). I saw the prisoner running down Old Gravel-lane, and Thompson and others alter him—somebody called out, "Stop him!" and I did so—the prosecutor came up bleeding very profusely from the left arm—he said, in the prisoner's presence, "This man has stabbed me, and I give him in custody"—when I got him to the station, I found he was wearing this belt, with a sheath to it—this knife was delivered to me by a witness; it fits the sheath, with the handle just out.
EDMUND GWYN . I am house-surgeon at the London Hospital—the prosecutor was brought there fainting from loss of blood, and bleeding a little, but his wound had been temporarily dressed by a surgeon—it was on the upper part of the arm, at it's junction with the shoulder—it was two inches long and one inch broad—it must have been a violent blow—this is just the sort of knife which would have produced it—I should say that the blow had been aimed at the front part of the body, and warded off by the arm, because the mouth of the wound was the lowest part of it; had it gone into the chest, it would have been very dangerous.
Prisoner's Defence. There were some performers on a bit of a stage at this public-house, and a foreigner wanted to give then some money to buy bread and cheese. One of my companions felt affronted, and wanted to fight. I said, "Let us go;" and, as I passed by the prosecutor, he said, "You can't shine here." I said, "I do not want to shine." I turned round to see if my companions were there, and the potboy struck me in the mouth, and knocked my cap off. I picked it up, walked to the middle of the room, and heard somebody say, "Let him have it." I retreated several paces; the potboy still followed me up; a policeman stopped me, and the potboy gave me in charge for stabbing him, but I had no knife; I lost it at sea before I came to London. The men who were with me have gone to sea; they were struck also. I had a scar when I was first locked up, and my mouth was swelled.
COURT to RICHARD NEALE. Q. Did you see any marks of violence on the prisoner? A. No, he was perfectly free from any marks.
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. — Confined Six Months
MR. GENT conducted the Prosecution.
W ILLIAM MARSH (Policeman, N 170). On Sunday morning, 6th April, at a few minutes before 6, I was on duty in Park-road, Holloway, that in very near to Hillmarton-villas, Cam den-road—I saw the prisoner in front of 18, Hillmarton-villas—I had looked in that direction a second before and there was no one there—he was hastening towards the Holloway Catsle—I passed on, not seeming to take any notice—there are no houses there, only a field, so that I was able to see him—when he came to a port where houses were, he looked round each way, and they looked down a turning the Penn-road—I followed up the Park-road until I came in a line with the Penn-road, and there saw him again watching two persons—I turned back, crossed a field, waited in a recess for about twenty minutes without seeing him—I then went into the Penn-road, and saw him come out of a gateway at the back of Penn-road-villas—I followed him back into the Camdin-road, and asked him what his business was there—he said that he had been to ease himself, having asked permission of a man who was on a ballast-heap—I asked him his name—he said William Davis; that he lived at Highgate, near where the omnibuses started, but he could not tell me that name of the street or house—I took him in custody, having watched his movements three quarters of an hour—I found this knife (produced) on him at the station—I was afterwards called to 18, Hillmarton-villas, Camden-road—I took the prisoner's boots with me, and tried them, with Sergeant Gould, to some footmarks in Mr. Sugden's garden, and in the gardens of Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18—they corresponded, and we traced them distinctly to what Sergeant Gould found the property in my presence, concealed under some old building wood, at the back of a garden, about 600 yards from No. 18—that is a very exposed place, quite open, a person can get in with very little difficulty—a square of glass had been removed, and an iron bar taken out from some stone work, the cavity in which was filled up with cement, which this knife might have assisted in removing—the bar was outside and must have been removed before the glass.
Prisoner. Q. Were my boots clean or dirty when you took me? A. Dirty, but you washed them in the cell—they had mud on the sides and on the soles—I had been walking about all night, and had mud on the soles of my shoes—an impression was made with your boots by the side of the footmarks, and it corresponded.
COURT. Q. Would the boot when it was clean correspond. A. It will a very wet morning, and the clay would not stick in large quantities, it only smudged the polish—the impression perfectly corresponded—the sides of the boots were muddy, but the soles were clean.
MR. GENT. Q. Was it partly garden mould and partly clay. A. Yes; some places had been freshly dug up, and footmarks might be traced distinctly—I made several impressions—I only traced footmarks of one person, but of both feet—there were no thick clods of clay on the boots.
ROBERT GOULD (Police-serjeant, 40 N). On Sunday morning, 6th April, I accompanied the prosecutor from the station to his house, at a few minutes to 9, and found that an entry had been made by removing a thick bar, which had been fastened with cement at the bottom—it was loose at the top—this knife would remove the cement and putty—I first saw the knife when Marsh brought it to the station, it then had cement and putty on it, as if
it had been rubbed aganist the compo—I traced footsteps from No. 14 to the rear of No. 18—they came out of the side gate of No. 18 into Camden-road. where I found similar impressions, and the property wrapped up in two or three different parcels (produced)—it was concelaed behind some old building materials, timber, about 400 yard, from the prosecutor's house—I took the boot, made an impression by the side of the footmark, and it corresponded exactly—there is a peculiarity about the boots, they are rather high in the waist, as if they had been half-soled and stitched together, and that impression was in the mark—the sloes had been carried nearer to the heel than is usual, it is half-soleing, or rather I should say three-quarter—they were only the impression of one person's feet—it was in garden mould and was very distinct—the boots were quit free from dirt when I made the Comparison.
Prisoner. The knife is hardly able to out a piece of board, and the waist of this boot is higher than the sole. Witness. The sole is higher than the waist, and there was that peculiarity in all the impression.
COURT. Q. Where is the rise? A. Where the new sole is joined to the old one—near the heel, and it goes further back towards the heel than is usual—here is part of the old sole left—that is the part I call the waist—it is raised by the stitches.
JOHN SUGDEN . I am a warehouseman in the City and live at 16, Hillmarton-villas, Camden-road—on Saturday night, 6th April, about 11 o'clock, I saw everything fast before I restored to rest—these are the boots I took off that evening—they were left in the kitchen—this property is all mine, and all was safe on that night—soon after 7 the next morning, I was disturbed—an iron bar had been removed from the sill of the pantry window outside, fastened in cement—it could be easily removed—that is at the back of the premises—the slightest instrument would remove it; there would be no difficulty whatever.
Prisoner. Q. Do you ever walk in your garden in wet weather? A. Yes; after it has been very wet—I never find the mould stick to my shoes to any extent—my paths are all gravel—we traced the footmarks on the mould.
COURT to ROBERT GOULD. Q. Were the footmarks with which you compared the boots, in the garden, or at the back of the garden? A. In the back garden, from No. 14 to 18, right across No. 16—they were leading from the mould on to the gravel—there were some marks on the gravel, trod off the mould—the footmarks turned toward, the camden-road when they got to No. 18—there are very low walls between the gardens.
Prisoner's Defence. The policeman says he found marks of some person having trod on the mould, and then on the gravel where the mould remained, and if he left it on the gravel, it would be off his shoes, and then he could not leave the mark of shoes if he had fetched the mould off them; when my shoes were measured with the footmarks, they were quite clean, so that they must go into the footmarks and a bigger shoe would go in it.
PLEADED GUILTY. **— Six Years' Penal Servitude.
THIRD COURT.—Thursday, May 15th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. COMMON SERJEANT; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR, Esq.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
PLEADED GUILTY . **— Three Years' each Penal Servitude.
555. JAMES NICHOLLS (27) , Embezzling the sums of 6l., 19s. 7d., and 2l. 2s. 6d., also 11l., 9l. 11s. 8d., and 10l. 10s. 9 1/2 d.; also 6l. 1s. 4 1/2 d., 4l. 10s., and 2l. 5s., the monies of Joseph Harris Stretton, and others, his masters; to all of which he
PLEADED GUILTY. —MR. ROBINSON for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner had been in the prosecutor's service three or four years, and that until last you his character was unimpeachable, that his family was very respectable, and that the prosecutors recommended him to mercy.— Confined Nine Months
MR. GENT conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES BACON . I am foreman to Mr. Charles Buss, tailor, of 34, Holborn-hill—on 14th April, a little before 7 in the evening, our shopman and lad were both oat, so I went into the shop to attend to a customer, and whilst doing so I saw the prisoner come in with three bundles of wadding, apparently to sell, which is a usual thing in our trade for such men—I saw him very rapidly takes a coat off the nest, in which some coats were kept, and conceal it under the wadding—I was then standing on a chair, getting some goods to show to the customer—I jumped down, placed myself between the door and the prisoner, and said, "What do you want?"—he said, pointing to the wadding, "Do you want any wadding?"—I said, "You have taken a coat off that nest"—he said, "No, I have not"—I said, "You have, you have stolen a coat"—he attempted to get away—I seized him by the collar, and called our young man, who was at the back; the prisoner struggled hard with me, and I with him; I clung to him, and he got me out on to the pavement some eight or nine yards—I kept hold of him—I saw this coat (produced) drop from him in the shop—it was afterwards found in the lobby, where no coat ought to be—it was taken to the station—it is my master's property—it cost us 18s.
JOHN FOULGER (City-police-inspector). I was passing Mr. Buss's shop about 7 o'clock in the evening of 14th April, and saw the prisoner rush out of the shop in great haste, the last witness having hold of him—I assisted to take him back into the shop, and saw the bundles of wadding lying at the further part of the shop scattered, as if thrown down in great haste—I picked up this coat in the lobby, by the street door, while the prisoner was inside.
EDWIN SOUNDY (City-policeman, 250). I was called, and took the prisoner to the station—I searched him, and found 5 1/2 d. on him—he said nothing relating to the charge—he refused his name and address.
Prisoner's Defence. I knocked the coat down accidentally. I did not steal it.
COURT to JAMES BACON. Q. How far is the lobby where the coat was first picked up, from the nest where it was taken? A. Three yards, I should think; the coat was folded carefully on the nest, it was anything but
folded in the lobby—there is a door between the nest and the lobby—it was standing open.
He was further charged with having been twice before convicted.
JOHN FARROW (Policeman, N 396). I produce a certificate (Read: Session House, Clerkenwell, November, 1857. John William, convicted on his own confession, of larceny; having been previously convicted.—Four Years' Penal Servitude)—the prisoner is the man referred to—I was the officer in the case.
GEORGE MADDOCK (Policeman, G 162). I produce a certificate (Read: "Worship-street Police-court, 22d July, 1861. John Williams, convicted on his own confession, of Stealing a pair of trousers.— Confined Six Months)—the prisoner in the man.
GUILTY .— Six Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. OPPENHEIM conducted the Prosecution.
The prisoner having stated, in the hearing of the jury, that he would plead guilty, the jury returned a verdict of
GUILTY .— Confined Six Months.
558. JOHN DINGLEY the younger (18), Stealing, on 11th April, 3 yards of cloth, the property of Adolph Bimbaum, his master; and JOHN DINGLEY the elder (50), and WILLIAM BOOTH (32), Feloniously receiving the same; to which JOHN DINGLEY the younger, PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution.
URIAH TREW (City-police-sergeant, 36). On 11th April, between 7 and 8 in the evening, I stopped the prisoner Booth in Fenchurch-street, with this parcel (produced) under his arm, done up as it is now—I asked him what he had got there (I had received some information)—he said, "A piece of cloth"—I asked him where he got it—he said, "A man gave it me over there in that house," pointing to the Angel public-house, in Fenchurch-street—I said, "Come with me and point him out"—we went and opened the door, and he pointed out the elder Dingley—I called him out, and asked him if he gave Booth this parcel—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Where did you get it?"—he said, "I don't know"—I then took him into custody—on the way to the station he said that he had bought it of a man, but did not know who he was—I have not watched at that public-house more than that night—another witness will give evidence of that—Booth had the parcel in his hand in this manner; he was crossing Frederick-street, towards Northumberland-alley.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY (for Booth). Q. You say it was done up as it is now, has it not been opened since? A. Yes, and looked at by the prosecutors—it was tied up in an ordinary way, and he was carrying it in an ordinary way—there was no concealment in the matter.
Cross-examined by MR. HORRY (for Dingley the elder). Q. Were you in uniform at the time? A. I was.
GEORGE WEBBER . I am a fishmonger, at 28, Dorset-street, Spitalfields—I was deputed to watch on this occasion—I stood next door to the prosecutor's premises and watched—on 11th April, shortly after 7 in the evening, I saw the younger Dingley come out with a parcel under the flap of his coat; I could only see part of it—this is the parcel—he first ran across Bishopsgate-street, opposite his employers premises, and went down Bishopagate-street
under an archway; he returned in a minute two, and then went up the opposite side, at a shuffling trot—he met the elder prisoner and took a parcel from under his coat and gave it to him, and he put it under his arm, and then the younger prisoner ran back across the road towards his master's premises again—I lost sight of him, and followed the elder one to the Angel in Fenchurch-street—he entered, put the parcel on the bar, and leaned his arm on it, like this—Mr. Booth came up, and he gave him the parce—as he was leaving the place to go to Northumberland-alley, I saw the Sergeant Trew, and told him.
COURT. Q. Did Booth come in immediately after Dingley? A. He was in at the time—Dingley gave him the parcel, and he left—he was leaning on the further side of the bar.
Cross-examined by MR. HORRY. Q. You are described as a fishmonger? A. I am so, and have been thirty years—Dorset-street, Spitalfields, is when I lodge—I have no shop there—I am a hawking fishmonger in the city—Shepherd, the police-sergeant, set me to watch—he is an acqnaintance of mine of about twenty years standing—I was carrying on my business as a hawker of fish that day—I have no barrow, I carry my stock on my head—I was first told by Mr. Shepherd to watch, on the Tuesday previous—I saw nothing relating to this charge that attracted my attention between 2 and 10 minutes past 7—I saw nothing the day before—the younger Dingley went up the turning before you come to Sun-street—I was near the prosecutor's premises, sometimes on the opposite side, and sometimes on the same side—young Dingley, when he came out, crossed towards Piper's-gateway, and then ran up the opposite side of Bishopegate-street—No. 42, is nearly opposite the Old Paul Pindar, not opposite Sun-street—he went about two or three houses past his master's premises, on the opposite of the way, near Bishop gate Church—it was about fifty yards, I should think, from this gateway where he turned under—I have been a witness here once before, upon as assault on a policeman by a soldier named Haines—I was not employed then—I assisted the man after he was assaulted.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Q. Did you hear Booth say he was jobbing about the Angel, and the elder man sent him on an errand? A. I do not recollect—he said he was going to take it to the elder Dingley's lodging I understood—that was when the sergeant charged him—I did not hear young Dingley say that he was the only guilty party.
ADOLPH BIMBAUM . I am a merchant of 42, Bishopsgate-street, and dead chiefly in cloth on the Continent—the younger Dingley was in my service as errand boy, and to watch the shop and premises—when he came the elder Dingley presented himself as his father—from information I have received, I have missed cloth in considerable quantities—I know this piece of cloth—I am positive it is part of my goods—it was brought to me on 11th April, the evening I was called to the police-station—I had seen it two days before that—this (produced) is the piece from which it was cut—I have compared them, and they are the same, and the same pattern—here is a cut which this piece fits into—it appears to have been cut with a small pair of scissors, and you can see every little cut.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKIE. Q. Did you buy that from a pattern? A. No; I went to a wholesale house in London and bought it—I doubt whether such cloth as this is to be bought in several wholesale houses; similar cloth might be, but this is an article I bought last summer as a job—I do not undertake to swear that it cannot be bought in any other warehouse in London.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. You do not think that bit would fit any other piece of cloth like that? A. No; I should not think so—the ins and outs fit exactly.
DINGLEY the elder.— GUILTY .
BOOTH.— NOT GUILTY .
559. JOHN DINGLEY the elder, JOHN DINGLEY the younger, and WILLIAM BOOTH , were again indicted for stealing 3 yards, 6 yards, and 8 yards of cloth, the property of Adolph Bimbaum, the matter of John Dingley, the younger. Second Count, feloniously receiving the same; to which JOHN DINGLEY the younger, PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution.
GEORGE LEWIS . I am a butcher, in the employment of Mr. Hills, of Hart-street, Mark-lane—I know Booth by his coming to the shop for different things—he used to run errands, and come for steaks for a house in Fenchurch-street—about three weeks before I went before the Magistrate, I bought a duplicate of him for a shilling, for this piece of cloth (produced)—I do not know where it was pawned—it was either in Whitechapel or Shoreditch—I saw the duplicate; it was for cloth—after purchasing it I returned it to Booth—I told him I had not time to fetch the cloth, and he said he would fetch it for me, and he brought this to me—I wanted it made up into two pairs of trousers—there were four or four and a half yards—he brought a tailor to me, whom I do not know—these are the trousers that were made from that cloth.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Q. What money did you give? A. 8s. 6d.—I was to have two pairs; only one had come home—I did not know then that Booth's father was a tailor; I do now—I did not know that Booth lodged at his father's—after I went to the Mansion-house I knew it—the father made the trousers, and the unfinished pair was there—Booth did not work for me.
WALTER ROBERT SHEPPARD (City-police-sergeant, 32). I went to the lodging of the prisoner, 3, Fireball-court, Houndsditch—I saw his father, and found this pair of trousers—Booth gave me the address—I went to Mark-lane, and saw the last witness, and he gave me this other pair (produced)—they are of the same cloth.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Q. Then it was consequence of what Booth told you that you went to Mr. Lewis? A. Yes.
DAVID RICHARDSON . I am assistant to Mr. Johnson, pawnbroker, 25, Providence-row, Finsbury—I produce a piece of cloth pledged for 6s. on 18th March, in the name of Read, to the best of my belief, by the elder Dingley—on 28th March, four yards of trousering was pawned in the name of William Taylor—to the best of my belief by the elder Dingley.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKIE. Q. Can you positively swear that it was the elder Dingley? A. No—we have a great many people in our shop during the day—we take in a great quantity of that sort of thing—there is only Mr. Johnson and myself there, and I am principally doing the work of the counter, except at meal times, when I am not there.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Q. Are you well acquainted with the pawn broking business? A. Yes—it is not unusual for people to give wrong names—my idea is that most of them do so.
COURT. Q. Was it the same person who passed both those? A. Yes, to the best of my belief.
for 10s., in the name of Williams—I did not take it in—this piece of doe skin (produced) was pledged on 27th March, for 4s. by Booth, in the name of John Smith.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Q. Is it not usual in your business for people to give different names from those which they bear? A. It is very usual.
THOMAS HEATHCOTE PARKER . I am assistant to Mr. George Barker, of High-street, Aldgate—I produce six yards of twill, pledged there by Booth, on 28th March, in the name of Jones, for 12s., and four yards of cloth, pledged by Booth in the name of Smith.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Q. I suppose his giving the name of Jones one time and Smith another did not attract your attention? A. It is very usual.
ADOLPH BIMBAUM . I have examined these two pairs of trousers before—the cloth of which they are made is mine—this piece pledged with Mr. Barker, of Aldgate, is also the same cloth—I have identified all the property here—some is of a very peculiar kind—I can swear that it formed part of my property—in consequence of that I examined my stock, and have found pieces of cloth containing much less than they contained a month and a half before—since the younger Dingley entered my service I have had complaints from abroad of the cloth not being the proper length.
Dingley the elder, received a good character, and MR. COOPER stated that there was very little doubt of the elder prisoner having induced his son to commit the robberies; that very large quantities of cloth had been missed, as much as thirty yards having been cut from the centre of some of the rolls, so that they appeared all right until they were unrolled.
DINGLEY the younger— Confined Twelve Months.
DINGLEY the elder— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
BOOTH— Six Years' Penal Servitude
MR. OPPENHEIM conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM MILLS . I am assistant to Mr. Barker, pawnbroker, of 91, Houndsditch—I produce seven pairs of new boots pledged with us, one pair on 25th January, at 4s., one pair on 29th January, three pairs on 1st February, and two pairs on 1st February—the prisoner Franklin pledged those on 25th January—I did not take in those of the 29th—the prisoners each pledged a lot on 1st February—these (produced) are the tickets that we attach to them.
Cross-examined by MR. LANGFORD. Q. Were the three pairs on 1st February pledged by Block, and the two pairs by Franklin? A. Yes—they came separately.
JOHN HENRY MONDAY . I am assistant to Mr. John Archbutt, of Bridge-road, Lambeth, pawnbroker—I produce two pairs of boots pledged there by Franklin, on 22d February, for 5s.—I produce one ticket—they are new boots—I asked him if they were his own property—he said, "Yes."
ARNOLD WILLIAM COOLEY . I am assistant to Mr. Jones, a pawnbroker, of 31, Church-street, Spitalfields—I produce four pairs of boots pledged with me, one pair on 7th January, by a female, who had been in the habit of pledging at our shop—she gave the name of Franklin—the
other pair was pledged on 24th January, by a female who gave the name of Ann Frehasam—the third pair was pledged on Saturday night, 25th January, by Block, to the best of my belief—my attention was called particularly at that time, because, while my back was turned, he took up both the ticket and duplicate, and went away—I was reprimanded for it—I immediately went out to see if he could be found—I was out for some time, but could not see him—the pair on 5th February was pledged by a woman, in the name of Simon.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. Q. I do not understand you to swear that it was Block? A. I cannot actually swear—I am morally certain.
COURT. Q. Have you any doubt? A. Well, when he came he had a moustache, and it was gaslight—I firmly believe it was Block.
SAMUEL HEZEKIAH COLE . I am a pawnbroker, at 127, Waterloo-road—I produce two pairs of boots pledged there, on 20th January, for 4s., by Franklin, to the best of my belief, but I am not quite certain, the time is so distant.
WOLFF COHEN (Through an interpreter). I am a shoemaker, and live at 30, Hutchinson-avenue—I have known Block from four months before the Easter holidays—he called on me at half-past 3 o'clock on Sunday, about three weeks before Easter, and said, "I will tell you something"—I said, "What?"—he said, "I want you"—I said, "Yes; I will go with you"—he said; "I will give you tickets"—I and, "What tickets have you got?"—he Said, "I will tell you"—I said, "How many tickets have you got?"—he said, "I have got thirty-one tickets"—I said, "Where did you get the tickets?"—he said, "Never mind; I will give the tickets in hour hand"—I said, "What shall I do with the tickets?"—he said, "Take the tickets, and go to Spitalfields, and fetch the boots from the pawnbrokers"—I said, "I can't, I am a poor man"—he said, "Never mind, take the tickets"—he gave me the tickets, I put them in my pocket, and we each went home—I went on Monday to see the governor, Mr. Flatau—I did not see him, and I took the tickets to my house again—I gave them to Mr. Flatau on the Tuesday afterwards—I have worked for Mr. Flatau three yards and a half.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. Q. Have you ever said you have only known Block three weeks? A. I gave him some work out about three weeks ago—I have been in England four years—I swear that I have never pawned anything myself—when gave the tickets into my hand and said "You may do what you like with them," he did not ask for any money with them.
WILLIAM FLATAU . I carry on business, with Abraham Flatau, at 84, Leadenhall-street, and am a boot and shoe manufacturer—I am one of the prosecutors of this case—Franklin was in my employment for about four months before the time he was discharged, which was on Saturday, 8th March—he assisted in the department for giving out and taking in wort—he was one of our out-door workmen, and had goods given to him to finish—the boots are rivetted, and the bottoms and uppers put on the premises, and then they are given out merely to blacken the soles and to finish them—Block, on some occasions, gave out goods to Franklin and took goods back—I have looked at these goods—the whole of them are my property—I know them by different marks, private marks, and stamps of the different workmen that work on the premises—the workmen stamp their numbers on the boots, so that if anything is wrong we know which workman to refer to—I have my books in court—Cohen brought me thirty-one duplicates about two or three days previous to my giving them in charge
—I took them to the Bishopsgate-street Police-station, took a detective with me, and we went to two pawnbrokers to see if the things were my property—I then directed the prisoners to be taken in custody; we were in search of them—I gave the duplicates to the policeman.
Cross-examined by MR. LANGFORD. Q. Was Franklin an out-door workman? A. Yes—he came to receive work, and went home and did it, and when he had done it he brought it back—these two pairs that were pledged with Mr. Archbutt are not at all damaged—there is no occasion to look at the rivetting; as soon as a boot is damaged we put our initials on it—the rivetting is quite perfect—the workmen's marks on them show that these boots are perfect—I cannot tell whether they have been returned to my shop—whatever marks there are on them would be on them before they were given out to Franklin—we are rather large manufacturers—we employ about 150 men, and sell many thousands of this kind of boot.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. Q. What wages did you pay Block? A. 10s. a week—these boots are quite finished, ready for sale—they were never told by at—I know that, because we never sell anything from the shop in pairs—these are not one of a lot sold from our shop—sometimes when workmen return work damaged we make them pay for it or forfeit their wages, and we put private marks on them—we do nothing but a shipping and country trade—these are ready for sale now—they would be sold in this Condition—I cannot swear that they were not parted with by us in the regular way of sale—I was not always present when Booth used to give out work—I used to have the entire management of that department; if I was absent, my brother, or his son, took my place—there was not one of us always there when work was given out—we have certain days fixed for giving out and taking in work; on some occasions we might be in want of a dozen or so to execute an order, and might say, "Bring those before the regular time"—as a rule, either myself, or my brother, or son, was present when Block gave out the goods to workmen—that was the custom of our house—Block was not employed very late on Saturday nights—we shut up about 7 o'clock—I cannot tell what time he went; sometimes the same time as the workmen, sometimes a little sooner or later—he very frequently got away before half-past 8 on a Saturday night.
MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. What time did he come to work on Saturday? A. 8 o'clock was his time—his brother, who has been in my employment about eight years, told me that his brother was doing nothing, and he would be very glad if I would take him into my employment, although he knew nothing of the trade; but he would not mind if I took him for six months without any wages, he would see that he had sufficient to live on; I said I could not take him with no wages, I would allow him 10s., and if after the expiration of that time he would qualify himself and attend to the business, I would not mind advancing him 5s. a week quarterly, which I did after three months—he was in receipt of 15s. a week when he was discharged, and he knew nothing of the business—all he has done in the business was just the booking, which any schoolboy could do—I used to stand and call out what he was to book—I cannot tell you exactly when his brother left—I never directed any of my men to pawn them—we never sell goods, either retail or wholesale, in the London market—to the best of my belief, these goods were never exported or sent into the country.
JOHN LEONARD (City-policeman, 98). On Friday morning, 11th April, before this charge was made, I took the prisoners in custody—I received thirty-one pawntickets from Mr. Flatau—I produce a portion of them—a
great number of pawnbrokers gave up their property at the Mansion-house—I produce the duplicates that correspond with the tickets attached to these goods—I have examined them, and they correspond exactly—amongst them are a duplicate and ticket of a similar number, both of the same date—when I arrested them I charged them with robbing their employers of a considerable amount of boots and shoes—they both said they knew nothing about it—I accompanied Mr. Flatau to nearly all the pawnbrokers when he identified the goods—I took Block in Trinity-square, Borough; not in his own house—he was with a Mr. Spronge, a German, I think, a bootmaker, sitting in his room—(The prisoner's statements before the Magistrate were here read as follows: Franklin says, "I leave it to my solicitor." Block says, "I have been induced to do it; I had a very bad salary, only having 10s. for the first three months, and the witness for the prosecution, Cohen, tempted me the most."
MR. LANGFORD submitted that there was no evidence of Franklin being a servant to Mr. Flatau, as he only received work to do at home, the onus of servitude being that he should receive weekly wages, and that there were express provisions made by the legislation for workmen who took their work home; that the prisoner could not be a servant to two masters at one time, and that he received goods from other parties besides Mr. Flatau.
COURT to WILLIAM FLATAU. Q. How was Franklin paid? A. By piece-work; so much for a dozen pairs of boots. (MR. LANGFORD further contended that, assuming him not to be a servant, then he could not be found guilty of anything on the first count, as two persons could not be charged each with a different offence, in one count. THE COURT was of opinion that the last case tried was proof to the contrary, telling the jury that if Franklin's mind was honest when he took the boots, and he changed his mind and pawned them afterwards, he would not be guilty of larceny, but only under the summary jurisdiction act.
FRANKLIN— NOT GUILTY .
MORRIS— GUILTY .
MR. OPPENHEIM stated that fifty-nine pairs of boots had been recovered since this charge was made, but that the prosecutors, having had Block's brother in their employ eight years, and knowing his family to be respectable and willing to send him away, recommended him to mercy; and a gentleman stated that he was willing either to send him home or keep him in his employ when he came out of prison.
—GUILTY.— Confined Six Months.
FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, May 15th, 1862.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MESSRS. ORRIDGE and BURNAND conducted the Prosecution.
CONRAD JAGER (through an interpreter). I live at Plumber's-row, White-chapel—I was at a public-house in Fieldgate-street, on Saturday, 22nd February—I left the house about 12 o'clock at night—as I was coming out these three men and Peter Conse fell on me—Eskucken laid hold of me, and Bartels struck me with a key, on the head—I then became insensible—I got
up twice, but I do not know what was going on after that—when I came to my senses I was in the London hospital—I have been lodging with Bartels for the last year—I was quite sober—I do not know whether I was kicked when I was down—Eskucken did not want to take me home, he held me.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE (for Bartels). Q. Before the time that you speak of did not you go with several others to Bartels' door. A. I went past there—I did not pull Bartels down from his door to the ground, nor did any of the people who were with me—the policeman took me away from Bartels, but there were then more then 100 people there—that was not before the time I have spoken of—I have been fined since then for assaulting Mrs. Bartels, but I was fined wrongfully
WILLIAM ROSENBERG . I live at 76, Church-lane, Whitechapel—I had been in Fieldgate-street on this night—I was there from about a quarter to 72 until, I dare say, near 1—I saw Jager there and all three of the prisoners, and a great many more—there were two others in company with two of the prisoners—I saw Jager raised from the ground, and I am almost sure it was Bartels shoved him from him, and Eskucken and two others kicked kim—the other two were worse than anybody in the riot—I do not know their names—I did not see Bartels do anything but give the one blow or Shove away from him, then a crowd gathered, and I was carried away—they all went into the house after that, I think—I cannot say whether the centre one did (Brown), Eskucken did—I did not hear Bartels say anything—when they were going down to the station-house he said that he would go down and see after his lodgers, or something to that effect—Jager was quite insensible—he was carried on two or three men's shoulders to the hospital.
PETER WALLHAUSSER (through an interpreter). I am a baker and did live at 62, Cannon-street, at this time—on 22nd February, I was in the neighbourhood of Fieldgate-street—me and Jager were in a public-house next door to Bartels'—Jager went out, and all at once I heard some one call out, "Peter, Peter"—I went out and saw these time prisoners on Jager—I went towards him to help him, and they struck me—I was sober.
Cross-examined. Q. What do you mean by the three being on Jager; what did you see Bartels do? A. He struck him with his fist in the face, on the head—I did not see any more—I was not one of the men with Jager before that, when they went to Bartels' door—I had been in the public-house with Jager about half-an-hour—Jager went out, I did not go with him—I did not leave the public-house during that half-hour, before I went out the last time—there were about four in the public-house with Jager—Jager went out alone—he was out about half-a-minute—no one came in with him—he did not come in again—he did not go out within the half-hour—I have known Jager about eight months—I am not often with him.
MR. ORRIDGE. Q. Was Jager drunk or sober. A. Sober.
HEINRICH WEIGE . I live at Brick-lane, and am a baker—about 12 o'clock on this Saturday night, I came out of the Black Horse public-house, in Feildgate-street, there was a row—I went down there and saw Jager lying on the ground—the three prisoners were all striking him at once, and the policeman picked him up—they then went into the house, and I went with them—they afterwards came out again, and Jager and another friend of his, Wallhausser, and I came back to look after their caps—as soon as they came out of Bartels' house they said, "They are rogues and thieves, they have come back again," and Brown and Eskucken struck Jager, and knocked him down, and he was
lying on the ground like dead—all three of them pitched into Jager—after that Bartels said, "Now come inside, he has got enough, the b——has got enough," and stamped on, him with his feet—they then all went in, and me and my friend halloo'd, "Police."—the door of Bartels' house was looked, and the police went in the back way and took them out—I did not see Jager taken to the hospital, because I went for the police—when they came put of the house, I saw the police had got them—Bartels was there with a lot more—all that were in the house—Jager's face was fleeding all over—I lifted him up and wanted to speak to him, and he could not speak—he laid down again—he was insensible.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you mean that the police came out of the house with Bartels? A. There were a lot of them; I cannot say whether they brought Bartels out—my friend is not here—his name is Ferdinand Shevines—he saw the whole of this—I did not strike anybody—I did not kick Jager, I swear that, nor strike him in any way—the police pushed me into Bartels' house—I did not say that I had given Jager a good licking—I have not said to anybody that I struck Jager—when I came up I did not say, "Where is the b—," and then go up and strike him—I used no expression of that kind—I had been in the Black Horse public-house with my friend—that was not the same public-house in which Jagar had been.
MR. ORRIDGE. Q. What did Eskucken say to you when you were in the house? A. I cannot say; they came out and wanted to strike Jager again—Eskucken kicked Jager two or three times—I went out of the house, and the police pushed me in—that was an hour afterwards—I have never had any quarrel with Jager—my friend was not bound over—he is at work.
AUGUSTE SAHAR . I live over London-Bridge—on Saturday night, 22nd February, I was in Fieldgate-street—I saw Jager and the three prisoners there—I saw Eskucken holding Jager, and the other two struck him and knocked him down, and as I was going to pick him up, George Bartels beat me twice—he had a key in his hand—I did not see him do anything to Jager when he was on the ground.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you see Weige there? A. You; I spoke to him—I did not see him strike Jager—he did tot do anything—he stood at one side and was looking at them—he went into Bartels' house at first, and came out again—I do not know that Bartels was pulled down from his door—I had been in the King's Arms public-house—I cannot say how long Jager had been there—I only saw him there about a couple of minutes—I was by myself.
MR. ORRIDGE. Q. Was Jager drank or sober? A. He was not drunk.
CARL KHRUMM . I am a tailor of Greenfield-street, Stepney—on the night of 22nd February, I was in Fieldgate-street, standing at my door, and Jager and another man, who is not here, came past, singing—there was a row before this row—I went after them just round the corner, and saw Bartels, and one of the other prisoners, come out, I cannot say which it was, and run at Jager and throw him down—I saw him lying down straight, and he was carried to the hospital—I cannot say what they did to him when he was down—I saw the row—I saw them rush at him, and knock him down—I cannot say whether Jager was drunk or sober at the time.
Cross-examined. Q. How long before was the first row? A. Two or three minutes—I don't know whether Jager came to Bartels' door, there were a whole lot together—the policeman cleared them away from Bartels' door, Jager was one of them—they did not then go into the public-house again, it was
shut—Jager lived with me after he was brought out of the hospital—I was obliged to turn him out of my house—I must say he is very disorderly.
MR. ORRIDGE. Q. What was the first row? A. I can say nothing about that, only I saw the police send them away.
PATRICK GARAGHTY (Policeman, H 159). I was on duty in this street on the night in question—there are very serious disturbances almost every week—several hundred Germans assembled there several Saturday nights previous to kick up a row} through some animosity—on this night, I saw the row outside the public-house, which is next door to Bartels'—it was partly quashed when I got up—there was another constable there—I saw Bartels go into his own house—I also saw Jager there—we separated them, and then got to the other end of the street, where there was another row, and there we found it necessary to apprehend five; and while we were at the station-house with those five, this row in question took place, and I saw nothing of it—after the first row I saw Jager, and he complained to me that he had lost his cap—he was sober—he went and looked for his cap—when I came back from the station I found that two of the prisoners had been apprehended—I afterwards went into the house, searched, and found Brown behind a sick man, in bed—I took him up—he told me he had just come from London Bridge—I said I knew better—I saw him there when the first row took place—he had blood on his hands.
Cross-examined. Q. You say there was a constable there? A. Yes; 23 H—he is in Court.
JOHN—(Policeman, H 23). I was on duty in Fieldgate-street, about a quarter to 12 on this night—there were between three and four hundred Germans there—at ten minutes to 12, I saw Jager, and told him to go home, and sent Bartels into his own house—after taking Jager away, about forty or fifty yards from Bartels' door, I told him to go home—he said he would not—I left him there, and went to the station with five prisoners, and saw nothing more of it—I did not see Jager return towards Bartels.
Cross-examined. Q. Before you drove them away from Bartels' door, did you see Jager pull Bartels down from the door? A. Yes; with several companions—that was the time I brought them away—they pulled Bartels down, and got on the top of him, and I got him away from them—Jager was very drunk, scarcely capable of taking charge of himself in the street, and made use of the very basest language to me.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. METCALFE conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN WILLIAM HEPPENSTALL . I carry on business at 20, Old Fish-street, in partnership with Thompson, Heppenstall, and Limer, wholesale stationers—on 8th March, the prisoner called at our warehouse, and produced to me this order, signed by himself, "Edward Clarke, 15, Eversholt-street, Camden-town:"—"Messrs. Thompson, Heppenstall, and Limer, for Wiseman and Collier, 12 reams of common, one hand, 17s.; 3 reams of double S. hand, 18s., double column; 3 reams of 18 to D. crown, same quality as samples. If you will get this ready to-morrow we will call for them, Yours truly, Edward Clarke. P.S.—Also the samples as promised"—in consequence of his handing me that order, I directed the goods there mentioned to be delivered—at that time I believed that they were for Wiseman and Collier as that represented—previously to that we had sent
one other parcel of goods to Wiseman and Collier—they carry on business at 15, Eversholt-street, Camden-town—we have done business with them once before; about ten days before the 8th of March—the prisoner came down to the warehouse and ordered it himself—I knew Wiseman and Collier from their being in the stationery trade—I knew there was a Mr. Wiseman and a Mr. Collier—there is no doubt that there is a Mr. Wiseman and a Mr. Collier—I have seen them both; one of them is here—when the prisoner gave the first order I made inquiries to satisfy myself that Wiseman and Collier were a firm in the trade, and the goods were delivered—I believed at the time that they were for Wiseman and Collier—I should certainly not have parted with those goods if I had believed that the prisoner was taking them on his own account—to the best of my belief these two letters of 18th April, inclosing the two halves of a 5l. note, are in the prisoner's hand-writing—(These letters were dated on 18th April, 1862, from Stockton-on-Tees, stating that the prisoner had sent the two halves of a 5l. note, in part payment of goods he had, which were charged for Messers. Wiseman and Co., and that a post-office order for the amount should follow; and asked the witness as a favour not to call for the money till he returned from his journey, and also not to let them know that he had the goods)—on receipt of those I placed the money to the credit of Wiseman and Co.—I refused altogether to have anything to do with the prisoner in the transaction—I repudiated him altogether till I received that letter—I did not kaow that I was dealing with anybody but Wiseman and Collier.
Prisoner. Q. You say that I brought that order in my hand on 8th March? A. I saw you on 8th March—I believe you brought that letter—I saw you when the goods were delivered; we had a glass of ale together—I had a glass of ale with you before at Chelmsford—you were very tipsy then—I was not—I asked you were Wiseman and Collier's place was—I had heard of them before—I knew them from having had dealings with Messrs. John and Edward Sanders, two or three years ago—I received the letters with the 5l. note on 19th—we sent Messrs. Wiseman and Collier a statement, taking off the 5l., and we applied for it between the 18th and 30th—I cannot tell the date.
COURT. Q. You mean by taking off, giving credit? A. Yes; if I had received the post-office order on the following day, I should have placed that to their account—Wiseman and Collier said they knew nothing at all about the first order—we have applied for payment, and they have refused to pay—our clerk applied on the following Saturday, the 3rd—I think I never saw the prisoner after he wrote that letter—there was a letter came afterwards, on the 1st or 2nd of May—this is it (produced)—(This letter was dated from 19, Eversholt-Street, Camden-town, and stated that the balance of the account, 3l. 16s., would be paid on the 3d; that he was sorry that the witness had told Messrs. Wiseman and Collier about the goods, and that he was going to set up in business for himself)—Wiseman and Collier gave the prisoner in charge first—I gave him in charge at Bow-lane Station—I forget the date—it was at Wiseman and Collier's request—I am sure of that—I knew at that time that he had left their service.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Did you find him at Bow-lane Station? A. Yes; in charge of the police, and Wiseman and Collier there with him—one of them fetched me, in consequence of the policeman saying that I should sign the sheet.
not know the cart; a lad was outside it—I saw the prisoner in the ware-house, and he directed me where to take it to—it was in consequence of his direction that I took them to the cart—I did not go with the cart; I merely put them in.
JAMES HENNESSY . I am assistant to my father, who is a carman—he is sometimes employed by Wiseman and Collier—on 8th March, the prisoner came to me for our cart, and told me to go down the street to meet him—that was at the corner of Friday-street—some goods were put into the cart by the last witness—the prisoner was not there while he was putting it in—he came soon afterwards, and told me to take it to New Brentford, to Mr. Scoles, a tea-grocer—I took it there, andd elivered all of it to Mr. Scoles—the prisoner went with me—he did not assist in delivering it—he was inside at the time.
Prisoner. Q. Are you quite certain it was New Brentford? A. I am not quite certain—I was always employed through you for Messrs. Wiseman and Collier; I have never been employed by anybody else besides you.
CHARLES HENRY DANCER . I am a clerk, in the employ of Wiseman and Collier—on 13th March, the prisoner gave me something inclosed in an envelope, and told me to get some paper from Thompson and Co's. and take it to Whale's, at Camden-town—I did so.
Prisoner. Q. Who did I say the paper was for? A. For yourself.
MR. METCALFE. Q. You gave the envelope to some one in the counting-house? A. Yes; I can't say who it was—when I got the paper, I took it to Whale's shop, and a young man in the shop would not take it in, and told me to send it back—I saw the prisoner as I came back, in Wiseman's shop, and he told a boy to take it over to the stable, and I think he did so—I know nothing more about it.
Prisoner. Q. What did I say about it? A. You said, "I am very sorry I charged Mr. Wiseman with it; I will take them down and have the invoice altered"—I think that was the same night, not the night after.
MR. METCALFE. Q. How did you know it was charged to Wiseman? A. Because I fancied I saw the bottom of the order—I did not go back to Mr. Thompson and mention it.
Prisoner. Q. Did I not tell you to mention to Mr. Heppenstall that it was for myself, for my own use? A. Yes; but I did not see Mr. Heppenstall.
MR. METCALFE. Q. When did he tell you that? A. When I took the order—he told me to say that it was for himself—he told me to tell Mr. Heppenstall that it was for himself—I did not tell him, because I did not see him—he said he wanted to make up some money for Wiseman and Collier before he came home—he said he was money-short on his journey, and wanted to make it up by the time he came home—I did not tell my employers that I took this load of goods to Whale's—I told Mr. Wiseman about it when he asked me.
EDWARD COSIER . I am clerk to Thompson and Co.—I received an envelope from last witness which contained this order for paper—nothing was said to me about its being for the prisoner—the goods were delivered on the strength of that order—I ordered their delivery on the belief that they were for Wiseman and Collier—I should not have delivered them if I had been told they were for the prisoner.
JAMES HENNESSY (re-examined). On 13th March, I went with Dancer in a van to Thompson's, where eight reams of paper were delivered to us—I went with it to Whale's first, brought it back, and then, by the prisoner's
direction, took it to the stables—next day I took it to Hazlewood's, in Tottenham-court-road—the prisoner met me in Tottenham-court-road before we got there—his wife was with him—he went with me direct to Hazlewood's, and the paper was delivered there—it is a large grocers—I did not see the goods delivered, because it was a covered van, and he told me to mind the horse and he would take the paper in—I afterwards drove away—I know nothing about paper.
THEOPHILUS WISEMAN . I am a partner in the firm of Wiseman and Collier—the prisoner was in our employment, as clerk and traveller, up to the latter end of April—he had no authority to order these goods from Thompson and Co.—I knew nothing about the first parcel of goods that he ordered until 1st May—I knew nothing about the goods that went to New Brentford, or those taken to Tottenham-court-road—he had authority to give orders to houses that we have accounts open with, but not to others—he had no authority to pledge our credit at all to Thompson and Co.—I have seen these orders—he had no authority to give any of them.
Prisoner. Q. You say I had no authority to open a new account; how was it that I opened an account with Barry and Co.; did I not do that? A. No; that was a ready money transaction, no account—I cannot say whether you bought goods from Drayton and Morgan—you had no authority to open accounts, or to order goods without my sanction—I might have written to you at Northampton, and asked you to get samples from Thompson, Heppenstall, and Limer—they called during my absence—I was on a fortnight's journey, and it was mentioned to me when I came home—I deny, on oath, that I wrote to you at Newcastle.
COURT. Q. How long had the prisoner been in your employment? A. About six months, at 20s. a weeks, and 10s. a day travelling expences, no commission—we parted with him because he came home 11l. in debt from the North—he was a pretty fair man of business—he was to leave, I think, last Saturday fortnight—he was given in custody on 2d May, two or three days after he was to leave our service—we originated the charges—we first requested him to come to Thompson and Co. to settle, and he refused to do so, and we thought it was a case of fraud, by his running away—we were coming down Holborn-hill and we met him, and requested him to go to Thompson to settle the matter—he refused to do so, and we desired him to step into a cab, and he ran down Fetter-lane—we then gave him in custody, and sent for Mr. Heppenstall, who charged him at the police-court.
MR. METCALFE. Q. You say you may have written to the prisoner to get samples, did you give him any authority to incur debt? A. No; if he got samples he would get a sheet of each, and that would be supplied gratis.
NOT GUILTY .
PLEADED GUILTY to the Second Count. — Confined One Month
564. JANE MARVIN (18), and HARRIET PREGNELL (17) , Unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, 20 yards of silk, 1 mantle, 13 yards of printed cotton, and other articles, with intent to defraud; to which they
PLEADED GUILTY.—Mr. Williams for Pregnell, sated that her father undertook to take care of her when she came out of prison .— Judgment Respited.
PLEADED GUILTY . **— Confined Two Years.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
WALTER CHAMBERS WORLEGE . I am a detective officer in the service of the London and North Western Railway Company—on 5th May, in the morning, I was on duty at the booking-office, Euston-square, I there saw the two prisoners together, and saw them accost several ladies who were going by the 10 o'clock train, an ordinary train which did not carry persons who had tickets for Marcus' Excursion—I saw Waugh go up to a woman as she was going into the booking-office, and he said, "Where are you going to, is it to Manchester?"—she said, "No, to Liverpool"—he then showed her this ticket (produced), and then pointed to Gordon, and said, "I will sell you this ticket for 5s., my friend came up with it on Wednesday last, and is not going back"—she said, "What can I do with a Manchester ticket?"—Gordon said, "If you give 5s. for this ticket, and go to Manchester by the excursion train, when you get there pay 2s. 6d. to Liverpool, and you will go the whole distance for 7s. 6d."—Waugh said to her, "You will save by that, because if you went third class you would have to pay 16s. 8d."—the woman hesitated very much—Gordon said, "Go and ask the porter the fare from Manchester to Liverpool"—she ultimately gave the 5s. to Waugh for the ticket, and the prisoners both left the station; I sent some one to stop them, and followed the woman to a second class carriage of Marcus' excursion train, which went at ten minutes after 10, ten minutes after the other, it is the Company's train—I believe Marcus receives a commission—the woman got into a second class carriage; I went up to her and asked her for the ticket, and she gave it me, it was to Liverpool, second class, 26s. by an ordinary train, I am informed that the third class fare from Manchester to Liverpool is half-a-crown; the prisoners were stopped, and I took the woman into their presence, told them I was a detective officer, and that I was present, and had seen them when they were accosting ladies, and heard all they had said, and as it was a very constant occurrence I should take them into custody for defrauding the Company—the woman then said, "You have got me into a mess"—Waugh said, "Yes, we have, we must get you out of it"—Gordon said that he had come up from Manchester by the train on the Wednesday previous, and paid 12s. 6d. for it; he gave me this excursion bill, which he said he had received (produced)—I asked him if he had read it, and pointed out "Not transferable" to him—he said, "Yes"—Waugh said, "I will tell you the truth, we were both in a lodging-house together last night, and we agreed to come up here to sell the ticket as Gordon said he did not wish to go back, Gordon remarked that we should get into trouble if we were caught, and I told him to leave that to me, I would see to that"—they were all three taken into custody—the woman was discharged by the Magistrate, she was an emigrant about to proceed to America—no ordinary passengers were allowed to go by the 10.10 train, that was for excursionists—the woman got to the station six or seven minutes before 10—she told the prisoners she was about to pay 26s. for a second class ticket.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Friday, May 16th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. JUSTICE WILLES; and Mr. Ald. ABBIS. Before Mr. Justice Willis.
MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.
CHARLES FISHER . I am one of the inspectors of meat appointed by the Corporation of the City of London, doing duty at Newgate-market—on Tuesday, 6th March, about 7 in the morning, I was on duty there, and saw the defendant beside a waggon with a man named Jarvis—the defendant took two pigs from the waggon, and took them one at a time into Mr. Burroughs' shop, a salesman in the market—I saw the last one deposited there, and then went in and saw them both, and found them unfit for human food, they were the carcases of two sows which had died in consequence of having recently pigged—their insides were green, and they had evidently been dead some time—the teats were cut off, and a portion of the milk sacks—the carcases were in a high state of inflammation, and I caused them to be inspected by Dr. Letheby and Mr. Newman—the carcases had been scalded and dressed in the usual way in which they are dressed for market—the salesmen receive consignments of meat and sell to the butchers on commission.
Prisoner. I brought them up for the boilers.
DR. HENRY LETHEBY . I am medical officer of health to the Corporation of London—on 6th March, I examined the carcases of two sows which had died in the act of farrowing, or immediately after—the flesh was not fit for human food—they had been dead some time before they were dressed, and the intestines had lain in their bodies after death, I know that by the green putrefaction of the inner lining of the abdomen
GEORGE RUSSELL . I am a detective City-policeman—in consequence of instructions from the Corporation, I went down to Leighton Buzzard on 7th April, and saw the defendant; he is a higher, and deals in pork, vegetables, and similar articles—I said that I was a detective officer, and had come from London to make inquiries concerning two sows which had been sent by Mr. Jarvis's waggon to Mr. Burroughs' shop, in Newgate-market, and which Jarvis stated belonged to him, and most likely he would be prosecuted for sending them, but if he chose to answer any questions he could, but it was most likely I should have to use it against him before a Magistrate—he stated that he had bought the sows dead and dressed on 5th March, but declined to say of whom or what he gave for them—he said that he bought one of the sows and a calf at the Bell at Hockliff, on the other side of Dunstable, that he went with Jarvis's waggon to London, and when it arrived at Newgate-market he carried the sows from the waggon to Mr. Burroughs' shop, that he never intended Mr. Burroughs to sell them for human food, for he did not think they were fit for it; that he had spoken to Thomas Baker who keeps a public-house at South Minims, as he and Jarvis came up with the waggon; that Baker was an agent to Mr. Elliot, or some other man who was a boiler, that Baker did not want the meat at South Mimms, but would meet him in London and buy it, which he had not done.
which consists of salesmen's shops in different alleys and streets—there is no great building—my shop is in Warwick-lane, which is in the market—I have known the defendant four or five years, he has brought a good deal of meat to me on his own and on other people's account—on 6th March, between 7 and 8 in the morning, I was absent from the shop for a minute or two, and when I came back I found the carcase of a sow lying on one of my blocks—I saw the defendant almost immediately afterwards with another sow which he placed alongside the other—almost immediately after that Mr. Fisher came in, and in the defendants presence examined the sows, said they were in a very bad state, and seized them as unfit for food—the prisoner said nothing—meat is never consigned to me for any other purpose than human food—the prisoner came two or three times that day—he came three-quarters of an hour, or an hour, after he brought the sows, and said that he did not intend them for sale, but had brought them up for the boilers, and merely placed them in my shop to be convenient, because they were taking some meat of Jarvis's out of the waggon—I told him he should not have brought them there, and that he ought to have told that to Mr. Fisher—he made no reply—I think he has brought me meat three or four times before, not more, and I have paid him for it—we cut quarters up, if butchers require it, and have boards for that purpose at the back of the shop, and it was there that he threw them.
Prisoner. I was not in the shop when Mr. Fisher came. Witness. You brought the meat in and Mr. Fisher followed you in immediately.
Prisoner's Defence. I did not intend the meat for human food, and that has been my statement all along. I put it in Mr. Burroughs' shop, while I took the other meat out of the cart, as there was a good deal of good meat packed on top of it; I was going to take them to the boilers; the inspector was taking meat away, and I thought he would take mine away, so I took them into Mr. Burroughs' shop. Here is the card where to meet me, with his name at the bottom: "George A. Hillier, licensed horse slaughterer to her Majesty, Belle Isle. T. Baker, agent."
The prisoner called
THOMAS BAKER . I am a publican, of South Mimms, and agent to a licensed horse-slaughterer, George Augustus Knivett—you called on me to have your supper and bait the horses, when you came up with the waggon—I have told you that I am always a buyer of any meat which would come low for boiling, if you saw any—I saw you on Wednesday night, 5th March, and you told me to take this meat on to London, and you would meet me at the White Hart, St John-street, where we put up.
Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Is it usual to dress meat as if it is for the butcher, when it is intended to be boiled down for grease? A. We have it dressed in all ways at times, but we do not have meat packed up in cloths as if it was going to market—a pig which is intended for the market is scalded, shaved, and dressed—we have had both cows, calves, sheep, and pigs, dressed in that way, sent to us—but they sometimes dress them thinking they will be better afterwards, but if they were fit to go to market I do not think they would send them to us—they dress them for the purpose of trying some of them.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.
near Mr. Matthews' shop, and saw a hamper pitched, with this label affixed to it, "H. Matthews, late J. Matthews, Newgate-market, from J. Wildman, Leicester"—the man opened it in my presence, and it contained the body of a calf, dressed in the usual manner that meat is dressed, without the skin, and wrapped in cloths—I found it very wet and flabby—it had evidently died from a disease that is called in the country the scowers, or diarrhoea—the kidneys were not in the carcase, and they are usually left in, if the carcase is good—it was decidedly unfit for human food—it was the worst calf I ever saw sent to market, and there was very little meat on the bones—it was subsequently shown to Dr. Letheby and Mr. Fisher, and taken before the Alderman.
CHARLES FISHER . I am one of the Inspectors of Meat—I was with Mr. Newman—this meat was not fit for human food—the animal was very much diseased; the flesh was very wet—it had met with its death perhaps two days before I saw it—it was not affected by the weather, nor by the length of time it had been dead
HORATIO BEACH . I live at 6, Drover-street, Leicester, and am clerk to Messrs. Pickford, the carriers—I know the defendent, by seeing him at our place at Leicester—on 26th March, about 7 in the afternoon, he brought some carcases of sheep, and a calf in a cart—it is usual to lend butchers hampers and cloths, and make a small charge for their use—meat intended for the market is wrapped in cloths—he asked me to lend him a hamper, I did' so—it did not look very good, and I said that it was a strange calf to send to London—I am accustomed to see a good deal of meat at our establishment, and in my judgment it was not in a fit state for human beings—he said that it was all right, and proceeded to pack it up—I asked him to whom it was to be consigned—he said to Mrs. Matthews, the widow—we keep printed labels of the different meat salesmen in London, and I tied on the hamper one of the labels of the widow Matthews, and asked the prisoner what name I was to put on it—he said, "J. Wildman," and I find "J. Wildman" on this card—a clerk in the office wrote it, as I had got something in my hand—the meat was despatched to London about half-past 2 in the afternoon, by the Midland Railway—the meat salesmen pay for the meat at our office in London, and it is remitted to us—the defendant called a few days afterwards, and asked if there had been any return for the meat—I told him that it had been condemned; he made no observation—the condemnation ticket was handed to him by our agent.
Prisoner. It was not handed to me; it was left at your office for Mr. Wildman. Witness. It was handed to you by Mr. Shelly, who asked you where Mr. Wildman lived—you said, "At Dane-hill Cottage"—Mr. Shelly wrote that address on it, and asked you whether you would have the ticket, and you said no; you would send Mr. Wildman to pay the carriage to London—there was a youth with you—I do not know who he was.
ROBERT WESTON . I am a porter, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, at Leicester—I took the hamper to the Midland Railway, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the 27th—the train goes out about 3. 30, and it would be in London the same night—I delivered the hamper to another porter.
Prisoner. Q. Do you remember seeing a label on the hamper? A. Yes—I do not remember seeing a label like it on the pack which went a few days before from Wildman, but I heard you talking about it—I have known
you a long while as a jobbing butcher—there is a person named Wildman at Leicester, I believe.
GEORGE ROBINSON . I am in the employment of Mrs. Matthews, a meat saleswoman, of Newgate-market—on the morning of 28th March, I received a hamper with this label (produced) on it—I opened it—it contained the carcase of a calf in a very bad state indeed—it was not allowed to be moved out of the hamper by the inspector—we only buy meat to sell it for food—we never get meat to go to the boiler's, or for dog's or cat's meat.
Prisoner. Q. Was it not very wet? A. No; I do not remember that it was.
GEORGE RUSSELL (City-policeman). On 4th April, I went down to Leicester, by direction, and met with the defendant at 24, Milestone-lane—he told me that he had been a butcher nearly all his life—I told him I was a detective officer, and had come from London to make inquiries concerning a calf which he had taken to Messrs. Pickford's office in Kink-street, consigned to Mrs. Matthews, of Newgate-market, which was condemned as unfit for human food, and that most likely a prosecution would follow, and he might be one of the parties prosecuted; if he chose to give me any information concerning the calf he might, but if he did say anything I should most likely use it against him—I took down in writing what he stated—he read it over, and signed it—this is it (produced)—he said that on 26th March, Mr. Wildman, of Dane-hill Cottage, Leicester, called at his house, and said that he had a culf he wanted him to look it; that he went to Mr. Wildman's and saw the calf; which was killed and dressed; and Wildman told him it was more dead than alive, which was why he killed it, and asked his opinion whether it would do to go to London to be sold, as the sheep was which he had sold to Wace, of Newgate-market: and he said that it was; that the kidneys were taken out, and it was put in Mr. Wildman's cart, and Mr. Wildman and he brought it to Pickford's office in Kink-street; that Mr. Wildman's son helped him to pack it, and he requested Mr. Beach to write "J. Wildman, Leicester," upon it—he said that he saw the pluck, and the whole of the sound, and did not see anything the matter with the calf; it was fit for human food; that Mr. Wildman said that it was eating it's head off, and that was why he killed it—I saw Mr. Wildman there; he is here to-day—he was in Court when the prisoner was examined before the Alder-man—the prisoner did not call him as a witneas.
Prisoner. I told you to ask Mr. Wildman whether the calf had any physic. A. You never asked me anything of the kind—you said something about the weather being wet, it was very wet while I was there.
Prisoner's Defence. I have never been before a jury in my life, except as a witness. When Mr. Wildman called at my house it was almost dark, and I thought the meat was good for human food. I asked him whether he had given it any physic, and he said, "No." I examined the heart, liver, and lights, and found them all sound. I said, "The best way will be to send it to London by the horse and cart. His son and I directed it, packed it up and sent it to London, and Mr. Shelly took Mr. Wildman's address. I heard no more about it till the detective came down. The most I can say is that it was an oversight; I should not have sent it if I had been aware that it was unfit for human food. I did not slaughter it; Mr. Wildman's son and another man killed it and dressed it, and the skin went up to the skin-market. All I did wan packing it up and sending it to market. Mr. Wildman is here and will not deny it.
me for two years—you took this calf away and were to give me 6s. for it for dog's-meat, or not to take it away—it was killed for the dogs—you said that you would sell it to a salesman in London, and perhaps you would get a sovereign, and would give me what you could afford.
COURT. Q. Was it for you that the calf was sent to London? A. No—I am a farmer—I never slaughter beasts for sale, only for dog's-meat—a man and a boy who work for me slaughtered this calf, and dressed it—the prisoner knew that it was not going on well for mom time before, and asked me to let him have it—I told him it would get all right, and I should not part with it; but if I did I would sell it to him and would let him know—the calf was killed for the dogs, because it got so very weak from scouring, that it could not get up—it was killed on, I think, Tuesday morning, 25th March—I saw the prisoner's wife at the door next day, and she asked me how the calf was getting on—the prisoner came down the same evening to look at it—I asked him what he would give for it; he said, "Well, if I send it to London, it will perhaps bring a sovereign, I will give you all I can afford—I said that he was not to take it away unless he gave me 6s. for it, as it was worth that for the dogs—he asked me to let him carry it in my cart, which was going to Leicester—I asked him to let it be till next day; hot he said, "We will not delay such things as them."
Prisoner. Q. Did I not ask you if it had had any physic? A. never heard you—I told you I had given it hay—it had no physic, but I did not tell you so—I did not see you look at the pluck—you took the head, the pluck, and the feet with you—it was quite light—you sent a sheep for me a few days before, and I told you, you ought not to have done such a thing, and never to do it any more—I did receive the account and the money, but I did not know it had gone to London when you gave me the money—I told you never to use my name any more, I can prove that—you never bought anything of me—you never had any dealings with me, except killing two pigs a-year—I have seen you buying things in the market regularly—I do not know who for—I spoke once to my son on the road, but I did not speak to you—he had not a packet—I overtook you on the road, and passed you.
Q. Do you remember on the Saturday before last, you said, "I have got to go to London," and I said, "So have I;" and did not you say, "There is not a bit of it but what you could eat?" A. That it untrue—I recollect you saying something about it being packed so long—I do not recollect saying that the goalf had had nothing but hay, flour, and milk, and there was nothing but what you could eat—I remember the truth, and I will not remember anything else—I did not call on you when you had gone to market, and tell your wife that the calf had turned out better than I had expected—I recollect you selling the skin of the sheep, and giving me 3s. less than the value.
MR. SLEIGH. Q. Was the communication you had with the prisoner about the calf, entirely about what it was to fetch for dog's-meat. A. It was; I had not the slightest notion that it was going to be sent to London for human food—a sovereign would be dog's-meat price.
Prisoner. I never told you what it was worth for dog's-meat; you had a large dog of your own. I slaughtered the sheep, and sent it in your name to London; but the calf I did not.
GUILTY .—Dr. Letheby stated that from a ton and a half to two tons of bad meat was sent to market every week.
Confined Six Months.
NEW COURT.—Friday and Saturday, May 16th and 17th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. BARON CHANNELL; and Sir FRANCIS GRAHAM MOON,
Before Mr. Baron Channell.
569. BARNARD BURNS (18) , Stealing a post letter containing an order for the payment of 1l. 5s. 0d., the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General; also feloniously forging and uttering a receipt for the payment of 1l. 5s. 0d., with intent to defraud; to both of which he
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
MR. THOMPSON conducted the Prosecution.
ALBERT COOPER . I am a warehouseman in the employ of Joseph Baugh, a clothier, of 107 and 108, Poplar—I sleep on the premises—the two houses are thrown into one, internally—on 22d April, I went to bed at half-past 10, or a quarter to 11—we close at 10—the premises were then safe—I was alarmed about half-past 1 o'clock by the barking of a dog, and saw the reflection of a light in the glass, it appeared to come from the end of the shop—I jumped out of bed and ran for a rattle, with which I made an alarm—I saw a man running down the back yard, but could not discern who it was—there is a long garden at the back of the house—a person came, and I went into the garden, and saw several things lying there which had been on the premises over night—coats, waistcoats, trousers, shirts, and drawers, value altogether, 9l. 6s. 0d., some of which had been on the shelves, and some on the counter.
Cross-examined by MR. HOLDSWORTHY. Q. Which of the shops did you sleep in? A. No. 108; it was from No. 107 that the things were taken—I found a window open there—the party wall has been taken down, and the two shops thrown into one—no one resides in the other house, it is kept locked up—there is a long table in No. 107, there was nobody concealed tinder that; you can see under it, as the floor is on the rise as you pass into the room—I believe I looked under the table, I generally do—I looked round the shop after I shut up the shutters—there is only one cupboard, and that was locked—the staircase to the lower part of the house is outside, you have to go into the garden to it—the window was broken first, and then the button of the shutter forced back.
FEARY WATKINSON (Policeman, K 214). On 23rd April, about half-past I in the morning. I heard a rattle springing—I ran to the prosecutor's shop, and asked where I could get in—I went in through the butcher's adjoining, and over the wall, where I saw the prisoner running away, without shoes or stockings, from the back of the house to the far end of the garden, where I found him—there is a wooden fence there, three feet high, and a ditch—I caught him just as he was getting over the fence, and we both went head foremost into the ditch, where we both became insensible through the mud and water—we got up and fell again, and I being the stronger man, managed him, or he would have smothered me—I did not leave go of him.
Cross-examined. Q. Is it a small ditch? A. It is eight or ten feet wide, they term it the sewer—the water was up to my belt when I stood upright.
JOHN KNOWLES (Police man, K 138). I heard the rattle springing, and went with Watkinson to Mr. Baughs, and saw the prisoner in the garden running away with something in his hand; I said, "Here he goes and he dropped it at the edge of the ditch—I went there and found three pairs of trousers, which the Magistrate ordered to be given up as they were ordered goods; also these other articles (produced) outside the back door of No. 107—the window had been opened, and the shutter put down—that could be done from the outside—I went to the ditch and saw Watkinson and the prisoner struggling together—I found this candle at the bottom of the garden where the prisoner was captured.
Cross-examined. Q. Is it the ordinary back window of a dwelling-house? A. Yes; not a shop window—it could have been raised from without if the look was left undone—it is a folding shutter; I do not know how it was fastened—I saw no marks of violence—I did not lose sight of the prisoner for a moment till Watkinson captured him.
GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
JAMES and CLARK— PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months each.
MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution.
CHARLES EAST (Policeman, N 342). On Sunday morning, 6th April, at quarter-past 5 o'clock, I was on duty in Wells-street, Hackney, and saw the prisoners walking along the Shore-road; I followed them, and went down Tendor-street to meet them, but missed them—I searched about Wells-street, went into Mr. Foster's front garden, and saw footmarks—it was then quarter-past 5 o'clock—I saw James in the house, Clark standing by the open window, and Organ in the water-close, which is in the yard, but on the premises; Jamas was handing a counterpane out at the window to Clark, who was in the act of taking one off the window-cill—I took Clark and Organ in custody, and Finch, another constable, took James—I took Organ from the water-closet—he was merely standing there; I did not see him take any of the property—I asked Clark and Organ what brought them there, and one of them, I cannot say which, said that he thought I had gone away—the water-closet is alongside the house; you on touch the window-cill from the door of it—these ate the two counterpanes which were taken, (produced).
JANE KENNEDY . I am housemaid to Thomas Foster, of Wells-street, Hackney—on Saturday night, 5th April, I vent to bed, leaving the house secure—sliding window at the end of the house was quite died but not fastened—I was called up next morning, and missed two counterpanes, which were safe overnight in the room with the sliding window.
ORGAN— GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Judgment Respited.
WILLIAM EDWARD MACKRILL . I am an officer of the Court of Divorce—I produce the petition and other proceedings in a suit of Wheddon against Wheddon and Smith—Edwin Wheddon was the petitioner, Isabella Wheddon,
the respondent, and Joseph Smith the co-respondent—this is the original petition—I have also the answer that was put in—here is the record—it is made up, with the poetess on it—this is the document on which the trial takes place—I also produce some letters which were produced on the trial—I was not at the trial, and cannot say what day it took place—these letters were impounded by the Judge—the verdict was for the respondent—I also produce the replication.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. The answer does not at all agree with the record? A. That I cannot say anything about—the attorney's clerks make up the record—you will find one signed by the registrar of the Court—they are the only papers I was sent with; the only papers that were thought requisite—I do not know whether they were made up at or after the trial—that is the original answer; not an office copy—I do not know whether the trial takes place upon the original—it is not in my department.
MR. POLAND. Q. Is it made up by the registrar? A. I believe it is—the registrar has signed it, I believe, at the back.
GEORGE THOMAS BILLING . I am one of the officers of her Majesty's Court of Probate—I was present at the trial of the cause of Wheddon against Wheddon and Smith, on 14th and 15th March last, at the Court of Divorce, Westminster—the prisoner was examined on 14th March, on behalf of the petitioner—before he was examined I administered the oath to him in the usual form, to speak the truth in reference to the matter in question between the Court and jury, and after that he was examined.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you know anything about these documents? A. Yes; they are the original documents—they are made before the registrar, and he settles the record from the petition and the answer, before the trial; it is before the Court and jury at the time of the trial; if there is no jury there is no record—if the record does not embody the whole of the answer, I suppose it was not a question for the jury; they only put on record the matters for the jury: the Judge decides the other matters—the question whether the marriage was consummated did not come before the jury—the finding of the jury is added directly afterwards, in the shape of the postes, made up by the registrar—that is always so; and then these documents are kept by the registrar; not handed over to the parties as at nisi prius—this is the record—there are many questions in the petition and answer which are never put on the record; for instance, the question of marriage is necessary to be proved before the Judge, but is not in issue before the jury.
COURT. Q. Is this the document upon which the trial by jury proceeds? A. Yes.
RICHARD SEARLE, ESQ . I am a member of the bar—I was junior counsel with Dr. Spinks in the case of Wheddon against Wheddon and Smith—I was at the trial on both days, the 14th and 15th, for Mrs. Wheddon—the co-respondent did not appear; he put in no appearance at all, so he had no right to appear—I was present in court when the prisoner was examined, and took this note of his evidence—(This being read contained, amongst others, the following statements, that he, John Martin, had been introduced to Hayes and Edwin Wheddon, and had been employed in the suit two or three days before 18th November, 1859; that on that evening he was accidentally walking in Newington-causeway, not expecting to see any one, and fell in with Hayes there by accident; that they then went to a public-house in Newingtion-causeway, and there he (Martin) saw a man and woman come in and drink a glass of ale, and when they left he followed them, and saw them go into a house of ill fame in William-street, Newington-causeway, and he knew that the
woman was Mrs. Wheddon; that on 23d December following he saw her alone outside the Alhambra Palace, in Leicester-square, and afterwards, on 5th March, at Westminster; also that he had never spoken to the man, Smith, whom he saw go into the brothel, and that he had never seen any of the letters, produced in the handwriting of Isabella Wheddon)—I have not seen the letters since the trial—this one was pat in, I remember, and, I think, this was another—there were two copies of this third letter; I do not remember which was in—one was in the handwriting of the respondent, and one in that of Mr. Roberts; he has kept a copy; I think this is the one in Mr. Roberts' handwriting—they were both handed up to the Judge—the letters that were shown to Martin must have been the letters that were pat in by the petitioner, and so, I think, it cannot have been that letter that was shown to the witness—I think it was Mrs. Wheddon's writing of which that was a copy—these (pointing them out) must, I think, be the three—that one which you hare there is a copy in Mr. Roberts' handwriting of a letter written by Mrs. Wheddon.
COURT. Q. The prisoner was asked if he had ever seen them, and he swore he had never seen any of them before? A. Yes.
Cross-examined. Q. I have four here; which are the three? A. The fourth letter, the one not put in, is in the same handwriting as the others; I am not sure that that was shown to the prisoner—this (pointing it out), I think, is the one not shown to the prisoner—I took these notes in the usual way—I was attending to the case—I am obliged to supply the leaders with law as they go on—I think there were no short-hand notes taken of the case—there were a great many other witnesses examined—Brushfield was one of the first witnesses—in his examination in chiefs he proved a good deal against the lady—he seemed to be a friend of her husband, the plaintiff—the notes of his evidence are on the brief—I cannot trust to my memory, as to what he proved, without the notes—Brushfield said nothing about the 18th of November, but he spoke about one evening in Carnaby-street—he said, "I saw her leave the house"—he had taken a very active part—he did not say that he followed the lady to a brothel in Carnaby-street; nothing of the sort—he said he followed her and Smith from her own house, in Carnaby-street, to Leicester-square, and then lost her; that Smith was with her.
MR. RIBTON. Q. Are you quite sure that what you took down was said? A. I believe it was, or I should not have taken it down—what I took down was, I believe, substantially said.
COURT. Q. You were taking the notes as the junior counsel for the petitioner? A. was, for the use of my leader.
TIMOTHY HAYES . I am a commercial traveller in the house of Mr. Wilson, brush merchant, in Walbrook—I know the prisoner and Mr. Wheddon, the petitioner in the cause—I was acquainted with the co-respondent in that cause—his name originally was Heath—he was styled Smith during the trial—he was a porter in the same house as myself so that I knew him tolerably well—I cannot tell how long before that trial he assumed the name of Smith—it was some months as near as I can recollect—I have no wish to say anything against the truth—I put no dates down—it was so long before that I cannot tell when it was assumed—my impression is that it was assumed, but I cannot tell when—I know Mr. Brushfield—I had frequently seen him between June, 1860, when the petition was filed, and March, 1862, when the trial took place, and I had also seen Mr. Wheddon very often—I cannot tell the date, but I should imagine it was between those two dates—I had seen Martin several times, I cannot tell how often—I first saw him about the middle of 1859—I saw him with reference to
the petition of Mr. Wheddon—it was not a petition then—it was in reference to Mr. Wheddon and his wife, not to Mr. Wheddon's case—there was no case then—I did not get acquainted with him before I had the communication about Wheddon and his wife—I saw him several times, but for about a year and a half I never saw him—after 1860 I scarcely saw him till 1862, as far as I can recollect—I saw him several times in 1859—I lost sight of him in 1861—I do not think I saw him in 1862, till we bad to appear at the Divorce Court, at Westminster, in 1862—I was with him, in, the public-house, in 1859—I do not think I saw him for eighteen months, as far at I can recollect—having no dates, I cannot tell exactly—on the evening of 18th November, 1859, I was in a public-house with Martin, at Newington—while there, I saw a man and woman come in—the man was Heath, who went by the name of Smith—I knew him then as Heath—Martin and I followed them to a brothel—I cannot tell now whether I went inside or not; it is very possible that I did—as far as I can recollect I did not wait till they came out, but I believe Martin did—I believe, I went away—that was all I saw of Martin that night—I do not go to public-houses generally, but I went there to meet Martin—I cannot say how long before the 18th I had spoken to Martin about it—I should not have been there unless I had appointed to meet him—it is three years ago—the appointment was to meet him—the place was mentioned, I forget the time—there must have been a time mentioned, or I should not have been there I met him by appointment—I cannot say how long before that the appointment was made—it was made to point out Smith to Martin—that was the purpose for which we were to meet—I never spoke to Smith that night—I went there with the intention of showing Martin that Smith was there at that public-house—the object was to see that Smith went with a certain female, to a certain place—I said that to Martin—the female with Smith was a person whose name was Buzey—I cannot say whether I said to Martin who the female was to be—the appointment was made that Martin should see Smith, and a female with him, go into a brothel—I am quite sure that was it—the arrangement was made by letter, I cannot say how long before the 18th—I should say about two posts—the appointment with Martin was not made by letter—I should think it was about two or three days before—I had not seen Smith that night, before he came to the public-houses—I had seen him in the course of the day—I saw him daily at the place of business, passing under the name of Heath—I should say I had never seen Martin and Smith together before that night, because I went there to show Smith to Martin—I do not say that I never had, but I should imagine not—I should not have gone there, to have shown Smith to him, if ha had known him—I cannot say whether I hadseen them there the day before—they might have been together without my knowing it—so far as I knew they were unacquainted—the trial took place in March, 1862—I have seen Martin and Smith together at Westminster—we were all subpoenaed, and were there together—I had drink, but not with them—I do not remember whether I saw them drinking together—we were waiting eight or nine days before the trial came on—I saw Martin and Smith together, drinking together, on several occasions during that time—I know Smith's writing—I have seen these letters before—I believe they are in his writing—I have not seen the contents but I know the writing—I was shown them on the trial, and said they were his writing—Martin and Smith dined together more than once, to my knowledge, while we were waiting—I did not dine with them.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. What are you? A. I am a silk-
buyer for the house 37, Walbrook—Smith has been them, I should think, four or five years—I have been there twenty-six or twenty-seven years—Brushfield is a hat manufacturer in South wark—he is a friend of mine, by being a large customer to our house—I have known him about seven years, and by reputation ten or twelve—Wheddon was a customer of Brushfield's—Brushfield introduced him to me about the beginning of 1859—I did not introduce Wheddon to Smith or Heath, until a long time afterwards—I cannot say how long afterwards—Brushfield knew Heath by being in the place for so long—I believe Brushfield induced him to assume the name of Smith—I cannot say how long that was before the transaction at Newington-causeway; I cannot remember—I cannot say whether I was present when Brushfield induced him to take the name—I do not think I wife—I think Brushfield told me that he had done it—Wheddon, at that time, was is Bath—he only came up occasionally—he knew that Heath was to take the name of Smith, for the purpose of inducing the people to believe that he was carrying on a connexion with Mrs. Wheddon—it was not a pretended connexion—I cannot tell that it was a real connexion—I, and Brushfield, and Wheddon, all knew that he was taking the name of Smith—Wheddon told Brushfield and myself that his wife was leading a bad life in London, and he wished to find out whether it was so or not—then he wrote to me asking if I would find a person who would discover whether she was or not; I went to Southwark police-court to inquire—Heath changed his name to go and find out Mrs. Wheddton—I do not know how he was to find her out by the name of Smith any more than by the name of Heath—I suppose it was because he did not wish his name to be known—Brushfield took him to the house where Mrs. Wheddon was living, to find her out, and introduced him to her as Smith—he showed Smith the house where she lived, and gave him the means of asking for her, by a letter which you see there—Brushfield did not give him that letter, but you will find by it the reason why Smith went there—I have not read the letters—it will show you the reason, because Brushfield had been there previously by the name of Harris—I cannot tell you which letter it was—Brushfield took Smith to the house of Mrs. Wheddon, and gave him some knowledge of how to inquire for her where she was to found, and how he was to be introduced to her—I saw Smith on the afternoon of the day that I saw him at Newington Causeway—Brushfield was not there that day when I saw him—it wag not by arrangement that I saw Wheddon—I saw Smith on the same day at the house of business—I know he was going there—I did not know that he was going there with another woman, not Mrs. Wheddon—I am certain of that—I believed that he was going wills Mrs. Wheddon—I never saw Mrs. Wheddon until last Monday—he represented to me that he was going there with Miss Buzesy—that was Mrs. Wheddon's maiden name—Martin knew her by the name of Wheddon—I cannot say whether I spoke of her by her maiden name or by her Married name—I said that Smith was going there with the person who is Mrs. Wheddon—I cannot say how long before that I had seen Brushfield, because he is a traveller, and he is at home only one a month, and it might have been several days before—he is away very often, because he travels—I have seen him in London two or three times since this matter took place—I do not believe that he was away on account of the police—he was inquired for by the Judge, after the examination—he disappeared, too quickly, and has been away altogether—Mr. Wheddon was present at the trial—he took no part in the matter at Newington-causeway—of course he know everything that
was being done; it was done at his instigation—he knew that Smith was to be there that night—I cannot say whether he knew Smith was to be there with Mrs. Wheddon, or with a person who was pretended to be Mrs. Wheddon—my impression was that the party Smith went with was Mrs. Wheddon—I believed that up to the time of the trial—I saw the woman go into a brothel there, and told Martin that it was Mrs. Wheddon—I had told him that I expected Smith would be there with Mrs. Wheddon, so he had every reason to expect it was Mrs. Wheddon—I had never seen Mrs. Wheddon in my life—this matter began first of all with Brushfield—Wheddon asked Brushfield to do a certain thing for him, and Brushfield, travelling about very much, asked me if I would do a little for him—I cannot say how long the matter had been going on between us before the prisoner was spoken to about it—I should say some weeks at all events, and then I went to the police-office and made inquiries—he is an ex-police constable—he was recommended as a person suitable for the matter.
MR. RIBTON. Q. When you went to the police-court, I believe, they refused to let you have a regular policeman? A. Yes—I cannot say whether Martin knew that Heath was to take the name of Smith, because I could not have introduced or shown Smith to Martin if his name had been anything else; it must have been the name of Smith—I cannot say that Smith showed me any letter of Mrs. Wheddon to him, but I saw three addressed to Smith—I read them; at least I am certain I read one—I think Smith and I went together to get them from the place they were directed to; and therefore I should say Smith received them—I saw them opened—he must have shown them to me, because I had them in my hand—he did do so—he spoke about a letter that he bad, to which one of these letters was the answer—he did not tell me what his letter was about—he only said that he had written, and I saw the answer—I should think they were not shown to Martin; they were sent off to Bath to Mr. Wheddon—I think I have seen Brushfield and Martin together once—I think they went to the west-end together—that was after the meeting in the public-house, I think—I believe that was the only occasion on which I saw them together, except at the Divorce Court—I never saw the face of the woman who was with Smith on the night, because she had a very thick veil down—Martin was at the same distance from her that I was—he had the same opportunity of seeing her that I had.
MR. METCALFE. Q. You went away before they came out? A. I did—Martin waited—I cannot say whether she came out with her veil up or down.
ELIZA STEVENS . I live at 5 1/2, William-street, Newington-causeway; that house is a brothel—in November, 1859, a man and woman came there—they went to a bedroom; the front parlour—after that I saw two men outside—the last witness was one of them—he was not dressed as he is now—the prisoner looks like the man that was with him—my servant went out and spoke to them, and then I went and asked them what they wanted walking up and down before my door—Martin said, "Have you not got two parties come in your place?"—I said, "Yes; I have"—he said, "Can't you pull the blind up, or leave the door on the jar?"—I said, "Certainly not"—they both came into the kitchen, and stood some drink, and shortly afterwards they left, and I did not see either of them again till some time in the present year—I did not see Martin again till he brought me the subpoena—I cannot tell how long ago that is—it was since this case has been going on; this year—I had to go to the City, to Mr. Kent's office—Martin knocked at my door while I was having my breakfast—he said,
"Well, Mrs. Stevens, I have come to see you again"—I had forgotten him—I said, "Who are you?"—he said, "Don't you know met?"—I said, "No; that I don't"—he said, "Don't you remember about the case, about pulling the blind up?"—that is how I remembered their being there—I went to Westminster as a witness when the case came on.
Cross-examined by MR. METCLAFE. Q. Did you see a woman at West-minster whom you believed to be the woman that came into your house? A. Very much like her—I could swear to the man, but not to the woman—I said she looked very much like her.
MR. POLAND. Q. Are you quite sure about the man? A. Yes; it was Smith—I could not swear to the woman—there was a woman there with a black bonnet on, and I said that that was not her.
ALFRED EVERARD . I am a butcher, and live with my father—I was at Westminster, on 6th March, Thursday, I believe, and saw a person named Heath and the prisoner—they were together some part of the time—I saw them go to a public-house—they talked together, and we went and had some gin together; I and Martin, Mrs. Stevens, a man named Archer, and Mrs. Stevens' friend—Heath was called Joseph Smith—Heath told me not to call him by any other name than Smith, because he was co-respondent in Wheddon and Wheddon's case—Martin was present then—I said, "Your name is not Joseph Smith?"—I did not hear any conversation between Martin and Smith; not between them especially.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. You took a little too much that day, did you not? A. No—the landlord did not turn me out—I was not turned out of the public-house that day, nor any other day that I am aware of—we all went by boat to the City—Thursday, the 6th, was the first day I was at Westminster—I was not turned out of the public-house for being drunk—I have known Heath six or seven years—I was quite astonished at his going by the name of Smith.
MR. RIBTON. Q. How long had you known Martin before? A. I had never seen him before in my life till I saw him at Westminster-hall.
JOSEPH SMITH . My name is Thomas Heath—I do not know whether I was co-respondent in the case of Wheddon and Wheddon—I do not know what co-respondent is—I was not at all engaged in the case of Wheddon and Wheddon that was tried in the Divorce Court—I am subpœnaed in the case of Martin for perjury; I know nothing about any divorce ease—I was subpcoenaed when the case of Wheddon and Wheddon was tried, and went to Westminster-hall—I was represented to be the co-respondent in that case—I do not know a person named Everard (Everard was here called forward)—I did not tell him that I was co-respondent in the case; he saw me there, and I only knew him by working in the City; I did not know his name—to the best of my belief I did not tell him that I was going under the name of Joseph Smith because I was co-respondent in the case, nor tell him to call me Joseph Smith—I never went by the name of Smith—I have seen Mr. Brushfield—I know Mr. Hayes—I really cannot say now whether I was subpoenaed to go to Westminster-hall, in the name of Smith, I took so little notice of it; I burnt the paper the moment I received it; I do not know what was on it any more than you do; I was told to go there and I went—I went there in no name—I never knew I was to pass by the name of Smith—Hayes always called me by my proper name—I do not remember going to the public-house on the night of 18th November, 1859, or of its being the night that I went to a brothel—I have no recollection of any time when I went—I know a public-house called
Utley's; I have no recollection of going there with a female on 18th November, or about that that time in 1859, or of going from there to a brothel—I might have gone there—I do not know whether I went from Utley's; I won't deny that I did—I might have gone to Mrs. Stevens' brothel in William-street—I do not know whether I did or not—none of these letter are in my writing—I never went with Hayes to receive any letters addressed, "J. Smith, Cannion-tavern, Cannon-street, City"—I have never seen this letter before—I never went to that address to receive letters addressed to me in the name of Smith—I never saw this letter signed Isabella Buzey, to my knowledge—I never went with Hayes to receive it—I do say that these are not in my writing—I have known Hayes some years—he has often seen me write—I believe he is well acquainted with my writing, and plenty other people as well—I mean to swear that this is not my writing—/(the witness was directed to read some of the letters)—the thing occurred so long ago that I do not know what I did and what I did not—all of these are not my writing—I do not know that I have seen these four before—I cannot swear that none of them are mine—I won't swear they are not my writing
COURT. Q. Don't you know that they are your writing? A. No ; I do not know whether they are or not—I did not swear that they were not when I said I did not write them all, I did not mean that I wrote some of them.
MR. RIBTON. You won't swear whether they are your writing or not? A. I will swear to nothing—I do not know whether they are mine or not—I only know Martin by sight—I might have made an arrangement with Hayes to go to a public-house in 1859, but this has occurred so shortly that I have had nothing to guide me; I have no recolleotion of it—I saw Wheddon at Westminster—I might have seen him before, but as for time or dates I cannot say.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Did Brushfield take you to the house of Mrs. Wheddon at any time? A. Yes; once—he did not introduce me to her; he sent me there to 46, Carnaby-streets—I went there and saw a person, but I do not know whether it was Mrs. W heddon—I cannot say how long that was before I went to this public-house in Newington-cameway—I have no recollection of when it occurred, or how—I cannot tell who the girl was that I took to Newington-causeway—I don't keep a diary of who I meet, it is quite likely that I picked her up in the street—I can't say whether Brushfield knew I was to do so—it is such a time ago that really I have no recollection of where it occurred, or anything at all about it—I do not know whether I told Hayes that the woman I was coming with would be Miss Buzey, or Mrs. Wheddon—I really cannot say what occurred at the time—I had known Hayes from my infancy—I had seen him before, on the day I went to that public house—I have no recollection of the occurrence whatever—I see him every day—I do not know whether, when I saw him that day, I told him I was coming to that public-house—I do not know that I said anything to him about Mrs. Wheddon—I do not know whether 1 had seen Mr. Brushfield shortly before that—I do not know whether I saw Mr. Wheddon at all before that time—I have seen Mr. Brushfield as a customer at our house—to the best of my belief, I had not seen Mr. Wheddon before that time—I am generally in and out with goods, it is very rarely that I see who comes into the place of business—I had not seen Mr. Wheddon before I went to that public-house—I have no recollection of it—I really do not know who Mr. Wheddon is, or anything about him—I did not give the name of Smith, that I know of, at any of these
establishments; I always go by my right name, and never by a wrong name—I do not know that I hate never said to anybody that my name was Smith—if anybody asks me what my name is, I am not bound to tell them
Saturday, May 17th.
ISABELLA WHEDDON . I am the wife of Edward Wheddon—I was respondent in a divorce suit in the month of March last, my husband being the petitioner—the co-respondent in the suit was a person named Joseph Smith—I saw him before the trial of that case—a man named Harrison came and asked me if I was a waistcoat-maker—I said, "Yes"—he asked me if I would work for him—I said, "No; I work for a Mr. White—he said "How many dozen can you make a week"—I told him to bring his work and he could then see what I could do—he went away and I saw no more of him for five or six months—a man, in the name of Smith, came, not the same man, just before Christmas, 1859, and asked me how many waistcoat I could make—he said he belonged to the firm of the man who had called on me before, and asked me to make waistcoats—I asked Smith to allow me to go to Mr. Harrison's firm, knowing that a work person ought to go and see her own work; be refused me that, and said he would bring it—I then said, "I am in a hurry, Sir; it is near 8 o'clock, and at my shop you have to be in at 8," and I left him—I was going to my shop, he was at the door—I never saw him again until to-day—a letter came afterwards—I was not on the 18th November, 1859, at a public-house kept by a person named Utley, at Newington, in company with a man—I never was over London-bridge; I was not, on that 18th November, 1859, in Newington-causeway with any man, nor did I go into a house of ill-fame there.
COURT. Q. In William-street, Newington-causeway? A. No.
MR. MATTHEWS. Q. Do you know the neighbourhood at all? A. I never was in the neighbourhood, neither do I know where it lays—on 23d December, 1859, I went to the'Alhambra in Leicester-square, with Mr. Roberts, my sister's husband, at that time I was living in the same house with my sister and her husband—before I went to the Alhambra I had received some of these letters (produced), this was one of them, and that was another; this one was not received—I had never met the man when this letter came—this is the first letter that ever came to me, that was before I went to Leicester-square—(This letter was signed "J.. Smith," to Miss Buzey, and stated that Mr. Wheddon would be in town on Wednesday; that he was going to try for a divorce, and that this letter was sent at a warming; that there was a directed envelops inclosed for witness to answer it, and that he would write again and say how things were going on. )There was a directed envelope inclosed, and a 'postage stamp on it—I returned an answer to that letter, this is it. (That was dated 20th December, 1859, from Isabella Buzey to J. Smith, stating that she had received his letter, and was obliged for the information; that if he really felt an interest in her, the would meet him outside the Alhambra Palace on Friday next, at half-past 9, and asking him to write and say what sign she should know him by.) In answer that, I received this letter, beginning, "Miss Buzey, I received your letter this morning. I will come and see you on Friday, if I possibly can. (This letter also stated that the writer had come to Carnaby-street, about six weeks ago, and asked the witness if she remembered a young man coming about some waistcoatt; it also asked her to write if the did not think the would know him, and that if the did not, he would write and tell her what the could know him by, and to address to him, "Mr. Byrne's, Cannon-lavern, Cannon-street, City"). In answer to that letter, I wrote this. (This letter stated that the witness would
meet him at the Alhambra Palace on Friday night, and that she would be dressed in a tweed cloak, velvet bonnet, and would have a black muff). I went with Mr. Roberts, my brother-in-law, on 23d, to Leicester-square—I did not see Smith, or any other man, there—Mr. Roberts did not wish me to go alone—he did not know who the man was—I had informed my brother-in-law what had passed between me and this man—I received that letter, I think two or three days after that—I thought the thing had quits dropped again, as the man had not come—(This letter was signed "James Smith," and stated that As could not keep hit appointment, as he had to go out of town; but offered to meet the witness at the end of Regent-Street, by half-past 6, near the piilart; and that, if he did not see her, he should call on her)—I showed that letter also to Mr. Roberts—I did not go to the corner of Warwick-street, Regent-street, on the date mentioned—when I received the letter, it was past the time—I received no other letter alter the one just read—this one was not written on 23d December—I cannot say when I received it—this letter must have come on a Monday—it never came on a Saturday—it was written for me to meet him on a Friday—that must have been before 23d December—it was just before Christmas I met the man—(This letter was from Smith to the witness, stating that he would meet her where she liked, and he should like to tell her all he knew, and that if she wrote, to address, "J. Smith, Cannon-tavernt Cannon-street, City")—after those letters, which have been read, I heard nothing more from Joseph smith, or saw him again—I know the prisoner by seeing him here—I did not see him either in or outside the Divorce Court, on 5th March of this year—Mr. Roberts remained with me the whole of the evening at the Alhambra—he walked home with me, and we walked up and down, side by side, while we were there—I was not at the Divorce Court at all on the 5th—I do not know whether my sister, Mrs. Roberts, started to go there—I did not, at any time during the progress of the divorce suit see Martin in or about the Court I was in the Court on the last day of the trial, Saturday—I was 'called in for the purpose of being identified.
Cross-examined by MR. METGALFS. Q. Where had you been on the previous day; you say you were not at the Court? A. I was at home—I was expressly kept away by the advice of my counsel—my sister was sent for, as I understand, as a witness on my side—she was not dressed to represent me—I have only one sister, Mrs. Roberts—she was not sent there dressed very much like me—she does not dress in the same way as I do—it is not in her power to dress as 1 do now, she has a family; she is not so well able to dress—she was not dressed rather better than usual for that occasion—the same aa she is dressed to-day, she appeared at the Divorce Court—I heard that Mr. Wheddon came up and claimed my sister as his wife, and my uncle, Mr. Pearson, and several others, I believe—I was not there—I went to the Alhambra in consequence of receiving that letter uader the advice of Mr. Roberts.
Q. You say that was to meet a person who had something to communicate, although you took Mr. Roberts with you; you would at some portion of the time go apart from Mr. Roberts? A. No; he was a stranger to me; if he could not have spoken before my brother-in-law, his intention could not have been honourable towards me—I knew nothing that I should have been ashamed of my brother-in-law knowing—he never left my side—I am quite sure of that—we waited half an hour, and the man never came—Mr. Roberts did not go and get home refreshment: we were close at home—there was nobody about there—it closed at 10—there were
very few persons there—there might hare been persons passing in and out—we went up to the top of Leicester-square—we waited till 10—Leotard was not performing at that time—I did not see a great many persons—I saw no one as we walked up and down—I thought I should see a man walking up and down, waiting for me—we were home before half past 10, and we live in Carnaby-street—the Alhambra may have been open later than 10—I cannot say—there were not many persons there on that night—I dressed in a tweed cloak, a velvet bonnet, and a black muff—I did not go more than once to the Alhambra—I had never been inside the Alhambra—we only went that one night—my business does not take me into Leicester-square—I work at 53, Marlborough-street—I sometimes go to Leicester-square on Sunday for a walk—I nave been there several times—when I have no work of an afternoon, I have taken a walk out, but my work does not allow me to walk about of a night.
MR. MATTHEWS. Q. You have been asked whether you go to the Alhambra; were you ever walking alone outside the Alhambra at any time? A. No, never; I never walked in Leioester-square of a night—the letters do not mention about meeting me alone—I went there on a matter of business, about this divorce suit and thinking it was a matter of business, I took Mr. Roberts with me—I did not go by the name of Mrs. Wheddon—I resumed my maiden name—my maiden name was Buzey.
SARAH ANN ROBERTS . I recollect the trial at Westminster-hall of this divorce case—I attended there early in March—Mr. Dudman, one of the witnesses, and my husband, were with me—we were all attending as witnesses—on the Wednesday week, before the trial, as we were returning from the Hall, persons crowded about me—Martin was amongst them—Mr. Wheddon placed his hand on my shoulder, and said, "That is my wife; I swear that is my wife:" and my uncle said, "Yes, that is her, my nlece Mrs. Wheddon;" and then Mr. Davis took us to the cab—Martin heard what was said—my uncle, Mr. Pearson, lives at Bath, he is a friend of Mr. Wheddon's—he was attending at the Court with Mr. Wheddon during the trial—Martin looked into the cab, and said, "That is Mrs. Wheddon"—Mr. Davis took me into the cab, and Mrs. Stevens, and Mr. Kent, the attorney's clerk; and Martin looked into the cab, and said, "That is Mrs. Whedden, who I served the subpoena on"—my uncle also said I was Mrs. Wheddon—I had seen him the day before at the Court, and spoken to him—he addressed me then as Mrs. Roberts—I was never over at Newington in my life with any man—I never went to an improper place there in my life—I was not walking outside the Alhambra Palace aloue on 23d December, or any other day.
Cross-examined. Q. You had not seen Mr. Pearson for some time, had you? A. Not for nine or ten years—I am not dressed to-day as I was when the trial took place—I had a drab, winter bonnet on then, but I have the same dress and shawl—I went np to my uncle the day before, and shook hands with him—I said, "Uncle, whose side are you on are you on my sister's side, or Mr. Wheddon's?"—he said, "You may depend, Sarah, I am not on Mr. Wheddon's side"—I do not know what object my uncle had in saying I was Mrs. Wheddon; he was so excited—I did not see much of Mr. Wheddon—he wanted to claim me as his wife—everybody round said I was Mrs. Wheddon—I never spoke, I never opened my month—I was walking with my husband at the time—my veil was down—I was not dressed in the least like my sister—we were not dressed a bit alike—she
was not in Court—I was not taken there as Mrs. Wheddon—I am quite sure of that—I never went for Mrs. Wheddon—I do not know whether my uncle assists Mr. Wheddon—he is our own uncle—he has been living in Bath all his lifetime—he is not here—there is no Mrs. Pearson—I do not know whether he came up to espouse my cause—I did not know that he had a quarrel with Wheddon—I saw him previously in the Court—I was asked at the trial whether I had represented myself as Mrs. Wheddon, and I said, "No, never—I did not know what to say when they said I was Mrs. Wheddon—I did not intend that they should fell into the mistake—I did not mean that they should take me for Mrs. Wheddon—I might have said I was Mrs. Wheddon—I do not remember it—I might have said it—I might have said, "I am Mrs. Wheddon," in the excitement.
COURT. Q. The question put to you is as to what you said at the trial, whether, in answer to some question put to you at the trial, you said, "I may have said I was Mrs. Wheddon?" A. I might have said so.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Was not Mrs. Wheddon kept out of the way on purpose, and was it not the intention that you should be taken for Mrs. Wheddon? A. I do not think it was ever the intention that I should be taken for Mrs. Wheddon—we were walking down the hall when this occurred—Mr. Davis was taking us along outside the Westminster Court; we were going away—I never went there with the intention of being taken for Mrs. Wheddon—it was proved in Court the next day that this mistake had taken place.
MR. RIBTON. Q. Was Mr. Davis with you on that occasion? A. Yes; and in the cab with us—nothing was said to me about going there to personate Mrs. Wheddon—I went there as a witness with the attorney—I never said to anybody on the trial that I was Mrs. Wheddon—I am quite sure of that—I never went as Mrs. Wheddon—I know that my uncle was trustee for my sister about some money—my uncle introduced Mr. Wheddon to my sister; my aunt brought Mr. Wheddon up to my sister; she is Miss Pearson, my uncle's sister—she was not living with Mr. Pearson—my sister had 140l. when she was married—I do not know whether, at the time of the marriage, Mr. Wheddon was indebted to my uncle—I know that my uncle was assisting Mr. Wheddon at the trial, because he was with him—I did not see him with him frequently—he was called as a witness for Mr. Wheddon.
DANIEL GEORGE ROBERTS . I am a hair dresser, of Well's-street, Oxford-street—I am bound over to prosecute by the Judge of the Divorce Court—I am the husband of the last witness, and brother-in-law of Mrs. Wheddon—Mrs. Wheddon came to live in the same house with me and my wife in 1858 and 1859, in Carnaby-street—her conduct has always been proper during the time I have known her—she showed me some letters, and I went with her, in consequence of an appointment, to the Alhambra, on 23d December, 1859—we expected to meet the writer of those letters, Joseph Smith—we were there some time, waiting about, and walking up and down, expecting to see this party; we saw no one—I was in attendance at the Divorce Court, on 5th March, the day the persons rushed round my wife, I was with her, and Mrs. Wheddon, Mr. Davis, and the attorney—my wife went away after she was insulted—they called her Mrs. Wheddon—we were coming home: Mr. Davis was on one side, and I was on the other—after walking along, Mr. Wheddon came up, put his hand on my wife's shoulder, and said, "That is my wife, I will swear," then Mr. Pearson came up, and said, "That is my niece, Mr. Wheddon," we then put her into a cab and went off—there was no intention of representing her as Mrs. Wheddon—I never
had the slightest notion—we were attending there at witnesse and we were going away when this happened—I saw Martin there; he came up to the cab door, and said, "That is her; that is Mrs. Wheddon, I will swear"—that was the first I saw of him that day—I did not hear him on that occasion, say anything about Newington-causeway, or what he had seen Mrs. Wheddon do—he only said, "That is Mrs. Wheddon, I'll swear"—I saw pretty well all the witnesses before the hearing of the trial—I saw Martin and Smith in company before the trial, on Thursday, the 6th, the day after the wrong identification—there was a man with them who has since been pointed out to me, named Everard, and another man whom I do not know; they were all drinking in a public-house facing Westminster-bridge—I did not see them talking—I heard the noise of some talk, but being a little afficted, I could not hear them—I saw the glass passed from one to the other—I cannot say that they were all talking together—I heard the murmurs of their voices—they were in company and drinking together—I did not see Martin and Smith together on any other day except that—I only saw one of them on the day of the trial—I know nothing about any debt from Wheddon to Mr. Pearson.
Cross-examined. Q. What do you mean by glasses passed round from one to the other? A. They were passing glasses from one to the other, drinking—it was at a public-bar—I did not drink with them; I went in and had something for myself—the reason I went in there it this, after the Wednesday, I was so watched about, and having my wife and sister to look after, I wanted to see whether my coast was clear, that I should not be followed to have them insulted again, and I went into the midst of them, to see if anybody followed me—I was in the bar, and I saw them—I did not go in amongst them—I went in to see whether they were there, so that I could get away home—there might have been other people in the public-house, but not in that department—I cannot tell you how many there were in that department; I was in one department, and they were in another—I was not in there three minutes—I did not leave Mrs. Wheddon at all when I went to the Alhambra—we did not go in and get any refreshment there—we left about 10 or half-past—I cannot judge the time, it is so long ago.
MR. RIBTON. Q. Did you remain with Mrs. Wheddon the whole time? A. Yes; from the time I went out of my door till the time I took her back again, without leaving her for any purpose.
WILLIAM WHITEHEAD CHARNOCK . I am an attorney—I was consulted about this case on 1st December, 1859—the prisoner came to my chambers three times in December—he was accompanied on the first occasion by a party who represented himself as Mr. Wheddon, and two other persons, who I do not know—I fancy I had seen one of them before—I fancy his name was Brushfield—I do not know whether the other was a person of the name of Hayes—I should not know him—they consulted me about the divorce suit, "Wheddon v. Wheddon," before it was a suit—Martin was with them on each of these three occasions; I think he was alone on the last occasion—on the first occasion, Wheddon, Martin, and two others, were present—on the second, I think Martin and some other party, and on the third, I think only Martin—they remained some little time with me—they came on the 1st, the 2d, and the 9th.
Cross-examined. Q. Did any of the parties come to you before Martin came? A. I think not—I saw none of them if they did—I did not advise them to employ a police-officer—when Martin came on the first occasion he said he had been in the police force—he told me the way he had been going
to work—I told him I thought it was the wrong way, and pointed out to him the way I thought was advisable.
WALTER HAMILTON DAVIS . I was solicitor for the respondent, Mrs. Wheddon, in the divorce suit—I Attended, with some of my witnesses, on 8th May, at Westminster-hall—Mrs. Wheddon was not there on that day; Mrs. Roberts was—I have heard this morning a description of the way persons came round her and said she was Mrs. Wheddon—there was not the slightest intention on my part to pass her off as Mrs. Wheddon, or as far as I know on the part of any one else—I think we were leaving the Court when these relatives rushed round her—it was after the Court had risen—we had got outside Westminster hall, when the mob came round—Martin said, looking into the cab, "That is her"—the woman was very frightened, and I got her into a cab—I did not hear Martin say "Mrs. Wheddon,"—he said, "That is her"—I did not hear him sty anything about what he had said on a previous occasion—I saw the witnesses about together before the hearing, and Martin with them.
The prisoner received a good character.— NOT GUILTY .
The jury expressed their regret that Smith had not been put on his trial, and their disgust at his conduct.
THIRD COURT.—Friday, May 16th, 1862.
and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. COOPER conducted the Prisecution.
EMMA DAVEY . I am housekeeper to my brother, Charles Davey, of 4, Castle-court, Lawrence-lane, licensed victuallet—the female prisoner was in our employ on 22d April, as housemaid—on that day, about 2 o'clock, I saw her drawing gin from the bar into a soda water-bottle—she had no right to do, that, or to be there—I went and asked her what she had—she secreted it under her dress, and at first said, "Nothing"—I said, "You have something," and she said that it was only a little gin—she was soon afterwards given into custody—her boxes were searched in my presence, and a quantity of articles were found there belonging to my brother, tea, sugar, table-cloths, and other things (produced)—the officer took a key from her at the station, and returned to our house with one, and in my presence he unlocked a box, in which some more keys were found, one of which fitted my brother's drawer where plated spoons and forks were kept—these things were kept in my brother's bed-room—the prisoner as housemaid had entrance there.
WILLIAM JARVIS . I am a detective officer in the City-police—from instructions I received, I went with Mr. Charles Davey to Great Westmore-land-street, Pimlico—Clark's wife answered the door—I asked if Mr. Clark was at home—she said, "He is not, but I expect him home in a few minutes"—I west in and waited—the prisoner Clark came, and I asked him if he knew a person named Caroline Hodson—Clark and his wife both answered, yes, they did very well—I said, "She is in custody, on a charge of felony,
and in her possesssion is found a letter purporting to be written by you, Clark, in which you acknowledge the receipt of a certain panel and some smokes, and other articles; and asking for a bottle of gin"—this (produced) is the letter—I then showed it to him, and asked bin if it was his writing, and he said it was—it is dated 3rd February, 1861—it Last no reference to this matter, but it led to my calling on Clark—I then informed him that I was an officer, and wished to search his house—he said, "You are welcome to do so"—I searched, and in a box I found a towel marked "Davey," and, in, a work-box, eleven spoons, German silver, I think; also six forks, one marked "Citizen"—in a bed-room I found two sheets, one marked "Davey," and the other not marked—in consequence of further information we searched on the following day, the 29th, and found in a bed-room two blankets, and in a bed-room occupied by the prisoner Clark's brother, I found a fast containing three duplicates of articles pledged in the name of Mary Ann Clark—they related to a cruet-stand and glasses, a coat, and a toilet-cover marked Davey, which was given up by the pawnbroker, and identified by the prosecutor.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. (For Clark). Q. What sort of a box was it is which you found the towel? A. A large wooden box, like a servants box—that was in Clark's house, in the room he was living in—the first-floor front room, I think; a sitting-room—they occupied two rooms on that floor.
ROBERT SPRAGUE (City-policeman, 411). I was called in one Saturday in April, to take Hodson into custody for stealing this bottle of gin (produced)—I took her to the station, and the female searcher searched her—I received from the searcher two keys, went back to she house where Hodson lived, and fitted one key to her box—in that box I found three keys, one of which fitted Mr. Davey's drawers—I also found in the box, tobacco, cigars, duplicates, and other things, which have been produced.
CHARLES DAVEY . I am a licensed victualler; and keep the Fountain and Star, in Castle-court, Lawrence-lane, in the City—Hodson was my housemaid—while she was with me I very frequently saw the other prisoner come to my house with his wife, Mrs. dark; perhaps about once a mouth—this property found in her beat is mine—the towels found at Clark's house are all mine—there is a toilet-cover, some towels, sheets, and blankets—the toilet-covers were kept in drawers in my sister's room—a key was found which fitted all the drawers in my room—these plaited goods are my property; "Citizen" is on one; my house is the "Citizen luncheon-house"—I identify all these.
Cross-examined. Q. Is that towel marked Davey? A. Yes—I have no mark on these spoons—I have missed two or three dozen of those spoons, and these exactly resemble them, and exactly correspond with others which I have in my house—probably they may be a common sort of spoon—I say the same thing of the forks—they exactly correspond with others I have in my house—I can speak positively to the one which has "Citizen" on it, and to the others also—I have kept the Citizen five years, or rather more—these spoons were not on the premises; when I went—I bought, them after I went thert, and I had the "Citizen" ones marked—there were none with "Citizen" on when I went there—I can speak to the sheet marked Davey, and to the other also—they correspond exactly with others that I have—I am a very good judge of sheets—I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that this one is mine, because I have lost sheets exactly corresponding with these in size and quality—there is no mark of mine—I say the same with regard to the blankets—the mark was not likely to remain on them—
there was a mark originally, but it has been taken out—there are no traces on these blankets of marks ever having been upon them—the toilet-cover is marked "Davey."
MR. COOPER. Q. Have you brought any of your forks resembling these here? A. No—they are in daily use.
Hodson's Defence. I did not know the things were in my box; I never went to Mr. Davey's drawers at all.
(The Court considered there was no evidence against Hodson.)
NOT GUILTY .
MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution.
EMMA DAVEY . The prisoner was in my brother's service as housemaid—on the morning of 22d April, I found her putting some gin into a soda water-bottle—in consequence of that she was given in custody—her boles were searched in my presence, and this tobacco and other things taken out—there were several parcels of tea and sugar done up in this way, and a table-cloth—my name is on this handkerchief—the tablecloth is my brother's—she had no business with it in her box.
CHARLES DAVEY . I saw the things taken from the prisoner's box—I know the table-cloth; this tray-cloth, and these gloves are mine—I had some cigars, and tea, and sugar, like these—she had no business with these things in her box—she used to get the breakfast of a morning—I have worn these gloves once, and pulled the buttons off them—there were thirteen cigars, I think—these are of an exactly similar kind to what I had.
Prisoner's Defence. The gloves were given to me.
GUILTY .— Confined Four Months.
FOURTH COURT.—Friday, May 16th, 1862.
PRESENT—Mr. Ald. FINNIS; and ROBERT MALCOLM KEER, Esq.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
PLEADED GUILTY. †— Confined Twelve Months.
MR. HORRY conducted the Prosecution.
NICHOLAS ROCHFORD . I am a hawker of toys—on 22d April, about a quarter to 1 in the morning, I was in Golden-lane, going home, and saw five or six men standing at the corner of a court—one of them said, "Hallo, old fellow, what have you got in that box?"—I had a box of toys, with a strap round my neck—I went across the road to avoid them, but four of them followed me—one put his arm round my throat, and clasped it tight, and I fell on my knees, and lost my senses for a few minutes, and when I recovered I heard them rummaging my box—they loosened my throat to rummage my box, and I drew one of the sticks out of my box, and tried to hit them—they ran away, and I walked to the middle of the road, and said, "If any of you come here I will knock you down; you have robbed me of
my few halfpence; you ought to be ashamed of yourselves"—they ran towards Barbican, and I followed, shouting "Police"—one of then came back, put his arm round my neck, and said, "I will silence you, you b—," or "I will quiet you"—that man was the prisoner—he went up to Barbican, and I followed him till the police took him—the other three got away—I did not lose sight of the prisoner at all, but cannot say that he is one of the men who took my money—I felt their hands in my pockets, but I kept two sixpence in my hand all the white they were assaulting me.
Prisoner. Q. Did not you say at Guildhall that you saw fire or six men, and did not like their appearance? A. Yes—I cannot swear that yon were one of them, but I can swear that you came back and put your hand over my mouth—when I gave you in custody you were leaning against one of the posts that protect the road—you called to somebody to come to your assistance, but he ran away—I carry my box on my back.
Prisoner. Q. How could I put my arm round your neck, then? A. You came in front of me, put your arm round my throat, and said, "I will silence you, you b—," and yon put your hand over my mouth.
CHARLES MCROY (City-policeman, 116) About twenty minutes to 2, on the morning of 22d, I saw Rochford, who described a person to me—I went with him up Golden-lane, and saw the prisoner with three others—the prosecutor said, "I will swear to the one with the white cap, he put his hand on my throat, and robbed me of my money; these four are the men"—I said, "I shall take them"—I took the prisoner, and the others ran up in the direction of Barbican—when I got hold of the prisoner he got his head under my arm, and his leg behind me, and tried to throw me down and get away—he said, "I won't go with you"—I searched him, and found fourpence in copper—he gave his mother's address, 11, George-yard, Golden-lane—that is about a hundred yards from where I took him in custody.
Prisoner. Q. Where did the prosecutor come to me first? A. At the end of Barbican, up Golden-lane; you were leaning Against a post, about twenty yards up—three men ran away—a man you called Peter came down to the station—they let him in; not in your presence—he was not standing with you when I came up—I did not see him speaking to you—you had nothing in your possession belonging to the prosecutor that I know of—that is the cap, but it had lime on it at the time; you have wished it.
Prisoner's Defence. On the night in question I was up at Fanner's, a place of amusement, and we walked round with my friends to Barbican, and the prosecutor came down and said, "I give this man in charge for robbing me." I said, "Where did I rob you?" He said, "Up the lane," I have got a witness here who will give the same account of it.
GUILTY.**† — Ten Year's Penal Servitude.
MR. HORRY conducted the Prosecution.
ELLZA BURTON . I am the prisoner's wife—I am at present living with my mother, at 2, Jeffrey's-court, Grey Eagle-street—I have been living there about six weeks—I left my husband to live there, because we could not agree—on Friday, 4th April, about 8 o'clock in the evening, I was with my sister, Jane Smith, in Phoenix-street, Brick-lane—my husband came up, and asked me if I would come home—I said, "No"—he asked me again if I would come home, and I said, "No"—he then asked me and my sister to come and have something to drink, and I said, "No"—he asked me to come
home because of the child, and I said, "I could not keep myself, let alone the poor child"—I said we could not agree, and we had better go before the Magistrate and be separated—he walked round me—I did not tee him put his arm round my waist—I did not feel Anything, but I fell down—I felt something pouring down my neck—I fell to the ground insensible—when I recovered I was in my mother's house.
Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. Q. Had he been having anything to drink? A. Yes—he was very drunk, or else he would not have done it.
JANE SMITH . I live with my mother at 2, Jeffrey's-court, Grey Eagle-street—my sister also lives there—on Friday, 4th April, about 8 o'clock in the evening, I met her and walked with her—the prisoner came up to us in Phoenix-street, and asked my sister if she would go home with him—she said that she would not, because he was such a wretch she would not live with him—he asked her again if she would go home with him—she said, No she would not—he then asked us if we would go and have something to drink, and she said, No she would not—he asked her if she would take the baby—she said, No; she could not keep herself, let alone the child—he asked her again to go home with him, and she said, "No"—I then notioed him taking a knife out of his pocket, and he stabbed her twice in the neck—she fell down insensible, and he ran away—she was taken to Mr. Gayton's, and afterwards to my mother.
WILLIAM GAYTON . I am a surgeon—on Friday, 4th April, Eliza Burton was brought to my place, 85, Brick-lane, Spitalfields, between 8 and 9, in a state of collapse, quite insensible, and prostrate—I found two wounds at the back of her neck; one on either side of the spine—she was insensible for about an hour—they were about an inch deep, and three-quarters of an inch long—my linger readily entered them both-they were inficted by a sharp-pointed instrument, such as a knife.
MARY ANN SMITH . I am the mother of Eliza Burton, and live at 2, Jeffrey's court, Grey Eagle-street—my daughter is living with me now, and has been for the last six weeks—on Friday, 4th April, she was brought to my house in a cab, with my other daughter, Jane Smith.
Cross-examined. Q. The prisoner is a shoemaker, is he not? A. Yes.
WILLIAM COLLARD (Police-sergeant, N 12). On 4th April, I was on duty at Robert-street police-station—shortly before 10 o'clock the prisoner came there in a very excited manner and said, "I will give myself up; Oh, take me in charge "—I saw he was drunk, and I did not pay much attention to him at the moment—I said, "What have you done "—he said, "I don't know whether I have killed my wife or stabbed her"—I detained him and inquired, and found a woman had been stabbed in Grey Eagle-street—I saw her—she was in a very weak state—I saw the surgeon, and took her on the following day to the London Hospital—the prisoner told me he was a shoemaker—I asked him, at the station, what he had done it with, whether it was done with a shoemaker's knife—he said, "No; a clasp-knife," and he had thrown it away—I made a strict search for it, but could not find it—I also inquired among the neighbours, but could hear nothing about it.
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding.—Recommended to mercy by the Jury . Mrs. Smith stated that the prosecutrix was nearly at bad at the prisoner, and used to aggravate him very much. Two withnesses spoke to the prisoner's good character, at a sober, steady man.— Judgment Respited.
MR. DICKIE conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM TIDY . I live on my property at 11, White Horse-lane, Stepney—the prisoners were drinking with me alt night in the Mile End-raod—they were in my company three hours—we left the house somewhere about I o'clock in the morning—I was very drunk—I do not recollect anything that happened—I saw a policeman afterwards—when I am drunk I make it a point to give my watch to the prisoners when I am in their company.
Upon this THE COURT directed the Jury to find a verdict of NOT GUILTY .
MR. LAWFORD conducted the Prosecution.
ELIZA HOWARD . I am a single lady, and keep a stationer's shop, at 9, Melbourne-place, Cambridge-road, Bethnal-green—about 9 o'clock on the evening of Friday, 28th March, I was at the corner of Swan-street, Bethnal-green, walking rather fast—I saw serepml men standing there together, and one came from the group, and took my bag from me, and, in taking it, struck me on the chest—the bag was hanging on my arm—he ran off with the other men, and I called out—he nearly knocked, me down—I staggered, and some one helped me into a shop close by—I felt the blow for some days afterwards—I have quite recovered now—the bag contained twelve monthly numbers of the "Sunday at Home," some papers, a parcel, and a few halfpence, about the value of 1l. altogether—it was a very nice bag—I could not distinguish the man's features, but Bass appeared to me, at Worship-street, to be the man who did it—he is like the man—I only saw his back as he can down the street—I did not see Franklin there.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER (for franklin). Q. This happened all in a minute, did it not? A. Yes; I think the blow was from taking the bag—the others all ran away together—I think there were five.
MR. LANGFORD. Q. Did you see the boy Bell there? A. I did not notice him.
CHARLES ALFRED BELL . I shall be 16 next September—I live with my father, at 14 Swan-street, Church-street, Shoreditch—on Friday night, 18th March, I was at the corner of Swan-street, between 9 and half-past, and saw Bass running with a lady's reticule under his arm, and Franklin running after him—the prisoners are the men—it was a kind of morocco leather bag—me and some boys had been playing at "touch," and we had just left off when this was done.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. I suppose you saw a lot of men running at that time? A. About half a dozen—it was rather dusk.
Cross-examined by MR. DALEY (for Boss). Q. Were they running in the middle of the street? A. Yes; there ware no cries of "Stop thief."
EDWARD HARROW . I am twelve years old, and live 21, Swan-street, Bethnal-green, with my father—on Friday night, 28th March, I was at the corner of Swan-street, between 9 and half-past, standing in the gutter—I saw some chaps standing at the corner of Swan-street, and this lady, Miss Howard, coming by, with a kind of Morocco bag on her arm—I saw Bass snatch the bag off her arm, hit her a blow in the chest, and run off with the bag under his arm; he was about eight yards off, and then Franklin ran—I did not hear the lady cry after them—the prisoners are the men.
Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. You can't read can you? A. No; nor write—no one called out, "Stop him," or "Stop thief," or anything of the sort—I do not know whether Bass hit her a violent blow in the chest
—Bass ran first and Franklin afterwards, there were some more running After Bass, he was running alone at the time I saw him—the lady was coming towards me when she was stopped—Bass's back was to me.
JOSEPH DEEBLE (Policeman, H 195). I took the prisoners on 1st May, they were not together—I took Bass out of a public-house in Swan-street, and Franklin in the street, about a yard and a half from the public-house—I said I should take him for being concerned with Bass in knocking a lady down and robbing her of a bag—they both said they knew nothing about it, and that they were working together at the time.
FRANKLIN— NOT GUILTY .
BASS— GUILTY .
He was further charged with hating been before contvicted on 18th March, 1861, at Clerkenwell, when he was sentenced to Three Months; to which he
PLEADED GUILTY*†— Confined Twelve Months.
MR. PLATT conducted the Prosecution.
EDWARD HUMPHREYS . I live at 2, Fairfield-place, Stepney, and am a book-keeper—on the morning after the 22d April, about 10 o'clock, I was near the Royal Oak with my friend, Mr. Joiner, when the prisoner started out of a court by the Effingham, which is just by the Royal Oak, and struck me on the face with his fist, it was not a soft blow; he struck a cigar-tube out of my mouth, let his hand fall on my chest and took this breast-pin (produced) out of my scarf, and ran up the court; the cigar-holder fell from the effects of the blow—I went up the court a little way with my friend; and waited, the prisoner came down again, we turned round on him and said we would stand by him—he then shaped at me, and planted a blow at my face, but with some difficulty I warded off the blows for a few minutes; he tried to get up a fight with me; we gave him in charge within about ten minutes—I kept him in sight, the prisoner is the man.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKIE. Q. Is there music and dancing going on at the Royal Oak? A. I do not know; the Effingham is a theatre and a licensed house—there is dancing there, there was not a great crowd there—there might have been perhaps one or two persons about—I had been out for the day, it was Easter Monday—I was returning from London-bridge with my friend, we were walking arm in arm—the first notice I had of the prisoner was the blow—we had not pushed against anybody at that time, and I am quite sure my friend did not—we left home in the morning after an early dinner; we had a glass of brandy and water between us, and with the exception of a glass of ale at dinner, that was all I had all day—the prisoner shammed drunkenness before the policeman, but I should say he was not drunk—I do not know a female named McClesson, by name—I have not recognised anybody here that I keep company with—I do not know my young female Who is intimate with me and the prisoner, to my knowledge—I might know some one by sight if you would let me see them—(Miss McClesson was here called into Court)—I have seen her before about the Mile End-road—I have been to the Eagle-tavern, City-road, and to Straus's, at the King's Arms—the prisoner remained up the court a minute, or a minute and a half; we waited for him as we thought there was no thorough-fare—I believe there is not.
MR. PLATT. Q. I there any truth in the assertion that you are a rival to the affections of that young lady? A. No.
ALBERT JOINER . I live at 39, Dempter-street, Stepney, and am a photographer—I was with the last witness on this morning, 22nd—as we were passing by Vine-court, Whitechapel, the prisoner jumped out and struck my friend over the mouth, and knocked a cigar-tube out, and he let his hand fall on the scarf, and took his pin at the same time; we were side by side—he then ran up the court—knowing there was no thoroughfare, we waited, and he came out again—he wanted to get up a fight with my friend, and struck him on the head; we afterwards gave him in charge to 300 X—I saw him examined at the station, we had a deal of trouble to search him—we found a hole in one of his pockets, and following round inside the coat, the policeman found the pin inside the lining, between the lining and the coat, it was pinned in—I was looking over the policeman's hand at the time—the prisoner was very rough indeed.
Cross-examined. Q. Did he strike you? A. No; he pretended to be in liquor—I know nothing about Miss McClesson—we had not in any way knocked up against the prisoner.
COURT to HUMPHREYS. Q. How long had you had that pin? A. Two or three years, I should think; it was a present from a gentleman—I had not given it to anybody, or taken it away from anybody.
LAWRENCE JOHN MAUNDERS (Policeman, X 300). The prisoner was given into my custody—I took him to the station and searched him, and found this pin in the tail of his coat, between the lining and the cloth—there was a hole in the left-hand pocket, and I took some other things out of it—he was very violent, he walked quietly a little way, and then said, "You are going to take me to the station, yon will have to take me there dead"—I had to spring my rattle for assistance—a little farther on he said, "I will give you 5s. if you let me go"—I said, "I intend taking you to the station," and I got him there.
Cross-exained. Q. Did you find a tobacco-box in the lining too? A. A small box; I don't remember finding a pipe—the hole had no marks of a burn—I thought it was there to let things slip down—I found 2s. on him at the station, he offered me 5s.—he denied knowing anything about the pin when he was charged—the Effingham is a theatre and a bear shop—the Royal Oak is a public-house; they are near each other; Vine-court is between the two.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY.—Redcommended to mercy by the Jury, believing it was his first offence. — Confined Six Months
The witnesses did not appear.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Saturday, May 17th, 1862.
PRESENT—MR. RECORDER and Mr. Ald. ROSE.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. SLEIGH and BESLEY conducted the Prosecution.
have been so thirteen years—I have been a butcher all my life—on the morning of 6th March, I was in Warwick-lane, and followed the defendant's waggon into the interior of the market; it was loaded with means and other goods—the name on it was "John Jarvis, Toaster, Northampton-shire"—I noticed the carcase of a sheep, which I had taken from the waggon—I had it taken out, found it unfit for human food, and it was condemned—the defendaut was on the waggon, unloading it to the porters below—I then asked him to let me see the contents of another, hamper; he hesitated, and said that he had no more of that sort of meat—I insisted on seeing it, and took out of it the carcases of two sheep and a calf, which were unfit for human food, and I condemned them accordingly—he said that they were his own, and that he intended to sell them to the knackers, for boiling; they were not intended for the market—I had them further inspected by Dr. Letheby, and they were condemned and destroyed—they ware dressed as butchers dregs good meat for market—it would not be worth while to dress it in that way for the knackers; but sometimes after meat is dressed it is found to be too bad, aad then it is sent to the knackers—he also had four quarters of beef in a hamper; it was inferior meat but I passed it—I saw the defendant again, at 10 o'clock, at Mr. Burroughs' shop, who is a meat-salesman, in Warwick-lane; a man who was with him took a hamper off a truek and brought it into the shop—I inspected the meat in it, found it unfit for human food, and condemned it—I asked him who he brought it from; he said, "From Mr. William Powell, of Toaster"—I took it to the Justice-room it was examined by Dr. Letheby, and condemned by Sir R. Carden—the prisoner said that it was the same four quarters which I had passed in the morning, but they were not; these were the carcase of an animal which had died, they were wet and flabby, the other was drier beef—I have known the defendant as a carrier for some years, bringing meat to the market, and I have had the duty of inspecting it—the four quarters weighed fifty-five stones.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Will you take upon yourself to say that meat which you have passed, has not been subsequently condemned by a Magistrate? A. Yes, it has, but not in London; one was a case at Woolwich; a man bought some meat in Newgate-market, and it was condemned afterwards at Woolwich, but, in my opinion, it was perfectly fit for human food, and I am still of that opinion the case of Smith, of Brick-lane, was meat from Leadenhall-market, which I am not connected with—the inspector there paased the meat as perfectly wholesome—it was seized in Brick-lane—I was called in to pass my opinion upon it, and gave my opinion that it was perfectly wholesome; Mr. Lewis had the case to defend, and, I think, he will say the same—it was afterwards condemned by the Magistrate, but I should have been glad to have had any part of it for my own family.
MR. SLEIGH. Q. How long ago was this condemnation? A. Three or four years—I have always been of opinion that I was right in my judgment in passing that meat, and I was backed in my opinion by the other inspectors.
WILLIAM WILDE . I am a meat-inspector of the Corporation—on 6th March, about 10 in the morning, I was with Mr. Fisher, in the market, and inspected the carcases of three sheep and a calf which had been seized by him; they were in a very bad state, and bad evidently died some time before being dressed—I never knew cattle which have died to be dressed, for the knackers, or for dogs-meat—the whole three were decidedly unfit
for human food—the defendant was present at Mr. Burroughs, at 10 o'clock, when I inspected the four quarters of a cow; the flesh was in very wet state; it was quite unwholesome, and unfit for human food.
DR. HENRY LETHEBY . I am medical officer of health to the Corporation of London—I examined the meat seized, three sheep and the four quarters of a cow, the whole of which appeared to be the bodies of animals which had died from disease, and had not been slaughtered—they were dressed in the usual manner in which meat is dreessed for the London markets, and I consider they were quite unfit for human food.
GEORGE RUSSELL . I am a detective-officer of the City—on 2d April, I went to Toaster, and saw the defendant—I told him I had come from London to make inquiries about the carcase of a cow which he had taken to Mr. Burroughs, of Newgate-market, and which had been seized as unfit for human food, and that most likely a prosecution would follow my inquiries, and he would be one of the parties prosecuted; that if he chose to give me any explanation concerning it be could, but if he did I should use it against him—I took down his statement in writing, and afterwards read it over to him; this is it (produced)—he said, "On Monday, 3d March last, I went to Mr. Powell, a butcher, of Toaster, who had sent for me; he asked me to buy the carcase of a cow which was hanging in his shop; I bought it, and gave him 2l. 7s. 6d. for it; Powell told me that the cow had been tossed in a ditch by the other cows, and pulled out directly, and her throat cut, and taken to his shop and dressed; "that he considered it quite fit for human food, and he should have no objection to eat part of her; that he did not tell Mr. Fisher that Powell had sent the carcase, but it came from there, and that Mr. Fisher saw the carcase of the cow, in the hamper, in his waggon and said that he should pass that.
BENJAMIN THOMAS BURBOUGHS . I am a meat salesman, in Newgate-market—I have known the defendant three or four years, I should think—he has brought me meat from himself and from other people—on 6th March, at 7 o'clock, or a little after, a porter brought into my shop the four quarters of a cow, and at 10 o'clock a porter came with the four quarters of a cow on a truck, the defendant following immediately—it was unpacked outside my door by one of the porters of the market—Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wilde were in my place at the time—they examined the carcase and seized it in the defendant's presence, as unfit far human food—if they had not been there I should have seat for the inspector—it was, in my judgment; unfit for human food; it was in a very wet state—I did not hear the inspector speak to Jarvis, but I heard Jarvis say in the shop that Mr. Fisher had passed it at 7 o'clock in the morning—Mr. Fisher said, "If I did pass it at 7 o'clock, it looked different then to what it doss now; I shall take it"—I sold the four quarters which were brought at 7 o'clock, and accounted for them to Jarvis.
MR. COOPER called the following witnesses.
THOMAS BAKER . I am the landlord of the Red Lion, South Mimms, and have been agent to G. A. Hillier, of York-road, Belle Isle, Islington, for a long time—on 5th March, the defendant came to me about 8 o'clock at night, and told me he had a quantity of meat unfit for market, could I do anything with it; he could not leave it there, because it was in the body of the waggon, and would I meet him at the White Hart, St. John-street, where he pulls up—I have had meat of him before, to boil up for dog's meat—meat brought up for animals to eat is sometimes dressed as other meat.
Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Where is South Mimms? A. Fourteen miles from London, on the high road from Northamptonshire—he would
go through Islington to get to Newgate-Market, but not near our boiling establishment, and he was not going to take it there, as I promised to meet him at the yard in St. John-street, near Smithfield, where he puts up—that is before you get to Newgate-market—I should have had Jarvis' meat at my place, if he could have taken it out of the waggon, as I had two dead horses to send up—I had had dealings with him about 22nd and 23rd January—he comes up on Thursdays, and baits his horses at my place on his way—I have been to the yard to get meat from him, but never to Newgate-market—I have had it from him at the yard from 9 to 12 o'clock, but that morning I went at a quarter or half-past 9—I have been to Newgate-market several times, but do not know whether the business there is principally done between 4 and 8 o'clock—I was here yesterday as a witness for a man named Crawley, who was tried for a similar offence—Jarvis came up with Crawley—Jarvis did not tell me the night before, what meat he wanted me to take at the yard, whether it was pork, mutton, or beef; he only said that he had a quantity of meat—he did not tell me that he was going to Mr. Burroughs; I swear that—I do not know what meat-salesman he has been in the habit of going to—I have had no communication with him—I have learned more since I have been here than I ever knew before—when I have bought meat of him in the yard in Clerkenwell, he has brought it there in his own conveyance, and I have received it into my cart, and taken it to the boiling establishment—that has been between half-past 9 and 10, after he has been to market and come back again—I have to come there almost every morning with things from Mr. Hillier; I am his agent, as you will find on one of the cards about the Court—I am paid by commission—I was before the Alderman, but was not asked to go in, neither should I have been here if I had not been pressed to come.
MR. COOPER. Q. You gave evidence here yesterday for a man, was he acquitted? A. Yes—Jarvis had no lawyer before the Magistrate—I was busy when Jarvis came with his waggon—it appeared full.
JOSEPH GRIFFIN . I am a meat porter, of Gunner's-court, St. John-street—I was at Newgate-market, helping Jarvis to unload his waggon—I cannot say the day of the month—I remember Mr. Fisher coming up—meat had not been delivered before then—Mr. Fisher looked into the hamper, and said that he passed that—I do not know what was in it—it then went to the yard with the waggon, and I brought the same meat back again, it never was unpacked nor taken out of the hamper—I took it in a truck to Mr. Burroughs, I am sure it was the same meat which Mr. Fisher had passed, and the same hamper—it was never shifted out of the hamper.
Cross-examined. Q. Was it taken out of the hamper when Mr. Fisher looked at it. A. No; it was never shifted till I took it to the front of Mr. Burroughs' shop—it was in the waggon when Mr. Fisher looked at it; he got up the side of the waggon, and looked into it—I did not get up, I was on the ground—after Mr. Fisher had looked at it, I took it to White Hart-yard, Clerkenwell, and brought it back again on the same day—I drove the horses home, and my master followed behind—we got to Clerkenwell about 8 o'clock, or half-past—I cannot say exactly how long we stayed there—we put the horses in, and then we brought the meat back—I do not know what on earth we took the meat to Clerkenwell for, when it was at the market
MR. COOPER. Q. You went to the yard, and took the waggon home? A. Yes; the same as I always do—Jarvis remained in the market, and told me to bring that back again, and directly he came I did as he told me—
I did not bring the waggon back—I brought it on a truck to Mr. Burroughs, By Jarvis' order.
COURT. Q. Did you ever before carry meat back to Clerkenwell, after it was in the market ready to be delivered? A. Not that I know of, but I have brought meat from Mr. Jarvis' waggon back again, because he sends meat into the country by rail as well.
JAMES HAWKER . I am a porter, of 8, Lower Queen-street, New North-road, Islington—I was in the market when Mr. Fisher came up to Jarvis' waggon—it was as nigh 7 o'clock as I can say—the cloth was taken off the hamper—he looked in, and said, "I shall not touch that, that may pass"—the hamper was then shut down, and put into the waggon—I went with the waggon to the White Hart, in St. John's-street; where I saw the hamper taken out again, and placed on a barrow, and I want with it part of the way to Newgate-market with the other porter—it was the same hamper, and the same meat, which Mr. Fisher had looked at.
Gross-examined. Q. You do jobs about the market? A. Yes—I stood by the waggon from the time Mr. Fisher said it, till it was drawn right out from the market—I do not know whether it is a usual thing after meat has been passed by the inspector, to take it up to Clerkenwell to give it an airing.
MR. COOPER. Q. Have you done it? A. No—there was nothing else in the waggon but empty hampers and a few boxes—this was the only hamper that contained anything.
COURT. Q. At 7 o'clock you did not see any delivered to Mr. Burroughs? A. No; if it had been, I should have seen it.
MR. COOPER to THOMAS BAKER. Q. Were you at the White Hart? A. Yes; about a quarter or half-past 9—I saw the two last witnesses there—I did not give them any orders, but I spoke to Mr. Jarvis—I looked at the meat, and they said that it had been passed—it was from something which I said that it was returned.
COURT. Q. Did you look at the meat? A. I did, and gave directions for it to be taken to the market; I said, "It is worth more there than what I should give, if it has been passed by the inspectors.
MR. SLEIGH. Q. Have you been in Court since you were last reexamined? A. Yes; all the time.
COURT to CHARLES FISHER. Q. What was the weight of the last four quarters? A. Fifty-five stone, at eight pounds to the stone.
GUILTY .—MR. SLEIGH stated that durimg the last three months 143,934 pounds of diseased and putrid meat had been sent to the market.
Confined Six Months.
MR. MATTHEWS conducted the Prosecution.
THOMAS JONES . I am foreman to Mr. John Brown, of 110 1/2, Aldersgate-street—is warehouse is in Red Lion-yard—the prisoner was in his employ as a labourer—he left on 14th December—Mr. Brown has a small private yard, which opens into Bed Lion-yard—there are gates which separate the two, and which were fastened on 28th December with an iron bar on a swivel, which shuts into a hasp—there are two doors from the warehouse into this private yard, side by side—when I left the premises the bottom door leading to the warehouse was looked—I shut the door next to it, on the left-hand side, and put two bags of rags against it to
keep it closed—one door leads into the bottom of the warehouse, and the other into the first floor—the doors are not above one another, but you go up stairs to the upper floor—I left the two bags of rags outside to keep the door shut; it was not much security; we placed our security in the outer gates—on Monday morning, at 6 o'clock, I found the outer gates exactly as I had left them on Saturday night, and the small wicket-gate locked—I missed nothing that morning, as I did not go into the upper warehouse that day, but on Tuesday morning I went up, and missed two bags of white rags, which were safe on Saturday night—that is the warehouse of which the door was looked, not that against the door of which the bundles of rap were placed.
COURT. Q. Can you say by what means anybody had got in? A. Yes—they had removed the bags from the bottom door, forced the flap up, and got in—they must have got over the other goods, which are eight feet high—I missed ten bags altogether; two of fine rags, and eight others—they were all there on Saturday night.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. Q. Do you keep a great quantity of rags in the warehouse? A. Yes—I do not look over the bundles every day; they are put into stacks.
EDWARD SWEETMAN . I live in Red Lion-yard, close to' Mr. Brown's ware-house—it is generally closed at 6 o'clock on Saturday evening—on Saturday evening, 28th December, about 7 or half-past 7, I saw a van under Mr. Brown's loft, under the loop hole—that is a part which does not communicate with Red Lion-yard—I saw nobody in the van, nor any goods put into it—I fancied I heard somebody in the loft, but I saw nobody, and saw nothing come down—I left between 7 and half-past, to go up stain to supper, and when I came down, at ten minutes to 8, the van had gone, and my fathter's gates were opened again—I had shut them before I went to supper—those are the gates in Red Lion-yard, not the private gates.
Cross-examined. Q. Have you ever seen a van there at any other time? A. Yes; in the day time, and of a night—I spoke about this when they came to me; that was in April.
COURT. Q. You did not say anything about it before that? A. No; not till I heard that Mr. Brown had lost something, and then I told him there was a van that Saturday night—I think that was on the Tuesday morning.
WILLIAM RICHARDSON . I am a rag-sorter, of 9, James-street, Bethnal-green, and am in the employ of Mr. Ward, a carman—I formerly worked with the prisoner at Mr. Webster's—I have known him three or four years—on 28th December, between 12 and 1 in the day, I saw him at the top of James-street—he asked me if I could tell him where to get a horse and van—I said I did not know whether he could get one at Mr. Ward's—he asked me if I could get it for him—I told him he had better go and get it himself—he asked me if I would go with him to get some rags—I asked him where—he said, "At a man's named Mr. Brown"—I refused, because I had some work to do at home, and left him.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you say one word about this, till you heard that the prisoner was in custody? A. Yes; to a man named McCullock—I do not think he is here—I told no one else—he was my employer then—I told him word for word—I know that the prisoner bought some rags after Christmas—I never knew him to buy any before.
MR. MATTHEWS. Q. How soon after the conversation with the prisoner, did you hear of the robbery? A. Two or three weeks; it was before I heard of the robbery that I told McCullock.
WILLIAM WARD . I am a carman, of 5, James-street, Bethnal-green—I let vans on hire—on Saturday, 28th December, the prisoner came about 2 o'clock, and said he should want a ran in the evening, to remove some rags from Old-street—I asked him 5s. for it—he said that he thought 4s. was enough, as it was a light load, and we agreed on 4s.—I did not see it leave in the evening, as I was at Chelsea, but when I came home I found that the van had done its job—I only sent out one van that evening.
Cross-examined. Q. Has the prisoner hired vans of you before? A. No; but his brother has—the prisoner has not hired a van of me, or my son, during the last twelve months, according to this book, and we generally put everything down.
ROBERT KNIGHT . I am a carman, in Mr. Ward's employ, and have been so for three years—on Saturday, 28th December, between 5 and 6 o'clock, or it might be later, I was waiting in Mr. Ward's yard, with my van, a young man, with a moustache, and a little bit of hair on his chin, who I do not know, came up to me, and in consequence of what he said, I got up in the van and drove away with him to Kingsland-road, where another man joined us, and from there we went to Mr. Brown's—they told me to stop the van at a public-house, just round the corner, when they gave me some beer—the one who came to me first, left me there with the second man, and when he came back, in consequence of what he said, we all three went to Mr. Brown's, Red Lion-yard—they told me to turn round, and put the van under the loop-hole—they then chucked some bags in: one man, who was in the loft, shoved the bags out, the other man was in the van—there were about 5 bags altogether—I cannot say exactly—I did not see what was in them—we were there about ten minutes—we went straight from there to Mr. Green's, in Church-street, close to Brick-lane, where we left the rags, and then went to the Lamb public-house, where we got some beer, and the man who first came to me, paid me 4s. for my master, and 6d. for myself—I do not know whether the prisoner is the man or not—he wore a round hat, something like mine.
Cross-examined. Q. He gave you 6d. and lots of beer? A. Yes; three times beer—I did not know that it was Mr. Brown's yard, but I went there the other day and recognized it—I have been very ill with a fever since this occurence—I have not also been in a lunatic asylum, but pretty handy there—I was not quite right in my head, but I remember where I went to—I did not know that it was Red Lion-yard, till I went there the other day—I had not had much beer before I went there—it was dark, the gas was alight—I had never seen the prisoner hiring vans of Mr. Ward before.
MR. MATTHEWS. Q. Although you did not know it was Mr. Brown's yard, did you know the place when you saw it? A. Yes; I am quite sure it was Mr. Brown's yard that I was taken to.
WILLIAM GRIMES (Policeman, K 291). I took the prisoner, on 17th April, at a marine store shop, in High-street, Poplar, where he was employed—I told him he was charged with stealing a load of rags from Aldersgate-street—Mr. Brown was standing on the opposite side of the way, and I said, "From his place?"—the prisoner said, "That is right, I will go with you"—I took him to Smithfield police-station—on his way there, he was about making a statement—I told him that what he said I should have to repeat to the Magistrate—he said that all he had to say, was that somebody else ought to be there as well as him.
Cross-examined. Q. Will you swear he did not say "Somebody else instead of me"? A. No; he said, "Somebody else ought to be there as well as me."
GUILTY .— Confined Eight Months.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
SCOTT— PLEADED GUILTY . *†
BARKER— PLEADED GUILTY . †
Confined Twelve Months each.
MR. HORRY conducted the Prosecution.
ISAAC GAY (Policeman K, 486). About a quarter past 3 o'clock on the morning of 31st January, I was on my way home, and saw the prisoner near the Albion public-house, Stratford-bridge-road, near the premises of Mr. Burford the dyer—a line of railway separated him from it—he was coming from Mr. Burford's—he turned back away from me as if avoiding me—upon that, I concealed myself in a place belonging to the Albion public-house—presently he came up, pretended to be very drunk—he rolled against a wall—I said, "Cook, what do you do out at this time in the morning?"—he said, "I have been having a drop of beer"—I said, "Have you got anything?"—he said, "What would I have?"—I put my hand on to the left side of his jacket, took out a piece of lead rolled tightly up—I asked him if he had any more, and at that time a second piece dropped—that was in a half circle, as if it had been round his body—I said, "You must consider yourself in custody on suspicion of stealing that"—I held him with one hand, and sprang my rattle with the other—he seized me by the neck with both his hands, and threw me to the ground—we struggled some time, and he escaped—on the morning of 24th April at half-past 8, I went with Toff a constable, to the East India-docks, and found the prisoner there outside—I told him to consider himself in custody as an escaped prisoner, on a charge of felony—he immediately threw me on the ground and pummelled my head on the pavement—it required six constables to hold him—I, with Mr. Burford, have compared the lead with the roof of Mr. Burford's dye-house—it matches in every particular—one piece of the lead which the prisoner dropped, looked as if it had been used for some years—another piece was quite bright at the edge, as if fresh cut.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Had you known Cook before? A. Yes—I met him on the footpath from West Ham-abbey—he did not tell me that he had come from West Ham-abbey—I could not get a word out of him—these premises are on the other side of the railway—there is a ditch between the prosecutor's place and the other side, but it does not prevent any one going there—it is four or six feet deep; I should rather say six feet than ten—I will not swear that it is not ten—there is water in it always—you can get to the prosecutor's premises without crossing the ditch—you must go over the railway—there is a wall on the other side of the railway,
but there is a gate in a wooden fence that is always open—the railway fence should protect the prosecutor's place from the railway—that is a wall and a wooden fence—the wall it about six feet high, and the wooden fence is defended by sharp sails and spikes—I have seen it since—the wall is intended for a red wall; it is not white, and it is not red, but an ordinary wall; you may call it red—it was a dreadfully rough night, and I cannot describe the state of the prisoner's clothes at the time—it was very dark indeed—I will take my oath it was the prisoner—there was a gas-lamp on the path—I don't know that it was too dark to look at his dress; I was too much engaged to do so—I was never a carpenter, nor a plumber and glazier—this (produced) is the lead—it had been nailed on the roof.
MR. HORRY. Q. How do you get to Mr. Burford's premises? A. There is a right of way—I had not hold of the prisoner more than about two minutes the first time, but I saw him coming to me first, and I saw him returning—the gas-light was shining.
EPHRAIM BURFORD . I am a printer and dyer, at Stratford—on February 1st, I examined the roof of my dye-house, having had my attention called to it, and found that some lead had been taken from the gutter eaves—lead like this was afterwards shown to me by the police—I have compared it with the roof, and it corresponds with the lead that is left—this lead is my property—it is a peculiar bending eave, and here are the peculiar marks where it came over the water-spout—I can tell from those circumstances that it is mine.
Cross-examined. Q. Is there a wide ditch separating your grounds? A. Yes, from Mr. Kay's—it is ten or twelve feet wide, and there is water in it—the banks are grass and dirt—there has been a sewer made—the ground it soft as it generally is by the side of a ditch; a kind of oozy ground—between my property and the railway there it a fence of wood and wall, about six or seven feet in height—my land is all grass land—it is not grass directly under the eaves—there is a pathway along, and then you come to the railway, and then there is the high wall opposite—the path where the man was met by the policeman runs from Abbey-hills—the eaves of the dye-house are about six feet from the ground.
MR. HORRY. Q. Which is the usual approach to your place? A. The high road to Stratford—the place where the prisoner was seen is from the urinal—I know the place very well—he got round the railway fence, which he could do easily, and then he might go through the gate without jumping the ditch, or getting over the wall—I have complained to the railway company since, and they have altered it.
COURT. Q. Was your dye-house all right the day before? A. Yes.
He was further charged with having been before convicted at this Court in May, 1857, of stealing lead and confined Twelve Months: to which he
PLEADED GUILTY.**— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. ROWDEN conducted the Prosecution.
FREDERICK SPROSTON . I keep the Bird-in-Hand public-house at Stratford,—on Tuesday evening, 25th March, the prisoner called at my house, and asked me to change this cheque (produced) for 8l. 7s. 10d.—I said the cheque was no good, because it was crossed and payable to order; and I said, "You are not the Burr, I know; it is drawn in favour of Mr. Burr"—he said, "No; it it Walter, you know; I am his brother"—I said, "If you write
your name at the back I will cash it for you"—he said, "I can't write; it you will write my name, I will cross it;" and I did so—I paid him 8l. 7s. 10d. for the cheque—I afterwards paid the cheque through the spirit merchants; they send it through the bank.
Cross-examined by MR. HORRY. Q. Have you ever cashed cheques before? A. Not for this Mr. Burr; I have for other persons; I have for his brother repeatedly—I had seen him before, but I did not know his name.
GEORGE BURR . I am a straw dealer, and live at Thorley, in Hertfordshire—the prisoner was in my employ as carter—on Tuesday, 25th March, I sent him to London with a load of straw, the value of which was 8l. 7s. 10d.—it was his duty to take money for me when he went to sell straw in the market—on the Tuesday in question he did not come home with his horses—he came home on the Wednesday night, and gave me 3l. 7s. in cash—I asked him at the time if Mr. Mumford did not give him a cheque—the straw was to be sold to Mr. Mumford, a straw salesman—he said he did not give him a cheque, he gave him hard cash, and he had lost the 5l. coming home—I afterwards went and saw Mumford, and, in consequence of what he told me, I gave the prisoner into custody.
Cross-examined. Q. How long had he been in your employment? A. About three months—he was living with Mr. King before that—he had brought money to me before from the salesmen—my place is about twenty-seven miles from Whitechapel Church—he started on the Monday to deliver the straw in Whitechapel on the Tuesday morning—he was to come back on the Wednesday morning with his horses, and he did not come back till Wednesday night—he had two baiting houses on the way; the Thatched House at Leytonstone is one, and he would stay three or four hours at Epping—he would not stop anywhere on the Tuesday night to sleep; he was to come straight home—I gave him the regular money at starting, 9s. 6d. for the two horses—if there were any other expenses, he would not be authorized to use the money—I wished him to have a cheque, so as he should not use the money.
MR. ROWDEN. Q. The horses came home first, did they not? A. Yes; they came down to the Thatched House, and I was there, and I took them away at 10 o'clock at night.
MATTHEW JAMES MUMFORD . I am a straw salesman, at 7, Stepney-green—on 25th March last I gave the prisoner that cheque for 8l. 7s. 10d. on account of his master, for straw delivered that day—on 27th March I stopped the cheque at the bank—I had always paid him in cash; and his master came up that morning, and said I was to pay him in a cheque, as he had been deficient once or twice with his money when he had had cash.
WILLIAM VANE (Policeman, K 89). The prisoner was given into my custody—I told him he was charged with converting a cheque of his master's to his own use—he said, "Yes, George, I did do it; but I meant to work it out; I lost it between Maryland-point and the Thatched House."
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. METCALFE and ORRIDGE conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY YATES . I am a lighterman in the service of Richard Marshall Phillips and others, master lightermen, of Rood-lane—they have a barge called the Richard Nestle, which I loaded on Saturday, 8th March, with 161
bales of tobacco from the ship Diana at Brewer's-quay, Thames-street—I kept my tally, and left the barge in charge of Mr. Monday, the Custom-house officer, about half-past 3 in the afternoon.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. Q. How do you know there were 161 bales? A. I counted them—we always keep tally of them—we count every lane—the number of bales in a tier is according to the size of the barge—I can't say how many bales there were in these tiers—I have not got the account—I cannot say where it is—I am speaking from memory—they were three tiers high—there was a different number of bales in each tier—I made no entry at the time; I only chalked it down on the barge's side—I expect the order would specify the number of bales, but the routine of the Custom-house is, that they would not deliver me one bale over.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Might they deliver less? A. Yes—I did not ask Munday about his tally; I only studied my own—the value of a bale of tobacco is 30l. odd, free of duty.
HENRY BIRCH MUNDAY . I am a Custom-house officer—on the afternoon of 18th March, I tallied 161 bales of tobacco into the Richard Nestle—I continued in charge of the barge until she got into the Victoria Docks—I left her between 4 and 5 on Sunday morning, leaving a lighterman of Phillips' in charge of her—I do not know his name—the 161 bales were safe when I left.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you count them? A. Yes; they were in tiers—I cannot tell how many there were in each tier—I tallied them from the ship into the barge—I did not say at first, that there were 151, I said 161—I was responsible for the whole number in my care—I am in the habit of tallying—I had not tallied any bales of tobacco on that same day—I made an entry of what was in the barge in my official book—this is it (producing it)—this entry was made by me at the time—here is not a 5 changed into a 6—I swear that.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Are you sure that 158 bales were subsequently found? A. Yes.
WILLIAM DYSON . I am a lighterman in the employ of Messrs. Phillips—on Saturday, 8th March, I took the Richard Nestle to the Victoria Docks—I got there between 11 and 12 o'clock—I left her between 6 and 7 on Sunday morning.
ROBERT WILSON . I am foreman to Messrs. Phillips—on Monday morning, 10th March, about 10 o'clock, I saw the Richard Nestle unloaded—158 bales were tallied ashore—I counted them after they were on the shore—I saw them landed, about a quarter of an hour before I counted them—I did not count them till they were landed—I made 158—I was told something by the Custom-house officer, in consequence of which I went to the place—the bales were each covered with a wrapper; part of them with wrappers like this one (produced).
Cross-examined. Q. You say they were a quarter of an hour ashore before you tallied them, where were you in the meantime? A. Doing other work in the docks—I did not count two or three of them, two or three times over, because they were standing on their ends—I have got my book (produced)—here is 161 bales from the Diana, and 158 in her—I made that entry the same night when I made up my books—I made it from memory.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you make any entry? A. Yes; here it is (produced)—I made that at the time they were landed; all these numbers make up 158.
JAMES JEWETT . I work for Messrs. Phillips—on Sunday, 9th March, at 10 o'clock I was sent for to the Victoria Docks—I saw the Richard Nestle there—I remained on board of her from 10 o'clock till 12—I then went away, and remained away until 7 or 8 in the evening, when I came back, and remained on board all night—about 3 o'clock, the men who work in the mud craft, came and took their craft away, and I shifted the barge—I went and got my breakfast and stopped there till she was unloaded alongside the warehouse.
COURT. Q. Did you find her adrift? A. Yes; there was nobody on board; she was floating about promiscuously; the wind was blowing hard and I could do nothing with her.
THOMAS POWELL . I live at 63, Chambers-street, Goodman's-fields, and am apprentice to Mr. Clark, lighterman, the owner of the Mary Anne—on Sunday, 9th March, I took her into the Victoria Docks between 4 and 5 o'clock—she was empty—I left her in the basin—I went back for her on Monday morning and missed her—I did not see her again till next Wednesday morning, when I found her at Ducker's-wharf, Bow-creek—I do not know Crow; he was not employed by my master—he had no right to take the Mary Anne out of the docks.
Cross-examined. Q. Is the Mary Anne given to roving? A. Not unless people take her—it is not the custom to take barges for two or three days; she was never taken before—she had a little water in her and was lying on the ground when I found her.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Was there any tobacco in her when you found her? A. No; the prisoner had no authority to take her away.
THOMAS WAITE . I live at 23, Bell-and-anchor cottages, Victoria-dock-road—I am lockman at the Victoria Dock—on Sunday, 9th March, between 4 and 5 o'clock, I let the barge Mary Anne into the dock—I let her out again on Monday morning, between 4 and 5—a young man between 18 and 19 was with her; I cannot swear to him—he had a brown coat on and blue cloth cap—I did not see his face—the water was nineteen feet below me—I am sure it was the Mary Anne—it was the first barge I came in contact with, and I put my bull's eye on and said, "Hallo! is this barge going out again?" and the person in her said, "She is in the wrong dock, I am going to put her in the London Dock," or "in the river," I can't say which—there were six or seven tarpaulins on her, and one of them was traced up on the gunwale.
Cross-examined. Q. Then you spoke to the man in the barge? A. Yes; but I was nineteen feet above him—it was not light; I had my bull's-eye—the barge stopped in the lock, and this conversation took place there.
COURT. Q. Is there anybody to take any note of the barges which go out, and what they contain? A. Yes; there is a tide surveyor and three watchmen belonging to the Customs; they are supposed to overhaul every barge which comes in or goes out—there was nothing in this barge—the tide surveyor and watchmen are on the look out during tide time—as soon as they commence to lock, they come on duty, and are on duty twenty-four hours.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Were they on duty when you let out this barge? A. Yes; they are supposed to overhaul every barge—assuming that there were stolen bales of tobacco in this barge, they ought to have known it and to have stopped them.
WILLIAM ORMES . I am apprentice to a lighterman, and live at 5, Francis-street, Plaistow-marsh—on Monday, 10th March, between 12 and 1 in the night-time, I was at the Victoria Dock—I know Crow—I saw him there in the barge Mary Anne, which belongs to Mr. Clark—he was going out towards the entrance of the dock, and I was going down ready to go out—he said, "Where are you going with that barge?"—I said, "Down to the boom; is that you Crow?"—he made no answer—I repeated it, and he made no answer; so when his barge came alongside mine, I stepped on board it and said, "I thought it was you, Fred; why did not you answer?"—he made no reply, but said, "Who are you at work fort?"—I said, "Corrie; where are you going to?"—he said, "Up to the quay"—on getting on board, I saw something resembling bales of tobacco in the cabin of the barge—I went on shore and saw nothing more.
Cross-examined. Q. How did you know that these were bales of tobacco; had you ever seen bales of tobacco before? A. Yes; I know them by the matting outside—I did not go into the cabin, I only looked down into it—they were lying on the floor—I only saw one—the matting was the same sort of stuff as I now see.
COURT. Q. When you say you saw something resembling a bale of tobacco, do you mean to say that you thought it was tobacco at that time? A. Yes; I know that there is a tide waiter and watchmen in the dock, and that they ought to overhaul every barge—I did not notice the barge overhauled—I have never known a barge go out of the dock with a bale of tobacco in it—I did not think it odd, because I had been at work for the same party—I know that tobacco pays duty—this was between 4 and 5 in the morning—there was no reason for its being put in the cabin, but sometimes when you have a small parcel you put it in the cabin for safety—I thought this barge was being taken out for the removal of this one bale.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Did the man tell you that he was going to the quay? A. Yes; as soon as I heard there had been a robbery, I gave information of what I had seen.
JOSEPH TAYLOR . I am a bricklayer, of 3, Arthur-street, North Woolwich-road—on Monday morning, 10th March, I was employed on the roof of a stable, close to Bow-creek, and, between 7 and 8 o'clock, saw a cart drive up over the footpath, which is an unusual thing where there is a road—the driver got out of it and took it up to the side of the wall as close to the bank as he could get, and two men came from a barge alongside the creek, with a sack; one held the bottom, and the other the mouth, and they carried it—one of them ran up the bank, and the prisoner Turnbull assisted in puting it into the cart—the other man was Crow—they then fetched another sack; there were four sacks altogether, and two bales, which were covered with matting, something like this—they resembled bales of tobacco which I have seen in the docks—I cannot say whether the four sacks would contain a bale if it was split up, but they were three-bushel sacks—I saw a little bit of tobacco hanging out of the mouth of one of the sacks—besides the prisoners, there were three men in the barge and one at the cart—having put them into the cart, they covered them up with some sacks, and Turnbull drove away—Crow remained about there a short time, and I went in to get my breakfast—when I came back he was gone—I did not look then to see where the barge was—Crow were a brown coat like he has now, and a blue, Navy cap, cloth.
Cross-examined by MR. H. GIFFARD. Q. When did you say anything about this? A. Next morning—there was a bill offering a reward—I had
spoken at home about it in the afternoon, as I saw the cart at 6 in the morning.
JOHN SANDERSON . I am in the employ of Mr. Gray, a lighterman, of Water-lane, Tower-street—on Monday morning, 10th March, about 10 o'clock, I saw the prisoners together; one was crossing over a fence to get down into Canning-town, and the others were close to him—from the entrance of that place, Bow-creek may be a quarter of a mile—Canning-town is close to the railway; that would be a ahort cut to it—I saw several carts, but not with them—the chay carts that I saw were empty—about six or seven days afterwards Crow challenged me about seeing him with some tobacco—I said that I never saw him with any—he said, "Did not you see me?"—I said, "I know I did."
DANIEL FOSTER . I live at Orchard-lane, Blackwall, and am apprentice to Mr. Lucas, a waterman—I found the Mary Ann barge adrift in Bow-creek; my mate made her fast, and she stopped there till Wednesday—I went on board and found a small portion of leaf tobacco in her.
Cross-examined. Q. Do you know anything of the custom of hiring barges at 5s. a day? A. Well, they do hire them in that way, but they come and ask if you can let them have them.
COURT. Q. Do not they take them without asking sometimes? A. They do—I found the small portion of tobacco rather towards the foremost part of the barge, but near midships—the berge had been lying there from Monday to Wednesday—I found a piece of tobacco about two inches long and an inch wide, and several smaller pieces, but the water being in it, we could not make anything of it; it was all wet—I dried it and gave it to the inspector—the other pieces were too small to dry.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Did what you saw on the barge, shew symptoms of tobaoco having been there? A. Yes.
ROBERT MAJOR (Thames-police Inspector). I took Crow on 3d April, and told him it was for stealing two bales of tobacco from the Richard Nestle, in the Victoria Docks—he said that he knew nothing about; he was at home at the time.
HENRY DYER (Thames-policeman, 52). I received Crow from the last witness—on the way to the station he said he was not at the Victoria Docks either on the Sunday night or Monday morning; he was at home in bed—on Saturday, 5th April, I took Turnbull at his house, 65, Richard-street, Commercial-road—a female answered the door, and I inquired in what room Mr. Turnbull lived—she said, "The first-floor front room"—I went up, knocked at the door, and received no answer—I put my little finger in the key-hole and found the key inside—I asked them to admit me, but received no answer—I said that I should force the door open if they did not—I shoved against it, looked through the top part of it, and saw a fire alight and Turnbull's cap on the table—after waiting some considerable time, Mrs. Turnbull asked me what I wanted—I said. "I want your husband"—she said, "I have not seen him for these three days"—I said, "Well, open the door, and let me see"—she said, "Well, wait till I am dressed, and I will open the door"—during the time she was dressing, Turnbull asid, "What is it you want me for?"—I said, "Well, open, the door and I will tell you"—the wife then opened the door, and I told him the charge—he said that he knew nothing about it.
CROW— GUILTY .— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
TURNBULL— GUILTY .—He was further charged with having been before convicted at Clerkenwell, in May, 1858; to which he
PLEADED GUILTY. *— Ten Years Penal Servitude.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
WILLIAM DOUGHTY . On Thursday, 10th April, I had two pounds of tobacco in a box in my cart—it was safe there at ten minutes to 8 that evening—at a quarter-past 8 it was missing—Policeman R 34 brought it to me about 12 o'clock the same evening—I do not know the prisoner.
Prisoner. Q. When at Greenwich you said that you never missed the tobacco since you put it in the ears, and took it out? A. Yes, I did—my man was on the cart from the time I left home till the time I returned, except at the Beehive at Eltham, where we both went in to have a little refreshment at about five minutes to 8—we did not leave the cart for more than a quarter of an hour.
BARTHOLOMEW LYNCH (Policeman, R 34). I stopped the prisoner on 10th April, at a quarter to 10 o'clock, in the high road to Lee—he had this parcel (produced)—I asked him what it contained—he said he did not know—I said, "How is that?"—he said that he picked it up—I asked him where—he said, "This side of Fordstree village"—there was another constable standing by, who asked him whether it was this side of Sidcup-gate—he said it was the other side—I said, that unless he could give a more satisfactory account of it, I should take him—he said, "I can give no other account of it"—I took him to the police-station, went and made inquiry, and ascertained that it had been taken from the prosecutor—I showed it to the prosecutor, and he identified it.
Prisoner. Q. What did you find on me when you searched me? A. Nothing, except a tobacco-box and a sixpence, and this turnpike ticket (produced)—you were on the footway when I stopped you—there was no donkey or cart near you at the time.
The prisoner called
SAMUEL MANSFIELD . I am a fish-hawker—on Thursday, 10th April, I went my round, and saw the prisoner several times in the course of the day with another man who was selling fish—about half-past 8 I was coming home and saw the prisoner alone along the pathway before me, a very little distance from Sidcup-gate, and saw him pick this parcel up between the pathway and the hedge—I asked him what he had got there, what sort of a prise—he said, "It is either tea or tobacco," and he showed it to me—I said, "When are you going to take it to?"—he said, "To Deptford station"—one corner of it was undone when he showed it me—next morning I was in Billingsgate by 6 o'clock, or else I should have been before the Magistrate—his missus came and told my missus—I have seen him working at the sewers many a time—that is all I know about him—I gave him a ride along the road that night, and then I was going to bait my donkey, and he got out and walked on and said he should take it to the Deptiford station—he did not take the
donkey on with him—I stopped an hour and a half or three quarters to bait the donkey, as it was tired.
BARTHOLOMEW LYNCH (re-examined). The prisoner was about five miles from Sidcup-gate when I stopped him—according to his own statement, he had passed three police-stations, and two constables besides me, and said nothing to them about it—he was going towards Deptford.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Justice Willes.
PLEADED GUILTY .— To enter into their own recognisances to appear to receive judgment when called upon, and in the mean time to be of good behaviour to all her Majesty's subjects.
This case had been under the consideration of another Jury four days before, who were discharged without giving any verdict, being unable to agree.
MR. ORRIDGE conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM RICHARDSON . I live at 96, Powis-street, Woolwich, and am a cabinet-maker—I have been tenant of those premises between fourteen and fifteen years—Mr. Barnett has been my landlord for the last sixteen month—I formerly held it under other landlords; from the temperance society, and a Mr. Booth—during the whole fifteen months I have occupied the back shop and the yard—this is the yard on the south (referring to a plan)—this it my gateway, and round here is my other little workshop, and this is my yard all round—that extends to this boundary wall—there is a partition between a cigar-shop and my yard—I built this coke-shed six or eight years ago—I am in possession of the passage on the west, and this small strip of ground on the east of the workshop—that comes right round, but lately Looker has put a doorway and stopped me from there—Powis-street is north—the coke-shed cost me 7l. or 8l. to build—I also built the water closet at the same time—I think Looker came to the cigar-shop in December—a person named Russell was a tenant before him—Austen was the last man before Looker—Looker took it from him—Russell was there before that, and a person named Clout before him—all the time I have been there I have been in possession of the yard up to the boundary wall, which is eighteen inches thick, and about seven feet high, with a gate between the premises and the wall which divides the two—there is also a window looking out of my premises into this yard, near the coad-shed—up to 8th March nobody has ever claimed a right to this piece of yard—about a fortnight before the defendant took possession, he said, "I am going to be a neighbour of yours"—I said, "Are you?"—he said, "Let me see, you have the whole of this yard; I suppose you will have no objection to my wife drying a few clothes in there?"—I don't think I said "Yes" or "No" to it—I allowed him to do it—I had been laid up with abscesses under my arm-pit before this—on 8th March, Looker came to my workshop before I was up, and said to Mrs. Richardson, "I want to see the master"—I came out and asked what he wanted—he said, "If you don't move the coke out of that shed, I will move it for you, and chuk it in the yard"—he had not said anything
about that before—I said, "The yard is mine, I have a right to it; what do you want with the yard?" in fact, I laughed at him—he said, "Oh, I'll let you know; I will have the yard"—he then went away, and about half-past 1 he came again and said, "I see you are in the same mind about that coke-shed as you were before"—I said, "What is it to you about the coke-shed; the coke-shed is mine, and there is an end of if—my wife and servant were there then—he also said, "You are determined not to pull it down; I will pull it down and chuck it into the yard, if I go to Maidstone Gaol for six months for it"—I cautioned him—he went away, and about a quarter of an hour afterwards the girl heard a knocking; the door of the shed was locked; I saw him break it open, and break the lock—the girl immediately came to me, and called my attention to it; I looked out of the window, and Looker was the man who did it—when he broke the door open he began shovelling the coke into a barrow, and wheeled it into the middle of the yard—my wife persuaded me, not to go out, as I was ill—he took the coke all out; it took him pretty well all the afternoon, and then he took the front of the shed down and threw it on the coke—since then he has put up a door against the water-closet, which has shut us out altogether, and kept us out ever since—about three weeks or a month after that, on Good Friday morning, I had an iron bedstead in the yard, and Looker threw the barrow from the part he claims into my yard, and grased the bedstead very much—I went out and moved the barrow—he was in the water-closet then, and said, "Thank you, Mr. Richardson"—I said, "You are quite welcome, Mr. Looker"—we have access to the water-closet now—he said he would let me see that the yard belonged to him, and that he had a right to it, and threatened to break my neck—he invited me inside his gate, and said he would break my neck for me—this (produced) is my agreement with Barnett for the premises.
JURY. Q. Does the agreement contain the yard? It is not called a yard in the agreement, I think—I have always had possession of it; nobody else has.
Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. You did not tell us on Monday as much as you did to-day; did you say anything on Monday about this barrow being thrown in? A. Yes; you tried to prevent my paying it—I never had a quarrel with Looker about furniture being left opposite my door—I swear I had no disagreement with him that I am aware of—there is only one water-closet for both houses—it is used by the inhabitants of both houses—he had to come out from his yard through this narrow strip into mine—the width of the two yards is about five or six feet—I knew Susannah Clout as living there—I let the place to her; I was trustee at the time—she left the cigar-shop in December, 1860—part of the shed was there at that time—I made it larger while she was there—it was a coke-shed before—I took up more of the ground—there was a pan-tile roof to it—part of it was off and part on at this time—it was made up against the wall in a proper manner; it is a lean-to shed—it was built of wood, and pan-tiles on the roof when it was first built—I presume Mr. Barnett is Looker's landlord; he is my landlord—I am not in a position to swear that Looker holds the premises under Mr. Barnett—the premises all belong to Barnett now—I have had conversations with Barnett about this coal-shed—my arm was in a sling then—it was about 8th March, in the evening—he did not tell me to take away the coal-shed—I told him what Looker had said, and he said, "Bother the fellow! I don't want to have any bother about it; it is a pity the coal-shed is not away"—I said, "I can't do anything"—he did not tell
me to take it away—I did not tell him I would take it away when my arm was better—when I went back Looker was chucking the coke about and pulling the shed down; and I said that he, as the landlord, ought to have come and stopped him—he said, "The yard belongs to yon, Richardson; go and get out a summons, for he is doing wrong"—I said, "I would make peace when my arm was better"—I told Mr. Barnett that I would take it away when my arm got better—I did it to make peace and quietness between me and the landlord—the servant was out at the back when she heard the noise, and she came to the front and told me of it—I and Mrs. Richardson and the girl ran up stairs, and looked out of the window and saw him at it—I had not seen him at it before the serrant called my attention to it—I saw him in the act of breaking the door open—that was at the time the girl spoke to me—but for my arm, I think I should have gone out and prevented him—I do not think I should have been frightened on my own premises—I should hare gone out if I had been in good health, and got somebody to help me—I think there are some receipts to prove that I have been paying rent from fourteen to fifteen years there—I was there longer than eight years—I was a tenant in 1852—I was in the premises in 1847—a Mr. Hugh was not there before me—he was not tenant of my premises in 1852—I believe he was tenant of the next door.
MRS. RICHARDSON. I am the wife of the last witness, and have been at this house between fourteen and fifteen years—during all that time, up to 8th March, we hare always bad possession of this piece of yard; nobody ever disputed it—I heard Mr. Looker say that he would have it, if he went to Maidstone Goal for six months for it, and he called God to witness.
Cross-examined. Q. What year did you become tenant of that house? A. I can't tell; between fourteen and fifteen years ago—the coke-shed was there in 1858—it was there when Susannah Clout was in the premises.
JESSIE LAMONT . I am serrant to Mr. Richardson, and have been so for the last four or fire years—during the whole time I have been there, until 8th March last, my master always had possession of this yard—I called his attention about 2 o'clock on that day to Mr. Looker, who was pulling the shed down—I heard about Maidstone Gaol.
WILLIAM AUSTIN . Up to the 28th Jane last, I occupied the premises which Looker now has—after I left, he took them—I was there seven souths—at the time I was there, my neighbour, Mr. Richardson, always had possession of this yard, up to the boundary-wall—my premises extended to the boundary-wall—the coke-shed was on the prosecutor's premises, not on my property.
Cross-examined. Q. When did Looker come in? A. I left on 28th June, and he then came in, on the quarter-day.
COURT. Q. Did you use the water-closet? A. Yes; we just went through the gate, and shut the gate after us—there was a lock and key to it.
JAMES DAVIS . I am shopman to Mr. Fitzgerald, of Powis-street, Wool-wich, and was formerly one of the managing-directors of the Temperance Society, who had a lease of these premises—I have known Mr. Richardson as holding the property for many years—we got the house from Mr. Booth, and took Mr. Richardson as a tenant—during the time I have known him as a tenant, he had bad a right to this yard, and it was in his possession.
Cross-examined. Q. How do you know that? A. By being one of the directors—I know now that Mr. Barnett is the landlord—I do not know whether he has made any difference in the agreement—I only know Richardson had possession of that yard when we had the property.
JURY. Q. Was there any closet to the house which the defendant occupied? A. No; the one mentioned was to supply the two houses.
Witnesses for the Defence.
JOHN BARNETT . I am the landlord of these disputed premises—Looker became my tenant last June—this is the agreement under which I let to Mr. Richardson—it was not a personal letting on my part—Levy, an agent, let it—I do not know what was let to Mr. Looker—I was not present when the thing was done—I signed the agreement—(This was an agreement between Barnett and Richardson for all that portion of the premises known as the Temperance Hall, namely, two rooms and a workshop, part of which was partitioned of, and appurtenances, at a rent of 14l. Another Agreement was read, stating that Mr. William Austin occupied all the other part of the premises, and appurtenances thereof.
Cross-examined by MR. ORRIDGE. Q. From whom did you take the premises? A. From the trustees of the masonic body—I let to Richardson what he had formerly held—I believe that was the understanding Mr. Levy had with him.
EDWARD JAMES LEVY . I am agent of this property, under Mr. Barnett—I know the premises—I think this is a correct plan of them—I know what the appurtenances were that were let to Mr. Looker—I have the agreement before me.
COURT. Q. Do you know what were occupied by Mr. William Austin? A. I let the premises, in the first instance, to Russell, and afterwards to Austin; I also let the appurtenances, which were a straight line from the back-yard, as far aa the water-closet.
Cross-examined. Q. Have you heard Mr. Austin give evidence? A. I have not—I should be surprised to hear that he claime that piece of the yard.
The Jury, considered that the defendant had been led into error by the agent, Mr. Levy.— To enter into recognisances to appear and receive judgment at the next Sessions.
MR. WOOD conducted the Prosection.
WILLIAM WARRINGTON (Policeman, R 279). On Sundny, 4th May, about half-past 2, 1 saw the prisoner take a potato-tray from a court leading from Wellington-street to Hugghe's-fields, the property of Mr. Williams, which was standing at the side of his house—she carried it down the court about thirty yards, and then laid it down—I was about two yards from her at the time—the ran away about six or seven yards—I atopped her, and asked her what she was going to do with that potato-tray—she said she had not taken it; what was she to do wiih it?—I said it might do to light fires—that was all that occurred—I took her to the staton-house.
COURT. Q. Had she been drinking? A. I believe she had; but she knew very well what she was about—this potato-tray always stands outside.
COURT. Q. You leave your trays outside, do you? A. It is a very small shop, and I cannot get it made—I did not wish, to press the charge, but Mr. Traill mads me come here by a summons.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. WOOD conducted the Prosecution.
ELIZABETH HAMILTON . I am a nursemaid, in the service of Dr. Smith, of 4, Union-place, Blackheath-road—I know the prisoner—she was in the same service as general servant, from 7th March to the 24th—she has left the service now—while I and the prisoner were there, Mrs. Smith told me she had missed a gold locket and chain—the prisoner was present, and said she had not seen it, and knew nothing about it—on 29th March I accompanied police-constable Watson to the prisoner's lodging, and saw him search her box, and take from it the locket and chain, Mrs. Smith's property—it was pawned, and the officer has got it.
Cross-examined by MR. ORRIDGE. Q. You say you saw him find the locket and chain in the box? A. No; the pawn-ticket for some articles—the ticket for the chain and locket was in the drawer—I have not seen it since—I was on good terms with the prisoner when she left, not on the morning—she had not done some work for me—neither for me or any of the servants—she did not make a petticoat for me—she said that I gave her the locket and chain, and she made a petticoat for me, but I did not—she said that when it was found.
MR. WOOD. Q. Can you now inform me whether you saw the locket and chain again? A. I saw it in the pawnbroker's hands—he is here—this is it (produced)—it is Mrs. Smith's property.
CHARLES BOWMAN . I am shopman to Mr. Crossley, a pawnbroker, of Blackheath-hill—on 29th March the prisoner came into our shop, and offered this locket to pledge—I asked her whose property it was, and she told me she had been sent by a party in South-street to pledge it—I asked her how much she wanted, and she said, "3s."—I said she might have more than 3s.—she said, "I do not want any more; I have had more, but do not want it now"—I let her have the 3s,
Cross-examined. Q. Is it worth 4l.? A. No; from 15s. to 1l.
THOMAS WATSON (Policeman, R 124). In consequence of information I received, I accompanied Elisabeth Hamilton to the prisoner's lodgings in South-street—I searched her box, aud found these duplicates; one of them related to a gold locket and chain—that was in a drawer with others—it was not concealed—I went to the pawnbroker's, and found it pawned there.
GERTRUDE ADELAIDE SMITH . I am the wife of Frederick Henry Smith, and reside at 4, Union-place, Blackheath-road—this locket and chain are my property—I saw them two or three days previous to the prisoner's leaving—I never saw it after she left—I asked her about it, and she said she had not seen it.
Cross-examined. Q. When was that you spoke about the locket and chain? A. Just before she left; after she had unpacked her boxes—she unpacked her boxes in my presence, and they were packed again—she left them behind her, and sent for them.
COURT. Q. When she was going away, you requested that her boxes should be opened? A. Yes, and she opened them, and I saw all that was in them—the nurse was present at the time—the nurse had been with me about four months, I think.
MR. WOOD. Q. I suppose you did not examine these boxes so carefully at to have noticed everything that was in them? A. No.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate was here read as follows: "The nurse gave me the locket and chain for a petticoat I made for her."
MR. ORRIDGE (to ELIZABETH HAMILTON). Q. Are you wearing a magenta and black petticoat now? A. Yes; the prisoner was not sitting up on the Saturday night making it for me—I have had it a long time—I made it up myself.
Prisoner. Q. Did I not do it, as you had got a baby's frock to make, did not you say you had some clothes of your own to make, and you gave me a magenta and black petticoat, and did not I sit up till 3 o'clook on Sunday night to make it for you? A. No; I am sure you did not.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES RICHARD LLOYD . I live at Lee, in Kent—the prisoner was in my service for a fortnight in January—when she left several small articles were missed—she sent some ladies for a character, and I declined to give it—a policeman afterwards brought a scarf to my house—I think that was in March—I was not at home—I saw that scarf produced at the Greenwich Police-court—this is it (produced)—to the best of my belief it is mine—two of them were given to my children previously—they are very peculiar scarves; very curious texture—they are silk, I think, and were originally of considerable value, I should imagine—the value of them is about 8s. (A person in Court here stated that he had been in the trade twenty years, and he valued the scarf at 1s.)
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Sergeant.
597. STEPHEN THOMPSON (30) , stealing 3 quarts of brandy and 4 bottles, the property of Richard Scales; also 4 bottles of brandy, the property of Isaac Brittain; also 4 bottles of brandy, the property of John Brown, having been before convicted; to all which he
PLEADED GUILTY . **— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES MILES . I am barman at the Grapes public-house, High-street, Southwark—on Saturday, 29th March, the prisoner came and asked for 1 1/2 d. worth of gin—I served him—he gave a bad shilling, which I bent, told him it was bad, and returned it—I am quite sure it was bad—he made no reply, but pulled out some copper money, paid me, and then left, taking the bent shilling with him—the next Saturday, April 5th, he came in again—I knew him the moment he came in—he asked for 1 1/2 d. worth of gin—I served him, and he gave me a bad sixpence—I sent privately for a policeman—while waiting, the prisoner asked for his change—I told him I had. no coppers, but that as soon as they came he should have them—upon that be went towards the door—I jumped over the counter, detained him till two
policemen came, and then gave him in custody—I told the constable he had been passing bad money at the place on the previous Saturday, and on this night—the prisoner made no reply—I gave the bed sixpence to the policeman, and the prisoner was taken to the station—I am positive he is the man.
Prisoner. Q. Did you tell me I had given you a bad sixpence? A. No; I told you I had no halfpence—there were three others serving in the bar besides me.
GEORGE STENT (Policeman, M 188). The prisoner was given into my custody on 5th April—the last witness gave me this broken sixpence (produced)—I searched the prisoner and found on him two good shillings, seven good sixpences, and 7d., good money.
WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to her Majesty's Mint—this sixpence is bad. (The prisoners statement before the Magistrate was here read as follows: "I was not in the house the Saturday before as stated by the witness.")
Prisoner's Defence. If I was there on the 29th March, and offered a bad shilling, and the young man tarred me in the way he says, is it likely I should go on the next Saturday night and give him another; if I did I could expect nothing else but that I should get into the station. I get my living by exchanging articles of hardware for old clothes. I was coming home and went into the public-house, not with the intention of changing Anything, but I thought I had three halfpence in my pocket, and when I got in I found I only had an old and new halfpenny, and thought it was three halfpence. I gave the sixpence for the gin. He never told me that I had given him a bad sixpence, and I did not know it; so I had no occasion to go out My wife came to the door to speak to me, and that is why I turned round. I am not the man who was in the house at all on the 29th, and I never offered him the bad shilling.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
LOUISA BRODIE . I am barmaid at the King's Arms public-house, at Suffolk-street, Southwark—on Saturday, 12th April, the prisoner came in with two women and asked for half-a-quartern of gin—I served him—he gave me a florin—I put it in the till where there was no other money, and gave him change—he remained a few minutes at the bar, and then asked for another half-quartern of gin, which I served him with, and he gave me another florin—I also put that in the till, and gave him change—he remained at the bar, and shortly afterwards called for a pot of beer—I served him with that, and he gave me a shilling—I took it to my master, spoke to him about it, and gave it to him—went to the till and saw the two two-shilling pieces—he took them out and kept them—my master asked him to pay him—he told him they were bad—the prisoner ran sway, and my master after him—he was taken in custody the same night.
Prisoner. Q. Had not I been drinking in front of the bar for about two hours? A. I did not see you there—you went round to two women and they asked you to stand some gin, and you put threepence on the counter—it did not bounce off the counter and I pick it up—you gave me all the money into my hand.
GEORGE ALDERSON . I am the landlord of the King's Arms—on the evening, 12th of April, the last witness brought me a bad shilling, and pointed the prisoner out to me—she said that she thought it was bad—
I said, "It is, who gave it you?"—I took it back to him, and said, "This won't do here," and threw it down on the counter—after he took it up he was going to pay me with a sixpence—one of the females mid, "You have got his change out of a florin"—by the way they spoke I thought something was wrong—I opened the till, took out the florins, and examined then—there was no other money in the till—I saw they were bad as soon as I took them out—the prisoner ran out of the house directly he saw me touch the till—he was afterwards taken in custody—I gave the constable the two florins—the prisoner took the shilling away with him—I am quite sure it was had.
Prisoner. Q. Did not you come to me at the corner where I was standing, and say, "Come back, I want you?" A. You were not standing at all; I ran and overtook you—I did not say, "Give me 4s. and I will let you go"—you said, "What do you want?"—I said, "You had better come back"—my brother came up, and we brought you back to the house—I said, "I don't want to have any trouble; if you pay me the mone I will return you the 2s. pieces, and let you go"—I should have disfigured them first—you have left tin and solder at my place on a Saturday night, and called for it on the Monday morning.
JOHN SHEHAH (Policeman, M 119). The prisoner was given into my custody—Mr. Alderson gave me these two florins (produced)—I searched the prisoner and found on him 6s. 6d. good money, and 9d. in coppers—I did not find the bad shilling.
COURT to GEORGE ALDERSON. Q. Did the woman leave? A. They went with me to the station, and the inspector wanted me to detain her—I said I would not, because she had not passed any bad money to me.
Prisoner's Defence. I am a bard working man; if I had known the things were bad when he offered to lei me off on paying 4s. does it not stand to reason that I should have done so? As I worked hard I did not like to give 4s. I have a wife and four children, and it would have been a great loss to me.
He was further charged with having been convicted at this Court in May, 1860, of unlawfully having counterfeit coin his possession, and confined Eighteen Months; to which he PLEADED GUILTY. **— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
Before Mr. Recorder.
601. SAMUEL WILSON (19) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Johnson, at Lambeth, and stealing therein 28 watches, 6 chains, and other articles, value £500, his property; to which he
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.
MR. WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution.
CHARLES EDWARDS . I am in the service of George Holloway, a butcher, of Deptford—on Friday, 11th April, about 6 o'clock, I was in the shop and saw half a sheep hanging outside the door—I missed it about 7 o'clock—I went round King-street, which is near the shop, and saw some one go over a wall—I met another butcher coming back with the mutton—it weighed between 40 and 50 lbs. and was worth about 2l.
and saw the two prisoners coming down the High-street—they had been pointed out to me by a constable to watch them—they went to Mr. Hollway's shop—Lake took the mutton down—Gunner threw a coat over it, and then ran round King-street, and in a minute I saw Gnnner run down Church-street—I informed the policeman—I am positive the prisoners are the men—I was within a yard of them, and never lost sight of them.
HENRY ONLEY . I am in the service of Mr. Markham, of Deptford Bridge, on Friday evening, 11th April, I saw Lake go to Mr. Holloway's shop, take down a pair of hind quarters of mutton, and put them into a fish hamper—Gunner put a coat over them, and as they turned down King-street it dropped out—they picked it up and put it in again—Gunner went one way and Lake the other—I caught Lake and said, "Give me the mutton"—I brought it back—Williams came up at that time—they had a struggle, and Lake hit Williams in the chest and got away—I went back to Mr. Holloway's with the mutton, and told him about it
JOSEPH WILLIAMS . I am an auctioneer, of Green-lane, Royal-hill Gardens—I was in Mr. Holloway's shop—a female came in and gave me some information, and I saw Holloway's man, who asked me to come with him—I went into King-street and saw Lake with some meat on his arm—I followed him down a turning, and saw it taken from him—I tried to catch him—he struck me on the chest, got over the wall, and I held him there—a person said, "That is Daddy Lake, he is a dangerous customer, let him go, or he will drop a brick on your head"—I let him go, because I could hold him no longer.
THOMAS BELCHER (Policeman, R 234). On Saturday evening, between 7 and 8 o'clock, I took Gunner at Lewisham—I told him the charge—he said he was at home at his father's at 7 o'clock, and had left Lake at Deptford at 5 o'clock, and he knew nothing about it.
Lake's Defence. I was in-doors, having my tea. I looked out at the window, and saw some people. The constable saw me and took me in charge; the reason is that I have been convicted of stealing a pair of boots. I have worked at Deptford twelve years now, but am now out of work on account of my deafness. Every time I come to Deptford I am followed by this constable, taken up, detained, and let go again. I had not been out two days before I was taken and locked np for an hour.
Gunner's Defence. I am innocent; I was at my father's.
They were both further charged with having been convicted, separately, at Greenwich Police-court; to which they
PLEADED GUILTY.**— Three Years' Penal Servitude each.
Before Mr. Baron Channell.
PLEADED GUILTY .— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
MESSRS. MATTHEWS and POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM WRIGHT . I Am a cheesemonger of High-street, Camberwell.—on Monday, 7th April, about 12 in the day, the prisoner came into my shop and spoke to my shopman, who referred him to me—he asked me if I would oblige him with change for a 5l. note, for Mr. Searle—I know Mr. Searle; he is an auctioneer, living 60 or 70 yards from me—the prisoner
gave me the note—I looked at it, and not liking its appearance, said, "Mr. Searle is not in the habit of sending strangers for change; I will go and see"—he said, "You need not be afraid," and we walked to Mr. Searle's shop together, I still keeping the note—I saw that there was nobody in the shop, and was going to ring the bell, the outer door being shut—the prisoner said, "You need not ring the bell, you can open the door"—I put my hand on the latch, and he immediately ran away—I ran after him, calling "Stop him"—I saw Walters stop him—I had not lost sight of him—I gave him in custody—I took the note with me to the station, and gave it to the constable—I marked it—this is it (produced)—I taw another note taken from the prisoner's hand at the station—he said that he picked them up that morning on Denmark-hill—my shop is nearer to London than Denmark-kill on the Walworth side.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Did be say that he bad picked up this note? A. Not till he got to the station—he did not say whether to was in Mr. Searle's service.
WILLIAM WATERS . On 7th April, about mid-day, I was in Camberwell New road with a man named Cartwright, and saw the prisoner running towards me, with a mob after him—that is the road from Camberwell-green to Kennington-common—I heard somebody call "Stop thief"—I caught hold of the prisoner, and he tried to throw me, but Cartwright helped me—the prisoner drew his hand out of his pocket clenched, and Cartwright said, "Look out Bill, he has got something in his hand"—Cartwright laid hold of his hand—Mr. Wright came up and said that the prisoner must be taken to the station, and we took him there, Cartwright holding the hand that was closed, so that he could not open it.
MARMADUKE. CARTWRIGHT . I am a gardener and live at Troy-town, Peckham-rise—on 7th April, I was in Camberwell-new-road, heard some one call "Stop thief," and saw the prisoner running—Walters stopped him, and I saw him put his hand in his trouser's pocket, take it out, and shut it directly—I took him by the wrist, and kept hold of his hand till we got to the station, where I tried to take out what he had in it, but he got my thumb in his mouth and bit it—the Serjeant said, "Put his hand on the bar"—I did to and got it out—his hand was afterwards forced open, and there was a 5l. Bank of England note in it—the prisoner then said, "Now I am done for."
—QUIN (Policeman, 23 P). The prisoner's hand was forced open by Cartwright and myself—he had the 5l. note (produced) in it—he said that he found the notes opposite the church on Denmark-hill.
ASTLEY SEARLE . I am an auctioneer of Camberwell-green, about a hundred yards from Mr. Wright's, who I know perfectly well—I do not know the prisoner—I did not authorize him, on 7th April, to go to Mr. Wright's for change for a 5l. note, nor did I send any one—I am in the habit of lending to him for change, but principally for cheques not notes—I send one of my clerks.
JOSEPH BUMSTEAD . I am inspector of notes to the Bank of England—these notes are both forged in every respect, paper and printing—they are both printed from the same plate on the same kind of paper—the numbers are different: they would be put on afterwards.
GUILTY .— Six Years' Penal Servitude.
There was another indictment against the prisoner.
MR. DICKIE conducted the Prosecution.
CATHERINE ELIZA MANN . I reside at 7, Bucklersbury—on 24th March, between 7 and 8 in the evening, I was passing along Blackman-street, Borough, on the same side as St. George's-church—I was suddenly seized by somebody round the waist—the person tried to catch my throat—my dress was torn open, and every fastening broken—my watch was taken from inside my dress—it was worth 18l.—there was only one person who attacked me—there were a number of people passing, but I think at that instant then were fewer than usual—when I lost my watch, a man ran across the road and down Lant-street, which is just opposite—I called out "Stop him," and he was pursued by somebody else, but I did not see him stopped—I believe the prisoner is the man—I saw him pretty clearly; we were face to face—he first seized me from behind; then he seized me round the waist, and when he made the attempt at my throat, he was before me—the next morning I went to the station-house—I then saw the prisoner mixed with other men, and pointed him out as the man I supposed had done it.
Cross-examined by Mr. BEST. Q. What kind of a night was it? A. A fine, but dark—I could not form a correct idea of the time the transaction occupied—I think it was more than a few seconds—my watch was snatched very quickly after the attempt at my throat; it was almost instantaneously—the man had time to take my umbrella and break the handle—he carried off part of the umbrella—the attempt at the umbrella was after the watch was taken—I did not see what was done with the watch—I called out immediately I saw a portion of the chain, that was left round my throat, hanging—I saw the prisoner next morning with several others—I think neither of them were so tall as he—I think there were four others—I am firmly convinced he is the person, and I have always been—I only refused to swear it—I am speaking to the best of my belief—I saw two men run across the road—the prisoner was pursued by another man—I do not mean two men beside the prisoner—I knew at the time it was the man who had first attacked me.
COURT. Q. The man, whoever it was, ran directly across into Lant-street? A. Directly across.
EDWARD IZARD . I reside at 30, Henry-place, Old Kent-road—on 24th March, about half-past 7 in the evening, I was at the corner of Lant-street—I was looking across the road—I saw two men running, and the proecutrix on the other side of the street—I went over to her, and I saw her dress was torn open—the two men had then passed the corner of the street; the prisoner was on one side of me, and the other man on the other—I was at the corner nearest the "Elephant and Castle"—the prisoner passed so close I could have touched him—he is the man; I have no doubt of it—I picked him out from among a down people—he faced me as he was coming over, and the lamp threw a light on his lace—the young lady was very much distressed, and I accompanied her to the station—it was nearly a fortnight after that I again saw the prisoner—I then picked him out from among ten or a dozen people—I am certain he is the man I saw running.
Cross-examined. Q. How many of the dozen were policemen? A. There were no policemen, I think, or they were in plain clothes—I believe the men were all in one cell together—I only saw two men running—I was looking straight across the road all the time.
WILLIAM JOHN COUPARD . I am a machine maker, residing at Albany-road, Camberwell—on 24th March, I was in Blackman-street—I saw some man leave the footway, and run towards the corner of Lant-street, towards
the side I was on, and come within three or four yards of me—I did not see his' face—I should think the prisoner is the man by his' general appearance—when he neared the pavement I heard a cry of "Stop thief"—I pursued him up Lant-street—he turned the corner of a street—I was there stopped by two men, who took hold of me by the shoulders and said, "What it lost?"—that prevented my running further after the prisoner—I thought it not safe—I next saw him at the police-court when he was being examined, I believed him to be the man—I could not swear to him.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you see two persons cross the road? A. I saw two men running across, I followed one of them; both went up Lant-street I lost sight of the other, and ran after the one who was running quickest—I was running very fast when I was stopped—I am quite certain the other man ran up Lint-street—I lost him at the corner of Lant-street; I did not look for him, I paid no attention to him, but took up the chase after the one who was running quickest.
SYDNEY PARKER . I am a baker boy at Mr. Winchester's—I was coming down Lant-street, on the 24th March, about half-past 7; I was going towards Blackman-street—I saw the prisoner—I am quite sure I saw him—I saw his lace distinctly; he was running as hard as ever he could—I turned round and followed him into Harrow-street, and he turned into a court and went into a house—I saw him again at 2 o'clock the same morning, and picked him out of a number of prisoners.
Cross-examined. Q. What part of the road or pavement was he running upon? A. In the middle of the road—I turned round and ran after him, because I heard a cry of "Stop thief"—I knew him at once when I picked him out at the police-station, Stone's end—I knew him because I saw his face and dress—I do not know the witness Izard—I did not see any other person besides the prisoner—I was about half-way down Lant-street, between Harrow-street, and Blackman-street, on the right-hand side, when I heard the cry of "Stop thief"—the prisoner ran into a house in Suffolk-court—I turned round and followed directly I heard the cry of "Stop thief"—I took the police to the house he went into—I only saw one man running.
THOMAS GARDNER (Police-sergeant, M 25). I was at the police-station when the prosecutrix came, on the 24th March, about 8 o'clock—from information I received, I accompanied the last witness to a house in Suffolk-court, which leads out of Harrow-street; that street is about 100 yards from Blackman-street—I went to the house, but I did not see anything of the prisoner—the following morning another officer brought him to the station—I afterwards brought him out with five others—they were brought into the room where the prosecutrix was, and were placed in a row—she pointed out the prisoner, but said, "I will not positively swear to him"—she then laid her hand on his shoulder, and said, "Turn round"—he did turn round, and then she said, "I believe him to be the man, but I am not positive"—she put her hand as if trying his measure.
Cross-examined. Q. Did you go to the house a second time? A. No—I do not know what the prisoner was brought to the station for—he was brought on another charge during the night—the constable is here who brought him—I was not present at the time—he was sober when I fetched him out in the morning.
WALTER FISHER (Policeman M 285). On 26th March, between 1 and 2 in the morning, I took the prisoner in custody in Blackman-street, for being disorderly—the inspector liberated him upon that charge, and he came out into the receiving-room, and I took him back, placed him in the
bar, and told him I charged him with stealing a gold watch and chain, and a portion of a parasol, of Miss Mann—he said, "I know nothing at all about it; you know the difference to that, because you saw me in the Borough two or three hours ago, and I should not walk about there if I had done that"—I had seen him in the Borough that evening before the robbery took place—he said, "I was in Black man-street two hours before that," meaning two hours before the robbery, I believe—I did not understand him to mean two hours before I took him up.
Cross-examined by MR. BEST. Q. Were you present when Izard saw the prisoner? A. Yes—he identified him from among twelve persons, some shorter and some taller—that was about a fortnight afterwards—it was about 6 in the evening when I saw him in Blackman-street—I was not on duty; I was going to the station—I did not go into Blackman-street again till my 10 o'clock duty—I walked up and down Blackman-street after 10—I did not go to a house in the court, but I searched round the back premises, to see if I could find anything—when he was liberated, on the charge of being disorderly, an entry was made in a book, and when I took him up again it was entered—he was as sober as I am.
COURT. Q. You gave evidence against him for being disorderly? A. Yes—he was with a lot of boys, pushing against the people, and annoying them in every way—I asked him to keep back, because there was a fire—I then took him in custody for being disorderly, and the inspector discharged him—I then gave him in custody on this charge.
NOT GUILTY .
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1862.