CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THIRD SESSION, HELD JANUARY 9TH, 1871.
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
EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ.,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
STEVENS & SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE.
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, January 9th, 1871, and following days,
BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. THOMAS DAKIN, LORD MAYOR of the city of London; Sir WILLIAM BALLIOL BRETT , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; Sir JAMES DUKE , Bart., THOMAS QUESTED FINNIS , Esq., Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., and JOHN CARTER , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; The Right Hon. RUSSELL GURNEY , Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; SILLS JOHN GIBBONS , Esq., ANDREW LUSK , Esq., M.P., DAVID HENRY STONE , Esq., and WILLIAM JAMES RICHMOND COTTON , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; THOMAS CHAMBERS , Esq., Q.C., M.P., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., LL.D., Judge of the Sheriffs' Court; 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.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
DAKIN, MAYOR. THIRD SESSION.
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, January 9th, 1871.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. METCALFE, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
98. WILLIAM CONEY (27) , to stealing a handkerchief of Robert Howard, from his person, having been before convicted of felony**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude , [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] And
NEW COURT.—Monday, January 9th, 1871.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
102. THOMAS WELLER (30), FRANCIS HAYWARD (34), JOHN NORMAN (33), ROBERT ANDERSON (26), and SARAH ANN WELLER (32) , Feloniously having counterfeit coin in their possession, with intent to utter it, to which
THOMAS WELLER PLEADED GUILTY *— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and COLERIDGE conducted the Prosecution; and
MR. RIBTON defended Anderson.
JAMES BRANNAN . I am agent to the solicitor to the Treasury—I received information, and on 21st December, about 6.30, went with Inspectors Bryant, Brannan, Harnett, and others, to 6, Saville Row, Marylebone—the street door was open—we proceeded to the end of the passage, and descended four or five steps to a room on the right, the door of which was opened by Hands, and we went in and found the five prisoners sitting round a table—I told Waller I had instructions from the Solicitor to the Mint to look after him as a coiner, and that I had a search-warrant, signed by Mr. Knox, which he was entitled to have read—he said "All right"—I said to Norman "Jerry, you are also suspected; what name do you give now?"—he said "Jeremiah Norman"—I saw Inspector Bryant find this basket (produced) by the washhand-stand—he handed me these ladles, and two single moulds, and one double mould for coining; also the packet containing twenty-five florins and three counterfeit crowns, unfinished—four gets were found, and some metal which had been mixed in a ladle, a file with white metal in its teeth, a shilling attached to a piece of copper wire, which had been dropped in solution, a ladle, some plaster of Paris, and pewter, and a galvanic battery with this screw attached—this other screw was found in Welter's trowsers-pocket—here are all the usual and necessary implements used in coining—Inspector Brannan handed me some good half-crowns and three bad half-crowns, which Norman handed to him—Harnett gave me a portmonnaie containing a crown, which corresponded in date with the mould produced, and some other coins, and this duplicate of a silver coin pawned for 4s. in the name of Ann Weller, and which I afterwards got—we took all the prisoners to George Street Station—a young man came to the room—we searched him, but finding nothing sent him away—he is awaiting his trial for another offence.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. They had done tea—there were cups and saucers—they did not eat or drink after I went in.
BENJAMIN BRYANT (Police-Inspector). I followed the other officers into the room, and found this basket near the door—it contained a quantity of housebreaking implements, which I did not meddle with—I saw Norman shifting about in a seat, which induced me to look under the washhand-stand, where I found these four moulds, which I put in the basket, and afterwards gave them to Brannan—there were twenty-five florins and three crowns in the basket—Anderson was sitting next to Norman, on the side of the room where these moulds were found.
Cross-examined. I could not see the moulds till I stooped down—Anderson was nearest to the basket—he and Norman were sitting near together—Norman was nearest to the door.
JAMES BRANNAN (Police-Inspector E). I took Norman, and took from his pocket a packet, which I afterwards found to contain three counterfeit half-crowns, separately wrapped in tissue paper, three good shillings, two good six-pences, and a good crown—he handed it to me, and said, "You will find three counterfeit half-crowns there, and that is all I know about it"—Weller said, "If you search the whole house, you will not find any more; you have got all there is"—Norman was searched at the station, and two pencil cases were found on him.
a crown, three half-crowns, two shillings, a fourpenny piece, and a duplicate for a silver coin, which I handed to Mr. Brannan—the searcher said in the female prisoner's presence that she found them upon her, and she said nothing—I said "What coin is that?"—she said "It is a five-shilling piece I pledged to-day"—I said "You are not correct; it is dated yesterday"—she said "The pawnbroker has made a mistake"—I said "It is rather singular to pledge a crown-piece"—she said "It is an old family relic, I cannot part with it"—she also said that the half-crown and crown she took off the mantelpiece for fear they should be spent, and they belonged to her husband.
SARAH USHER . On 1st December the female prisoner took a room in my cottage No. 6, Saville Street—she had a little boy with her—I never saw anybody else there; but I was never in the room afterwards—she said that she took it for her husband and herself and child.
LOUISA RISCORA . I searched the female prisoner at the station—she gave me a puree containing a half-sovereign, a crown, two half-crowns, two shillings, a sixpence, fourpence, and this pawn-ticket, which I gave to Inspector Harnett.
EDWARD ALLEN . I am assistant to Mr. James, a pawnbroker, of 9, Chiswell Street—I made out this pawn-ticket—this is the correct date—a female brought the crown-piece, and asked for 5s. on it—I said I could only advance 4s.—she said "Take care of it, as it is a family relic, and I do not wish it scratched."
S. A. Weller. I said what my husband told me. I never said about "scratched." I did not ask you 5s. for it, because I knew I could not get it.
JOH FIFE (Police-Inspector). I was one of party—I found in the room this paper, which purports to be a certificate of marriage. (Mr. CRAUFURD here stated that he would withdraw the case against S. A. Weller.)
WILLIAM WEBSTER . This is an imitation crown, of Geo. III., and this is another of Geo. IV., 1821, which has been made from the crown pledged—here are three counterfeit crowns from that mould—this is a double mould for florins of 1858 and 1859; and these are 25 counterfeit florins, from which I have selected two which were cast on this mould, and I daresay there are more here—this is a double mould for half-crowns of Geo. III., 1818—these are two bad half-crowns of Geo. IV., of 1822; and here is the pattern of them—here is a battery and all the necessary apparatus for coining—the crown found at the pawnbroker's does not correspond with any of these moulds, but I should say that it has been in plaster of Paris.
Hayward's Defence. I met this man accidentally, knowing him to be a mechanic, and he asked me to call at his house, which I did, and while we were having something to eat the police arrived. I do not see why I should be held accountable for his actions.
Norman's Defence. Nothing culpable was found on me; I was only in the room a quarter of an hour, and am in no way connected with making counterfeit coin.
NOT GUILTY .
PLEADED GUILTY **— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
STEELE PLEADED GUILTY — Nine Months' Imprisonment.
THOMAS PRICE . I am a draper, of 164, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Pimlico—on 8th December Steele came in for a pocket-handkerchief, which came to 3d.—she offered me a half-crown, which I found was bad—she said she got it by selling coals in the street; but afterwards that she was an unfortunate girl, and took it from a gentleman—I gave her in charge, with the coin.
MORGAN MORGAN (Detective Officer B). I took the prisoner to the station; but the charge was not pressed, and I let her go—I received this coin (produced)—I followed her, with another officer, and saw her speaking to Steamson—we were in plain clothes—we passed on, as they appeared to be watching—Steamson walked on 150 yards, and Upson took him—he threw himself down on a doorstep—we got him up, and Upson found this parcel on the step, containing seven half-crowns and two florins—this bad shilling was found in his waistcoat pocket, wrapped in tissue paper.
Cross-examined. Steele was not searched the first time she was taken—no female searcher was there—she said before the Magistrate "It was I threw the parcel of bad money down, as I was passing by; I saw them laying hold of the young man, and I did not wish him to get into trouble, and I threw it down"—she did not say that if she had been searched at the station it would have been found upon her—Steamson took it from his right coat pocket—he was looking in at a picture-shop window; but the moment he saw we were going to lay hold of him he threw himself down—the shilling in his pocket was wrapped in the same kind of paper as the other coin was wrapped in; unprinted paper—he said that he had had the bad shilling a long time.
MR. CRAUFURD. Q. Did Steele pass the doorstep? A. Yes, she was fifty yards in front of Steamson—I did not watch her as she went along, but I watched him—we could see that there was nothing on the doorstep.
GEORGE UPSON (Detective Officer B). I was at the station when Steele was brought in, and accompanied Morgan to watch her—we followed her to Grosvenor Gardens, where she joined Steamson, who was standing at a shop-door; they had half-a-dozen words, and Steele went down Ranelagh Street, while Steamson stood at the corner—I went through Victoria Square, and Morgan followed them—I came round and met Morgan, and saw Steele turn to the left, in Arabella Row—Steamson looked in a picture-shop window—I caught hold of him—he had his right hand in his coat pocket—I caught him by the collar; he resisted—Morgan came and caught hold of him—he threw himself on to a doorstep, and fell on his hand, like this, and I then saw this piece of rag there, containing seven bad half-crowns and two bad florins, in tissue paper—I found a bad hilling in his waistcoat pocket.
Cross-examined. The paper in which the shillings were wrapped got crumpled up and destroyed—it was torn before the Magistrate—there was a coin in each fold—I did not hear Steele say before the Magistrate, that if he had searched her when he first took her he should have found these coins upon her—I was there all the time—what she said was, that she threw the counterfeit coin there, and knew nothing of the young man, and would take it all upon herself—I saw her pass by this step, but she did not go within three yards of it, and did not place the coins there—I saw Steamson
take the rag from his right hand coat pocket, and saw the rag go round—Steele did not say before the Magistrate, "If they had searched me when they took me the first time they would have found the money in my bosom," and I did not hear her say so at the station; but she was in Morgan's custody, not mine.
WILLIAM WEBSTER . This half-crown uttered is had—here are seven bad half-crowns, one from the same mould as that uttered. Two of William IV., from one mould, and throe of the Queen from one mould—these florins and this shilling are bad.
The Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Steamson says: "Last time he said I was going to turn to the right, now he says I was looking into a picture shop." Steele says: "I did not speak to the prisoner; it was a tall man I spoke to. I do not know the young man, he is a stranger to me."
Witness for the Defence.
WILLIAM STEAMSON . I am a brush hawker, of 13, Pitt Street, Old Kent Road—the prisoner is my son—he does not live with me, he lives with his mother—about two months ago I saw him receive four shillings from a gentleman in Peckham, for some shoe and clothes brushes, and among them there was a bad shilling—I cannot distinctly swear that this is it, but it is, to the best of my belief—it is one of the old-fashioned shillings—he put it in his waistcoat pocket, wrapped it up in a bit of paper, as I told him to keep it separate from all other money, in case he might give it away for a good one—I have been in his company since that, day after day, and to my knowledge, he has never been able to see the gentleman since—as far as I know, on the day he was taken in custody, the shilling remained in his pocket—he bears a good character, and is very kind to me and his mother—he has never been in trouble—he is my whole support, and I do hot know what I shall do.
COURT. Q. I thought you went about selling brushes? A. Yes; but I am frequently laid up.
Cross-examined. Q. You seem to have some knowledge of counterfeit coin; how came you to pick this shilling out of four? A. We went and had a pint of beer, he put the money on the table, as it was for me, and I picked it out—I had' never seen the gentleman before—I think this is the shilling—I do not know that a counterfeit shilling will not keep more than two or three weeks without being discoloured—my son lives with his mother, but she does not live with me; we had a few words and parted—Steele does not live with my son, she is a perfect stranger to him—I never saw her before—I do not think I have missed seeing my son for a day since he took the shilling—we always worked together.
STEAMSON— GUILTY — Nine Months' Imprisonment.
MR. CRAUFURD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. RIBTON the Defence.
ELIZABETH RYAN . I am barmaid at the "Duke of York," Somers Town—on 22nd December the prisoner and another man came in—I knew the prisoner from having served him three or four weeks before, but I forget what took place then—the prisoner asked for a half-quartern of gin hot, which come to 2 1/2 d.—he gave me a florin, and I gave him the change—I put it into the till—there was no other florin there—the barman, Hetherington, then came from his tea, and told me to go to tea—I went away, leaving the prisoner there—Hetherington came into the kitchen to me, and
showed me a bad florin, which he had broken—on 26th December, the prisoner came again alone, and as soon as he entered I sent for the barman—the prisoner asked for two-pennyworth of spruce hot, and gave me a shilling—I bit it, bent it, and gave it to the barman, who came in at the time, and said, loud enough for the prisoner to hear, "This is the same man who gave you the bad florin"—the prisoner said "I should not be guilty of so paltry an act."
Cross-examined. I should know the other man if I saw him—he was tall, and a little darker than the prisoner—when I sent for the barman on the last occasion I had not received the shilling.
WILLIAM AUGUSTUS HETHERINOTON . I am head barman and cellarman at the "Duke of York"—on 22nd December, between 6 and 7 o'clock, I went into the bar, and sent the last witness away—the prisoner and another man were at the counter—I had seen the prisoner about three times before, and had served him—ho did not finish his grog, but left the place very quickly—I opened the till, and found there a florin, three shillings, and four sixpences—I took out the florin, broke it, and showed it to Elizabeth Ryan—on 26th December, about 5 o'clock, I was sent for into the bar, and saw the prisoner at the counter—Elizabeth Ryan said "This is the man who gave me the 2s. on Thursday"—I said "What has he given you to-day?"—she said "A shilling, and it is bad"—I said to the prisoner "This is the second or third time you have tried this on; you were here last Thursday"—he said he had not been in the house for a fortnight—I gave him in custody with both coins.
Cross-examined. A tall man was with him on the Thursday—I had seen the prisoner three times, I should say, before the 22nd, at the same place—I knew him, and had spoken to him, and have not the slightest doubt he was there on the 22nd.
WILLIAM VICKERY (Policeman Y 238). I took the prisoner, and told him the charge—he said "Very well, I shall be able to prove I was not there on the Thursday"—three good florins and two good shillings were found on him—he gave a correct address.
GUILTY —He was further charged with having been before convicted of uttering, at Chelmsford, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and MEAD conducted the Protection.
MARY BEST . I am barmaid at the "Devonshire Arms," Kensington—on Sunday, 18th December, the prisoner came in with a half dozen other men—he called for a half-quartern of rum, and gave me a shilling, which I put in the till, and gave him 9d. change—he then asked for another half-quartern, and gave me a bad shilling—I told him it was bad, and he ran away—I was alone in the bar; I opened the till, and found the first shilling he gave me on top of the other coin—there were all kinds of coin there—I found it was bad—it was what I call a lion shilling; I observed that it had three small lions on one side before I put it in the till—I saw the prisoner the same night at the station—he is the man I saw at the house—I gave the two shillings to the policeman.
Netting Hill, to a public-house—I stood at the door till he came out, and took him in custody—I told him I took him for passing a bad shilling at the "Devonshire Arms," Kensington—he said "I have not had a shilling about me, neither have I been in that public-house"—I took him to the station—he said that the shilling was given him in St. James's Park that afternoon by a gentleman—I fetched Mary Best, who knew him, and charged him—he admitted that he had been to the house, and changed one but not two—at Hammersmith, on the Monday, he said that the shilling was given to him seven weeks previously, in St. James's Park—I found on him 9d. in coppers.
Prisoner's Defence. Is it likely that I should stand at the bar, and pass two bad shillings one after the other? no man of sense would do that I paid 1d. for the rum, but did not know it was bad.
GUILTY .—He was further charged with a former conviction at this Court, in April, 1862, of uttering, when he was sentenced to six years' penal servitude, having then been before convicted; to this he PLEADED GUILTY.**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 10th, 1871.
Before Mr. Recorder.
107. ARTHUR HENRY WOODHAM LAMB (28) , Stealing five volumes of "Fisher's Common Law Digest," and other books, of the Right Hon. Spencer Horatio Walpole and others. Other Counts—for receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen.
MESSRS. GARTH, Q.C., and A. L. SMITH, conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. H. S. GIFFARD, Q.C., and BESLEY the Defence.
JOHN NICHOLSON . I am sub-librarian of Lincoln's Inn, and as such, in conjunction with Mr. Spilsbury, the head librarian, I have the custody of the books—the members of Lincoln's Inn have access to the library; that is the rule of the Inn—others, who are not members of the Inn, but have chambers in the Inn, are also allowed to have access to the library, by benchers' orders—as a matter of courtesy a man, though not a student of Lincoln's Inn, if he has chambers near the library, has been allowed to come in and look at the books—Mr. Lamb is not a member of Lincoln's Inn, but of the Inner Temple—he has chambers at 25, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn—I believe I have on two occasions seen him in the library, as far as I can remember, but I am not always there—I am sometimes out on necessary business connected with the Inn; but the principal librarian is always there—at the end of July, last year, about the 29th, some books were missing from the library—they were five volumes of "Fisher's Digest," last edition, 1870; two volumes of "Shelford on Railways," 4th edition, 1869; "Addison on Torts," 3rd edition, 1870, a single volume; "Oke's Magisterial Synopsis," 2 volumes, 10th edition, 1868; "Roscoe's Nisi Prius Evidence," 12th edition, 1870; "Chitty's Precedents and Pleadings," 3rd edition, 1868; and there were two other books, that had been missing for some weeks before that we have not accounted for—"Starkey on Libel," 3rd edition, 1869; and "Daniel's Chancery Practice," 4th edition, 1 volume—"Starkey" and "Daniel" had been missed for some week or so, and on the morning of the 29th I missed the others—most of them must have been in actual use the preceding day, became they were books that could not be
missed for an hour without my knowing it; they would have been missed from the shelves—I made inquiries as to whether these books had been taken out under benchers' orders, and they had not—I immediately put myself in communication with booksellers and with one pawnbroker—among others I communicated with Reeves and Turner, of Chancery Lane, and from information I received from them, on 5th August, I took Sergeant Kerley with me, and went to Mr. Turner's, at the back of the Mansion House, and there I discovered the five volumes of "Fisher's Digest" and two volumes of "Shelford on Railways"—these (produced) are the books—they were produced to me by Mr. Turner—I can clearly identify them as the property of the Inn, and our own copies—they are in the same condition as when I last saw them in the library, with the exception that they have had new fly-leaves put in, evidently by skilled labour, by a binder—I mean the brown paper—I can identify "Fisher's Digest" by tracing the arms of the Inn under the new fly-leaves—I can trace the arms underneath the new lining—the lining was taken up from the cover by Mr. Turner—I was not present when it was done, I saw it afterwards—this is the book—the arms are obliterated; but I trace a private mark there, which is made to indicate that the book is catalogued—that private mark is made in the first volume of each series—the two volumes of "Shelford" have been relined in the same way—I can trace the arms of the Inn there as clearly as in the others—I had previous to this made inquiries of Mr. Smith, a bookseller in Chancery Lane, and on the 10th August he sent for me, and made a communication to me with reference to "Gamble and Barlow"—whilst I was talking to him he pointed out to me the prisoner passing down the lane—I followed him, and came up with him just by the Inner Temple Gardens—I told him I wished to speak to him; I did not tell him about what, because there was another gentleman with him at the moment—I told him I had received information that he had offered "Gamble and Barlow's Irish Digest" for sale on the preceding day—he said he had—I told him such a book was missing from the library, and I requested him to show me the copy he had offered for sale—I went with him to his chambers—he did not object to show it to me—he took me to his chambers and delivered me this copy of "Gamble and Barlow;" these (produced) are the books—there has been an erasure in the binding, on the cover—there had been heavily written in ink "Lincoln's Inn Library"—at the date of the publication of "Gamble and Barlow" the die was not in use—I used to write that in the books, and what remains here is in my handwriting—I identify this "Gamble and Barlow" as the property of the Inn—I told the prisoner when he produced it that I wished to take possession of it, and he allowed me to take it—I asked him where he had got it from—he said that he had bought it of a solicitor about relinquishing practice, whose name and address he could not give me—I took, the books away with me—these new editions are never sold by Lincoln's Inn—I did not say anything to Mr. Lamb about "Fisher" or "Shelford" at that time—I did afterwards, because I had frequent occasion to see him after that—I don't know that I said anything about it until I had received information from Mr. Turner—I then saw Mr. Lamb and told him that a gentleman answering his description had sold these books to Mr. Turner—he denied that he was the person—he told me he had never had any transaction with these particular books, "Fisher" and "Shelford."
Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. The hours at which members of the
Inn are permitted to go to the library are from 9.30 to 4.3.0 usually, but at that time it was only from 11 to 3 o'clock, because it was vacation-time—during that time the principal librarian, or myself, is always there—there is only one door to the library—when books are taken out by a bencher's order the principal librarian or myself give them out—there is no one else there to do so, and in exchange for the books we receive a written order—I was on duty on the 28th—the greater part of the books must have been taken on the 28th—I did not actually miss them till the morning of the 29th—I detected the vacancies immediately on going into the library—they were books so constantly in use that they would be missed directly—benchers borrow very largely sometimes; they send their clerks for books—it is not a remarkable thing for books to be going out under those circumstances—we should have to deliver the books; nothing can go out except through us—if I had seen anyone going out with as many as these seven volumes I should, of course, have made inquiry about it—the door opens in the middle, and the library extends right and left—I did not know Mr. Lamb; I think I knew him by personal appearance about the Inn, but I did not know his name—I don't know how long he had been in chambers at 25, Old Square, but only for a short period—members of the bar, though not belonging to the Inn, are very much in the habit of coming into our library—many members are very persistent that way—it is only tacitly allowed—when I saw Mr. Lamb in the Temple a gentleman was with him—he went away when I asked to speak to Mr. Lamb privately—he heard no part of the conversation—Mr. Lamb at once said that he had offered these books, and that he had got possession of them—he seemed very much alarmed and distressed at my inquiry—as a matter of necessity he at once agreed to show me the books—he did not offer to show them until I requested that he should do so; he offered at once, and took me to his chambers to show them to me—the offer was not from him to me to take them away, I requested to have them—I can't give you the exact words—I was resolved, if possible, to have possession of them—I requested that I might have the books to take to the library; I may have said "Have you any objection to my taking these books"—he said he had no objection at all—he permitted me to take them away—he said something about not being able to give me the name and address of the solicitor from whom he had obtained them; I cannot give you the exact words—he did not say "I cannot now give you the address"—he said he could not; he was unable to give the name and address, he did not know them—I am quite sure it was not that he did not then know them—I cannot reproduce the actual words—he distinctly said he did not know the name and address, and he adhered to that statement—he held out no hope of being able to do so—at the time the conversation passed about the name and address of the solicitor we had not left his chambers; I think it was before we went to his chambers, when he first gave me the account—that conversation took place before I went to his chambers, before I saw the books—after I had been to his chambers he did not come down and go with me; I am quite sure of that; I left him there—it is not the fact that we left the chambers together, and that the conversation about the name and address of the solicitor took place then; I am quite clear about that—I certainly left him in his chambers—I did not see him more than once in his chambers—he has called to see me at the Inn in connexion with this matter—I am quite sure that the conversation about the books, and how he accounted for their
possession took place before we got to his chamber; as we were proceeding there—I had reason at that time to suppose they were our books; a copy of a book was missing, and was being offered for sale; it is a very scarce book; there are very few copies in England—the conversation may have been continued at his chambers—I saw Mr. Lamb on two or three occasions between then and the time of his letter to the treasurer during August—at no time did he mention to me the name of Mr. Langbourne as the person from whom he had obtained the books—the first time I heard the name of Langbourne, in connexion with this transaction, was when the treasurer handed me Mr. Lamb's statement to read—he did not mention to me that the person from whom he received them professed to be a person living at Saltash.
Re-examined. A great many gentlemen come into the library of a day, to read and to consult the books—they sometimes bring blue and red bags, and black leather bags; ordinary brief bags; and papers are brought in them—the library is about 80 ft. long, and there are a number of recesses running in about 12 ft.—I do not sit in a recess, but a little forward, at the left hand side of the west end—Mr. Spilsbury sits on the right hand side of the eastern end—I am engaged in delivering books out, and putting them back, and attending to the general requirements of the members, and I have Parliamentary papers to arrange, and accounts to keep—I am frequently writing at my table, not for any length of time together, because disturbance is so constant—there would be no practical difficulty in a person conveying away books, one or two at a time in a bag, whilst I was engaged at my table, it would create no suspicion—I have seen Mr. Lamb in the library before the time the books were missed—I have only seen him on two occasions, I think, in the library—I did not know whether he had an order, or who he was; I know now that he had no order—when I saw him I think he was allowed to pass unquestioned—I am not sure whether I said anything to him—after he had parted from his friend at the Temple Gardens, I walked with him to his chambers, up Middle Temple Lane and Chancery Lane—the conversation about the solicitor from whom he had the books occurred in passing up Middle Temple Lane, I think, and Chancery Lane—what led to the conversation, was being requested to account for the possession of these books—I told him we had missed such books—he said it was a very unpleasant business, a very serious business; that he had purchased them of a solicitor whom he could not get at now, a gentleman about to retire from practice, and he did not know his name and address.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Did the prisoner, at any time before the date of his letter to Mr. Walpole, show you or read to you those two letters (produced)? A. No.
COURT. Q. Are the "Shelford" and the "Digest" near the same part of the library? A. In adjoining cases, quite close; at a distance from the door; immediately opposite where Mr. Spilsbury sits.
WILLIAM HOLDEN SPILSBURY . I am the principal librarian of Lincoln's Inn—the library is about 80 feet long—I am in the habit of making a tick in the corner of the first volume of each work—I see it here in the first volume of "Fisher's Digest;" it is a pencil tick—that was made by me—that enables me to say the book is the property of Lincoln's Inn—I am very short-sighted—I sit in the library on the right hand, turning from the door, in a recess at the further end of the library, opposite the recess in which
"Fisher's Digest" would be; that is the furthest recess from where Mr. Nicholson sits—"Gamble and Barlow's Equity Index" would be in the game recess, and "Shelford on Railways" also.
Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. This is the tick I refer to (pointing it out)—it is more distinguishable in "Shelford"—it is only in the first volume—it is just perceptible here; the page has been pasted over, and that has defaced it, but I can trace it very plainly; it if a curved line, like this (making one).
EDWARD JAMES TURNER . I am a bookseller, at 4, Charlotte Row, Mansion House—I remember a person coming to my shop previous to the 4th August; the prisoner is that person—I think it was on the 2nd that he first called—he said that he had a copy of "Fisher's Digest" and "Shelford on Railways" for sale, and asked if I would be inclined to buy them—I said if he would call again next day I would give him an answer whether we would buy them, and if so, what price we would give—his first visit was a short one—he called again next day, with another gentleman—I then told him that we would give 6l. 10s. for the two books—he asked if we could not give more than that; I said "No; that would be the utmost they would be worth to us"—I am not quite sure whether it was on that occasion or the next day that he said where he had got them—he called again the next day, the 4th August; there was no one with him on that occasion—he brought the books in a blue bag, such as a lawyer's clerk generally carries—they were "Fisher's Digest" and "Shelford on Railways," which have been produced here to-day—I looked at them—I asked him how he had become possessed of the books, and why he wanted to sell them—he said he had taken them from a solicitor who owed him money, and from whom he could not get satisfaction in any other way—I told him I should require a receipt from him, with his name and address on it—he said, as I could not give more, he would take the 6l. 10s., the sum I had named the day before—I paid him, and took the books, and he gave me this receipt (produced)—he wrote it there and then—I don't think he told me his name before he wrote it on the receipt—on the following day, I saw Mr. Nicholson, and produced the books to him—my brother made an experiment on the lining in my presence—I afterwards received this letter from Mr. Lamb—the prisoner afterwards called on me, and said he had called in reference to that letter—(Read: "18th August, 1870. Sir. Will you oblige me with the following information? What days of the month and week, and at what time on the day in question, did you purchase the books which have been lost from the library of Lincoln's Inn? I should feel obliged by an answer to these queries by return of post. Yours, Arthur Lamb."—I sent an answer to that letter, stating that I did not know what authority he had for making those inquiries, and should like to know his authority before telling him the particulars he wanted to know—I afterwards received this letter, either the some day or the day after it is dated—I had in the meantime communicated with Mr. Nicholson—Mr. Lamb afterwards called, and said that, as I would not write him the information, he had come down in person to receive it.
CHARLES FREDERICK TARN . I am managing clerk to Mr. Shee, a solicitor, of 36, King William Street—I was instructed to enforce a judgment against Mr. Lamb—I communicated with him by letter on several occasions—I can only speak to his handwriting on his having admitted three of those letters to be his—I am able to form an opinion of his
handwriting—I believe this letter to be in his writing—(Letter read, from the prisoner to Mr. Turner: "22nd August, 1870. Sir,—From some misadventure, I only received your letter this morning. I am very much engaged to-day, so enclose Mr. Nicholson's note on the back of yours, so that if I am unable to call on you in the course of to-day, you will send me the desired information by this evening's post")—I also believe this letter, addressed to Mr. Walpole, to be the prisoner's writing—(Read: "25," Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, August 30th, 1870. Sir,—I have been informed that some books have been stolen from the library of Lincoln's Inn, and I fear there is little doubt that I have been induced to become the purchaser of some of them. I have been asked to explain the circumstances under which these books came into my possession. Some months ago a gentlemanly-looking man called upon me and, handing me a card having upon it the name of 'Langbourne,' said that he was a solicitor giving up practice and shortly going to India. He informed me that he wished to sell his library, and among other barristers' names he mentioned that of Mr. Dixon, a gentleman with whom I am acquainted, saying that Mr. Dixon had bought some of his books, and had recommended him to call upon me. From time to time I bought books of this person, and now, nearly a month since, he called upon me again, and offered me for sale 'Gamble and Barlow's Irish Equity Index,' 'Fisher's Digest of the Common Law,' and the Equity Series of the 'Law Reports.' These books, he said, with the exception of three or four others, were all that remained of his library. I wished to purchase the 'Law Reports' and the 'Digest,' and asked him what he required for them. He named a price, and said that as he would be in Lincoln's Inn on the following day, he would call upon me again. Next day a boy brought the 'Digest' to my chambers, and Langbourne, following soon after, told me that he would sell the work for 7l. 7s. I said I could not afford to give so much, and requested him to take the books away, when he said he would send for them upon the following day. He also said that Mr.—(the name he mentioned I forget), he thought might purchase them, but if not he would see me again and try to come to an arrangement, as he was anxious to leave as soon as possible. The books were not sent for, but remained at my chambers for several days. In the meantime, as I was anxious to possess the 'Digest,' for the purpose of gaining a correct notion of the value of the work, I made several inquiries of booksellers as to what they considered was its proper price. Its value was estimated at 5l., or there-about. Among the persons of whom I made these inquiries was a Mr. Turner, who owns a shop at the back of the Mansion House in the City. These inquiries were made under the following circumstances:—The first occasion upon which I spoke to Mr. Turner, or someone in his shop, upon the subject was one day, I think, at the latter end of July, when passing the shop it occurred to me to inquire the value of the work in question. I entered the shop and made my inquiry of some persons present, who said that Mr. Turner was not there, but that he should be spoken to upon the subject, when he arrived, and I was asked to call at the shop again. This I should not have done had it not happened that upon Wednesday, the 3rd of August, I met a friend in Fleet Street; he was walking into the City to get change of a cheque, and he asked me to walk with him. I did so, and in going to and returning from the Bank we passed Mr. Turner's shop, and in returning it occurred to me to inquire whether the value of the 'Digest' had been ascertained, and my friend wishing to purchase a small book called
the 'Bab Ballads' we went into the shop together. I ascertained what Mr. Turner considered to be the value of the 'Digest' and my friend being unable to obtain his book we both left the shop. This, sir, is the last time I ever entered the shop of Mr. Turner, with the exception of yesterday, notwithstanding that a person from his house pretends to recognize me as the seller of the books in question. Upon returning from the City I left my friend in Fleet Street, and went on to my chambers. According to appointment, Langbourne then called, when I told him that the book was a too expensive one for me to buy, upon which he said that he had a cab below and would take the books away with him, and I lent him a bag in which to carry them to the cab. When he was leaving, I think I mentioned to him the circumstance of my having called upon Turner, and I believe I gave him Turner's address; but upon this point I am not certain. Upon making inquiries of Mr. Turner I ascertain that he bought these books upon the 4th of August, the day after that upon which I had been at his shop, and the day after the books in question left my chambers; and he further says that the sale took place at about 1 o'clock. That I am not the person who sold to Mr. Turner the lost books, I most positively assert. That Mr. Turner is mistaken, I can prove by the evidence of a gentleman in whose company I was, upon the day in question, from half-past 11 or 12 o'clock until 3 or 4. I do not wish to suggest any motive which the purchaser of these stolen books might have in fixing upon me or any other innocent person as the individual of whom the books were bought. I will not attempt to theorize upon the subject, but will simply repeat that I am in a position to prove by one, if not two witnesses, that Mr. Turner is mistaken. Upon the 9th or 10th instant, Langbourne called upon me again, at about 12 o'clock at noon, and telling me that he had sold his 'Digest' and 'Reports' to a bookseller, whose name he did not mention, and obtained a good price for them, he again offered me the 'Irish Equity Index', saying he would sell it for 30s. I at first declined, saying that the books could be of very little service to me; but afterwards I agreed to purchase them for a sovereign, but merely for the purpose of exchanging them for another, or of selling them again at a higher price. I paid him a sovereign, and he left the books. I think it was upon the same day that I ascertained of several persons in the book trade; persons whom I know, and who knew me perfectly well; that the book I had that morning purchased was of little value in England, and I then resolved to keep it by me and not to dispose of it at all. The morning after this I was in the Temple, when I was met by Mr. Nicholson, who requested to speak with me. He asked me if I bad in my possession a copy of the 'Equity Index' in question, to which I immediately replied 'Yes.' Mr. Nicholson then said that a book was missing from the library of Lincoln's Inn, and I explained to him how it came into my possession, and taking him to my chambers, showed him the books. He asked permission to take these books away, which I, of course, accorded. Mr. Nicholson, after this, told me of the loss of the 'Digest,' and I made an appointment with him to meet Mr. Turner; but of this, Sir, Mr. Nicholson has doubtless told you. Since this time I have made every possible effort to discover the whereabouts of Langbourne, and I have reason to hope that these efforts will eventually lead to success. In making numerous inquiries some time has necessarily elapsed, but the necessity for making them must be my excuse, if any be needed, for the delay that has taken place. I have written,
to Mr. Dixon, but without any good effect. I have written to all the solicitors practising at Saltash, and from one, the Town Clerk, hare received a reply, which leads me to hope that I have discovered a clue to the person whom I seek. In reply to a letter from me, Mr. Cleverton writes, 'I strongly suspect that the person intended to be referred to by you is a Mr. T. P. Wymond, late of Shields, and theretofore of London and Meath, who has been recently here on a visit to his father.' He says, further on, 'If this young gentleman has subjected himself to a criminal prosecution, kindly write me before taking proceedings.' In my letter to Mr. Cleverton I did not mention with what object I made my enquiries. I am still in communication with this gentleman, and am waiting: to hear from him further upon the subject. No one else at Saltash to whom I have written has given me any information. I may inform you, Sir, that upon one occasion Langbourne asked me to settle a bill of sale for him, which I did, and I have found among some waste paper which was upon my table two or three draught sheets, upon which I originally drew part of the document, and there is an entry in my fee-book at about the date when I must have drawn this deed. I have also the visiting-card, with 'Mr. Langbourne, Saltash,' engraved upon it, which he gave me the first day he called upon me. I believe, Sir, I have now told you all I know upon the subject of these books, and having done so, I will only express a hope that I may yet be able to find out the person whom I seek, and if I am successful in so doing, much light will undoubtedly be thrown upon the subject. I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
"The Right Hon. Spencer H. Walpole, M.P., Lincoln's Inn."
EDWARD JAMES TURNER (continued). This letter of Mr. Nicholson was enclosed in Mr. Lamb's letter, and this is the letter I wrote to Mr. Lamb—(Mr. Nicholson's letter requested the witness to afford Mr. Lamb the information he required)—Mr. Lamb called on me I think the next day, the 23rd—he merely said that he had come for the information he had asked for in his letter, and I told him the date on which the books had been bought was the 4th August, and as far as I could recollect about 1 o'clock, or between 1 and 2 o'clock in the day—no one was present when he came on that occasion; but my brother came in immediately afterwards, and said something to him—I have not the slightest doubt that the prisoner is the person who sold me the books on the 4th August.
Cross-examined. I first saw the prisoner two days before he sold the books—he applied to me personally—no other person in the shop had been applied to before that—at all events they did not communicate it to me—other persons are employed in my shop besides my brother—there was no one else in the shop but myself on the first occasion, or on the second, I think—it was on the third occasion that the sale took place—my brother brought down the slip of paper on which the receipt was given—he was on the next floor, which is a gallery above the shop, so that anyone speaking in the shop could be heard above, and I asked him to bring the paper down—the prisoner said on the third occasion that he had brought the books that he had mentioned to me before, to sell to me—the price was mentioned again—he said that he would take the 6l. 10s. that I had offered—I had determined to give 6l. 10s., and had told him so the previous day—I should say the whole transaction occupied about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes—I looked at each volume to see that the dates agreed on the title page, and he looked at what I was doing—I think he was not looking round
the shop—it was at the conclusion of the transaction that ray brother brought down the paper—the receipt was written at once, the money paid, and the person left—when I saw the prisoner again after this correspondence I did not say anything to him as to whether he was the man or not—I had heard that he had denied selling the books—my brother came into the shop immediately after the prisoner had left, on the day that he came to make inquiries, and he went after him and recognized him—I told him to go into the street and see if he could see any such person—the prisoner had then just gone up Bucklersbury—he was out of sight of the shop—I did not go with my brother—this matter has been the subject of conversation between us—my brother had seen the prisoner when he gave the receipt—we gave a description of him to the detective, I think—I think it is very likely that we compared notes as to what he was like—my brother came back a very short time after he went out to see if he could recognize the man—it is not possible that I am mistaken about the man who sold the books—I did not make any entry about the time at which the sale took place, only the day of the month—I did not make any entry of the hour of the day—I may have written down the hour for the prisoner when he called—I am not sure whether I said "1" or "Between 1 and 2"—I believe I did say it was 1 o'clock—I don't think it is likely that I put down 1 o'clock exactly—I should probably hive written "1" or "Between 1 and 2"—I gave the paper to the prisoner—as far as I recollect that was what I said to the prisoner—the way in which I recollect the time is that I generally come back from luncheon about 1 o'clock, and I recollect that when I bought the books it was soon after I returned from luncheon—I don't think it could have been long after it.
Re-examined. We have a winding staircase in the shop, which rum from one comer on to the next floor, so that anybody there can see and hear what goes on below—it is an iron gallery, running round, in which we keep our books, with the centre space open.
JOHN TURNER . I am the brother of the last witness—I was in the shop on the 4th August, when "Fisher's Digest" and "Shelford on Railways" was brought—the prisoner is the person who brought them—I was on the first floor when he brought them in, and I came down to bring a sheet of paper and a receipt stamp—my brother asked me to do so—I came down into the shop, and saw the prisoner there—I am quite positive of that—I saw him write this receipt—I had not seen him at the shop before. (Receipt read: "Received 6l. 10s., for 'Fisher's Digest' and 'Shelford on Railways,' 7 volumes; Richard Kinglake, Saltash, and 23, Old Square"—I saw the prisoner again about one or two days after he had sold the books—in consequence of something my brother said to me I went out, and went down the new street, Queen Victoria Street, and there saw the prisoner—he was the person that I had seen on 4th August, the day the receipt was given—I am certain of it.
Cross-examined. I should think the selling of the books lasted about five minutes—I saw the prisoner come in, and saw him leave—I should think it was about five minutes, I could not be sure—I was not up in the gallery during the greater part of the time—I was there when he came in; but I came down immediately, at least as soon as the receipt was wanted—it was not wanted until the bargain was concluded—I waited there while he wrote the receipt—he left the shop as soon as he had written it—I should think it was between 1 and 2 o'clock—I should think it was nearer 2 o'clock, if
anything; but I could not say exactly the time—I went to look for him two days afterwards, in consequence of what my brother said—he said that Mr. Lamb had just been to the shop, and he bad gone down the new street—my brother and I had talked about the person who sold the books before that, and when I came in my brother said "Go down the new street, and look for him"—I went down the new street to see if I could recognize him—my brother generally came back from lunch about 1 o'clock—on the 4th he had just come back—he does not always get back at the same time—I should think it was about 25 minutes to 2 o'clock on this occasion, as far as I can remember; it was nearer 2 than 1 o'clock—between 1 and 2 o'clock at any rate—I remember it was about that time—my brother did not tell me that he thought it was 1 o'clock, and that he had written 1 o'clock on the paper—I think he did say he thought it was about 1 o'clock—I did not say that it was 25 minutes to 2 o'clock—it was between 1 and 2 o'clock, I should think—I have no particular reason for fixing on 25 minutes to 2, more than 20 minutes after 1 o'clock.
Re-examined. Our shop is at the corner of Wallbrook, nearest the Mansion House, not in Bucklersbury—Bucklersbury leads into the new street—when I saw the prisoner he had got not very far from where the new street joins Cannon Street—he was going from our shop towards Cannon Street.
GEORGE SMITH . I am a bookseller, of 27, Chancery Lane—I know the prisoner—he has been very frequently to my shop—he came in August last with one of these books, "Gamble and Barlow's Index"—it would be the beginning of August—I can't say the day—he asked me if I could purchase them—I declined to do so—he had asked me to purchase other books—"Fisher's Digest" was one—that would be some few days before this occasion—I asked him to let me see the copy—he did not do so—I never saw the book—he has been a customer of mine for two or three years—I did know his name, but I knew his person better than his name—I have no doubt whatever about his being the man—some communication had passed between me and Mr. Nicholson, and after he had called with "Gamble and Barlow's Index" I again communicated with Mr. Nicholson, who called on mo the following day—whilst he was with me I saw Mr. Lamb pass on the opposite side of the way, and I pointed him out to Mr. Nicholson as the person who had offered to sell me the books.
Cross-examined. I knew him perfectly well, and had frequent dealings with him, changing old editions for new ones, and so on—that is a very common practice—he knew that I knew him perfectly well—what he said to me about "Fisher's Digest" was, "What would you give for 'Fisher's Digest?' and I think I said "We usually give half of the publishing price for a book that is cut, because it then becomes second-hand"—but I never saw the book—the publishing price of "Fisher's Digest" is 12 guineas—I have frequently seen Mr. Lamb passing backwards and forwards in Chancery Lane.
COURT. Q. Did you know where he lived?—A. I could not have stated where he lived because his communications with me were usually over the counter, and I had not occasion to send to his office—I knew his name, but I could not have named it at the time.
MICHAEL DOYLE . I am steward of the Society of Lincoln's Inn—Mr. Spencer Walpole was the treasurer last year—by his directions, on 16th August last I made a communication to Mr. Lamb—it was to the effect that an explanation was required and sought touching certain circumstances
as to missing books from the library—I saw Mr. Lamb on that occasion, in the presence of Mr. Nicholson and the younger of the two Turners—Mr. Turner had just then identified Mr. Lamb, and, in my presence, he repeated his decided opinion that Mr. Lamb was the person—that was in Mr. Lamb's presence, and I then said an explanation was required—he admitted, and with apparent frankness, that the case seemed to bear a very uncomfortable complexion as regarded him, and he intimated his willingness to give all the explanation in his power.
Cross-examined. The circumstances, so far as they had come to light, were mentioned to Mr. Lamb by Mr. Nicholson, in my presence, and in the presence of the younger Turner; and one of the particular points of identification was the possession by Mr. Lamb of an umbrella having round it a silver ring on the handle, and it happened at that time that Mr. Lamb carried that umbrella with him, and I drew his attention to that particular circumstance—I don't mean that he was identified by Mr. Turner by the umbrella; that was one of the points that were mentioned—he was personally identified by him—I think I have stated all that passed—Mr. Lamb's words, as near as I can recall them, were to this effect, that the case certainly did look very serious and very bad; but he stated at once, when the invoice was produced to him, that it was not in his handwriting—certainly all he said would be taken to imply that he was innocent—he did not give any explanation while I was present; nothing was said about the books, or where he got them from—I did not ask him—it was in my presence that the younger Mr. Turner identified him—the prisoner said he was not the man—I think Mr. Langbourne's name was mentioned at that time—I don't remember that he had made communications to Saltash—I can't say precisely how long Mr. Lamb has occupied chambers at Lincoln's Inn—he has not occupied sets of chambers, only single rooms, as an under tenant, so that I should have no occasion to take cognizance of him—he has never been in the occupation of a set of chambers in the Inn, and I could not say how long he has been there.
COURT. Q. In what way did the conversation about the umbrella arise? A. The description of the person who had put himself in communication with Mr. Turner, the bookseller, had been furnished to the librarians of Lincoln's Inn; I had heard of that, and I pointed out that that was the umbrella that he had there.
WILLIAM BYERLEY . I am a bookbinder in the employ of Mr. Holland, of 60, Stanhope Street, Clare Market—in the middle of last year I believe I saw the prisoner at our shop—he brought a volume, and asked me if I could repair it; that is to say, put in new end papers; I said "Yes"—it was a book similar to "Fisher's Digest;" but it was not one of them—he said he had bought them from a gentleman rather cheaply, and he wanted the old name taken out and new papers put in, to hide the old name, as he did not care about seeing it—I did that, and be brought another, and took that one away—I believe the first book he brought was one of these, "Shelford on Railways"—one board had been roughed up to obliterate some writing or marks upon it—this is my work, in both these volumes; these brown leaves—it was the second volume of "Shelford" that the prisoner brought on the second occasion, and I put in these fly leaves—I can't say whether the inside of that volume was roughed up in the same way as the first; I don't remember—he came for the second volume, and then asked if I could send for some others, five vols.—I sent an apprentice, a boy named Cattermole, to
fetch them—I think the prisoner wrote down where I was to send, on a piece of paper, and I gave it to the lad; I don't think he brought it back—the address was "Mr. Lamb, 25, Old Square"—Cattermole brought back five volumes of "Fisher's Digest"—this is my work to the first volume; I put these papers in, the same as I had done to the others—the board had been roughed up inside, to obliterate some marks on it—I don't think that was the case with all the five volumes—I put fly leaves and new lining to the whole five, and sent them home by Cattermole.
Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. At the time I first saw the book, I did not see any mark in particular on it; I noticed that it had been roughed up; what mark had been on I did not notice—there was nothing on it to inform me that it was a Lincoln's Inn book—if I had seen any such mark, I should have taken the order, but I should have shown it to my employer—there was nothing to rouse my suspicion; I did not notice anything—I believe Mr. Lamb to be the gentleman who brought the books; I have no doubt about it—I know, now, that they came from his chambers, and that they were sent there when finished—I could not say who he was then, but I know he is the person that brought the books—I can't say whether I should have recognized him as the person who gave the order, without knowing he was the person occupying those chambers.
Re-examined. I took notice of him when he came in the first time, and I knew him again the second time, when he came for the second book—I have not the slightest doubt the prisoner is the person—I saw him write down the name and address on the paper I gave him.
JAMES CATTSRMOLE . I am in Mr. Holland's employment—I remember receiving some orders from Byerley, in August—he gave me a bit of paper—I read the paper, and went to 25, Old Square, to the second floor—I think the name of Mr. Lamb was over the door—I tore up the paper when I came out of the chambers; it had on it, "Mr. Lamb, 25, Old Square"—I went there for five law books—I saw a boy, and asked for the five books; I said I had come from Mr. Holland's for five books, to have new lining in, and they were given to me by the boy—I looked at them; I think it was five volumes of "Fisher's Digest"—I put them into a bag, and brought them to Mr. Holland's—I was afterwards desired to take them back again; I can't say how long after, it was about two or three weeks—I took them to the same place—the same boy opened the door to me, and I gave them to him.
FREDERICK KERLEY . I am a detective sergeant, of Bow Street—in consequence of a warrant, signed by Mr. Vaughan, on 16th November, I went to 38, Tollington Road, Holloway, and saw the prisoner—he came to the door—I told him that I was a detective officer, and held a warrant for his apprehension, signed by J. Vaughan, Esq., the Magistrate of Bow Street—he said "What for?"—I said "For stealing some books: I will read the warrant to you"—we went into a back room—he said "Good God! what does all this mean? will you allow me to see my wife?"—I said "Yes, certainly"—we went into the front parlour, and he said to his wife "Don't be alarmed, this is an officer come to arrest me"—she said "What for?"—he said "For stealing some books"—she said "Where from?"—he said "Lincoln's Inn Library"—she said "But you never go there"—he said "Yes, I have been there on two or three occasions; I have heard about these books before, and I wrote to Mr. Walpole to-day"—and he said to me "Do you know anything
about these books?"—I said "Yes; Mr. Nicholson, the librarian, found some of them at a shop, in the City"—he said "Where?"—I said "At a shop by the side of the Mansion House"—he said "Does the person say that I sold them there?"—I said "I can't say that he said it was you sold them, but he can identify the person that did sell them"—at the station he was searched, and upon him I found this letter—he said "That is a copy of the letter I wrote to Mr. Walpole—(Read: "I think it right to inform you, that since forwarding to you my explanation as to how the books stolen from Lincoln's Inn came into my possession, I have made every effort to ascertain something of the person of whom I bought them, but, unfortunately, without success. You, Sir, will perhaps not think it out of place if I afford you some information as to my private means, for the purpose of showing how improbable it would be for me, with a guilty knowledge, to involve myself in such an affair as this;—although I am married, and not by any means rich, I enjoy a private income of 300l. per annum; and for the last few years, from my practice at the bar, something over 150l. per annum. Besides this, I have near relations from whom, at any moment, I could readily obtain whatever I might, in reason, desire. I would ask you, Sir, also to bear in mind that, although all the information I can impart with reference to the person of whom I purchased these books is meagre, yet, whenever I disposed of a book so purchased, I invariably did so to a person to whom I was well known, and who could consequently have found me at any moment. Any questions you deem right to put to me will, I need hardly say, be answered with the greatest readiness;—nothing could be further from my wishes than that more light should not be thrown upon the subject, for of this I am convinced, that it only requires the whole truth to be discovered to entirely exonerate me, not from all censure, but from all that I now most fervently wish to be absolved from.")
Cross-examined. I was employed in this matter when the books were first missed—I did not find out then where the prisoner was living; not until he was apprehended—I was told the neighbourhood he was living in—I went direct to his house—I had received information—I don't know how long he had been living there.
CHARLES CHABOT . I carry on business at 25, Southampton Row, and am an expert in handwriting—I have had a very large experience in that way for many years—some time ago I received from Mr. Pemberton, the solicitor of Lincoln's Inn, this receipt for 6l. 10s., the letter addressed to Mr. Walpole, dated "30th August," and these four letters, produced by Mr. Tarn, addressed to Mr. Shee, and marked "1," "2," "3," and "4"—I have looked at them with a view to see whether they are in the same or a different handwriting, and I am of opinion, without doubt, that the receipt is in the same handwriting as these letters—the first letter that was given me was that to Mr. Walpole—that I believe to be a bond fide handwriting; but it is carefully written—the receipt does not appear to be carefully written, it is written in an extremely hurried manner—I identify the receipt from all the letters in combination—at first I was only shown the letter to Mr. Walpole—I believed it was in the same handwriting; but I declined to give a positive opinion unless I saw some writing that was apparently written under the same circumstances as the receipt, that is, in a hurried manner, carelessly, and not in the same set manner that the letter is; and when these other letters were put into my hands, I immediately identified the handwriting in a very short time indeed—I have not the least
doubt that they are in the same handwriting—I have been engaged fifteen or sixteen years as an expert in deciphering handwriting.
Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. I expect to find some characters of handwriting the same, whether the writing be studied or hurried; but not all—in some respects the character will be different, and different formations will be substituted—there might be the intention to disguise; but if hurriedly written, it would be more difficult to carry it out—the receipt is written in a large hand, and that seems to me to constitute its principal disguise, being written large, and as quickly as possible, otherwise it is the bond fide handwriting; but it has been written too quickly to effect any real disguise—in testing handwriting we endeavour to find out what are the habitual characteristics of forming the letters, not taking one individual letter, but the general habit—in the "S" in the word "Saltash," in the receipt, the top stroke is completely to the right—the "S" in the word "Square," in the letter to Mr. Walpole, is a totally different formation—I do not trace anything in common between the two, one is in a set writing, and the other in the careless writing—they are of a different character, certainly; but when persons write rapidly they change the formation of the letters—I can give you a very striking instance in this letter—when persons write rapidly they substitute, in some instances, different formation of letters—the letter "S," in the word "Sir," in the letter to Mr. Walpole, also differs—the "S" in "Square," in the receipt, is formed in the same way as in "Saltash;" and that also is totally different to the "S" in the words "Sir" and "Square," in the letter to Mr. Walpole—the "D" in "Dickson," in the letter is not exactly the same as the "D" in "Digest," in the receipt—it does not differ in character, only in size; there are trifling differences, not essential ones—the "h" in "have," in the letter, is not of the same character as the "h" in "Shelford," in the receipt; the difference arises from the scribbling manner in which it is attempted to be written; it is different in every respect in size and in character; it is of the same character as the "h" in "Saltash," especially the final portion of it; it is identical; the final part of the "h," in the letter, forms an acute angle; in the receipt it is rather more acute; the upper turning is very acute, and the lower turning very round, and that is the case in both—in writing figures persons are very often off their guard—the figure "2" in the receipt and in the letter decidedly correspond in character; one is written in a very studied, careful manner, and the other rapidly—the figure "1" is much taller than the "8" in the dating of the letter of 30th August, and so it is in the receipt; in other respects the figure is different; but that arises from the rapidity of the writing—it is totally different in formation, and you may find differences in the same document; for instance, the "0" in "1870" is different from the "0" in "30th;" one is left open at the top, and the other is finished; but the character is the same—the figure "7" in the receipt does not bear the least likeness to the "7" in "1870," in the letter—a person would make that difference if he had in his mind an intention to disguise his writing—I believe the intention was when this was written to write it so that it should not be recognized—I mean that there was an intention to disguise the handwriting—I infer that from the size of the writing, and the scribbled manner in which it is done, and those trifling variations that would occur at the time—there are symptoms of actual disguise, which you point out to me—I infer that not from having formed a judgment about this case, but from a comparison of the handwriting
—the difference in the form of the figure 7 is one effort at disguise, and a successful one; I assume, of course, that the writing is by the same person—I conceive that when the person wrote this receipt he intended disguise, but being written rapidly he could only disguise a letter now and then, if he had had more time to devote to it it would have been a very different production—without comparing the receipt with anything else, there is nothing on the face of it to show an effort to disguise—I have heard evidence given to the effect that the character of handwriting of itself shows whether it is natural or not, without comparing it with other writing, and I have given such evidence myself, but you cannot always do so—if the receipt was put into my hands by itself, I should say it was nothing tangible—I could form no judgment one way or the other—none of the "d's" that occur in the receipt are formed in the proper orthodox manner, that is, they are all turned over; but in the letter of 30th August they are formed in the proper orthodox manner; but when the prisoner writes rapidly, under the same circumstances as he has done in two of his letters, of 7th June and 15th July, there is not a single mistake made, as it is in the letter of 30th August, they are all turned over at the end like those in the receipt—when I say "under the same circumstances," I only judge of that from the internal character of the hand writing, that all the letters "d" there are made like the "d" in 'the receipt, and not only that, there are three different formations of the "d" in that letter, and they are all represented here; out of the four "d's" there are scarcely two alike; there are three essentially different, and all those variations are found in this letter—I will call attention particularly to the word "should," and compare it with the words "received" and neighbourhood" in the letter—there is a slight difference; the one is closed up at the top and the other not, but the general mode in which the "d" is formed is the same, and greatly distinguished from the manner in which it is formed in the letter of 30th August—I have not studied the draft letter found on the prisoner so much—I have confined my attention to one or two of these letters that I have looked at, and that is all—the "1" in Kinglake, in the receipt, and the "1" in "reply," in this letter, are not the same character, but they might both be made by the same person—I will admit that there are a number of points that are not of the same character; there are many differences, and there always will be, but there are certain points of absolute identity to my mind, which I have not yet been able to explain; I have not said all I have to say upon it, you have interrupted me—the letter "d" in the word "Shelford" is generally represented by the "d" in the word "attended," in the letter of 15th July, and again in "finished," and in "proposed" in the letter of 7th June; they are both formed in the same manner, only the "d" in "Shelford" is written in a cramped hand, a restrained hand—I say all the three "d's" are made upon one plan, neither of them are identical; there is a considerable difference, but there is the same notion, and the same plan of formation very distinct from the other "d's"—are three distinct manners of forming one particular class of the letter in the receipt, and there are all those three manners in one of these letters—there is another formation of the "d" still more striking; the small "d" in the word "should," in the letter of 7th June, and the "d" in "Richard," in the receipt, are totally different from the other letters "d;" they are on the same plan, but they are not finished in the same manner as the letters "d" in this formal letter—they are all finished at the upper part of the
letter, and none of them are so in the formal letter; that was one of the reasons why I would not give an opinion upon the examination of the formal letter alone—then the "y" in the word "reply," in the letter of 15th July, is nearly identical with the "y" in "Railways," in the receipt, and also in the word "July "at the beginning of the letter—I do not see any difference whatever—gentlemen in my profession do sometimes make mistakes—I am very cautious, I very rarely indeed make a mistake; undoubtedly I have made a mistake now and then—I do not remember the case of "Vardon v. Ford," in the Probate Court; I do not remember being examined as a witness in that case—I don't remember proving a document to be forged which was afterwards admitted to probate—I don't remember that occurring in 1866; I can't undertake to say it did not happen; I have no memory of it—you must remember this, that sometimes, when I have given my opinion before a Jury, they have differed from my opinion, but another Jury has come after that, and supported me; so how am I to know whether I was right or wrong—two Juries have maintained my opinion against the decision of a first Jury—I do not remember the case of "Vardon v. Ford;" I think you must be mistaken; I can hardly think I was in that case, I don't remember either of the names, or the name of Eden, a solicitor, of Gray's Inn, who retained my services, or Dr. Wamby examining me—I assure you I do not remember any one of those circumstances—I will not undertake to say that such things did not happen in 1866—you lead me to suppose it was so, because you seem to be asking me from some data, but I do not remember it.
Re-examined. I remember the case of "Cresswell v. Jackson," in which such a thing happened—the first Jury said the documents were genuine, and my opinion was that they were forgeries; another Jury said that they were forgeries; it went through the House of Lords, and finally to a third Jury, and they said they were forgeries—there are some other similarities between the receipt and the letters which I have not yet pointed out; there is the "g" in "Digest," in the receipt, and the "g" in "again," in the letter of 30th August; they are particularly alike—then there is a very remarkable manner of making the letter "k;" you will find it in "Kinglake," in the receipt, and in "book," in the letter of 30th August—it does not matter whether the prisoner writes quickly or slowly, his characteristic manner of making the "k" is the same; in the letter of 7th June there is a similarly formed "k" in "kindly"—in the letter "s" in "Fisher" and "railways" there is a peculiar touch, and I find the same thing in the letter of 30th August, in "barristers" and "books," in lines 12, 14, and 16 of the first page; it terminates abruptly, more like a strongly-marked comma—then there is another singularity in the "q" in "questions," in the letter of 17th August, and the "q" in "square," in the receipt—the receipt is written in a larger character than the letter, but that is not the only difference, there are a number of other differences, but notwithstanding those differences, they are written by the same person—if a person writes one thing in a hurry and others with care, there would naturally be differences—if I was shown the receipt alone, and nothing was said about it, I should sec nothing in it but a bond fide receipt; but when I was told it might be written under suspicious circumstances, and that the person might want to disguise his hand, then I should say, comparing it with other letters, those differences that I sec are accounted for—I have formed my
opinion principally upon a comparison of the receipt with the other letters; of course the letter of 30th August somewhat supports it.
FREDERICK GEORGE NETHERCLIFT . I carry on business at 18, Golden Square—I am an expert, and have been so for thirty years—I have looked at this receipt, and also at the letter to Mr. Walpole, and other letters, and I have formed an opinion that they are written by one and the same hand—the letter to Mr. Walpole is written more studiously, more carefully, and would hardly bear comparison with some of the others at the first glance—some of the letters written by the prisoner differ from the letter to Mr. Walpole quite as much as from the printed receipt; I am speaking of style, not character—comparing the receipt with some of those letters, I find both style and character identical—the receipt is written much larger; but magnify one or two of the other letters, and then you see almost the same writing, without any disguise—the style of the seven-page letter is different; it is written more carefully and studiously; the receipt is more rapidly written—I did not hear Mr. Chabot's evidence; I purposely left the Court—there are about five lines in this receipt, and I have noticed sixteen remarkable characteristics; first, I will take the letter "d" in the word "Richard," and the letter "d" in "old," which follows directly—I find the same in the word "received" in this letter, and in the words "neighbourhood" and "should;" the "d" in the word "received" corresponds with the "d" in the word "neighbourhood;" then there is the small "g" in "Digest" and in "Kingslake," the letter, instead of being made close together, is separated, so as to give it the appearance of "e j"—in the fourth paragraph of the letter to Mr. Walpole, in the words "originally" and "amongst," you will find the same characteristic—then the capital "R" in "Received," in the receipt, is perfectly similar to the word "Reports" in the letter, with the exception of its being written a little more apart; you will find even that the pen has caught at the bottom, exactly in the similar manner—it is formed exactly on the same principle; it has no loop, as an "R" generally has, and it comes down with a straight stroke—I notice also the connection of the letters "ol" in the word "vols." for volumes—that occurs in the word "following," in two places, and the capital "D" also, I find identical in the word "Digest"—there are three kinds of "r's" which I find throughout the documents; there is the "r" in the word "Fisher," in the receipt; that hag no head to it, it is made like an "i;" then in the word "Shelford," it has a head to it, and another in the word "square" has a top to it; and I can identify those different "r's" throughout the documents—I have marked sixteen of such characteristics as those in the small space of five lines—from those and other reasons, I am of opinion that the handwriting in the receipt and the letters is the same.
Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. The characteristics are the habits of the writer—style is whether the writing is upright or sloping, or whether it is written well or badly—you say a stylish writing, if it is written verywell, the same as you would speak of a stylish woman—the characteristics are the habits that man introduces, which he is unaware of himself, and which, when he writes, he introduces, and by which we find him out—it is the elements of handwriting, the distinguishing features which he always introduces—perhaps I speak professionally—I am a lithographer, and when a person comes to me and asks for a thing to be done in the best style, I understand what is meant—I include in that legibility, of course—in testing the handwriting of a person, I rely on the characteristics, and if on comparing
paring writing I don't find those characteristics, I should decidedly object to give any opinion whatever—I am able, from these five lines in the receipt, to detect enough to convince me that the letter to Mr. Walpole was written by the same person—I entertain no doubt whatever about it—the receipt is not in the same style as the letter—the one is written on the spur of the moment—I should say it was slightly feigned, because it is altered in places—it is touched up—the capital "O" is touched up; it is formed one way, and then distorted a little—it has been added to and altered—I allude to the letters "B K"—the initials on the receipt-stamp and the "O" has been added, too—it looks as if it was commenced and then altered—probably he was going to put a capital "O," and then altered it to a small one—that is what it looks like—I don't see anything else—with those two exceptions, the character of the handwriting looks like a natural hand—but for comparing it with other things I should not say there was any effort to disguise—it looks like a natural handwriting, it is very slightly disguised—I should be sorry to give a strong opinion on that—I should say it would be an easy thing for a person writing in a hurry to disguise his handwriting—the more rapidly you write the loss chance there is of disguising—I have a note of the sixteen different characteristics that I have alluded to—this is it (handing it in)—the letter to Mr. Walpole is written more slopingly than the receipt—I don't say anything about the ciphers—I don't think that persons writing ciphers are more off their guard—I was first consulted about two months ago, before Mr. Chabot, and before the prisoner was taken into custody—I was not examined before the Magistrate—this is the first time I have given evidence.
Re-examined. I formed my opinion from the comparison of the receipt with Mr. Walpole's letter, and confirmed it by the others—I first saw the others about a fortnight ago—I had formed my judgment, and reported to my employers before that.
Witnesses for the Defence.
JAMES QUINLAN . I am a junior clerk in the office of Mr. Francis Lamb, a solicitor, of 35, Bedford Row—I have been in the service three years and a half—it is part of my duty to enter in the call-book the names of persons who call—this is the book (produced)—I have here the names of the persons and the order in which they called at the office—I put my initials against the names—referring to 4th August I find that Mr. Martin called and Miss Wilson—I saw Mr. Martin and also Mr. Witt—Mr. Arthur Lamb called and saw Mr. Francis Lamb; and Mr. Bailey called, who saw Mr. Francis Lamb; and Mr. Martin, who saw Mr. Francis Lamb—that is the same Mr. Martin who had called earlier in the day—I saw Mr. Martin the first time he called, and Miss Wilson—I did not see the others—I mean I did not attend to them—I saw everyone that came to the office, and took in their names to Mr. Francis Lamb—the first time Mr. Martin called was about 11 o'clock—Mr. Francis Lamb Was not then in the office, and Mr. Martin left, and said he would call again—the next person who called was Miss Wilson, about half-an-hour after Mr. Martin—Mr. Francis Lamb was not there then, and she left—the next person who called was Mr. Witt, about ten minutes after Miss Wilson had left—I saw him, and another clerk also—before Mr. Arthur Lamb called, Mr. Francis Lamb had come to the office, and he was there when Mr. Arthur called—Mr. Arthur Lamb came about 12.50—I saw him first in the outer office, and he was shown into Mr. Francis Lamb's private room—whilst he was there Mr. Bailey called, and I
took in his name to Mr. Francis Lamb, on a piece of paper, before entering it in the call-book—when I went in with the paper I saw Mr. Arthur Lamb in the room, sitting in the arm-chair—that was about 12.55—when I came out again I entered Mr. Bailey's name—he stayed in the outer office—Mr. Martin called after that—I took his name in, and Mr. Arthur Lamb was still sitting there—that was about ten minutes after I had gone in the first time—I came out and entered Mr. Martin's name in the book, and about ten minutes after that Mr. Arthur Lamb came out—he nodded to Mr. Bailey, and went out of the outer office—at the time he went out both Mr. Martin and Mr. Bailey were still there—Mr. Bailey was then shown in to Mr. Francis Lamb—Mr. Martin and Mr. Bailey were speaking together in the outer office before that—I know the subject of their conversation.
Cross-examined. I was first asked about Mr. Arthur Lamb's calling about two weeks ago—never till then—I see by the book, Mr. Arthur Lamb called on the 8th August—I should think he called about 12.30 that day—Mr. Francis Lamb generally went out to his lunch about 1 o'clock, and he was out at that time—I remember Mr. Arthur Lamb calling, about 12.30, and I remember Mr. Francis Lamb going out to his lunch shortly after—I am speaking of the 8th August now—he went out to his lunch generally about 1 o'clock—without referring to the book I can't say when Mr. Arthur Lamb called before the 4th August—he did not call between the 4th and the 8th—he called on the 1st—that was early in the morning I should think, because his name appears second on the 1st August—that is the only reason I hare—I remember that it was about 11 o'clock on the 4th that Mr. Martin called, because when I saw him and Mr. Bailey, a little while back, at the office, speaking about something, I remembered it—I mean a fortnight ago—Mr. Bailey and Mr. Martin were talking the matter over, and I heard them—I remembered what the time was when Mr. Francis Lamb spoke to me about it—I should not have remembered without being asked what time it was Mr. Martin called—when Mr. Lamb spoke to me about it I remembered it—that was after Mr. Martin and Mr. Bailey talked about it—it was Mr. Francis Lamb who spoke to me about it—he asked me what time it was Mr. Arthur Lamb called, and I said "To the best of my knowledge it was about 1 o'clock"—my attention had not been called from the 4th August till about a fortnight ago.
Re-examined. What brought it to my mind was, Mr. Bailey was talking to Mr. Martin about some tennis bats, which Mr. Bailey's son was making, and he said the war would benefit him; that they could not supply them in France, and therefore the war would benefit his son—that is all I recollect—i remember saying to Mr. Martin that Mr. Arthur Lamb was in with Mr. Francis Lamb at the time—this conversation between Mr. Martin and Mr. Bailey was on 4th August.
WILLIAM BAILEY . I am a clerk, in the employment of Mr. Valpy—I remember Thursday, 4th August last, perfectly well—there was A wedding, which called my attention to the date—I called on Mr. Wood, of Bucklersbury, that day, about 11.30; it might, perhaps, be a little later, and I had to wait upwards of, or near upon, an hour—I took a draft declaration from Mr. Wood to Mr. Lamb, at 35, Bedford Row—I suppose it would take me a full half-hour to walk that distance—I walked very slowly, as I was suffering from rheumatism—when I got to Mr. Lamb's office I found he was engaged, and I sat down in the clerk's office—the witness Quinlan was there—whilst I was waiting Mr. Martin came in to Me Mr. Francis Lamb, and he
had to wait also—we got into conversation—while we were talking, Mr. Lamb's door opened, and Mr. Arthur Lamb came out—I should say I had sat there for at least twenty or twenty-five minutes at that time; at all events, quite twenty minutes—I had to go back again to Bucklersbury afterwards, after finishing my business with Mr. Francis Lamb—I should have been there at 1.45, but it was after 2 o'clock when I arrived there, and I had to wait till 4 o'clock.
Cross-examined. My attention was first called to this about three or four weeks ago, perhaps a month—I can fix the time by the marriage that took place—it was a marriage in the country, and my governor, Mr. Valpy, was to have gone to it, and I was anticipating having a holiday, but he did not go—I had had orders the day before to go to Mr. Wood's, in Bucklersbury, to get this draft declaration, which Mr. Valpy had made—the time is fixed in my memory, in consequence of this business respecting the marriage—that fixed it on my mind indelibly—had not that marriage happened on that, day, I should not have recollected; but that brought it to my mind distinctly—it was fixed on my memory in consideration of some considerable conversation taking place about the marriage—I had gone repeatedly before that to Mr. Wood's, and I never did go there till 11.30—I had been informed the day previous that I was to have a sort of holiday, that I had merely this business to do, and I could have the rest of the day to myself; but I did not get it—I had to wait such a long time.
THOMAS MARTIN . I was at one time a member of the firm of Martin, Best & Co., fur manufacturers—I had business with Mr. Francis Lamb, in August last—I remember going there on 4th August, on two occasions—the first time was at 11 o'clock—I saw the clerk Quinlan, but not Mr. Lamb—he was not in—I left, and went into the City to see Messrs. Digby & Sharp, solicitors—I saw Mr. Sharp, and then went through Leadenhall Market, to make out the time, so as to get back to Mr. Lamb's at 1 o'clock, as I had understood from the clerk that he would be disengaged at 1 o'clock—I got back about five minutes to 1 o'clock, and the clerk said Mr. Lamb's brother was with him—I saw Mr. Bailey in the outer office—I had seen him once or twice before, and we entered into conversation respecting a kind of game which they call tennis bats—I should think I waited in the outer office ten minutes to a quarter of an hour—I then saw Mr. Arthur Lamb come out of the office—I should think it was from about 1.10 or 1.15, and on that Mr. Bailey went in, and I still waited to see Mr. Lamb.
Cross-examined. I will swear it was not 12.20 the second time I called—my attention was first called to this about three weeks ago, I should think—I don't know that I talked this over with Mr. Bailey—there might have been some conversation—I have a distinct recollection of the 4th August from certain circumstances—there may have been something said about this with Mr. Bailey at Mr. Lamb's office three weeks ago, I really don't remember—I was merely asked, three weeks ago, whether I remembered the 4th August, and I said certainly I did—I really don't remember that my attention was called to this particular charge against Mr. Arthur Lamb—we did not talk much about it—it is possible my attention might have been called to that—I really can't swear to it—I don't know that Mr. Bailey called my attention to it particularly—I don't consider that he did—he never called my attention to it—I can't tell you whether Mr. Lamb asked me the question if I remembered the 4th August—I believe he asked me if I remembered it, but Mr. Bailey never did—I was asked about it at
Mr. Lamb's office when I called about some other business—he did not say at the time that it was with a view of giving evidence to day—I don't know whether Quinlan was there at the time Mr. Lamb mentioned it to me—I don't think Mr. Bailey was there—I can't remember—he was never there but one time—we had no conversation about it three weeks ago—I don't remember whether Mr. Bailey was there then—Mr. Lamb's was there and the clerk in the office—before I went to Mr. Lamb's, on 4th August, I had been at my own office—I left my own office at 10.30 precisely, and I walked from there to Mr. Lamb's—I intended seeing Mr. Lamb the first thing in the morning, to see him as he came to his office—he was not there, and then I went down into the City and saw Mr. Sharp, before 12 o'clock—I made no memorandum as to the time—I have a memorandum in my pocket, which calls ray attention to it most particularly—it is Digby & Sharp's bill—that stamps me particularly—I shall never forget it—I think I was led to the slaughter on that day—I won't say by whom, but I believe by Digby & Sharp—I was there on the 3rd, and I went back on the 4th to ask Mr. Lamb to take my case up for me—I generally go to my office at 10.30, as regularly as the clock—I got the papers from Digby & Sharp and made up my mind to take them to Mr. Francis Lamb, who kindly said he would pick up the case for me, and I met him coming out of his office at 4 o'clock precisely, by my own watch.
Re-examined. I don't recollect any conversation with Mr. Bailey three weeks ago, about the 4th August—I remember the conversation with him about the tennis bats that day most pointedly—I have not a particle of doubt as to the time I left my office that morning, or that I saw Mr. Francis Lamb about 1 o'clock, and I planned that I should get back to Mr. Lamb's—it was a matter of vast, importance to me, and I believe I got back there, if I remember right, and I think I can remember right, about 12.55.
GEORGE HALL HALL . I am an articled clerk to Mr. Francis Lamb—I remember the 4th August—I had to go to Kensington that morning, to examine some deeds—my appointment there was 10.30, at the London and County Bank—I was there about an hour, comparing the deeds with the abstract—I walked part of the way back and then got on an omnibus to the bottom of Chancery Lane, and I arrived at the office in Bedford Row about 12.30—I walked from Chancery Lane to Bedford Row—I saw Mr. Witt, the accountant, there—I attended to some business of his—I have a back room, which opens into the clerks' office—Mr. Francis Lamb's private room is the front room—the clerks' office is in the middle, and mine is at the back—I made an entry at the time with reference to Mr. Witt's business—I have the diary here—persons in Quinlan's office would not be visible to me in my room when the door was shut.
Cross-examined. It was 12.30 when I came back to the office—I then went into my own room, and was at work there—I did not sec Mr. Arthur Lamb.
FRANCIS LAMB . I am a solicitor, and brother of the prisoner—I remember the 4th August—I have refreshed my memory by my diary, which I have here—referring to this entry I am certain I must have seen Mr. Martin and the other persons who have been mentioned on that day—I cannot accurately fix the time, but I should say it would be at the time they mention, it was as near 1 o'clock as possible, I should think, when my brother was with me—I remember that he was with me a considerable
time on that day; I cannot accurately say how long, but I should say twenty minutes or more, possibly.
Cross-examined. There is nothing in the diary about my brother; it would not be entered, because it was not about business that I saw him; it was on a private matter of his own—I see his name in the call-book on that particular day—that is not the only thing that calls it to my memory; I recollect the conversation that I had with him on that particular day—I find I must have been late at the office, because I see I was engaged in the City in the morning, and that would take me away during the time those persons called in the first part of the day—Mr. Bailey's name appears first here—this entry is only roughed out by my clerk; the entry itself is made by me at the end of the day—he takes the call-book and roughs them out; that would be no criterion of the time the persons came there, although he would probably be the first person I saw—this "Re Wilson" is in the clerk's handwriting; "Ibbetson" is in mine—then the clerk has written "Attending Mr. Bailey on his action"—that is all he would know, and I added these words "And bringing me draft declaration, as brought to me by Captain Ibbetson's solicitor, and conferring thereon, and writing to Dr. Valpy," all that is in my writing, and the next item is "Attending Mr. Martin"—I do not make the skeleton of the entries—in all probability I should put down "Ibbetson," either the following morning, or if I have time, before I leave in the evening—the clerk would enter them as he finds the names in the book, and leave me to fill in what I saw the client about—the first thing is the name "Wilson," that is in the clerk's handwriting; that would be written on the next morning when he makes up his book for the day, taking it from the call-book, or it might have been in the afternoon if he had time.
Re-examined. The first person I saw on business that day was Mr. Bailey—that was immediately after my brother had left—I have no earthly doubt that the persons there named were there that day—I saw Mr. Martin twice that day, I met him as I was going out of my office.
GEORGE WILLIAM MCARTHUR REYNOLDS . I am the father-in-law of the prisoner—he has been married to my daughter five years and a half—when they married I agreed to allow them 300l. a year, up to the amount of 2000l., and I have done so—I have lived on intimate and affectionate terms with him and my daughter ever since their marriage—they dined with me regularly two or three times a week—I knew his affairs perfectly well—of course when he first married he had scarcely any practice, because he was only just called to the bar, but for the last two or three years he has been getting on very well; he has written several legal handy-books which have produced him money, and he may have made 130l., 140l., or 150l., a year, or something of that sort, besides what I have allowed him—he has not been living in a style more than would be supported by that income—I always thought they lived in a most moderate and economical style—they have lived in Tollington Road about two years—he was in town, and visiting me during September and October—his character has been everything that could be desired—I have known him twelve or fourteen years, and know his handwriting—I should say this receipt was decidedly not his handwriting.
COURT. Q. Did you know of his being in any difficulty, or under pressure? A. No, not at all—I did not know of his correspondence with Mr. Shee respecting some claim against him, I never heard of it.
MR. GIFFARD. Q. Did you know of any dispute about rent? A. No, I never beard of it; if he had applied to me for any sum of money I would have advanced it to him at once, if he had been in any embarrassment.
FREDERICK REYNOLDS . I am a medical man, and a member of the College of Surgeons, of 16, Lothbury Villas, Tollington Park—I am the prisoner's brother-in-law—I saw this receipt last night; it is decidedly not the prisoner's handwriting.
HENRY ONSLOW CURLING . I am a solicitor—I have known the prisoner fifteen years; I have become acquainted with his handwriting during that time, and know it perfectly—I have been shown the receipt, a photograph of which is before me—it is decidedly not the prisoner's writing; it does not bear the slightest resemblance to it.
Cross-examined. I have received letters from him, and have also employed him for the purpose of preparing conveyances; I have attended at his chambers, and I have seen him make alterations in them.
COURT. Q. Had he any clerk? A. He had a clerk, a boy; I can't say whether he was his clerk, he was a clerk in the office who opened the door, and when I asked if Mr. Lamb was at home he told me he was.
Re-examined. I have frequently been at his chambers, sometimes two or three times a week—there arc two entrances to them, both on the second and third floors—the chambers are very peculiar in this way; Mr. Lamb's name happened to be on the second floor, and he used to sit in a room on the third floor; the approach from the second to the third floor is by means of a staircase, which has been cut through the ceiling, and Mr. Lamb seeing you in his own room on the third floor, for convenience sake would show you out of the doorway on the third floor, so that you would not have to retrace your steps through the second floor—anybody calling upon him might go to the third floor at once, without passing from the second floor to the third; I have done so myself.
HENRY PERCY DOWERS . I live at 8, Grafton Place, Euston Square, and am clerk to Mr. Eden, of Gray's Inn Square—I have known Mr. Lamb between four and five years—I have seen his handwriting on many occasions; I have seen him write, and have seen letters from him, and have become acquainted with his handwriting—I have been shown the receipt; to the best of my belief, it is certainly not in the handwriting of Mr. Lamb.
NEWTON TRUSCOTT . I am a clerk in the Admiralty—I have a great deal to do with handwriting—I have known the prisoner ten years intimately—I have had an immense number of opportunities of seeing his handwriting—I have examined this receipt, and have formed a very decided judgment that it is not in his handwriting.
LAWRENCE MACKENZIE . I have attended to the study of handwriting as a person of skill—I have examined the receipt in question, together with the letter of 30th August, and this morning I have seen the five additional letters produced—I have also seen the draft letter to Mr. Walpole, found on the prisoner—I have examined all those documents carefully with a view to form a judgment whether the receipt was written by the prisoner, and the judgment I have arrived at is, that the receipt and the letters were written by two different persons.
Cross-examined. I am an expert, and carry on business at Featherstone Buildings, Holborn—I have not appeared in Court before as an expert—this is the first time—I am a lithographer—I have been called on to give an opinion with reference to handwriting by Messrs. Torr and Co., solicitors,
of Bedford Row, about two months ago; and on another occasion—I forget the name—it is some time since, in Lincoln's Inn Fields—five years since; and I once had to go to Norwich—I know Mr. Netherclift and Mr. Chabot—they are generally considered the most experienced gentlemen in that line of business, and they are looked on as such—I heard them give evidence—I saw this document on Friday last, and examined it with several letters—not all—part I saw this morning—in the first instance I examined it with the letter to Mr. Walpole, and this draft letter—I have compared the draft letter with Mr. Walpole's letter—there are slight differences, not considerable, but still the character of the writing is the same.
Re-examined. There are two other gentlemen, Mr. Ray and Mr. Mattison, who practice as experts—Mr. Mattison has retired, I believe—I was not aware that Mr. Ray had.
JAMES FRANKLIN . I am an officer in Her Majesty's 6th Regiment of Foot—I have known the prisoner twelve years—I have had frequent opportunities of seeing his handwriting, during the last five years particularly—I have formed a judgment as to whether this receipt is in his handwriting or not—I say it is not.
GEORGE KOSSUTH REYNOLDS . I have known the prisoner almost all my life—he is my brother-in-law—I have had frequent opportunities of observing his handwriting—I have received letters from him—I have lived with him—I have seen his legal documents, and read them—I should say this receipt is certainly not in his handwriting, any more than it is mine.
JANE LAMB . I am the prisoner's sister-in-law—I have known him about twelve years—I have had frequent opportunities of seeing his handwriting for the last five years—I saw this receipt on Friday last—I think it is not his handwriting.
Rev. E. S. May, D.D., incumbent of St. Andrew's, Hastings, Rev. F. bachelor, chaplain of H.M. Prisons, The Right Rev. Archbishop Manning, and eleven other gentlemen, deposed to the prisoner's good character.
GUILTY of receiving. Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury, on account of his previous good character, and also by the prosecutors— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 10th, 1871.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. METCALFE and SLADE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COLLINS the Defence.
Vere Street—the prisoner has been employed there some yearn—his duty was to examine the letters for the suburban towns—on the evening of 16th December he commenced examining letters at 5 o'clock—the fixed time for the bag to leave the office was 5.20, and it left at 5.24—after the bag was made up, I saw him leave the table with some letters in his hand—he went to the other end of the office, and dropped two into the dead-letter box, and put a third into his pocket—a letter, addressed to Leatherhead, should be put into the bag for the General Post Office, leaving at 5.20—the prisoner had examined the letters, and tied up the bundle for that bag—he then went to another sorting-table, and commenced sorting the letters for exdelivery—he had been there two or three minutes, when I called him aside, and said "Mawe, you have just put a letter into your pocket, which is a very improper thing for you to do in the office, even if the letter is your own"—he muttered something—I understood him to say "I have"—he seemed very much confused—I said "Show it to me"—he took it from his pocket and gave it to me—it was this letter for Leatherhead, which should have been dispatched at 5.20—I said "You must go with me to the postmaster's room"—it is addressed "Miss C. Grays, H. Barclay, Esq., Eastwich Park, Leatherhead"—it was unopened, and bore the stamp of that day—it contained 3s., wrapped in wool—the prisoner went with me to the postmaster's room, and I reported the circumstances to the postmaster, who gave the prisoner in charge—he admitted putting it into his pocket, but said it was with no dishonest intention—if the prisoner had discovered that it contained coin, his duty was to give it to me, or to one of the assistants, or to have emptied it into one of the coin letter-boxes, that it might be registered; if he did not do that he should have sent it by the dispatch which had then been gone ten minutes—the prisoner went up to the coin letter-box, but did not put a letter in—he stopped close to it to speak to a letter-carrier, with this letter in his hand—he might have touched it—it was after that that he went to the dead-letter box—it was his duty to put letters in there.
Cross-examined. He put the letter into his outside breast-pocket—he wore a uniform coat, with an open pocket—there is no flap to it—he ought to have dropped it into the coin letter-box—nearly 100 people were in the office—he was eight or nine yards from me when he put the letter into his pocket—after that he came back, and commenced sorting at another table, for the next delivery—I made the same statement to the solicitor, word for word, which I made to the Magistrate—the prisoner has been in the employment about five years—I was not aware that he was under medical treatment—he had been under Dr. Harris, the post-office doctor, just before this—I do not know that he had had leave of absence; but there are so many of us I cannot tell.
MR. METCALFE. Q. Did the letter-carrier who he spoke to come to him? A. No, the prisoner went to the letter-carrier, who was close to the box, spoke to him, and went on to the Dead Letter box with the letter in his hand—the letter-box is about ten yards from the dead letter-box, and the sorting table to which he returned is about seven yards distant—he then went on sorting for the next delivery—I was close to him when he commenced the other duty—he might have given the letter to me—two assistant overseers were in the room; and if he had given it to either of them it would have been correct—he did not say that he took it for the purpose of registration—I understood him to say "I have."
O'NEIL SEGRAVE . I am a gentleman, of 21, Dorset Square—this letter is my writing—I posted it in Craufurd Street on 14th December, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon—it is addressed to my daughter, and contained three shillings, wrapped up in cotton—it is in the same state in which I posted it.
Cross-examined. I did not register it, as I was in a hurry.
WILLIAM PAYNE . I am a letter-carrier at the western office—I was employed sorting on the day in question—the prisoner came up to me in the evening, on or about that day, and to the best of my recollection asked me whether I knew the name that a card or letter was addressed to—it was addressed "Gilbert Street" alone, without any locality—that was one of the letters put into the dead letter box—the prisoner would put it in there, after he had endorsed it.
Cross-examined. There is a great deal to do to get the bags off.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "All that I have to say is that I certainly placed the letter in my pocket; but I did not do so with any bad intention. I never did it wilfully, for I did not want for anything."
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
111. MARIA DAVIS (26), ANN HANDY (56), and GEORGE HANDY (26) , Robbery on Francois D'Albero, and stealing from his person 40l., in gold, one 100-franc gold piece, and one forty-franc gold piece, his property. Other Counts—charging ANNand GEORGE HANDY with feloniously harbouring the said Maria Davis, well knowing her to have committed the said felony.
MR. BRINDLEY conducted the Prosecution.
FRANCOIS D'ALBERO (Through an Interpreter.) I am superintendent of the stables of Prince Aquila, at the Mews, Grosvenor Square—on 23rd December, about 1 o'clock in the morning, I was at the Shakespeare public-house, near the Victoria Station, and saw the prisoner Davis there—she took me in a cab to a a street—I do not know the name of it—I went into a house with her, and into a parlour—I had in my trowsers pocket a red Russian porte monnaie, containing 100 francs, in gold, a forty-franc piece, and 40l. in gold; and I wore a pin—I was standing up with Davis when she twice passed a handkerchief before my mouth, and I found myself quite giddy—I afterwards found myself lying on a sofa, and saw Ann Handy warming herself by the fire-place—she said to me "Get away, get away"—I said "No," tapping my pocket, and putting my finger where my pin had been—my purse and pin were gone—she went out and fetched the male prisoner, George, who said "Get away, get away"—I was afraid, because he had a stick in his hand, and I withdrew, holding a chair in my hand before me—I left the chair there and went out and spoke to a policeman, by signs, and showed him my card—he took a cab and told the driver to go, and I was taken home—I had taken overnight just a drop more than usual; but I had all my recollection and my senses of what took place—this 100-franc piece and forty-franc piece (produced) are the same; they belong to me—I have had the 100-franc piece six months—this (produced) is my pin.
Davis. Q. Did not you say that you would call again for the French coin? A. No; I do not speak English at all.
Ann Handy. I never spoke to you.
at the door, Davis answered it—I said "Do you know that man?" (painting to the prosecutor)—she made no answer, but walked into the parlour—I followed her, with the prosecutor, and Detective Taylor and an interpreter—I began searching the room—Davis had this purse in her hand—I asked her what she had got there—the male prisoner, who was present, said "That money is mine, it is what my wife has earned by prostitution"—Ann Handy was there, and a man not in custody, and a female—the prisoners are related, they are mother, son, and daughter—I said to George "Who is your wife?"—he pointed to the female not in custody, and said "Her"—she then said "It is my money"—George Handy said "No; 1l. of it is mine, 2l. is yours"—Maria then said "It is my money"—I took the purse, counted the money, and found 10l. in English gold, 11s. in silver, and a penny—I told the three prisoners they must consider themselves in my custody, for robbing the prosecutor of 40l., and other property—on the way to the station Maria said "It is no use telling you a lie, it is what he gave me to have connection with me in different ways"—I asked her how much; she said "All you have got"—after they were charged at the station, Maria, who was sitting on a bench separate from the other two prisoners, dropped this key (produced)—I then went back to the house, searched the front room thoroughly, and in a basket under the window I found the life-preserver, covered up with some old clothes—I went into a back room occupied by a young man not in custody, and unlocked two drawers of a chest with the key which Maria dropped at the station, and found a quantity of female's under-clothing; also a black jacket and a Paisley shawl—I unfolded the shawl and shook it, and these two pocket-handkerchiefs fell out containing 22l. in English gold, a 100-franc piece, and a 40-franc piece, which the prosecutor identifies—there were some red stains and some white powder on the handkerchiefs—to the best of my belief I have seen Davis wearing this shawl and this black jacket—the landlady said, in the prisoners' presence, that the front room was occupied by the two female prisoners, and the ante-room by the male prisoner, who was about to leave in a week—I have known Davis living there eight or nine months.
Prisoner George Handy. Q. Did not I answer the door the first time you came? A. Yes. I said I wanted to see Maria Davis, and asked her to come and have something to drink; she shut the door, and said she could not as she had some friends there. I then came again with the prosecutor.
WILLIAM TAYLOR (Detective Officer B.) I was with White and the prosecutor—after the prisoners were charged I searched the place where the male prisoner had sat on the couch, and found this packet of pawn-tickets, one of which relates to the pin.
THOMAS CLARKE . I am assistant to Mr. Haywood, a pawnbroker, of Vauxhall Road—I proved this pin, it was pledged on the morning of the 23rd December, by, I believe, the prisoner Davis; but she had a dark jacket or cape on.
Davis. I never was in the shop.
CHARLOTTE COSTEN . I live at 29, Cambridge Terrace—the two female prisoners lodge in the front parlour, and the male prisoner occupied a room behind—on Thursday night, 22nd December, I heard a disturbance in the house; I had been disturbed before by the mother and daughter quarrelling, and therefore did not get up—I heard someone go from the back room to the front.
Prisoner George. Q. There are two back rooms? A. Yes—I cannot say
whether you were there that night—you occupied a small room down three steps, and I heard someone come up those steps—the other back room is not down steps—I have known you six months—you bear a good character.
MR. BRINDLEY. Q. Was it a man's step, or a woman's? A. I cannot say—I heard the front parlour door and the street door slammed—the prisoners have latch-keys—they were about the house as usual, next morning—Davis has occasionally worn a black jacket and a Paisley shawl—a room adjoining the front parlour, was occupied by a young man—there was a chest of drawers in that room—he and Davis, I believe, know each other, and he allowed her to use two of those drawers—she kept her things there, I believe—I have never seen the life-preserver before—I left the house before 6 o'clock the next morning, and the door was bolted, which was an unusual thing—I always go out first.
Davids statement before the Magistrate was that the prosecutor gave her the money for a certain purpose, and that her mother and brother were not there. Ann Handy's statement was that the prosecutor was very drunk when he came in, and that she never went into the parlour till past 3 o'clock in the morning. George Handy's statement was that he was in bed, and heard somebody walking backwards and forwards, and did not get up, and saw nothing of it.
Davis Defence. I am perfectly innocent. The gentleman gave me the money, and said he would call again for the foreign coin.
Ann Handy's Defence. He was very drunk. I never saw him afterwards.
George Bandy's Defence. I was in bed by 12.30, and in about an hour I heard a knocking at the door, but never got out of my bed till 7 o'clock. My mother and I know nothing of it. I work hard for my living, as the landlady knows.
DAVIS and ANN HANDY— GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment each.
GEORGE HANDY— GUILTY, as an accessary after the fact. He was further charged with a previous conviction at this Court, in November 1868, of feloniously uttering counterfeit coin, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
112. PATRICK BROWN (18), MICHAEL PRENDERVILLE (24), and DAVID RAMSAY (22) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Whitbread, and stealing therein 17s. 2d., in money, his property.
MR. BRINDLEY conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES GOSS . I am barman at the "Coach and Horses," Kensington—on the morning of 18th December, I came down about 6.45, and found that someone had entered the house by the back window, which was safe when I went to bed, at 12.15—I missed 10s. in coppers, and 6s. or 7s. in threepenny and fourpenny pieces, which had been in a glass on the mantelshelf, and some packets of shillings—anyone who came into the bar could see them—they were safe when I went to bed—I know Brown—he was the last to leave the house the night before—he left at 12 o'clock, just as we closed—the other two prisoners were there also, but they left before him—the money belonged to Mr. Whitbread—the fourpenny piece (produced) is rather smooth at the edge—I noticed that when I put it into the glass the night before, and it had a black speck in the middle, on the head side, but that has got rubbed off, if this is it—I believe it is one of the coins I put into the glass the night before, but I should not like to swear to it—the barman showed it to me the next morning, there was ft spot on it then—it is a
sash window, with a catch at the meeting bar, which was left unfastened—the house is in the parish of St. Mary Abbott, Kensington.
Ramsay. Q. Was I with these two prisoners? A. No; I did not see you at all.
WILLIAM TAYLOR . I am a barman at the "Coach and Horses"—about 11.15 on this evening Brown came in with Prenderville, and called for a pint of ale—Brown gave me this fourpenny piece (produced—I showed it to Goss, who put it one side.
DANIEL MORGAN (Policeman T 55). On Thursday morning, 15th December, I saw the three prisoners in High Street, Kensington, nearly opposite the "Coach and Horses," between 1.15 and 1.30—the houses were closed—I heard Prenderville say to Brown "Have you any money?"—he said "No"—Prenderville said "I must have some to get a pot in the morning"—I told them they must go home, it was an unseasonable time to be out in the street—Prenderville said "Don't be cross, mate, for we are all hard up"—they stood talking a few minutes among themselves, and I told them again to go away—they went towards the "Coach and Horses," and I went round my beat.
Prenderville. Q. In what state was I? A. You had been drinking, but you were not drunk.
Ramsay. I believe the "Coach and Horses" is situated at the top of the buildings where I live, and therefore I must pass it? Witness. If you live there, you must pass it.
JOHN BROWN (Policeman T 137). On 14th December, I was on duty in Jennings' Buildings about midnight, and saw Prenderville and Ramsay standing by the "Cumberland" public-house, nearly opposite the "Coach and Horses"—Brown came up in front of Jennings' Buildings, and stood and looked both ways—I said "What's up to-night, Brown, have you got another swindle on to-night?"—he said "No, I have turned all that up"—he crossed the road and joined the other two prisoners at the "Cumberland" public-house—I went on my beat, and saw them all again about 1.15., after the public-houses were closed, standing near the "Coach and Horses"—I saw them again about 3 o'clock, coming from Jennings' Buildings, from the direction of the "Coach and Horses"—they went towards Knighbtsbridge—the "Coach and Horses" is almost in the centre of Jennings' Buildings.
Ramsay. Q. Do you know me to be a bad character, or to be convicted? A. No—I have seen you before, many a time.
JAMES SIMPSON . I live in Jennings' Buildings, Kensington—my wall joins the prosecutor's—on 15th December, between 1 and 2 o'clock, I heard a noise, got up, looked out, and saw a man with a white jacket, who, to the best of my belief, was Brown, standing on the water-closet of my house—he passed my back door, and walked through into Palace Place—he called to some person on the other side, and called him a b——y long s——.
Brown. You swore it was a man with a white slop, and mine is a jacket? Witness. It is what I call a slop—I had no light but the moon.
JOHN KELIBER . I live in Jennings' Buildings—I was at the "Coach and Horses," on 14th December, between 11 and 12 o'clock—Brown came in, and said it would be a nice spree, pointing to ten stacks of coppers on the mantelshelf, done up in parcels—I said "That would not last you long"—he said "Look at all the threepenny bits and sixpenny bits in the glasses"—they were on the mantelpiece in front of the bar—I said "There is not above 5s. worth there," and left the house—I went over to
the "Duke of Cumberland," and Brown came in after me—I also saw Prenderville and Ramsay there, and Brown spoke to them—on the Friday week before this Wednesday, Brown asked me if I would get him a poker—I asked him what he wanted it for—he said "To get into the Coach"—I understood him to mean the "Coach and Horses"—I said "I cannot get one"—five or six others stood about, and heard him say so—I told another chap after the robbery.
Brown. Q. Did you say anything about the poker at Hammersmith? A. No, it was not asked for—I have known you all my life; we live close together.
WASHINGTON DIMMOND . I am porter at Kensington Workhouse—on Wednesday, 14th December, Ramsay and Prenderville were discharged from the workhouse, and on the following Friday Ramsay was readmitted—I had heard of the robbery, and said "What have you been up to this time?"—he said "Prenderville has forced his way into the 'Coach and Horses,' and has taken from 15s. to 16s."—I said "What a foolish fellow he is; this is the second time he has done it."
Ramsay. Q. Did I say that he had forced his way in, or did I say I had heard that he had? A. You told me that Prenderville had done it.
BARTHOLOMEW RICHARDSON . I am an inmate of Kensington Workhouse—on a Friday, about 16th or 17th December, a boy began to talk about the robbery at the "Coach and Horses," and Ramsay said "What do you know about it?"—the boy said "I was there when Prenderville was taken"—Ramsay said "If you were there you don't know much about it; I know more about it than you do; I know all about it"—the boy said "He was taken for a sixpenny-piece"—Ramsay said "No, it was not, it was a fourpenny-piece; but you could hardly recognize it between a three-penny-piece and a fourpenny-piece; it was a very black one; the landlord marked it because he could not tell which it was"—after that Ramsay said that the robbery was committed about 2 o'clock in the night—previous to that he said that the landlord was in the habit of putting some money away overnight, for the cook—10s. worth of coppers, and the fourpenny-piece was put among those coppers, for the use of the house next day.
JAMES DALY (Detective Officer T.) I took Brown on the evening of the 15th, at the "Cumberland Arms"—I told him the charge; he said "All right, I will go with you quiet," and he advised Prenderville, who was taken at the same time, to go quietly—when we got outside the door, Brown said "I will make it b——warm for those b—'s who rounded on me"—there was tremendous cursing and swearing both by him and Prenderville—Brown said "There were three of us in it; you have only got two of us; you have come too Lite for the money, I have just got one b——fourpence, let me spend this and I don't care"—he afterwards said "I will never round, I will best you; I will make the most of my time in the stone-yard"—when he was locked up he called to me and said "Would you like to have some good cigars, I have had some good fourpenny ones all day"—I took Ramsay next evening at the workhouse—I told him the charge—he said "All right," and came outside the gate and said "I expect it is that job at 2 o'clock in the morning you want us for"—I said "Yes"—he said "Oh, Mr. b——Tiger rounded on me"—that is the name Prenderville is known by—he was taken to the station.
Ramsay. Q. You buy in your depositions that I said that I knew
nothing about it? A. Yes, you that in the workhouse—I did not say that Prenderville and Brown had rounded on you; but you said that they were no pals, they had rounded.
ROBERT O'HEARN (Police Sergeant T. I took Prenderville at the "Cumberland," and told him it was for breaking into the "Coach and Horses," and stealing 15s. or 16s.—he got into a violent passion, and said God strike him b——blind, if he had a revolver he would shoot the b——who rounded on him—he was partially drunk—before I heard of the robbery I saw Brown and Prenderville together, going from one public-house to another, half drunk—on 23rd December, at the second hearing, I was at the Police Court, standing at the cell doors; two female prisoners were put into the cell adjoining that in which Brown and Ramsay were—the female prisoners asked Brown "How is Poll?"—he said "She is all right"—he swore an oath that he did not care about his mother and his whole family if she was all right—he said "We were all three in it; Ramsay pushed me up the wall, and Preuderville was looking out for the slop"—I called Pike, another officer, but nothing more was said except "We were all three in it," and they commenced dancing and singing, and swearing in an awful manner.
Brown. Q. How can you tell who it was when three men were in the cell? A. I knew your voices well; I have known you all for years.
Ramsay. Q. How long have you known me? A. Between six and seven years; it is more than four years, for I had you in custody five years ago for breaking into Kensington Workhouse.
Ramsay. That is only two yearn ago? Witness. That was the second time you broke in—you have just come from Paris—you went there with another man, who has been shot.
COURT to W. DIMMOND. Q. Has the workhouse been broken open twice? A. Once since I have been there, which is three years.
Brown's Defence. I was not with these prisoners at all. I did not speak to them. I was with Jack Swift, and when the house was closed I went home. I did not like to wake my mother up, and slept on the stairs, and Prenderville said "It is no use going to bed now; I have a job for you in the morning." He took me to Co vent Garden at 3 o'clock, and when he came back he went into Cumberland Street and had some ale; he said nothing about the fourpenny-piece. Does it stand to reason that if I had stolen the money I should have taken it to the house to change it.
Prenderville's Defence. I was drinking on the night in question, with Ramsay, having some half-pence saved up for Christmas, and got drunk. I asked Brown to go to Covent Garden with me, and we were going there when the constable met us. I had no money.
Ramsay's Defence. I was drinking with Prenderville, and when the house closed we separated, and I went home. I was not with them after 1 o'clock, and know nothing about the affair.
Brown** was further charged with having been convicted in April, 1868, and Prenderville** in December, 1869, to which they both
BROWN and PRENDERVILLE— Seven Years' Penal Servitude each.
RAMSAY**— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. POWELL conducted the Prosecution; and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence.
Kensington Branch, and was so in November—on 22nd November the prisoner opened an account there, and about six days after he brought me some bills; these produced are two of them, this one for 24l. is drawn by T. J. Smitheman, in the prisoner's writing; it is not endorsed, the transaction was not completed—this other bill for 67l. 5l. 4d. is in the prisoner's writing, and endorsed by him—he asked me to place them to his credit—I said that his account was small, and had only been there six days, and I considered it much too soon to do so—he said he wanted the accommodation particularly, if I could oblige him, and being pressed, I said I would put the smaller one to his credit, provided the names were good—he left me to make my own inquiries, and they turned out good, so far as the character of the persons was concerned, and their solvency; but the transaction was never completed; it was never placed to his credit—it was not endorsed—the 24l. bill was passed through my book provisionally; but I was not bound by that, it was simply a guiding entry—it was not entered in the ledger—I entered 24l. 10s.; but the entry was made in error, and scored out at once—the prisoner gave time for letters to pass, and called again in a day or two; I told him the inquiry as to the character of the people was satisfactory, and he left—I next saw him when I went to his place, a few hours after, to inform him I had discovered that the bills were forgeries; he said "Oh! are they? they must have forgotten accepting them"—I said "It is hardly likely a person would accept a bill and forget it; you had better see the acceptors, and clear yourself"—he said he would do so, and I left him—I kept the bills.
Cross-examined. Q. The defendant originally had an account at the Suburban Bank? A. Yes; be afterwards came to our bank, I do not know why—when I first saw him about the bills he had about 47l. to his credit, and he paid in more afterwards—he made a suggestion about securities which he was anxious to meet at the end of the week; it was therefore very probably Thursday, or it might have been Wednesday—he did not tell me that he had a large contract going on in Cornwall Gardens—I went to his place, it is a regular tiler's shop—he was introduced to our bank—we were to hold the other bill as collateral security, and place this one to his credit—he did not say that it would be some 7l. or 3l. more than he had to his credit—he mentioned 15l.—the 15l. he mentioned did not relate to 15l. which he expected would be paid to his account by Mr. Wilkins on Saturday—the bank does not prosecute this case.
MR. POWELL. Q. Do you know anything about his account at the Suburban Bank? A. He showed me his book; but that was confidential.
JOHN WILKINS . I am a builder, of 2, Westmoreland Place, Pimlico—I have known the prisoner four or five years, during which time he has often worked for me—he worked for me last September, in Stanhope Gardens, and Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington—I arranged to pay him cash for the greater portion of the work, but I did not require a certain portion for five or six months—he suggested doing it all at once, that he might do it cheaper—I said "I have no objection, but as I do not want the work done yet, you must take a bill"—I did not give him a bill, but he asked me for cash in October, and I gave him a cheque for 14l.—his account for the work done was, I think, 14l. 6s. 7d.—the acceptance of this bill for 24l. is not signed by me, or by my authority, nor does it resemble my writing in the slightest—I have never in my life authorized a person to accept a
bill for me—I paid these cheques (produced) to the prisoner—he sent me this letter (produced) from the House of Detention.
Cross-examined. I have accepted one hill for this man—I do not owe him a shilling, he owes me 1l. 1s. 7 1/2 d., for he is bound to make his work satisfactory, and he has not done so—he has done a great deal of work for me at Stanhope Gardens—he has a shop at 144, Brompton Road—he has worked for others—I do not bank at the Imperial Bank, but at the National, Pimlico Branch—I did not know that he banked at the Imperial—I knew that he once banked at the Suburban.
WILLIAM BARRETT . I am a joiner, of 4, Gloucester Terrace, Kensington Gate—I have known the prisoner six or seven years—I have lent him money, and have allowed him to pass money through my bank, and have given him cheques for cash—these cheques (produced) are signed by me—the prisoner has given me money for them for his convenience to transmit to the country, and I have lent him money by cheque—these are the genuine cheques which I gave him—the endorsements to them are in his writing—he was acquainted with my writing through these cheques—the acceptance to this bill for 67l. is not my writing—I have not accepted a bill these twenty years, and never authorized any person to do so for me—I last saw the prisoner on the day the inquiry was made about the 60l.—he came to my house, and lifted up his hands and said "I am sorry, I am sorry I have done it, you have been a good friend to me"—his wife came first, and went down on her knees and begged I would forgive him—I knew the prisoner was speaking about the bill—he came to my house for the purpose—he did not give any reason for doing it—this acceptance does not exactly resemble my writing, but it is an imitation—I cannot say that it is the prisoner's writing, it does not resemble his thoroughly.
Cross-examined. There is no difference between the "Barrett" on these cheques and in this signature—I have made some of the cheques payable to Mrs. Smitheman—I have known him six or seven years as a respectable, honest tradesman, conducting his business respectably—Saturday is a day on which money is often paid in to people's accounts—I do not recollect his telling me on the day he came to my premises that when he left the bill at the bank he had 59l. to his account—he told me he had asked the bankers to send him 10l. or 12l., and that they told him he must give them some security.
MR. POWELL. Q. Do you sign letters in the same way as cheques? A. Yes.
WILLIAM CATER . I am clerk to Mr. George Powell, the solicitor for the prosecution—I went with Detective Watts to the prisoner's shop, some day in the middle of December—I had the prisoner's description, and saw him among others—I said "Is Mr. Smitheman in?"—he said "I am one of them"—I said "Mr. Thomas Smitheman?"—he said "My name is John"—I asked him where Mr. Thomas Smitheman was—he said "At Brighton," and he would not return for three days—I asked him if he knew Mr. Wilkins—he said that they were doing a great deal of work for him—I asked him who attended to the work—he said "Mr. Thomas"—I was at the police-station, and heard the prisoner ask Mr. Wilkins to withdraw the charge—he said that he merely placed the bills there as security, not for discount, and if it had not been for the banker it would never have been heard of, as he should have taken them up before they fell due.
the evening of 19th December—I followed Curtis in, and heard the prisoner say "My name is John, there are three brothers of us. I know something about the bill; my brother has had some transactions with Mr. Wilkius, but he is at Brighton"—Curtis then left and returned with Mr. Wilkins, who said "That is the man, take him to the station"—I did so, and while in the dock he said to Mr. Wilkins "Do not go on with it, I only placed it there for security, not for discount; if it had not been for the bankers' clerk you would never have known anything about it, for I intended taking it up in two days."
Cross-examined. I have been to his premises—he keeps a tiler's shop—I know nothing against him.
The prisoner's letter to Mr. Wilkins, from the House of Detention, was only partially legible, it stated: "I humbly beg your pardon, hoping and trusting in your mercy upon me." "I pray you most earnestly to forgive me, and overlook this matter, and let me out so that I may get your work all done." "He made 1000 demurs about lending the few pounds, so I pulled out the two bills, and said 'Well, you may keep those until Saturday for better security.' "
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, January 10th, 1871.
115. JOHN VEVERS (61) , To stealing two coats, one waistcoat, and three pairs of trowsers, the property of Henry Deverson Clark— He received a good character—Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor— Four Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image]
116. WILLIAM ANDERSON (21), JAMES MURRAY (18), and WILLIAM ROBINSON (17) , Stealing two pipes, the property of John Brett— ROBINSON PLEADED GUILTY .—He also PLEADED GUILTY to having been before convicted**— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
MR. LANGFORD, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence against Anderson and Murray.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. HORACE BROWN and MEAD conducted the Prosecution.
EDWARD LATTER (City Policeman 728). On the 9th December last I was in Great Tower Street, in plain clothes, about 5.15—I saw the two prisoners there, and watched them—Gorman went into the "City Arms" public-house, and Ford remained outside—when he came out they walked along East-cheap, and went to the post-office at the corner of Pudding Lane—Ford went into the office—I looked in, and I saw him put something down on the counter—I saw the clerk in the post-office give him some change and a stamp—I afterwards went into the post-office, and made a communication to the clerk, Alexander Skinner—in consequence of what I heard from him I followed the two prisoners as far us Fish Street Hill—I there met Pascoe, another officer, and with his assistance I took the prisoners to the station—Ford struggled very hard to get away, and tried to get his hand between the railings of the chapel in Fish Street Hill, and Pascoe took out of his hand
two shillings and five penny pieces—I searched him at the station, and found a sealed envelope addressed "Pension Paymaster, Southampton"—there was a blank piece of note paper in it and a penny stamp—I received a counterfeit half-crown from Skinner—I found this purse and a farthing on Gorman.
Ford. Q. When you saw me on Tower Hill, was there anything remarkable about me? A. I saw both of you loitering about, and I watched you—I saw you pass some money in the post-office—I did not hear you call for anything—I was outside—I went into the post-office afterwards, and when I came out I found you both walking up Fish Street Hill—I took you to the post-office, and said "Here is the man that passed the bad money"—the postmaster said "This is the man;" and he gave me the half-crown—I had never seen you before that night, to my knowledge.
EMILY HERNE . I am manager at the "City Arms" public-house, Great Tower Street—on 9th December Gorman came in and asked for 2d. worth of rum—I served him, and he tendered a bad half-crown from a purse—I bent it, and gave it him back—he left the rum and went away.
Gorman. Q. Are you quite certain I am the man? A. I firmly believe you to be the man—you had a brown coat on, and I noticed the colour of your moustache—I never saw you before, to my knowledge.
ALEXANDER SKINNER . I am assistant in the Branch Post Office in East-cheap—about 6 o'clock on the evening of 9th December Ford came in and asked for a penny stamp—he placed a half-crown on the counter; I took it up—I did not notice it was bad then, and I gave him 2s. 5d. change—I threw the half-crown into a compartment in the till by itself—I afterwards gave it to the constable—this is the same half-crown.
Ford. Q. When I came in was anyone else in the office? A. Yes; there was someone in front of the counter beside you—the constable came in about ten minutes after—he said "What has that man given you?"—I said "A half-crown"—he said "I think it is a bad one"—I looked at it, and saw it was a bad one, and gave it him.
Ford's Defence. I went to get a postage stamp, but I was not aware the half-crown was bad.
Gorman's Defence. I never had any bad money in my life. I have been in the army, and have only been out two or three months.
GUILTY †— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment each.
MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence.
FREDERICK HERRAM . I am a carman in the employment of Alfred Harris & Co., carriers, Nag's Head Court, Borough—on 23rd December, between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening, I was in New Bridge Street, Blackfriars—I saw three men standing at the corner of Tudor Street—the prisoner was one of them—I saw one of the men leave the other two, and run alongside of my van, and take a half chest of tea off the van—I pulled up as soon as possible, and jumped down—the was dropped the chest, and the prisoner picked it up, and went into No. 18, New Bridge Street—I took him with his hand on the cord—I took him by the collar—he asked me to let him go, as he was a pal of mine and came from the Kent Road—I had been him before—I held him till a constable came up—he said the box was
dropped off between two cab horses, and laid by the kerb—I took him about twelve yards from the place where he picked the chest up.
Cross-examined. I have been round to see his wife since this—I knew where to go to because the policeman gave information where he lived—I went to see whether he was right or wrong, and to see whether he lived there or not—I have seen his wife before—I was not on terms of friendship with the prisoner and his wife—I had never spoken to them, that I am aware of—I knew his wife when I was a boy, on the railway, as guard behind a van—I did not know the man more than seeing him—I went twice to see his wife—I have no ill feeling against the man, and I merely went down to see if he was her husband—I had not had anything to drink on this evening—I had had a pint of beer for dinner—nothing after that—when I first saw the three men at the corner of Tudor Street, they were standing together—I saw one of them come alongside of my van—I turned round, and saw the chest of tea taken off—it was on the rail of the van—there was a 'bus in front of me, and a cab behind, trying to pass—the cab did not run against my van, that I am aware of—the van was three or four doors beyond the place where the chest was found—I was obliged to pull up as soon as possible.
JOHN GUSTAVUS MILLER . I am messenger, at 18, New Bridge Street—I was coming out of that office on the night in question, and saw the prisoner on the step, struggling with the last witness—there was a chest of tea on the step—the last witness said to the prisoner "If you dare to attempt to get away I will murder you," and the prisoner stood perfectly still after that—he said he would be quiet if he did not try and throttle him, which he was very near doing—I went for a constable.
HENRY WEBB (City Policeman 492). On 23rd December, between 4 and 5 o'clock, I was coming along Tudor Street, towards New Bridge Street, and I saw a scuffle at the comer—as I turned the corner I saw the carman and the prisoner in the doorway of No. 18, and a chest of tea at their feet—the carman had got the prisoner by the collar—he said "This man has stole the chest of tea from my van, I shall charge him with that"—the prisoner said he did not steal it, his hand might have been on it—at the station he positively denied having anything to do with the chest of tea—I found this bag sown up with twine, and a knife on him.
Cross-examined. When I first saw them they were some little distance down Tudor Street—about four or five yards from the doorway of No. 18, New Bridge Street—Herram seemed greatly excited when I came up—the prisoner showed no violence when I was there.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. LATIMER conducted the Prosecution.
THOMAS WILLIAM SIMMONDS . I am a waiter at Mr. Valentine's, who keeps a coffee-shop, 3, Salisbury Court, Fleet Street—I have known the prisoner about three months as a customer—he used to come in about twice a week, and during that time we have lost a great many things—on the 4th January he came in, and had a cup of tea and a loaf and butter—my master said something to me, and after the prisoner left I missed two salt cellars—I ran after the prisoner, and stopped him—I told him that my master wanted him—he said "Tell your master to come here"—I said "No, you will have to come over there"—he came back, and Mr. Valentine said "I daresay you
know what I want you for?"—he said "No, I don't"—my master said "Oh, yes you do;" and the prisoner then took two salt cellars, four spoons, and two knives out of his pocket—I identified the two salt cellars, and the name of Valentine was marked on the spoons and knives—the prisoner said "Won't you forgive me?"—my master said "No, you have done it so many times before, I can't forgive you."
Prisoner. Q. Did you see me take the things out of the shop? A. No; I went round and counted them twice—there are eleven tables—you were sitting in No. 10—when I went out after you, you were standing outside the public-house—you took the salt cellars out of your pocket, and put them on the table.
Prisoner. Q. What were the exact words? A. "I hope you will forgive me"—you did not say "I hope you will not give me in charge."
— GUILTY .
—He also PLEADED GUILTY to having been before convicted in April, 1868.**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 11th, 1871.
Before Mr. Justice Brett.
MR. METCALFE conducted the Prosecution,
THOMAS DONALDSON . I am a wine merchant, of Leicester and Nottingham, and live at 64, Portsdown Road, Paddington—I have known the prisoner about twelve years, and was aware from him that he was plaintiff in a Chancery suit—I advanced him money for fees, and my friend Mr. Smith and others did the same—the suit has been going on about twelve years—it is about twelve months since I advanced him money—I cannot say the exact date he asked me to do so afterwards; but I was very little in town, and did not do so—after I declined, some of my friends received these postal cards—these cards addressed to Messrs. Geddes, Mr. Slater, and Messrs. Keosh are the prisoner's writing. (Read: "To Messrs. Keosh & Co., bakers, &c., Porchester Place, Edgware Road. Memo. Robbery by Thomas Donaldson Co., non-figuring as wine merchants at Leicester and Nottingham. The bribe was taken in wines, &c., as a sham, to force Mr. Eldred L. B. Pearce into a deed now held by him to rob him of millions collusively in his Chancery suit of thirty-seven years a suitor. On an indictment Smith and Donaldson would be transported for life. The case in Chancery has been decreed on by three Lord Chancellors in plaintiff's favour up to 29th July, 1868.—41, Manchester Square, London, 23rd November, 1870.") (Two similar cards were, addressed to Messrs. Slater. & Co., Jermyn Street, St. James's; and to Messrs. Geddes, bakers, &c., near Hyde Park Square.)—I understood those cards to apply to me.
Prisoner. Q. I believe you took your references from Smith to give me credit? A. Smith introduced me to you, and I believed your cause was true—you told me that the suit had lasted thirty-seven years—we were to be paid when you gained your suit—I did not often see Smith in secret—I saw him as a neighbour, and no doubt we spoke about this business—I was a baker, and supplied him with bread for years—I advanced you between 300l. and 400l.—we were to be amply paid back, but there was
never any sum fixed—I and others paid 74l. 1s. 6d. to Messrs. Burgoyne, solicitors—I do not think they said that you had no case, but it was a case they would not take up—Smith said that it was a good case—Burgoyne did not ask you to compromise your rights, cheat your creditors, and leave the country—Mr. Proudfoot is my solicitor—I never heard of his going to Smith, and offering him 500l. to throw up your case—(THE COURT here cautioned the prisoner that he was giving meaning to the cards by his questions)—I never received any money or goods collusively—I jumped from a baker to a wine-merchant all of a sudden, because I chose to do so—the money came from my own industry—I never heard of Colonel Dawkins—I never took a single farthing, directly or indirectly—Smith and I are not partners, he is out of the business now—my partner is Robert McCargo.
THOMAS SMITH . I am a grocer and wine merchant, of Cambridge Street, Paddington—I have seen these cards; they are in the defendant's writing—I believe that where Mr. Smith's name is mentioned it applies to me, and the other to Mr. Donaldson.
Prisoner. Q. Did not I apply to you in 1864 to give me credit in my Chancery case? A. I was about fourteen years ago—I applied to Messrs. Hensman, solicitors, and Mr. Herbert told me that you were entitled to a great deal—I do not recollect that he said you were entitled to 1000 times more than you would live to spend—I was satisfied that you had an interest in it, it was West India property—I also saw Mr. Abbott before I gave you credit—I was assured of your ultimate success unless might overcame right.
COURT. Q. What do you mean by might overcoming right? A. Those are the words of Mr. Abbott—I do not know whether might is not sometimes too powerful for right; I mean money against poverty, in a Chancery suit—I call money might.
Prisoner. Q. Did not Mr. Bine, the clerk to Burgoyne, come to you fifteen years ago, and tell you that there was 1000 times more than I should live to spend, and that my case was the finest he ever saw? A. He said there was a great deal more than you could spend, and told me to take care of myself, but I have not done so—Colonel Dawkins was one of the defendants in the Chancery suit—I think he bought the property—I do not know that I ever saw him, but a somebody came, and stopped an hour—they did not buy enough, though they were there so long—they did not ask me what accommodation I had for taking in wines and spirits—they asked me so many questions that I hardly know what they did talk about—they did not talk about the case—they asked about my means, but I did not satisfy them—Donaldson called on me twelve years ago, but he never mentioned your business—I did not receive cigars, coffee, or money from a person connected with your Chancery suit—I do not think I saw either of the defendants except Debbiuson at any subsequent time—I saw Counsel in your case—I do not think he told me it all belonged to you—I I have known you a great many years, and treated you as a friend—I swear that I never received goods or money, wines or spirits, in any shape, from Mr. Donaldson in this affair, not a shilling—I have been selling wines and spirits as cheap as I can—I lent you five guineas on your gold watch, not to pay Counsels' fee—I told you I should not return it till your account was paid, but you owe me too much—I have said that I never would be bribed, but I did not say that numbers wanted to bribe me.
Hyde Park—I took in a post-office card similar to this—I cannot swear this is it, because I did not read it—I gave it to Mrs. Geddes.
Prisoner. Q. Did not you take your reference from Smith, as to giving me credit? A. I gave you a small amount of credit before I saw Mr. Smith—the credit was for meat—Mr. W. S. Palmer is my private solicitor—I advanced you, altogether, 500l., in meat and in money, in respect of the suit—this was eighteen years ago, and I followed the views of Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Smith, being fellow-tradesmen—this (produced by the prisoner) is a letter from Mr. Padmore, my solicitor, to me—I handed all those matters to Mr. Smith, as his was an older head than mine—I was assured that I should ultimately be paid, that you would make me ample compensation—there was no settled amount that I was to be paid.
Q. Was 25,000l. to be paid for retribution to you and others for kindness? A. You made various promises at different times; I never understood that the other 25,000l. was for you to put into your own pocket—you called upon me, and told me what had happened about the wines and spirits—you promised to make me and others ample compensation out of the 50,000l.—I assisted you in a small way at first, and gradually got into the debt, and I continued in hopes of recovering—I have heard you say that 1000l. had been offered you to cheat your creditors and leave the country—I employed Burgoyne to investigate your case, and at'the meeting he threw cold water upon it—it was only from your lips that I heard of 55,000l. being offered to Burgoyne to settle your case in Chancery, at the time it was in their hands. (THE COURT again cautioned the prisoner, and declined to allow him to ask certain questions.) Your case did not break down before Vice-Chancellor Malius, in 1870, through Smith and Donaldson conniving.
The prisoner, in a rambling defence, stated that he had been aggravated into doing what he had done.
Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury, believing him to be under the impression that he had been seriously wronged. MR. METCALFE stated that the prosecutors believed he had been very much wronged, but not by them.— To enter into his own recognizances to appear for judgment, if he repeats the offence.
MR. COLLINS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COOPER the Defence.
ROBERT F. SMITH . I am living at the Well Street Home—I was a seaman on board the Sarah Anderson, a ship under English colours, which sailed from India in September or October, and arrived in England in December—the prisoner was also a seaman on board—on the morning of September 13th the ship was on the high seas, the prisoner and I had a quarrel a few minutes before 12 o'clock on the evening previous—we had a fight, and the prisoner gave in and went below—I remained on deck—I heard the prisoner say in the forecastle a short time afterwards "I will have the son of a bitch's life;" and afterwards that he would cut my guts out—I was standing against the hatch, preparing to go down into the forecastle—the prisoner rushed up with a sheath knife in one hand and a billet of wood in the other; he rushed at me and attempted to stab me, so (with the knife over his head)—he made a cut down, which cut my monkey-jacket here (near his throat)
—I am left-handed—he ran back to the galley, and I called to the cook to come and lend me a hand—the prisoner said "Yes, Doctor, come out and see fair play while I cut the son of a bitch's b——y guts out"—they call the cook Doctor—the prisoner was running towards me at the time, with the knife still in his right hand, over his head, preparing to make another cut; but I seized him by the wrist with my left hand—he tore the knife from his right hand with his left, and drew it across the finger and thumb of the hand with which I was holding him—it went to my finger bone, but was not much on my thumb—he tried to draw the knife across my throat; but the ship gave a lurch, which brought it across my mouth, and cut my lip—it was not very deep, but it was painful—here is the mark now—I caught the knife with my teeth, and held it fast though he tried to get it away—he was swearing, and saying he would; have my life, all the time of the struggle—I shouted for help, and the mate came and took the knife—the prisoner muttered something, but I could not hear what—I was not laid up.
Cross-examined. This is a sailor's knife—I wear mine tied to my belt—he wore his round his waist—there was not a great sea—he was not standing on a spar the first time he was on the deck—I did not run forward with two boys—one boy came after me; I only saw one—the prisoner may have spoken to me, as well as any other man, about bringing those boys forward—I did not then strike him on the head—I did strike him on the face when he called me names that I would allow no man to call me—the blow did not strike him down—he fell down after we had been ten minutes scuffling—I did not fall on top of him, the spar was between us when we fell—I did not then take hold of his finger or bite the point of it—I did not kick him with the heel of my boot; I could not kick between two feet of timber—I saw his mouth bleeding afterwards—he was feeling for his knife several times during the fight—I did not take my knife out—the prisoner is, I believe, three inches taller than me.
COURT. Q. How long after he went into the forecastle did he come up again? A. As near as I can judge fifteen or twenty minutes—he followed me from the hatchway to the galley, which is from fifteen to twenty feet.
PHILIP DUVAL . I am mate of the Sarah Anderson—early on the morning of 13th September, I heard a noise, and saw the prosecutor and prisoner fighting—I parted them, but cannot tell where they went, as I walked right aft, to call the second mate, as it was his watch on deck—about ten or fifteen minutes after I parted them I was called again, and saw them struggling on their feet, on the Ice side of the deck—the prisoner's hand had hold of a knife, which was in the prosecutor's mouth, which was cut and bleeding—I walked behind the prisoner, caught hold of both his arms, and pulled them down towards his side—he let his hand from the knife, which stopped in the prosecutor's mouth—the prisoner was using threats what he would do.
Cross-examined. I parted them twice—the first time they were down by the spars, and they got up again, and went on struggling, and I parted them again—the prosecutor's cuts were not dressed—he tied them up himself.
FREDERICK GRANT . I was a seaman on board this ship—I heard there had been a fight, and came foward from the wheel, and the prisoner was down on the forecastle, sharpening this knife on a stone—I asked him what
he was doing, sharpening the knife—he told me the prosecutor had offended him, and he was determined to have his guts open before the morning—I told him to be quiet—he told me not to interfere—I then called to the prosecutor, and told him to keep out of the way—the prisoner got half way on the forecastle ladder—he had a billet of wood and this knife in his hands—I went half way on the ladder, and looked up and saw him throw the piece of wood up on deck, and it struck one of the apprentices—I lost sight of the prisoner, and a few minutes afterwards I was called by the cook to assist—I went on deck, and the prosecutor and the mate had hold of the prisoner, who had the knife between his teeth—his mouth was bleeding, and his thumb was cut—I asked the prisoner to loose the knife—he said he would not, and the mate drawed his arms down, and he let go of it—the steward called the captain—about ten minutes afterwards, when I was going to turn in, I saw the prisoner with a large table knife belonging to the steward; not this one; he was sharpening it—I asked him to put it down—he said he would not, but at last he turned into his bunk, but kept cursing and swearing all the time.
Cross-examined. I have not seen the captain here.
GUILTY — Five Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution.
SIDNEY SMITH . I live at 22, Old Compton Street—on Sunday morning, 18th December, about 1.20 or 1.30, I was going home with Charles White, when I got to my door I went to see if it was fastened—I could not shut it, and put my hand down and found this stock of a chisel (produced)—I saw the prisoners and another man throe doors off when we came up—a constable went after them—they started off, and ran on his approach.
McCarthy. Q. Can you swear you saw me standing three doors off? A. Yes.
CHARLES WHITE . I live at 23, Old Compton Street, next door to the prosecutor, or rather in the same house—I came home with him, and saw the prisoners three doors off, in conversation with another one, who I saw come out from the prosecutor's door, No. 22, from the inside of the house—I was about three yards from him—he joined the prisoners, and then I saw a constable coming up very fast; I went and told him, and they all ran away—I saw McCarthy at the shutters of No. 25; but did not see him do anything—I followed with the constable who caught West, and McCarthy tried to trip the constable up and rescue West, at the end of Compton Street.
EDWIN WEEDON (Policeman C 150). On Sunday morning, 18th December, about 1.20, I saw the prisoners and another man leave the door of 22, Old Compton Street—shortly afterwards White went to the door, he spoke to me, and I walked after West and caught him and another man—I took West back to No. 22, and went towards the station with him into Arches Street, where McCarthy came running up, and said "Halloa, Jack, what is the matter?"—West threw himself down on the pavement, and said
"Come on, let the b——s have it"—McCarthy made sereral attempts to trip me up, but I kept him away by kicking; another constable came up, and I called upon him to take him—we took them to the station, and I found on West these matches, this rush, and these two latch keys; but neither of them fits the prosecutor's door—I saw this centre-bit found in the side of McCarthy's right boot, at the station-house—there were no marks of No. 22 being forced—I cannot tell how it was opened, neither of these keys fit the latch.
GEORGE STRAW (Policeman C 256). I was at the Vine Street Station when the prisoners were brought in—McCarthy said "I have nothing about me, you need not trouble about me"—on feeling down his trowsers I found this centre-bit sticking in his boot; he said that he found it in an urinal in Water Street—the prisoners were placed in separate cells; they had previously denied all knowledge of each other—I was ordered to go into a cell between them, and heard West say to McCarthy, "Danny, cheer up, it will only run to a drag at the most"—McCarthy said "We shall see Charley and Sammy in the morning, won't they be surprised"—he afterwards said "I shall see my sister Nell in the morning; I shall be all right for a brake to morrow morning"—he then said "That curly sod, I should like to have him in here now"—I took that to be myself.
JOHN LOWE . I am a bootmaker, of 22, Old Compton Street—on this Sunday morning I went home at 1.10, I found the door closed—I rang the bell, the mistress came down and let me in, and I fastened it by letting the latch fall—no one could open it from the outside without a latch key.
The Prisoners Statements before the Magistrate. McCarthy says: "I went to the Alhambra; I stopped to see a row in Leicester Square. I went in a urinal in Wardour Street; I found that bit of iron; I heard a row at the corner of Castle Street; I saw the policeman was walking off with West, I asked what he was locking him up for; the policeman called another, and gave me in charge; I put the bit in my pocket, and it slipped down my trowsers." West says: "I was going up Wardour Street, the policeman came to me and said 'I want you'. I was drunk; he laid hold of me; they knocked me about in the shop; I said 'Why don't you leave me alone? the policeman began kicking me."
COURT to S. SMITH. Q. Is this house yours? A. No, I am assistant to Mr. Birch, a hosier and shirtmaker, there—I sleep at No. 22—we are obliged to go into No. 22 to get into No. 23—I tried the door of No. 22 from the outside, and found it open—I tried to shut it, but could not—I put my hand down, and found the stock—I then went to No. 23, and told my fellow assistant what I had found, and while standing at the door of No. 23 a man came out at the side door of No. 22, and joined the two prisoners and another—there were three in conversation, and this man made four—I am sure of that—they all four ran away on the constable's approach—I went inside No. 23, and waited till the constable came back and brought West into the shop—I then minded the shop while White and the assistant went to the station—I closed the door which I had found open—I did not examine it, it opens with a latch.
McCarthy's Defence. I was coming home, and saw a policeman taking this lad. I asked him what he was taking him for; he made a kick at me,
and called another policeman to take me. I found this stock in a urinal, I put it in my pocket, and it slipped into my boot.
West's Defence. I was in Wardour Street, and the prisoner said "I want you"—he and another man knocked me about in the shop.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. LANGFORD conducted the Protection; and MR. ST. AUBTN the Defence,
GEORGE DIVEY . I am a jeweller, of 77, Regent's Park Road, St. Pancras—on the night of 22nd December, I shut up my shop safely, and went to rest—I was disturbed about 2.50, by glass breaking, which appeared to be my window—I got up, called my lodger, went to the door, and saw a black patch on the side of my shutter—I pressed it, and it went in—it was a piece of black paper, under which I found a circular hole in the shutter, larger than a man's hand—this is the shutter (produced)—the window was smashed in, and I missed twelve gold chains, twelve silver watches, and a silver fish slice and fork—the fork is here—I sprang a rattle, and a policeman brought the prisoner and a man named Davis.
Cross-examined. I have offered a reward of 20l. for the recovery of the property taken.
JAMES GROVES (Policeman S 94). On Saturday morning, 24th December, I was on duty in Regent's Park Road, standing by some unfinished houses almost opposite the prosecutor's shop—I saw two men about the middle of the road, right opposite the shop, and about thirty yards from me—they crossed over to the shop, and I heard a noise like the unlocking of a door—I thought it was lodgers coming home; like a key being fitted into a door, and there was whispering—in two or three minutes they crossed over to my side of the way, and stood at a chemist's shop door, nearly opposite Mr. Davey's—in about five minutes they crossed the road again to Mr. Davey's shop—I then heard a noise like cutting or grinding, and a very loud crash like glass breaking—after about half a minute or a minute, I saw the same two men cross the road again, and stand in the chemist's shop door about two minutes, and then turn down Sharpies-hall Street—I went along on tip-toe as quietly as I could to the corner of the street—I suppose they saw me, for they commenced walking very fast—the prisoner is one of the men, and the other was Davis, who has been discharged by the Grand Jury—I have no doubt about the prisoner—I had a good view of him, but I am not quite sure of the other—I pulled out my rattle, and said "Stop them"—they turned to the left into Berkley Road, and then into Regent's Park Road again, then to the right by Northumberland Terrace, where I lost sight of them—I ran as fast as I could, got to the corner of Northumberland Terrace, and saw them fifty or sixty yards off, standing still almost—I halloaed again, and sprang my rattle—they turned round, and came running back towards me—I ran and met them, collared them with each hand, and said "I want you"—one of them said "What for?"—I said "Come here, and you will see"—Davis said "I must go back, or I shall get the sack"—the prisoner said "I have been to the coffee-stall for half an hour"—I took them back to the shop, and saw that the shutter was cut, and the glass broken—Mr. Davey, who was outside the shop, charged them, and I took them to the station, where the
prisoner said that he picked up a girl at London Bridge, took a cab to the "Adelaide" Tavern, and had something to drink, and they separated; he did not know her or where she lived—I found in his outside coat-pocket this small knife-blade, this small iron wedge, a pocket knife, and this pointed screw—there is an extra cut in the shutter where the wood is not pulled out, and the knife exactly fits it—I have heard since that Davis is a watchman for the North London Railway—his watch-box is fifty or sixty yards from where I took him in custody—after the charge was taken the prisoner said that he had no home; he had been employed as a cattle escort on board the ship Tourist, and came from Lisbon in her about three weeks ago, and had been walking about ever since—I found this fork in the area of an unfinished house, which the prisoner ran past—I saw a gimlet picked up where they had run—I believe the prisoner to be the man who was at the shop window—he has just the appearance of his coat and hat.
Cross-examined. There are more than ten unfinished houses in a row, opposite Davey's shop—that is where I was watching at first—it was about thirty-five yards from where I was standing to Davey's shop—the road is about twenty yards wide—Sharpleshall Street runs in a circle, and comes back into the road—I only lost sight of the men once—I said before the Magistrate "I saw the two prisoners standing in the centre of the road"—I could see enough of the other man to say that it was Davis—I had never seen the prisoner before—it was starlight, but not moonlight—when I ran on tiptoe I was about twenty yards off them, on one side of them—the prisoner was nearest to me then—the "Adelaide" is in the Chalk Farm Road, not a quarter of a mile from Davey's house—I have not seen a coffee-stall in the neighbourhood for years past—this fork case (produced) was afterwards given to me as picked up.
COURT. Q. How far were you from the men when they turned to the right in Northumberland Terrace? A. Thirty or forty yards behind them; they seemed nearly standing still between two lamps, but they might be moving; they turned round and came back towards me in a slow run—I could not see any constable or person who turned them—Northumberland Terrace finishes in Gloucester Row; anybody going from me would get into Gloucester Row.
JOHN WESTON (Detective Officer S.) The prisoner stated that he had no home, and on 26th December I was employed to make inquiries respecting him—I followed two women, who I was informed had visited the prisoner in Newgate, from the Old Bailey to 2, George Court, Westminster—I saw a woman there who said she was the prisoner's wife, and I had seen her enter and leave Newgate—I have had experience of tools found on burglars—I have not the smallest doubt that this knife would out this hole in this shutter.
JOHN DAVIS . I am a watchman, employed by the London and North Western Railway—on 24th December, about 2 o'clock a.m., I was in my box, which is on Chalk Farm Bridge, near Northumberland Terrace, and heard a man running down the path by the side of the garden wall in front of Northumberland Terrace—I ran across the road, and met the prisoner at the corner, running as hard as he could; I asked him where he was going—he stopped himself as dead as he could, and said "It is up here, come on"—I said "Here is a policeman coming"—the prisoner said "Yes, I was just coming after you"—the policeman caught us both, one with each hand—I said "I must not go away, or else I shall get the sack"—he said "You
must come up here;" and then he took me, and I was committed to New-gate—I never saw the prisoner before, that I am aware of.
COURT. Q. Do you know Gloucester Road? A. Yes; it runs tip to the bridge, and my box is just at the corner—Northumberland Terrace is about forty yards from my box; it has a wall and gardens in front—when I heard the rattle I went to Northumberland Terrace, and met the prisoner running along the path—there is an empty building belonging to the Orphan School opposite to where the prisoner was running down.
Q. If a man got in there would he get out ob the back? A. I think there is a row of houses at the back, King Henry's Road.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I heard a rattle springing, and met Davis, and said "Come on this way." We met the policeman, and he took us both to the station; the blade of a knife found on me was made for a lance.
The officer Weston stated that he found three centre-bits, a life preserver, and a skeleton key for boxes and drawers, at the prisoner's cottage; also a silk dress, valued at 8l.— Seven Years Penal Servitude.
The Jury expressed their sympathy with Davis, believing that considerable injury had been done to him; in which opinion the COURT concurred and stated that there was not the slightest reproach upon his character.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, January 11th, 1871.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. BRINDLEY conducted the Prosecution.
MARY SARAH FINCH . I am single, and live with my father, a baker, of 63, Larkhall Lane, Clapham—I have known the prisoner for some time as a neighbour—on 3rd October he came with this cheque, and asked if I would cash it—I asked him who paid it to him—he said his father had sent him with it, and it was paid to his father by Mr. Maitland, a butcher at Bromley—my father gave him the money for it in my presence—I paid it in to the bank next day, and it was returned marked "No account"—I know the prisoner's father, he is a greengrocer, living near us.
GEORGE ASTON . I am the prisoner's father, and live in Wilcox Row, South Lambeth—it is not true that I gave the prisoner this cheque, nor that I received it from a Mr. Maitland, a butcher—I know no such person, I had never seen it before.
WILLIAM JAMES LBAPINGWELI . I am a clerk in the London and Westminster Bank, City—this cheque was presented to me for payment on 4th October; I returned it having no account in that name—the cheque is from a book issued to a customer named Hood.
WILLIAM WEAVER (City Policeman 649). The prisoner was given into my custody on 27th December—I charged him with forging and uttering a cheque for 6l. 10s.; he made no reply, nor did he when charged at the station—I have made inquiry at Bromley, and can find no such person as Thomas Maitland, nor any Mr. Hood—after the prisoner's committal he told me that Maitland was an assumed name that they had put on the cheque, that he could have saved me trouble by telling me that.
Prisoner's Defence. It was given me by a Mr. Brown, who I was acquainted with, who asked me to get it cashed, which I did, thinking it was genuine,
but I afterwards found it was not. Brown has gone to Canada. I am not guilty of forging it, only of putting my father's name at the back.
GUILTY of uttering. Recommended to mercy by the Jury and prosecutor.— Four Months' Imprisonment.
MR. THORNE COLE conducted the Prosecution.
GEORGE SLOANE . I am a carpenter, and live at 14, Walmer Crescent, Notting Hill—on the night of 9th December, between 11 and 12 o'clock, I was in the Lancaster Road, Notting Hill, going home; the two prisoners came up to me, and asked if I would give them 3d. to pay for a bed—Daniel spoke first, but they both stood together as they are now, and I believe George said they were hard up—I gave them 3d.—I put my hand into my pocket with my silver and gold and coppers together—I was going on, and Daniel asked me for another 2d.—I took out my money to give them the 2d. when Daniel struck me in the breast, and knocked me down, snatched the money from my hand, and ran away up the road—I got up as quickly as I could, leaving my hat on the ground, and ran after him, and I saw the constable catch him, without losing sight of him—the other prisoner ran in another direction directly I was knocked down.
Daniel Purcell. He was drunk, and was falling over me, and I shoved him in the breast to protect myself. Witness. I was sober—he did not come back to meet the policeman—when I called "Stop thief!" the policeman dropped on him as he was running away—I was not standing with any young woman—I could not say the time exactly this happened—it might have been between 12 and 1 o'clock—I lost two half-sovereigns and some silver.
EDWARD WYNNE (Police Sergeant X 15). About 1.10 on the morning of 10th December, I was in the Lancaster Road, and saw the two prisoners speaking to the prosecutor—I did not hear what they said—I saw Daniel strike the prosecutor in the breast, and he fell—Daniel then ran away in one direction, and George in the contrary—I came up, and took George into custody—I had not got many yards when Daniel returned on the opposite side of the way—I gave George in charge of a person who was passing, and crossed over and took Daniel—I found on him three half-crowns, a florin, six shillings, three sixpences, and 5d. in bronze, no half-sovereigns—I found 3d. on George—I had seen George previously, about 12.30, following the prosecutor, in the Lancaster Road—the prosecutor had been drinking, but he evidently knew what he was about.
THOMAS MOORE (Policeman X 101). About 1.10 on the morning of 10th December, I was in Lancaster Road, and heard a cry of "Stop thief!" and saw Daniel Purcell running towards me—I went towards him—when he saw me he doubled back again towards Sergeant Wynne—I followed him, and found him in Wynne's custody.
The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Daniel: "I know no more about robbing him than you do. He said I took his money. I gave him a slight push, and he went down. He was intoxicated." George: "I never spoke to him, and never interfered with him, and had nothing to do with it."
George Purcell received a good character.
GUILTY .—Recommended to Mercy by the Jury on account of the temptation.
DANIEL PURCELL— Six Months' Imprisonment. GEORGE PURCELL— four Months' Imprisonment
MR. WOOD conducted the Prosecution.
FRANK DEANS . I am a clerk, and live at 2, Houghton Street, Clare Market—on Sunday, 1st January, I returned home about 1.15—when I entered my room there was a lamp alight, hut turned down very low—the fire was just out, and my wife was in bed and asleep, and a little child in bed with her—I sat down, and smoked my pipe, and drank some beer—about 1.45 I was going to light another pipe, as I was reading rather an interesting book, when I noticed the valance of the bed raised up—I went and pulled it up, and there was the prisoner underneath the bed—I pulled him out, and asked what he did there—he made some rambling statement, and pretended that he was drunk; that he did not know how be got there, but he thought his mother used to live there—when I went into the room I found my wife's things on the floor, entangled in a chair, at if they had been thrown down—there was money in the room, and several things belonging to my wife, which might have been taken—I did not notice that anything had been removed—I asked the prisoner what he was—he said he was a steward on board ship—I awoke my wife, and said to her, in the prisoner's presence, "What is the meaning of this, how did he come here?"—she said she did not know, and looked very frightened—he said he was drunk, and he was very sorry—he could not make out how he could have got there—I took him by the collar, and took him down stairs—he was not so drunk but he could walk down the narrow part of the stairs without stumbling—as I went down I called to my father-in-law, who lives on the first floor, but as I could not make him hear, I let go of the prisoner for a moment to knock at his door, and he hid himself in a recess; I got him again, and gave him in charge to a constable—I heard him give his address at the station, at Green's Sailors' Home, East India Road, and he was steward of a ship—I asked him what sort of steward—he said "A first-class steward"—he did not say of what ship—there is a window on the staircase, which had been broken, and a piece of cardboard put over it—in the morning I found that gone; a hand could then be put in to open the window—there were marks on the sill as if a person had sat there and let himself down.
ALFRED BROWN (Policeman E 264). About 2.15 on Sunday morning, 1st January, I was called to take the prisoner into custody—he made a rambling statement, and said "Oh, I don't know where I am," and such like—I shook him, and told him I should have to take him to the station, and he made a remark as if he did not understand, but was regularly drunk—as I was taking him to the station he kicked me in the shin several times, and tried to get away, and bit my thumb—I had to get assistance to take him to the station, and then he was as sober as anything—I asked him his address—he said "Green's Home, East India Road"—I noticed the window next morning—a person could easily put his hand through the aperture, and open it.
ELIZA DYBALL . I am the wife of George Dyball, of 2, Houghton Street, Clare Market—on the Saturday night previous to 1st January, the staircase window was closed at 12 o'clock—I noticed nothing in the window different to what had been there some time before—I have never seen the prisoner since I have been in the house.
out about 2 o'clock, and saw the prisoner outside—the constable had him—this window was fastened all right on Saturday afternoon, and the card-board was up—the prisoner pretended to be drunk—I did not hear anything he said—he did not say what he was doing 'in the house—I heard nothing he said.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I knew nothing at all of it till I found myself next morning in the station."
Prisoner's Defence. I know nothing that happened.
GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, January 11th, 1871.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
OLD COURT.—Thursday, January 12th, 1871.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. LATIMER conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS
ROBERT RAWLINS . I live at 6, Bell Court—on Monday night, 26th December, about 1 o'clock, I was in Brook's Market, going home, and somebody caught me round the throat—I saw who it was, and I caught hold of him as I fell—there were three men and a woman—the woman was on the top of me, and put her hand over my mouth—my pockets were turned inside out—I lost nothing, only my cap—the prisoner had got his hand round me, and I caught hold of him by the coat—I had been drinking rather freely—I was not drunk—I knew what I was about.
Cross-examined. I held the prisoner nearly till the policeman came up—he broke away just before he came up—I did not hand him over to the police—the whole thing did not take above two minutes, I should think—the prisoner is the one that caught hold of me round the throat—I have said "I believe the prisoner is the man"—I do believe he is.
MAURICE ELMES (Policeman G 37). I was on duty in Elm Court, on the morning of 27th December—I heard cries of "Police!"—when I got to the top of the court I saw the prisoner in company with another, on the prosecutor—I am quite certain it was the prisoner—he was kneeling on the prosecutor, rifling his pockets—I was about five yards from him—the prosecutor was lying on the street by the side of the pavement, with his legs doubled in under him—the prisoner and the other saw me coming up, and they ran away—I followed them, and caught the prisoner in Fox Court—I brought him back to the prosecutor, who was still lying where I first found him—he had been drinking, but was not drunk—he was rather excited at first—the prisoner said I had made a mistake—I told him I could not have done that as I had not lost sight of him—I had not lost sight of him at all, not from the first—he was kneeling on the prosecutor till the time I caught him—I believe he lives in Holborn Buildings.
Cross-examined. I did not follow the prisoner about 400 yards before I overtook him—I should say it was between 150 and 200 yards—I caught him in Fox Court—this was just about 1 o'clock—it might be 1.5
—it was in Brook's Market that I saw the prosecutor on the ground, and the men rifling his pockets—to get from there to Fox Court you go along Brook's Market into Brook Street, and Fox Court is leading from Brook Street; you do not turn round into Brook Street, it is a straight line—you have to turn a corner into Fox Court, to the right—I don't know what became of the other person, I kept my eye on the one—I only saw two men—I was the first policeman there—I did not see the prisoner's face until I caught him—I should say the prosecutor was not drunk—he was more excited than drunk—he was not sober—I should call him under the influence of drink.
Re-examined. I saw the prisoner's back, and kept him in sight as he ran—when he turned the corner I was near enough nearly to touch him—when I turned the corner I did not see any person in front, not till I got forty or fifty yards further—I should say the beginning of Brook's Market is about sixty or seventy yards from Holborn Buildings, where the prisoner lives—I searched him, and found on him about 3 1/2 d. or 4d., in farthings and half-pence, a comb, and a handkerchief.
JOHN KELLY (Policeman G 226). About 1 o'clock in the morning of 27th December, I was in Gray's Inn Road, when a man named Waller came for me, and said he had been knocked down in a court next the "Wilmington" public-house—he did not know the name of it—I went with him to show me the place, and when we turned out of a court into Brook's Market I saw two men on the top of the prosecutor—I do not recognize the men—I never saw their faces—they ran away—Elmes, who was with me, ran after them, and I ran also, crying "Stop thief?"—Elmes was in advance of me in turning into Fox Court—I saw him make a grab at some man, and I lost sight of them altogether then—when I saw them again they were in Fox Court, about mid-way, about forty yards up—he then had hold of the prisoner—there were a number of young men going to and fro, and asking what was up—I did not see who it was that Elmes made the grab at—I could not swear that it was at one of the men who ran away—the prisoner said "I only came out for my beer"—he had no jug or anything in his hand.
ALFRED P. WALLER . I live at 56, Gray's Inn Road, and am a metal worker—on the morning of 27th December, I was going home through Fox Court., and was robbed; not by the prisoner, by another man, who was sentenced by the Magistrate—I went in search of the police, and as I was coming back with the officers we saw the prosecutor and some persons upon him—I cannot swear to the prisoner, I never saw him—I saw that the prosecutor was being robbed by two persons—I ran after the men—the police were in front of me.
JULIA WELSH . I am the prisoner's mother—he is turned fourteen—I live at 9, Holborn Buildings—we keep a model lodging-house there, and likewise at 27, King Street, Drury Lane—I remember the morning my boy was taken into custody—I was very ill, and in bed, and when I awoke, about 1 o'clock, I said to my husband "Where is Patrick?" and he said "He had sent him out for the rent"—I did not look at the clock at the time—I saw my son again when he came back, from ten to twenty minutes—I am on my oath, and I must be very particular—I should say it was from 10 to 20 minutes after 1 o'clock when I saw him again, after he came back; but I can't be sure—I saw him in the kitchen—I was in the back parlour—I put my
head out, and there he stood, at the door, and he went out—his father said he would be in directly; and a very short time afterwards a boy came to the door and said the police had got hold of him.
Cross-examined. I can't say at what time it was that my husband sent him to collect the rent, I was in bed—I believe it was about 10 o'clock—it was after 1 o'clock when he returned; between 10 and 20 and 30 minutes past 1 o'clock—he stood at the door, and I said "Let him come to bed"—I did not send him for any beer; it was too late to get any at that time—my son, who is just married, keeps the lodging-house in King Street, Drury Lane—we get the rent from the lodgers that sleep there the night—they pay as they come in—Catherine Riley was our deputy; but she has not been there lately—if she was there on 28th December, she was only a helper—she was in the habit of getting drunk—she has not been our deputy since my daughter-in-law went there—I can't say when that was—it is a fortnight ago now—my boy was never taken into custody before—I can't answer whether Riley was deputy on 27th December or not—she might have been a helper then—I don't know about that—we have not paid her any wages this fortnight—sometimes she might take the money of the lodgers, and if the rent was not paid her, of course my boy might get it from them—we give credit to some that we have known four or five years—those that are strangers pay before they come in—my son is not there all the evening—he goes there to collect the rents.
Re-examined. We generally have a deputy there to receive the rents—I don't think she was there on this night that my boy was locked up—I don't know whether she was there or not; if she was, it was only as an extra helper to my daughter-in-law.
COURT. Q. What time did you go to bed that night? A. Very soon; about 10 o'clock—I did not take notice whether my son was away at that time—when I woke up I asked where he was, and the father said he had sent him to Drury Lane; that was early in the night—it was after 10 o'clock—I can't say how much after—I was nearly asleep—a little while after I asked his father if he had come back again, and he said he had—I said "Where is he now?"—he said "Standing in the door;" and I saw him at my front parlour door—he came into the room where I was sleeping; that was, I daresay, twenty minutes before I heard that he was in custody—thatwas about 1.10, and it was between that and that the boy came to the door.
MICHAEL WELSH . I live at 9, Holborn Buildings—the prisoner is my son—the night he was taken into custody I sent him to King Street, for rent, about 11.30—he came back about 1.10—we generally shut up the house about 1 o'clock—I saw him when he came back, and spoke to him—about ten minutes after that he went out to see a row that there was in Fox Court, and in about five minutes after that the parties came in and told me he was in custody.
Cross-examined. The house in King Street is a model lodging-house—Mrs. Riley, the deputy, casually collects the rent there—my son brought me back a shilling—it was 11.30 when I told him to go, and he returned about 1.10—I did not send him out for any beer—I don't use beer, or any drink—I sometimes send my son for the rent, if I am not able to go myself.
COURT. Q. Has your son been employed anywhere? A. No—I had him doing my own work, cleaning the cellars and passages; he has only left school about two months.
HONORA CONNOR . I am the wife of Michael Connor, of 6, Tyndall's Buildings—I remember being out on the night the prisoner was taken into custody—I saw the prisoner lying down in Brook's Market, and four big men and a woman atop of him—I thought at first he was in a fit, but seeing these big men throttling him, I went a little way and said to one of the constables "Pray hurry and protect the man, or he will be choked?"—the constable came up, and the men ran, and the constable, too, crying "Stop thief!"—I stopped where I was, and in a few minutes the constable returned with the prisoner, and I said to the constable "Pray don't have that innocent boy there; he was never atop of the man," and the constable turned round and said "You are a liar"—it was that constable (Elmes)—I thanked him for that, and I told him the prisoner was not there—I was confidently sure of that—the men were able-bodied men, and stronger than this boy.
Cross-examined. I saw the prosecutor knocked down as I was just passing by the kerb stone, that made me look, and I saw these four big men on the top of him, and one had his hand in his eye and the other on his throat—whether they were kneeling on him, or down on him, I could not say—I did not notice the man before he was knocked down—I saw the policeman run after the big fellows, I don't know what became of them—I did not know any of them—I know the faces of my honest neighbours—I have known the prisoner from a boy; I know his parents—I have not been in their place for the last nine or ten months—I am not on bad terms with them.
ELLIN LYONS . I am the wife of Timothy Lyons, of Well's Court, Holborn Buildings—I remember the morning the prisoner was taken into custody—I saw him, as near as I can say, about ten minutes or quarter-past 1 in Fox Court, and spoke to him—I came out, it being holiday time, to ask about my boy who had been sent down to London Bridge, and about five minutes afterwards I heard that the prisoner was in custody—there were a good many people in the court.
Cross-examined. I asked the prisoner if he had seen my boy—I was standing at the top of the court—it was about ten minutes or quarter past 1, as near as I could say—I have nothing to fix the time but my own idea of it—Mr. Welsh did not tell me to say so, I knew it myself.
COURT. Q. What was the prisoner doing in Fox Court? A. He was standing there, and there were two or three more—there was no disturbance going on there, that I saw; it was close by his father's house.
Witness called by MR. LATIMER. in reply.
CATHERINE RILEY . I live now in Holborn Buildings—I used to attend at 27, King Street, Drury Lane, the house belonging to Mr. Welsh—I was there on Boxing-night, the Monday after Christmas-day—I did not see the prisoner there that evening—I was there all day and all night long—I did not pay the prisoner any money that evening; I did not see anything of him.
Cross-examined. Some of the lodgers pay me—sometimes Mr. Welsh came and fetched the money himself from some of the lodgers, and sometimes his son—I was not in the same room the whole evening, I was up and down the house—I did not go out—I don't know whether Mr. Welsh has got more than one house there—I was discharged on the Saturday that I got the summons, the Saturday after Boxing-night—I was once charged with stealing pots—I had taken a drop, and I took a pot by mistake, and
it has been thrown in my face ever since—I had twenty-one days for it; it is about three years ago—Mr. Welsh's eldest son discharged me; he said I was not wanted any more; that is the son who is married, and is now in the place—my attention was called to this night the morning after Boxing-day; the prisoner came and asked me if there was anybody up for the money that night, and I said not—I collected from some of the lodgers that night—some only pay weekly—I collected from all that came in that night, and kept it in a basin till Mr. Welsh came up next morning—they pay 4d. a night or 2s. a week—I was not discharged for drunkenness; the son did not complain of my getting drunk—he said I was not wanted any more—I was discharged on the Saturday after Boxing-night, when I got the summons to come here.
Cross-examined. She was discharged on the Saturday—I was not aware that she had been subpœnaed to attend here, I swear that—this house, I should tell you, belongs to the Recorder, Mr. Russell Gurney, and it must be kept in a cleanly state—I had not given Mrs. Riley any notice; there was no occasion, because she was paid every night—I did not know that the policeman had been to Mrs. Riley; she was not discharged for that—she is living under me now in a room in Holborn Buildings, only I would not employ her as a servant, because she is too dirty.
CATHERINE RILEY (re-examined.) There was nothing said about drunkenness at the time I was discharged—when he heard that I had got the summons, he said he did not want me in his employment any more—his wife told him in the evening that I had got the summons—I heard her tell him.
MAURICE ELMES (re-examined.) There is only one turning from Brook's Market to Fox Court—it was there I made a grab and missed him—I did not catch him till about three parts through the court—there was about a dozen persons about altogether, the prisoner was not amongst them at the time I caught hold of him; they were walking to and fro; the prisoner did not mix with them—I could nearly touch him all through the court—he turned the corner quicker than I could—I only saw two persons with the prisoner, the other one ran in the same direction, through Fox Court—I kept my eye on the one, the other one was rather ahead; he was rather larger than this one—my attention was not first called to this by the witness Connor—I saw her after I came back with the prisoner, not till then—my brother constable was with me—some woman said the prisoner was not one of the persons; who that was I can't say—I said "I don't make mistakes like that"—I did not call her a liar, I said it was false, or something of that sort—it was not snowing that night—I did not notice any—the prisoner was running at the time I took him.
Several respectable witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent character.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution.
minutes or a quarter-past 5 o'clock I was going home, and met the two prisoners and two more, near to a public-house—I knew all the lot by sight—Tow said "Will you stand a pot of beer?"—I said "No, I have not got any money"—Reed said "I will buy your b——scarf for 6d."—I ran across the road, the nearest way home—I was not aware they were behind me till they rushed me down a court, the four of them—I tried to get away from them—they tried to throw me in a door—Heed caught hold of my right leg and threw me down, and one of them said "Burke the end, he has got a super (that is a watch)—they held me down and Tew took 2s. from my pocket—they then ran away—I ran up the court, and halloaed "Police I"—a policeman came and followed me—Reed turned back and said "It is not me"—I said "Yes, it is;" and I gave him in charge.
Reed. Q. Did not I work along with you at Mr. Bishop's? A. Yes; but I never associated with you. You knew I had a watch and money; but I had not my watch with me on this night; I don't hare it on Mondays.
Tew. Q. Do you say you saw me? A. Yes; you were there. I did not tell the constable you were not the man; I said you were the man that took the 2s. out of my pocket.
JAMES WAY (Policeman N R 48). The prosecutor came to me, and complained of being robbed—I saw the prisoners, with several others, run away down the court—Reed ran a little way and then turned back, and the prosecutor said "That is the man that has robbed me"—he said he knew nothing about it—I am sure Tew is one of those who ran away.
GEROGE DUDLEY (Police Officer N.) From information I looked after Tew on this night—I saw him, but he escaped down one of the courts—I took him next day in Parsley's Court—I told him he would be charged with highway robbery, with violence—he said, "It is not me you want, it is a man living in Payne Street"—I took him to the station, and on the way to the court the prosecutor saw him, and said "That is the man who robbed me—I found on him a two-shilling piece tied up in the corner of a handkerchief, and five-pence in copper.
Reed's Defence. I am innocent. I went up the court for my hat, that a young fellow knocked off.
Tew's Defence. I was at the theatre the night this happened. I know nothing about it. The prosecutor did not identify me till the policeman spoke to him.
GUILTY .**— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Thursday, January 12th, 1871.
For the Case of William London, tried this day, see Surrey Cases.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
Before Mr. Recorder.
131. GEORGE EMBERSON FAIRCHILD (35) , Unlawfully, wilhin four months of his bankruptcy, removing part of his property, with intent to defraud his creditors. Second Count—Destroying property, with intent to injure John Walker and another.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution; and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence.
GEORGE SONLEY VENUS . I am clerk to Messrs. Linklaters—they are solicitors to the trustee under the defendant's bankruptcy—I produce the proceedings in his bankruptcy under the seal of the Court—he is described as of the "Sun" public-house, Blackheath Hill—the petition was presented on 4th August, and the trustee Mr. Blackie, was appointed on 6th September—on 23rd September, the defendant was examined in the Court of Bankruptcy—I took down his evidence—it was afterwards read over to him and he signed it, and swore to it—the amount of his debts to unsecured creditors was 637l. 10s. 9d., rent and taxes 38l. 13s. 4d., and the assets nil.—Tayldr, Walker & Co., are creditors to the amount of 280l. and a further sum of 20l. for rent—that is also unsecured—Sewell, Blackie & Co. are put down as creditors for 232l., but it was proved not to be so much.
Cross-examined. They afterwards proved for 182l.—the account of Taylor, Walker & Co. is 80l. for beer and 200l. loan—the account of Cockerell & Co. for coals is not proved—the other accounts filed by the bankrupt are, Slee & Cio. 2l. 2s. 6d., Hall & Co. 26l. 18s., Dingwell & Co. 4l. 8s., Lyell & Glyn 5l. 6s. 6d., Henley & Co. 6l. 9s. 6d., Stevens & Sons 46l.—it does not appear what the amounts were for—he became bankrupt on the petition of Messrs. Sewell & Blackie. (The bankrupt's examination was put in and read.)
HARRY JONES . I am a public-house broker, and reside at 4, Brunswick Terrace, Commercial Road—I was employed by Taylor, Walker & Co., the brewers, to let the "Sun," public-house, at Blackheath—I saw the defendant on that subject, in October, 1869—he had been down previously to the brewery, and had seen Mr. Sewell, the manager, and expressed a desire to take the house, and Mr. Sewell referred him to me—we met the next morning, at the brewery, and an agreement was prepared, and Mr. Fair-child, paid a deposit of 50l. into my hands—he agreed at that time to pay 200l., and the firm was to lend the other 200l.—he signed this agreement in my presence. (This was a memorandum of agreement, dated 26th October, 1869, between 'William Henry Sewell and George Emberson Fairchild, and witnessed by Harry Jones, to assign over the "Sun" tavern, at Greenwich, in consideration of the sum of 400l. to be paid, and as tenant to Messrs. Taylor, Walker & Co.—Fairchild to pay 80l. per year, and deliver up possession of house and such premises as might be under-let, also to make good, and repair the premises—possession to commence on 3rd November, 1869—50l. to be now paid, in part payment of the purchase money)—He was able to write at that time, but with difficulty—his arm was affected; he was not aware at that time it was broken—I revious to 3rd November, I made an inventory, and on that day I saw the defendant at my office, for the purpose of completing the arrangement—there was a person with him whom he introduced as his brother, or brother-in-law—he stated that he was prepared to complete the agreement, and to pay the balance of the money, and I prepared the equitable mortgage—200l. was to be lent by the brewers, and he gave an equitable mortgage for that—on 3rd November, he put his murk to that agreement—(This was an agreement to become tenant at 80l. a year, of house and fixtures, with power to the landlord to re-enter if half a year's rent should be in arrears,
the beer to be bought of Taylor, Walker & Co.)—At that time he also put his mark to a promissory note for 200l., and to this memorandum of deposit making Messrs. Taylor, Walker & Co. the mortgagee's of the house and fixtures, securing to them the sum of 200l.,—he did not sign those because his arm was in a sling, and he said he had broken it—his brother-in-law assisted him to take off his coat before he made the mark—he paid the rest of the 200l., at that time, with the exception of a few pounds deducted for charges—I gave him the inventory—all those things were in the "Sun" public-house, belonging to Messrs. Taylor, Walker & Co., to which the equitable mortgage related—after signing the first agreement he called on me and said he could not make up the 200l.,—he wanted first 150l., and he called and asked whether the firm would advance 50l., more—the original understanding was that 150l., was to be given, and it was afterwards made up to 200l.—I went to the premises in July, and put in a distress for three quarters' rent, 60l., due at midsummer—I waited at the house about two hours before Fairchild came—I told him we were there for the rent, and wanted 60l.—he was in a very excited state, and said he had got the money in his cash box—I said if he would pay us the money, we would withdraw without charging the expenses—he said he should do nothing of the sort, he should allow the thing to go on; in fact, he took up the poker and threatened us—the broken remained in possession—I afterwards saw the defendant on the subject of this letter, which I received from Mr. Sewell, the manager to Messrs. Taylor, Walker & Co.—on 21st July, I saw the defendant at the brewery, after the distraint was made—I asked him whether he was prepared to come to any arrangement—he said he would, if the firm would give him 100l. and allow him to keep the furniture and pay his debt to Messrs. Sewell and Blackie—I said I would go and see Mr. Sewell—I went and saw him—I saw the defendant afterwards, and told him Mr. Sewell would give him 50l., and allow him to remove his own furniture, and would discharge Messrs. Sewell & Blackie's debt, and would forgo their claim—he said if they would allow him to remove the billiard table he would accede to it—I saw Mr. Sewell about that, and then saw the defendant—I told him that Mr. Sewell would not allow the billiard table to be removed—the defendant then said he would go home and smash every b——thing up in the place, if he suffered twelve months for it afterwards—I said if he did attempt to do anything of that sort, of course we should punish him for it, and I reminded him that the goods were mortgaged to Messrs. Taylor & Walker—we then parted, and no arrangement having been made, I prepared to sell under the distress for rent—I posted bills about and advertised, and the sale was to take place on 25th July, at 3.30, at the public-house—the things were appraised before the sale at 75l., 13s., and they were offered to the defendant at that price, in my presence and in the' presence of a constable—he said we were to sell the things and do what we liked with them—they were sold for 86l. 10s.—my brother bought some of the things, at least they were knocked down to a man of the name of Redpath—after the sale the defendant conducted himself in a violent way—he took a mallet up, and threatened me, and attempted to rip my nose up with his thumb, and swore at me—when it got dark the men wanted to remove the goods, and the gas was turned on—he said he would not have any gas on, and turned it out—a clerk went for some candles, and he knocked them out of his hand, and would not allow them to be lighted, and he broke
in the panel of a door with his fist—I saw the entabular afterwards; the glass behind the bar—that was broken—I went to the house again on 8th September I think when I received possession from the bailiff of the County Court, under the bankruptcy—the premises were then stripped entirely—the lamps outside the counter, the beer-engine, the whole of the cabinet work, gas fittings, and the casks on the shelves, were all removed—they would not be worth a fourth of the money after they were removed—I should say 200l. worth of damage was done—two doors had been unscrewed, and taken away from the place—I afterwards bought those at a sale on 8th November—they were sold by Shallis & Copinger, at Greenwich—it was a sale of furniture and effects—the beer-engine and cabinet-work were there, and sold by auction—I bought the two doors with some other things for 10l. 5s., and had them carried back to the place.
Cross-examined. In the first instance I acted for both parties—that is the practice—there was no inventory of the furniture or fixtures on 26th October—that was made afterwards—he had been to the house, and had seen what the things were—I was present on the day of the sale—the distraint had been put in on the 20th—I don't know that there ought to have been six clear days, or that I sold the things a day before the proper time—the sale took place at 3.30—I did not buy anything—there was not 600l. worth of goods on the premises, which went for about 60l.—there was not 30l. worth of spirits on the premises—it had been drawn off and water put in—the port wine had been drawn off, and there was only bottoms there—my brother summoned the prisoner at the Police Court for assaulting him—he was bound over to keep the peace—there was not 30l., worth of Messrs. Sewell & Blackie's spirits and wine sold for 25s.—there were no persons at the sale protesting against the way it was carried on—I pledge my oath to that—articles might have been put up the second time, because very often after the things are knocked down they won't come forward and claim them, and so they are put up again—my brother bought something through a man named Redpath—he is one of the porters—I am not aware that 4l. worth of beer was drunk on the premises by the broker's men—Fairchild had possession of the bar—there was not 4l. worth of coals and twenty bottles of wine sold for 5s.—the bill says "A quantity of coals and a quantity of wine and other bottles"—they sold for 5s.—there was not a ton of coals—the things realized a reasonable amount—the prosecutor's brother or brother-in-law was present when the second agreement was signed—my sister was in the office at the same time, and Mr. Fairchild apologized for having to take his coat off in her presence.
WILLIAM THOMAS . I am in the employment of Mr. Jones—I was present on Monday, 25th July, when the sale took place—I had been in possession under the distress, from the 20th—the defendant came in, and caused a deal of disturbance—after the sale he went into the bar, took up a black bottle, and smashed it through a glass—I told him he was doing wrong—he said he did not care a damn—I told him he would be locked up for it, and he said he could do six months' on his head for it—he took the bottle by the neck, and struck the glass and smashed it into a thousand pieces—it did not leave a piece the size of your hand—he asked if the clock was sold, and was told "No"—he said "It is a good job, or I would serve that in the same manner"—I did not hear anything said about what was to be done at night about the fixtures—he said they had had their game with him, and he would have his game with them.
Cross-examined. I was present all the while—I did not hear any persons protesting against the way in which the things were being knocked down—I was engaged in bringing things down from up stairs—I was not engaged in conveying the billiard-table down stairs—I don't know who did that—this entabular that was broken was a square piece of glass—I think there was "Scotch and Irish whisky" on it.
Re-examined. I saw the door broken in by Fail-child—he was not allowed to come in, and he rushed at the door and broke in the panels.
MR. STRAIGHT. Q. You were trying to keep him out of the place?; A. He caused so much disturbance—he was interfering with the business—I did not hear him say they were doing what would turn him and his wife and ten children out into the streets.
NATHANIEL SYKES . I am employed by Mr. Jone—I was present at the "Sun," on 25th July, the day of the sale—the defendant came there in a very excited state, and he was going on swearing, and he said Mr. Jone and Mr. Walker had paid him a trick, and he should pay them one, and when they were all gone he would break everything in the place, if he did six months for it—he took a bottle, and began to break the glass in the cabinet work—someone got him into the bar-parlour, but be came back and took another bottle.
Cross-examined. It was a large tablet let into the cabinet work—the prisoner seemed in a very excited state—I saw his wife there—everything was sold in the place except the cabinet-work.
HENRY GOODWIN . I am a police-officer—about 1.15 on the morning of the 26th July, I heard hammering and unusual noises at the "Sun" public-house, as though carpenters were at work there, and I felt it my duty to see what was going on—I looked through the crevice of the door, and I saw them pulling down the counter—I first observed the top of toe counter taken off and moved towards the coffee room—I did not see the defendant—I heard him giving instructions to pull the counter down, and likewise a door leading into the parlour—I heard him tell them to pull that b——y door down, and also a mantelpiece—he said he had purchased them, and he should take them down and dispose of them, and they might do what they pleased—I don't know who they were—I saw a van there, and some of the things being removed—I considered I could not interfere, as the defendant was there—if he had not been there I should have called to see what they were doing.
Cross-examined. There were other persons at work there, and he was directing them.
THOMAS BENJAMIN BATTIN . I am an accountant—I knew the defendant when he occupied the "Sun"—I rented a room on the first floor of him as a billiard-room—on 26th July I purchased some things of him—I met him in the street—there were four lamps and the fittings—I gave him 30s. for them—I have got the receipt—on 28th July I purchased some ornamental irons, which belonged to the lamps—I gave 2l. for those—I purchased them at the "sun"—I purchased a quantity of things—they were in a shed, at the "Horse and Groom" public-house—I went and looked at them—the defendant asked me if I would purchase them, and I said "I have no objection; what is the price?" and eventually I bought them for 35l.—he gave me this receipt and this inventory (produced)—the things marked with red ink on the left hand side are what I purchased—there were gas fittings, Venetian blinds, two doors, and various other public-house fittings—there
were two doors belonging to the house—I bought all those for 35l.—I should think, after the things were removed, they were worth a fourth of the value—if they had been in their places they would be worth about 150l.—I was present at the sale of Shallis & Co.—I saw the two doors and the cabinet work sold to Mr. Jones for 10l. 6s.—I have also sold the counter for 12l., and about 7l. worth of things besides—I have the engine, and spirit taps and casks, and several other things now.
Cross-examined. I was present at the sale on the 25th, at the public-house—I don't remember any complaints being made about the way in which the auctioneers carried on the sale; but things were sold in an offhand manner—goods were not sold at the price they ought to have fetched—the sale was hurried—it did not commence till late in the afternoon—the goods ought to have fetched far more than they did—the goods, apart from the billiard-table, fetched about 44l.; they ought to have fetched about 100l.—there were nine or ten store casks, which went for 9s. or 10s.—they were casks which held about 210 gallons—they were bought by Redpath, I think, who was buying on behalf of Mr. Jones—I did not know Fairchild before he went to the "Sun"—I know that he has a wife and nine children—the house was stripped completely bare—they left him nothing to lie down upon.
Re-examined. I did not buy any of the things—I was there to prevent any damage to the billiard-table—the sale took place in the ordinary way—bills were posted about—I think that according to what I saw in the inventory and what I saw in the place, they ought to have fetched 100l. by auction—it happened they did not.
TINDALL. I am an auctioneer and valuer—I saw the goods sold by auction on 25th July—I appraised them at 86l. 13s., and they were sold for 75l. 14s.—they were offered to the tenant at that price—I was present at the sale—they were sold by Mr. Jones in the ordinary way—I did not observe anything improper in the way they were sold.
HENRY TAYLOR . I am a carpenter, and in July last I was in Mr. Eldred's employ: he is dead—on 25th July I went to the "Sun," about 11.30, at night, and worked there till the next afternoon—the defendant was there—I can't say how many more—we were taking down fixtures, doors, counters, and all those things—they were taken down carefully—I did not see the counter cut—I was up stairs at the time—I saw it after it was cut.
Cross-examined. I was told by my master to take the things down carefully, and not injure the house.
WILLIAM HENRY SEWELL . I am manager to Taylor, Walker, & Co., the brewers, and landlords of this house—I received this letter of 18th July from the defendant—I have not got any letter of 18th August, or any other letters—Mr. Davis would receive the orders for beer to be delivered.
Cross-examined. Mr. Davis is our foreman—he receives letters from customers—he would enter them in the order-book, and put the letters on one side—I have not been to the public-house, and I don't know that the Chatham and Dover Railway Station has been built opposite—the first beer the defendant had was 4th November, 1869, and the last on 11th July, 1870—during that time he has had 337l. 12s. worth of beer—he has returned 12. 10s. 5d., leaving the net amount 325l. 1s. 7d.—he paid in cash 223l., leaving 102l. unpaid—the amount placed to his interest account was 11l. 9s. 6d.
Ra-examined. I had nothing to do with the sale of the house myself personally
—Mr. Jones communicated with us, and we gave him authority to make the offer, which he did.
MR. STRAIGHT called the following Witness for the Defence.
WILLIAM FAIRMAN . I am an accountant, and live at Greenwich—I have known the prisoner some five years—I never heard anything against his character, I have always heard him well spoken of—I remember his occupying the "Sun" public-house—in July I wrote one or two letters for him to Mr. Sewell, and posted them myself—I made copies of them at the time, and have them here—I could not say that the prisoner was not able to use his hand at that time, he had met with some accident, I believe. (Letter read: "10th July, 1870. Dear Sir,—I am sorry to say that, although I have got nearly three puncheons porter in the cellar, I cannot use any of it, as fast as I draw and send it out all my customers return it, and in consequence, for the last two days I have been compelled to draw stout and ale, of which I am now aground. Please attend to this at once, as delay is simply ruin, and I must shut up the house if I have no beer to draw.")—The representation in that letter was undoubtedly true—Mr. Pratt, the collector of Taylor & Co., came down after the first letter was written; I wrote two—I did not hear what passed between him and the prisoner—I was not at the premises when the distraint was put in—I was present at the sale on the 25th—I have no idea as to the value of the wine and spirits; his furniture generally, as far as I could judge, would be worth from 200l. to 250l., and the fixtures might amount to as much more—there were several protests by the prisoner against the mode in which the sale was carried on; he was very much put out about it, and was in a very irritable state all day—he said he considered they—had no right to hold the sale on his premises.
Cross-examined. I am not aware that the day after I wrote the letter of 10th July, a quantity of porter was sent in—I saw the defendant a day or two afterwards; but I can't say the result—I wrote another letter on the 18th July.
WILLIAM WHITE . I live in South Street, Blackheath Hill—I have known the prisoner about seven or eight years—I have always found him a very respectable man—I was present at the sale, and heard him protest against its being held on the premises—it was held in the billiard-room—I saw the billiard-table cut in halves by the man who bought it; I saw it being brought down—a good deal of paint was knocked off the wall.
Cross-examined. I knew the defendant, when he kept the "Bee Hive" at Eltham—I knew him at Woolwich, as a baker, some time ago—he once had a public-house on Grinstead Green, and also kept the "Orleans Arms," Lewisham Road—they were licensed houses.
THOMAS WILLIAM BLOCK . I reside at 6, Blackheath Hill, next door to the "Sun"—I have known Fairchild for years—I remember the house before he had it; it was dosed for four months—he very much improved the character of the house and the trade; four persons were ruined before he went there—there is a tramway terminus opposite, and there is to be a station of the Chatham and Dover Railway—as far as I know he has conducted himself respectably and honestly there—I had some of the bad beer, and sent it back—he has complained to me that the porter supplied to him was bad.
Cross-examined. I have known the house since, is has not improved; it if not a perfect wreck—I am a butcher—a man and his wife ace taking
care of the house; they could let it immediately if they liked—I think they have kept it vacant out of spite.
WILLIAM WHITE . I am a hot water engineer and gasfitter, and live at 2, Plumridge Street, Blackheath Hill—on the evening of 25th July, I was employed by the prisoner to take some things out of the "Sun" public-house—I took them out carefully; there was nothing damaged; the place is not a wreck—I knew the house before the prisoner went into it, it had been empty about four months—I think the trade had improved to what it was at the last tenancy, and was well conducted—I have known the prisoner about two years, or a little more—I never heard anything against him—I took away the counter, the cabinet, and pipes—the counter was fixed to the floor, it was taken down very carefully, so as to be placed there or anywhere else without injury to the material that was there—the greatest care was taken, I can assure you, in taking all the things out, nothing was taken away recklessly—Mr. Eldred, a carpenter, who is now dead, was doing it with me, and was equally careful—I never heard any violent expressions or threats from the prisoner towards Messrs. Taylor, Walker & Co.
Cross-examined. I went there about 9 o'clock in the evening, and stayed there all night and all next day, at work all the time, taking down the things—it is usual to work at night—I had about six men with me—the defendant was there; he did nothing—he did not go to bed—he did not supply me with beer—if we wanted a little refreshment we had it, he did not give it to us—we would get it ourselves—we were working in the cellar—we took all the pipes away; we had to cut them, of course.
Re-examined. There was no bed in the house for the prisoner to go to—I think a neighbour had taken his wife and nine children in—there were several tradesmen living on the hill, there seeing what was being done—this proceeding excited great indignation amongst the neighbours.
Cross-examined. I know Mr. Batten—I did not buy anything from him that came from this house; I bought some tubing from the "Sun," I fancy it came from the "Sun," I did not buy it there—I paid Fairchild for it—I don't think it was spirit tubing, it was beer-pipe tubing, I think, about 4l. or 5l. worth—it had been cut—I think I bought it a day or two after the sale, at the back of Mr. Block's house—there was a good bit of it there, I don't know how much—I did not see any more than I bought—it was in a shed—I went there to see it—I saw nothing else there but the tubing—I did not buy all that was there, only a portion—I don't know whether I bought it of Mr. Fairchild, or Mr. Block—I don't know how much was left there, whether half or one-tenth—there were several in the market for it; some offering one price, and some another—I bought all that was lying there at the time—I have not sold it again—I was very much taken in by it; it was not worth anything like what I gave for it.
T. W. BLOCK (re-examined.) Some of the piping was removed to my place, and some of it was bought by Mr. Bell—he bought all the piping—a few drawers were also brought there belonging to the counters; Mr. Batten bought them—Mr. Fairchild's servant brought them to my place, because it was the nearest; they came between 5 and 6 o'clock in the
morning after the sale—I was at the sale—I heard complaints made by Fairchild, and also by others—Mr. Miller for one—Fairchild complained of the illegality of the sale—he said the money was not owing, and there was not sufficient time.
EDWARD MILLER . I live in Devonshire Road, Greenwich—I have known Fairchild over three years—I never knew anything against his character; I was present at the sale, part of the time—I was going to buy—I had been to many sales, but never to one like that; I bid two or three times, and it was no sooner, bid than knocked down—the auctioneer objected to my bidding, and said he would turn me out of the room, and I went out—I heard Fairchild complain; and enough to make him, things being put in and carried away in the manner they were.
Cross-examined. I am a retired builder—I did not see the bills posted about, relating to the sale—I went in as I was passing by.
Several other witnesses deposed to the prisoner's good character. Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MESSRS. POLAND and HORACE BROWN conducted the Prosecution.
ELIZA COX . I am barmaid to Mr. Higginson, who keeps the "Horns Tavern," Hackney Road—on 28th November the prisoner came in, and I served him with 1 1/2 d. worth of-gin—he gave me a bad shilling—I told him it was bad—I called Mr. Higginson, and gave him the shilling—this is the one (produced.)
Prisoner. Q. Did you give me the shilling back? A. No, I said it was bad—you appeared very uneasy, and wanted to go; but I kept my eye on you.
CHARLES HIGGINSON . I keep the "Horns Tavern," Hackney Road—on 28th November the last witness called me into the bar, and gave me a had shilling—the prisoner was there—I said to him "This is a bad shilling"—I bent it—I sent for a constable, and gave him in charge—I afterwards attended at Worship Street Police Court—the prisoner was remanded for a week, and then discharged—he gave the name of John Jackson—he paid me with a good shilling afterwards; but I did not give him the bad one back.
ALFRED EDWARDS . I am a draper, at 25, London Road—on Tuesday evening, 6th December, the prisoner came to my shop, and bought a purse for 4 1/2 d.—he gave me a shilling in payment—I told him it was bad, and he said "Here is a good one"—I refused to take it—I sent my boy for' a constable, and while he was gone the prisoner made his escape—I ran after him, calling "Stop thief?—I did not lose sight of him till the constable took him—I gave him into custody, and gave the shilling to the constable.
ALFRED ENGLAND (Policeman L 90). On 6th December, about 6 o'clock in the evening, I was on duty in the London Road, and saw the prisoner running down Marshall Street, and someone running after him, calling "Stop thief!"—I stopped him, and the last witness came up and charged him with uttering a bad shilling—the prisoner said he had just come from
Kingston—I received this shilling from Edwards—I found three good shillings on the prisoner—he gave the name of Thomas Smith.
Prisoner's Defence. I did not know they were bad.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MESSRS. POLAND and HORACE BROWN conducted the Prosecution; and
MR. WARNER SLEIGH the Defence.
ALICE MARY ELY . I am the wife of the manager of the "King of Prussia," in Gravel Lane—on 15th December the prisoner came in and asked for a pint of four half—the price was 2d.—he gave me a shilling—I gave him his change—he drank the beer and left—I put the shilling in the till—there was no other money there—the tills had been cleared—I went to the till three or four minutes after the prisoner had gone—I looked at the shilling, and bit it with my teeth; it was gritty—I put it in the fire, and it melted—on Tuesday, 20th December, the prisoner came again, between 8 and 9 o'clock—I knew him again—he asked for a pint of four half, and gave me a bad shilling—I broke it in two pieces; I said "This is a bad one, you gave me one last week"—he said "I did not, I have not been in the house before"—I called my husband, a constable was sent for, and the prisoner was given into custody—my husband gave the two pieces of the shilling to the constable.
Cross-examined. It was in the evening when he first came in, as far as I can recollect, between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening—we were slack that evening—there was no one there except the prisoner—I threw the shilling in the fire, as useless—it was ten days afterwards that the came again—I identified him immediately—I did not say anything to him until he gave me the bad shilling—he was not going to sit down and smoke a pipe—my husband was not in the bar when he came to the house the first time—there was no one else serving in the bar—the prisoner remained in the place till a constable was sent for, and then he went to the station—he was not violent; he merely said he had not been there before.
GEORGE TAYLOR (Policeman M 248). On 20th December I took the prisoner into custody—I received these two pieces of a shilling from the husband of the last witness—the prisoner said he had been out selling sandbags, in the Kent Road, and had received the money in payment—he gave the name of George Craven first, and immediately after that George Sorby—he had no sand-bags with him—I found nothing on him.
Cross-examined. He gave me his address—I discovered it was right—his name is Craven; his father said he had been away from home three months—I know nothing at all against the prisoner.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. POLAND and HORACE BROWN conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM HENRY HORNSEY . I am a baker, at 85, Southwark Bridge Road—on Friday, 30th December, the prisoner came to my shop, about 7 o'clock in the evening—she asked for a halfpennyworth of cake, and gave me a bad shilling—I asked her how many more she had on her—she said
she had not any more—I asked her where she got it—she said her sister, at Clerkenwell, gave it to her, and she would bring her sister, if I liked—I said it was immaterial, and she might go; but I should detain the shilling—the prisoner left—I spoke to 257 M, and pointed out the prisoner to him—he took her into custody, after she had walked a little distance—I crossed the road, and walked behind them—I saw a motion underneath her shawl, and I picked up a pocket-handkerchief—I asked her why she threw her handkerchief away—she said "No sir, not me; you are mistaken"—I gave the handkerchief to the constable—I law it undone, and there were four shillings wrapped in newspaper in it—I gave them to the constable.
JOSEPH BALL (Policeman 257 M.) On Friday evening, 30th December, the last witness spoke to me, and I took the prisoner into custody—on the way to the station I saw the witness stoop and pick something up—she came and asked the prisoner if she had dropped her pocket-handkerchief—she said "No, it is not mine; you are mistaken"—I received a piece of newspaper and four shillings from Mr. Hornsby—I showed them to the prisoner—she said it was not hers; he must have been mistaken—I found the four shillings were bad, and I produce them to-day—I also produce another shilling, which I received from Mr. Hornsby—he charged her with passing it to him—she said it was given to her by her sister, who lived at Clerkenwell—she gave me her address at Stepney, which was correct.
Prisoner's Defence. I borrowed the shilling of my sister. If I had had those pieces I should have dropped them in the snow, where they would not have been found. I never saw the handkerchief drop.
She was further charged with having been before convicted.
WILLIAM BRIGHT (Policeman G R 13). I produce a certificate (Read:—"23rd September, 1867. At this Court Mary Taylor was convicted of unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, at the same time having other counterfeit coin in her possession, and was ordered to be imprisoned two years")—The person described there (Mary Taylor) is the prisoner—she was in my, custody in that case—I saw her at the Police Court, and was present when she was tried—I am certain she is the same person.
GUILTY— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
The prisoner having stated, in the hearing of the Jury, that he was GUILTY, they found a verdict of
GUILTY .— Three Months' additional Imprisonment.
MR. COLE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COLLINS the Defence.
HENERY DEVEREUX PRITCHARD . I am High Bailiff of the Lambeth County Court—I find a certified copy of the entry of a plaint in the case of "Pass v. London" and of the hearing and the adjourned hearing; also the original summons, and some papers annexed—the first is an entry on 9th November, 1870, of an action between Messrs. Pass and Henry London, for 4l. 19s. 11d.—then there is an entry of the hearing on 29th November, which is adjourned
to 6th December; and on the 6th December judgment was given for the defendant—I was on duty the whole of that day—I have no recollection of seeing London sworn; but it is extremely likely that I swore him—a person would not have been examined without having been previously sworn.
Cross-examined. I do not even remember his being there—if a young witness came up I should look at the Judge to know whether I should swear him; but not with a competent witness—questions are never asked without the witness being sworn—Mr. Elworthy, the attorney, appeared for the plaintiff on the adjourned hearing, and for the defendant and his mother Matilda London.
JOHN MASON . I am an Usher of the Lambeth County Court—I know the defendant by sight, and I believe the oath was administered to him on 6th December—it is customary to do so—as near as I can repeat, the attorney for the plaintiff asked him "Did you ever have any coals, either on your own account or your mother's, on credit"—he answered in the negative; the question was put a second time, and he again answered in the negative—I do not recollect hearing the Judge ask the same question—it was the mode in which the question was put which called my attention to it, otherwise I should not have troubled my head about the matter, there are so many cases—I mean that the way Mr. Elworthy put his question called my attention to the case.
Cross-examined. Mr. Elworthy said "Will you swear that you never had any coals on credit, on your own account or your mother's?"—that was the only question asked—no notes were taken—that is Mr. Elworthy—the case may have lasted a quarter of an hour—thousands of cases are tried in a year—I am there three-parts of the day—I occasionally have to attend to other duties—the question I heard was not "Will you swear that either you or your mother never had these coals on credit;" but that question might have been asked.
MR. COLE. Q. To the best of your belief was the question put in the general form, or with regard to these particular coals? A. The question I understood to apply simply to the case that was on—I cannot tell whether it was definite or indefinite.
JOSEPH WILSON . I am a coal-merchant, of 13 1/2, High Street, Vauxhall—I was formerly manager to Michael Pass & Co., coal-merchants, of Princes Wharf, Vauxhall, and I am still acting for them—I had not the charge of the books, but I had the sole control of everything—I entered their service about the latter part of February, 1870—the prisoner very frequently came to the wharf to purchase coals—he generally bought them for cash, but I do not recollect his saying positively who they were for—it was my duty to be at the office every day—he has also ordered coals on credit—a person first applies at the office for the quantity of coals he requires, and a ticket is given to him, which he delivers to the foreman on the wharf, who delivers the coals accordingly—the tickets are filed every morning, and returned—they are marked "Paid," when paid, and left blank when unpaid, so that a party paying takes his receipt with him—I have only a personal knowledge of one ticket, that is March 21—the books are here—I saw the ticket of 21st March handed to the defendant—it is a ticket given at the office when coals are ordered—I wrote nothing on it—this is the writing of one of the clerks on it—I know from the books that the defendant ordered coals on credit on 21st March—I cannot swear it from my memory—I know they
were not paid for, because I said "How is it that you almost invariably pay cash for your coals, and that there are several other transactions for which you have not paid cash?"—I had not been long in the place then, and wished to know—he said that his mother was not in the way, and there were two or three amounts outstanding, and he would call in a few days and settle them altogether—he did not have credit for coals at all after 21st March—the tickets not marked "Paid" were collected in the evening, and entered in the day-book in the usual course of business—I personally examined a number of tickets where coals had been purchased by the defendant—I found the word "Paid" on all that were paid—this signature "Ellen" is the name of the bargeman; he always marks them—I also examined the books with regard to the account between the defendant and his mother and Mr. Pass.
MR. COLLINS contended that the books not being in the witness's writing, he could not refresh his memory from them. MR. COLE submitted that the books were kept under the witness's inspection; that he had the control of them, and that he made out the accounts from them, and therefore that the evidence was admissible. THE COURT considered that MR. COLE had better confine himself to the transaction of 21st March.)—This sum of 21st March was never paid—I have no entries in my writing with respect to the goods supplied to London and his mother—after I examined the books, a claim was made to his mother for 4l. 19s. lid, and I very frequently spoke to him about it—that was, I should say, between May and September—I said "Your mother repudiates the debt, and says it is all owing by you"—he admitted that, and said that his mother had given him the money to pay for the coals, and he had spent it—he promised over and over again to pay some portion of it, but be never kept his word—I was present at the Lambeth County Court on 29th November and 6th December—I saw the oath administered to the defendant, and heard him examined—I gave evidence on that occasion—heard the attorney question the defendant—I believe he said "Did you at any time, either on your own account or that of your mother, have any coals or goods from Pass & Co., on credit"—he replied "I did not;" it was a decisive negative—the question was repeated in precisely the same words, I think, and he denied it again—the Judge had put the question first, before the attorney—he denied it to the Judge, and then the attorney repeated the question, and said that he could not carry the case further, and threw it up—generally speaking, where credit has been given, I receive the money, but not always—I never received any money with regard to 21st March—the boy is the only other person who received money—he is here.
Cross-examined. I entered the service about the latter part of February, 1870—I employed Mr. Elworthy at the Police Court—I hardly ever saw Mr. Pass, perhaps once a week—I do not think the attorney began his question "Will you swear" I think that was at the close of the question—he did not begin "Will you swear"—I took no note of it, and do not know whether my solicitor did—I was not near him—I have not seen any notes of the evidence—when Mr. Elworthy took down my evidence, I told him what was said—I only give you my view of what the question was, as far of I remember, and to the best of my belief—a cash-book was kept, in which Mr. Pass, junior, copies the entries from the original book, which was kept by the boy Davis—the Judge did not tell me in dismissing the case that the books were so badly kept that he could make neither head nor tail of them—I was in Court the whole time, and I pledge my oath to that, for this
simple reason, that the books were never produced; but he did say that our system of doing business was very irregular; you will find that it was not so—I differ from the Judge—I do not think I said at the County Court that the prisoner said that his mother had given him the money and he had spent it, for the whole case did not last three minutes—I did not tell Mr. Elworthy that—I gave him instructions to conduct the case, and consulted with him when the summons was taken out—to the best of my knowledge, I never told the Judge, or Mr. Elworthy, or the Police Magistrate, that the prisoner said he had received the money and spent it, and promised to pay—I think I mentioned it to the Counsel when I had a conference with him here on Tuesday evening—Mr. Elworthy was not present—I did not tell Mr. Elworthy because there were so many little details which cropped up, and I did not attach the importance to it you do—the mother has dealt with the firm two or three years.
MR. COLE. Q. What time was Mr. Elworthy engaged? A. About five minutes before the case came on—I instructed him to prosecute the prisoner for perjury—you put a number of questions to me, wanting to understand the merits of the case.
COURT. Q. I suppose your case was not complete at first, it was put off for something? A. I asked for an adjournment—I went again to the rehearing, on 6th December, and was examined—the defendant was put into the box, and denied having the coals—I was perfectly astonished, as he had told me his mother had given him the money—that sprang into my mind.
Q. Did you not say "This man has told me over and over again that he had the money; call me, put me into the box again?—how can you have allowed yourself to be sworn out of Court I You gave instructions to indict him for perjury; and from that hour, months ago up to the present day, you never mentioned that he had said this, which is the strongest piece of evidence you have. A. He has promised payment not once, but fifty times—I protested, as well as I could, against the decision of the County Court Judge, but he decided against me at once, and the thing was over; though that would have been the right course, no doubt.
GEOROE DAVIS . I am a messenger at the Phoenix Gas Works, and was in the employ of Messrs. Pass, coal merchants—I did not keep any of the books, I only entered the orders in an order-book—I went there on 24th January, 1870, and was there till September—I often saw the defendant there—I wrote out tickets for any person who came to order coals, which he would give to the wharf clerk, who would deliver the coals—the ticket would not come back to me personally—all these tickets are in my writing; I handed them to the defendant, to be taken to the wharfinger—they were taken from one of these two books (produced)—these tickets of 18th, 24th, and 25th February, and the 8th, 9th, and 21st March were handed by me to the defendant—I think that of 18th February was lost at the Police Court—when cash was paid for coals it was usual to put "Paid" at the bottom of the ticket; that was always done; and when they were not paid for, it was not put on—I have some here marked "Paid"—these of 24th and 25th February and the 8th, 9th, and 21st March, are not paid—I have three marked "Paid" on the counterfoils; the rest are not paid—I have compared all these tickets with their counterfoils, and they all tally—they come back to the office after the wharfinger has put them on a file—I make no entry from the tickets of the coals not being paid for; but when they are paid for I enter it into my cash-book (produced)—some
of these entries are in my writing—on 24th February here is "10s. 9d., paid," and "10s. 3d., paid," on the 25th, in my writing, and 9s. on 8th March—they all correspond with the tickets—on 8th March the defendant paid 10s. 9d. for half-a-ton of coals, and he had one sack the same day, for which he had credit for 1s. 10d.—he generally paid cash; but he had goods on credit several times—from 21st March to September I heard Mr. Wilson ask the defendant several times for payment of the account owing, and I have asked him myself—he has made the excuse that he would pay next week; and when I asked him once, he said he was going into the country to see an aunt, and get some money, and he would pay when he came back—it was understood that he came on account of his mother, when credit was given—he was asked to settle the account generally; he was not asked for the amount; he knew that, because I had delivered the bill to his mother, Hannah London—I was not at the County Court on 6th December—I wrote "Paid" on all these tickets when the coals were paid for—I lent him two sacks, to take away his coals, on March 9th (This was stated on the ticket)—I do not know how long he kept them—the wharfinger can perhaps tell you when he returned them—the coals were not paid for when the sacks were lent—I was not in the habit of putting Mrs. London on the ticket—"Mr." is printed on them.
Cross-examined. I do not know whether I have ever made out a ticket to Mrs. London—I had to take all the money—I was always there except when I was at my meals, and then those who received cash would write it down in the book, and give it to me when I came back, and I look at the tickets to see that it is entered properly—most of these orders are in other people's writing—Mr. Pass's, Mr. Wilson's, Mr. Strickland's, and my own—Mrs. London did not cease to deal with me after March—the defendant came very often after that—I left in September—the prisoner also ordered coal on his own account; we have trusted him two sacks at a time, and I think half-a-ton—everybody's name who has an account is entered in the ledger—I think the defendant had an account—I should specify to Mr. Wilson when he made the ledger up, which were for Mr. London and which for his mother, and I would say "Bill has had these himself, and he is going to pay us next week"—I carried all that in my head—I never saw Mrs. London at the office—Mr. Pass came sometimes—I have worked for Mr. Wilson since he started, which was some time in September—Mr. Pass then let the wharf—neither he or Mr. Wilson have got it now—I do not know whether Mr. Pass is here—I do not think he was at the Police Court—it was Mr. Pass's business, but Mr. Wilson had the management—Mr. Pass came there nearly every day, and he used to take the money, and give it to me to take care of till the morning; that was a rule in the office, or he would give it to Wilson, and Wilson would give it to me—Mr. Pass and Wilson were both in the habit of receiving money, and so was Strickland, the first thing in the morning—if goods were paid for in cash they would not appear in the ledger—this is the cash-book—nothing was paid for on 21st March—on 24th February some money was paid, but that would not appear in the ledger, or if it does, it ought not—on 24th February, 10s. 9d. and 10s. 3d. was paid, and there are also two tickets on the 25th for 10s. 3d. paid, and 10s. 3d. not paid—the clerk, Mr. Moore, kept the day-book—he is in America—I know his writing—I find the name of London twice here, on 24th February; the very last entry in the day is "London, H. H., 10s. 3d."—"H. H." means the kind of coal—the market might have changed
that day—I only find two counterfoils on 24th February—there are not three entries, but the cash is carried out on one side of the book, and the credit on the other—three entries being charged when I have only two counterfoils is a mistake of the clerk's perhaps—coals cannot be obtained without a ticket, and a ticket cannot be obtained without being torn out of the counterfoil book—counterfoil No. 6, of 24th February, was torn out to show Mr. Chance, I think—I think we lost two counterfoils at the Police Court—I have only one in the book, now the other ia torn out—10s. 3d. being charged three times, when there are only two counterfoils, is a mistake of Mr. Moore's—it is pasted into the ledger, in which the man is charged—Mr. Moore was not charged with embezzlement, that I know of—I never heard that there was a complaint against him—he left when Mr. Wilson came—I think it was because there was not then enough for him to do—he did not leave at the same time, but some little time afterwards—I never heard that Mr. Pass complained of Moore, but he did of Mr. Glass, who was formerly manager, and who left in January—it was Glass who was charged with the offence, not Mr. Moore.
MR. COLE. Q. Did you take most of the money? A. Yes—Strickland took money before breakfast; but I used to go there at 8 o'clock—I was in daily communication with all the others who took money, and it was known that London and his mother had not paid their account—I delivered an account to the defendant of 1s. 9d. at the time I delivered the account to his mother—I know that Mr. Pass is still a wharfinger, and that Wilson is still partially in his service, to collect the old debts; but they have gone out of business, although the debts are not all collected—Glass was discharged in January, before this credit was obtained—this printed circular (produced) was sent to the customers, with regard to the discharge of Mr. Glass, early in February, I believe.
JAMES STRICKLAND . I live at 13, South Lambeth Road, and travel in the coal trade—I was foreman and weigher to Mr. Pass for two years from the place being opened—I saw the defendant there many times, purchasing coals—when a person came to me for coals he brought a ticket from the office, upon which I put the name of the barge or wharf—when it was not paid I used to say "Halloa, Bill, credit again," and he would say "Yes, you b——, I am not such a b——y fool"—that happened several times—the tickets were collected, and I took them to the office in the evening—I enter them in a book; but I do not state whether they are paid for, I merely enter the quantity, so as to discharge myself for the coals—the defendant never paid me for any of these coals; he has paid me on the wharf, at times, and then I have always put "Paid" on the ticket; but not on the days in question—I was at the County Court on 6th December, and saw the defendant sworn—I heard the attorney ask him whether he had ever had any credit for his mother or himself; he said "No"—the question was repeated, and his answer was the same—I believe the Judge asked him the same, and he said "No"—to my knowledge he has had credit for his mother and himself; it may be fifty times, and it may be 100.
Cross-examined. That is during the time the yard has been open, which is nearly three years—he may have had credit five or six times, in March, 1870—I cannot tell when the money was paid, or if he brought it next day—the attorney's words were "Have you ever had any coals on credit for your mother or yourself?"—he did not say "Have you ever had these
coals? but "Have you ever had any coals?"—I do not know that he was sued in the County Court, the week before, for 1s. 9d.
MR. COLLINS contended that there was no cote to go to the Jury; that upon the authority of Lord Chief Baron Pollock ("Reg. v. Stalas, I, Foster and Finlayson") before perjury could be found, the defendant't attention must be directed to the particular items and days upon which the charge was founded; whereat, the question here had been whether the defendant ever took credit. Secondly, that it was necessary for the whole of the defendants evidence to be put in, and not merely the answer to one leading question; even the attorney who put that question, not being called, though presents MR. COLE submitted that a very great authority, Mr. Gray, disagreed with the late Lord Chief Baron's decision in the case cited, and contended that it was impossible to know when a witness was going to commit perjury, so as to have shorthand notes of his evidence taken. THE COURT agreed with Mr. Gray's ruling rather than that of the late Lord Chief Baron, and further did not consider that case on all fours with this; but would reserve the point if it became necessary.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury— Judgment reserved, the defendant being admitted to bail.
MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.
SYDNEY TOMLIN . I am a collecting clerk, in the service of Messrs. Barnett. Hoare & Co., bankers, of Lombard Street—on the morning of Saturday, 5th February last, I went out on my collecting rounds—I received, at Messrs. Coutts' bank 4184l. 6s. 8d.—that was partly paid by four notes, of 1000l. each; two of those notes were numbered 82,305 and 82,306l.—when I receive notes I write on them the name of the bank where I receive them; I did so in this case—these (produced) are the two notes, and I wrote on them "Coutts', 5th February"—they were perfectly clean and quite new when I received them—besides the 4000l. odd which I had received from Coutts', I had in my wallett some more notes, amounting to 10,000l. odd—I went from Coutts' to the Birkbeck Bank, Chancery Lane—I put my cheques on the counter, and called out "Barnett's charges"—I took out my notes and ran quickly through to see that they were right, and then put them in my case—I found them right, and put the amount on a slip of paper—the case was open on the counter at that time, and my hand was on it—some person touched me and said "You have dropped something"—I looked down and saw a piece of paper, like a cheque, at my feet—I stooped down and picked it up—there was nothing on it, and I put it down again—it was blank paper—I got up directly, and I fancied I saw a hand leaving the case—I looked in the case and saw the notes were gone—I called out, and then ran to the door, and looked up and down the street, but I could see no one—the bank is close to some steps, where you go down into Staple's Inn—the number of the notes were obtained from the different banks, and advertisements were published and bills issued, offering rewards to any person who should discover the thief.
Cross-examined. I did not see the prisoner in the bank—I think I should have noticed her if I had seen her.
JOHN SHORE (Detective Police Inspector.) On 5th February last I received information about this robbery, and I communicated to the different divisions of police—on 19th December I saw the prisoner in the Borough Road—Sergeant Moon was with me—the prisoner was going towards her home—she lives at a coffe-shop in the London Road—I have known her for years—I told her my name was Shore, and I was an inspector of detective police, and I said "I have been told that you, some few days ago, bought two notes for 1000l. each, which had been stolen from a bank in Chancery Lane, some time ago"—she appeared very excited, and said "Good God!"—I told her as I had reason to suppose she had them about her, I should take her to the police-station, where she would be searched—she said "I know I have done wrong; but don't take me there, or I shall get ten years"—she repeated that several times—I said "You will have to go"—she said "If I give you the notes, will you let me go?"—I said "You have not given them to me yet"—she put her hand into her bosom and took out this bag (produced)—there were two envelopes in it, and inside the second envelope, folded up, were the two notes for 1000l. each—I said "Where did you get them from?"—she said "I sha'n't tell you that"—I said "You will have to go to the station"—she said "Oh, dear, I shall never see my dear home in this road any more!"—this was about 12 o'clock at night—I am not sure whether the clock had struck 12 or not—I took her to the police-station—she gave her address No. 1, London Road; that is a coffee-shop—I went there afterwards—the keys of the place were found on the prisoner—they were given to me by the female searcher—they were the keys she used for locking up things, not the door-key—the name of "Seyffert" was over the door, with two initials—I found these two leases there—one is an assignment of the lease of 1, London Road, by William Dean, to Mrs. Sarah Durrant, at a rent of 12l. 10s.—Sergeant Moon brought away some letters—a person of the name of Ellen originally lived there—I believe her name was Seyffert—I knew her by the name of Fair Nell, but I know nothing more about her, except what I have been told—Moon found some money in the house, which he brought away—I had received some information—I don't think I ought to say who I received it from.
RICHARD MOON (Detective Officer.) I was with Inspector Shore on the night of the 19th when he met the prisoner—I heard the conversation that passed between them—she took this little bag out of her bosom—I did not see how it was fastened—she was taken to the station, and gave her address No. 1, London Road—I went there, and found some letters down stairs in the kitchen—one was addressed to the prisoner, in the name of Bramer—that was the name she went by, and one is written on foreign paper—I found 21l. 11s. in the wardrobe, in the first floor front room—the name of Seyffert was over the door of the coffee-house—it has been painted out since the prisoner has been in custody.
MATTHEW FOX (Police Inspector M.) On the night of 19th December, I was at the South wark Police Station when the prisoner was brought there—after Shore had left to go to her place, she said to me "What are you going to do with me?"—I said "Put you in a cell as soon as Inspector Shore returns"—she said "Will he be long?"—I said I did not consider that he would—I then said "Mrs. Durrant, you are in a bad position"—she said
"I am, and it is all through that drunken villain, who sold me because I would not supply her with money to get drink with; she has done this for me; when I found those notes I would have taken them to the police-station, but she prevailed on me to keep them as a provision for her old age"—I said "Who do you mean?"—she said "Mrs. Seyffert"—she said she found the notes on the floor of the coffee-room.
Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I have nothing to lay, only I found them on Whitsun Tuesday in my coffee-house, and the money found up stairs is the rent for the two houses in London Road and Waterloo Road.
MR. WILLIAMS submitted that the possession was not sufficiently recent to call on the prisoner to account for them, and referred to the case of the" Queen against Charles Adams," vol. iii. page 600, of "Carrington and Payne's Reports." THE COURT would not withdraw the case from the Jury, and stated, the case depended entirely upon the value of the things stolen.
GUILTY of receiving— Two Years' Imprisonment.
MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution.
SARAH LUNN . I am the prisoner's sister, and live at 25, Emery Place, King Street, Old Kent Road—four weeks ago this morning I was in bed about 1.30 or 1.40—my brother came into the room—he went to the corner of the table, and took up the match-box—he rattled it about—he then left the room—he came back again twenty minutes after—he appeared as if he had been running, and his coat collar was up—I asked him what he had been doing with the candle and, matches—he said "Nothing"—he went up stairs, and I heard the unlocking of a box—shortly after that a knock came to the door—I opened it and saw a man there—I said "What do you want here at this time of night"—I heard the window open up stairs, and my brother said "Mister, do you want me?"—the man said "Yes"—my brother then left the house with the man—when he came down stain I said "What have you been doing, Alfred; you have been housebreaking, I suppose; I shall give information to the police"—my brother made no reply—I saw him again the next morning, Thursday—I went up stairs about 7 o'clock in the morning, and opened the box, and found ten silk pocket handkerchiefs, a shawl, and a pair of socks—they had not been there before, as I know of—I then went to where my brother worked—he was not there, and I gave information to the police—I went with the constable to Webber Street, in the New Cut, and there found my brother—the constable took him for stealing the things—they said they would charge me if I did not give the information.
WILLIAM PIKE . I live with my father, who is a hatter, at 150, Old Kent Road—about 2 o'clock in the morning, on 14th December, my father called, me, and I went into the shop—the door was open, and the bar which secured the front shutters was considerably looser than it had been the night before—I had fastened it up securely when I went to bed—we missed some silk pocket-handkerchiefs, a number of coats, a cashmere shawl, and other things from the shop—these (produced) are some of the articles we missed—they were shown to me by the police the same day.
Prisoner. I bought the things you see there, and gave a sovereign for them.
WILLIAM PUTTICK (Detective Policeman.) I went with the woman to a fish shop in Webber Street, and I saw the prisoner there—I told him I should charge him with burglary, and stealing several handkerchiefs and five coats, the property of Mr. Pike, in the Kent Road—he said nothing—I found on him two keys, a knife, and 6 1/2 d.
Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I bought the things that were found in my box."
GUILTY . Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth.— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
MR. LILLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. STRAIGHT and
GOODMAN the Defence.
HENRY DEVEREUX PRITCHARD . I am high bailiff of the Lambeth County Court—I produce a certified entry of the proceedings in an action of Thomas Williams and Thomas William James against George Pearce, for the recovery and possession of two workshops and premises situate in Ebenezer Row—the Judge declined to make any order in the case—I administered the oath to the defendant in that case—it came on for hearing on 29th November, 1870—it was stated that the notice had been fixed to the door, and I had some doubt whether that was a sufficient notice, and I got down the "Law of Landlord and Tenant," and showed the Judge that that was not sufficient, unless it came to the knowledge of the defendant—he was asked whether it had come to his knowledge, or something to that effect, and he denied it.
Cross-examined. I don't recollect the exact words—I don't recollect his saying that he had been told by a policeman that the notice had been on the door—he denied that the notice had come to his knowledge—I did not take a note of it at the time—I don't think he was cross-examined, because he was called by Mr. Hall, the plaintiff's attorney—the plaintiff had proved the posting of the notice on the door, and it was doubted whether that was sufficient, and the Judge called the plaintiff's attention to the fact that it was not, unless it came to the defendant's knowledge, and the plaintiff's attorney called the defendant himself to get that from him, and he denied that he had seen the notice; therefore the case for the plaintiff failed, and the Judge declined to make any order.
JOHN SHARLAND . I am sub-bailiff of the Lambeth County Court—I was present at the trial of the action of Thomas Williams and Thomas William James, against Pearce, on the 29th of November—I remember the defendant being sworn, and a notice being put into his hands—he was asked if he had received a duplicate of the notice to quit, and he said "No"—he was asked if he had received any notice at all, and he said "No"—he was asked if he had heard anything of any notice, and he said "Yes," the policeman told him there was a paper stuck against the door, but he never read it—there was some question asked as to whether he had taken down the notice, and he said no, he had never seen it—he was also asked whether he had ever had it in his hand, and he said "No"—that is all I heard about it.
Cross-examined. I did not hear who had posted the notice—I don't know that it was proved that Mr. Williams himself posted the notice—I have not the slightest doubt that he made use of the expression. "A policeman told me there was a notice on the door, but I never read it."
the 22nd January, I took by assignment, from Robert Swaine, the workshop and premises in Ebenezer Row; the defendant at that time was a tenant in possession—after that I received 1l. 12s., four weeks' rent, from Swaine, I received no rent after that; in consequence of that I gave instructions to Messrs. Hill to make a distraint—and a man was placed in observation of the premises—that was about the latter end of July—about the latter end of August the defendant called, and saw my partner first and saw me afterwards; my partner told me he had been to make an arrangement about the settlement of the rent, and that he had offered 6s. a week; I said I would have all or none, as he had given us so much trouble—he went out abruptly, and said we should have none—in consequence of receiving no rent, I gave orders about a notice to quit, to Messrs. Hill—I signed the notice before it was executed; it was about 26th September, that I signed it—I then left it in the hands of Messrs. Hill, and a man named William Pearce, in their employ, watched the premises—he had a duplicate notice, I believe—this (produced) is a duplicate copy, and that is my signature—I was present at the County Court, at the action in which my partner and I were plaintiffs, and the defendant was the defendant then—he was examined as to the notice, and this duplicate was put in his hands; he was asked whether he had ever seen the duplicate of that notice, and he said "No;" he was then asked if he had ever had a notice, and he laid "No;" or whether he had read the notice, and he said "No"—he was also asked whether he ever saw the notice stuck on the doer, and he said no, but a policeman had told him there was such a notice.
WILLIAM PEARACE . I live at Duke Street, Westminster Bridge Road, and am assistant to Messrs. Hill, of Lower Kennington Laue, auctioneers and brokers—I was employed to watch the workshop and premises, in Ebenezer Row, on 16th August—I received a notice and a duplicate of the notice, from Messrs. Hill, to serve on the defendant, on 26th September—I did not have an opportunity of serving in the course of that day; this is one of the notices I had—I posted the other one on the door of the workshop about 10.30 on the morning of the 26th—I remained in observation of the premises until the evening—in the evening, Thomas Nash joined me—soon after 6 o'clock—soon after 7 o'clock the defendant came to the premises; the notice was still on the door—I had fixed it on with liquid gum—the defendant went to the door of the workshop—he read the notice, as far as I could judge—there was a lamp about six feet from the door-way—after he had read the notice, he opened the door—two or three of his friends came, and after a short time, some water was fetched by a youth, and the notice was damped and taken off the door, by one of Mr. Pearce's friends—he gave it to Pearce—I don't think it had been torn at that time—the defendant and his friends went into the workshop, and closed the door—I then saw smoke issuing from the iron tube—they afterwards came out, and the defendant had a paper in his hand, similar to the notice—Nash was with me at that time, and during the time the notice was being taken down—we were both sober—I did not see the defendant again that evening—I saw him again on the 27th, about 7.30 in the evening, at the premises—he was there with his coat off, helping to load a van—I endeavoured to stop the goods from being removed—the defendant appealed to the parties present, and they tried to push the van on—he showed the notice, and said "Here is notice to leave, what am I to do; take the goods away or not?" and the parties there said "Go on, governor, we will give
you a shove off," and they did so—I was not examined at the County Court—I had changed my residence about that time.
Cross-examined. I was examined before the Magistrate when the defendant was charged with this offence—no one has been reminding me that it was on 27th September he held out a paper—I did not state that before the Magistrate; but if I was to state all the things that took place between myself and Mr. Pearce, it would take seven days—it slipped my memory at that time—a solicitor was there, representing the prosecution—he examined me—I was put in the witness-box twice—I was watching this house at Ebeuezer Row, something like forty-two days—I did not sit in a public-house and look through the window—I sat on some scaffold-poles, close to the defendant's premises—I did not read the newspaper—I studied law; Chancery practice, and so on—I can't define what work it was—I went on duty at 6 o'clock in the morning, and stayed till sunset, endeavouring to get possession—I had several glasses of ale with the defendant—I never got the worse for liquor—I was not the worse for liquor on the 26th; and Nash was perfectly sober, too—we had had nothing to drink that day—I was about a yard from the door when the defendant came up to it—he read the notice under my nose—I did not hear him say a word—I have not been drinking to-day—he went into the workshop, and then his friends came up from Kennington Lane—no one came out of the workshop when he opened the door—after his friends had come up the boy came out with the water—that was young Sparrow.
THOMAS NASH . I am a horse and stable cleaner—on the evening of 26th September I was with William Pearce, at the end of Ebenezer Row, Kennington Lane, near the workshop the defendant was occupying at that time—I went there about 6 o'clock—I was perfectly sober—I was employed to watch the premises of a night—I saw a paper on the door of the workshop; it might be a little larger than this (the duplicate)—William Pearce said to me "You go and look on the door"—I went down, and saw a notice on the door—about 7 o'clock I saw the defendant; he walked to the door—there was a man with him, and a boy following—he stood at the door about half a minute, and appeared to be reading the notice—he opened the door and went inside, and the man stood at the door, reading the notice—the boy got some water, and Mr. Pearce handed the other man some shavings, which he dipped into the water, and dabbed the notice with it, and after doing so several times, he took the end and rolled it up to the top—he gave it into the defendant's hands, and threw the water away—I could not say how the notice was fixed on the door; it was dusk in the evening—the defendant went inside and shut the door, after he had read the notice—I did not read the whole of the notice; but I saw it was a notice.
Cross-examined. I am not a very first-rate reader—I went into Messrs. Hill's employ five or six days before—I was in trouble about ten years ago, for unlawfully wounding, and I got four months'—I was never charged with felony—I had not been drinking on that day—I solemnly swear it—I was as sober as I am now—I had had some tea; but no beer and no spirits—I was about 4 1/2 ft from the door when the defendant came down.
THOMAS BLUNDELL (Policeman L 215). On the evening, of 26th September last, about 10 o'clock, I was on duty in Ebenezer Row—the defendant came up to me and said he had received a notice to quit his premises—he had a piece of paper similar to that in his hand—he said he should remove his goods—I told him I had orders from my inspector,
and if he removed anything I should stop them if I saw them—I had received orders previously to stop anything, and they had not been countermanded.
Cross-examined. The defendant had a piece of paper in his hand; but I don't know whether it was the notice to quit, because I did not read it—it was similar to that paper there—there was some writing on it.
Witnesses for the Defence.
GEORGE SPARROW . I live at 78, Great Suffolk Street, Borough, and am a tailor, and brother-in-law to the defendant—I know the workshop in Ebenezer Row—on 26th September I had some things there, being kept there by my brother-in-law—I went there about 7 o'clock on the evening of the 26th, with Mr. Corderoy and my son—we found Mr. Thomas Pearce, the defendant's brother, at the workshop—the defendant was not there then—I saw the witness Nash; he was quite drunk—the man Pearce had had a little to drink; but he was not so tipsy as Nash—there was a notice on the door of the workshop; I tore it down in pieces—I did not read it; but I thought it was a notice—I tore it down in bits—I believe it was put up with wafers—I went into the workshop—it was a chilly evening, and my son said "Let us make a fire"—I lit a match, and lit the paper, and lit the fire with it—the paper was burnt—the defendant had not come to the premises at that time—he came about an hour or an hour and a quarter after we got there—there was some furniture going to be removed that evening—I did not show the notice or read it to the defendant at all—I did not see him with any papers in his hand that evening—no water was brought out—there was no water there; we could not wash our hands—I don't think there was any water laid on.
Cross-examined. I don't think I had been to the workshop any evening previous to the 26th—I was there on the 27th, assisting in moving the goods—Thomas Pearce was there when I first went; I think he remained all the time—the defendant came about 8.15—I did not tell him what I had done—I did not read the notice sufficiently to know that it was a notice to quit—I did not tell my brother-in-law that I had torn down a paper which I had not read—I did not tell him, because I had no right to do so; his brother was there—Thomas Pearce showed me the notice on the door when I got there, and he told me to tear it down—he said "Tear down that piece of paper"—it was a piece of paper similar to that—I had no conversation with the defendant about it—I pledge my oath that I did not tell him that evening, or any other evening, anything about tearing the notice down—they were his premises, and he was the tenant—I don't know how long we remained there that evening; we were there a long while, getting the goods prepared for removal the next morning—a good many of them ware removed on 27th, two days before quarter-day; they were Mr. Corderoy's goods—I was not at the County Court.
COURT. Q. What took you down to the premises that evening, if you had not been there before? A. I had some fittings there; they had been there about three months—the defendant told me I must remove them—he did not tell me exactly why—he said I had better get my things away as there was a broker's man at the door, and I was to go down and help to get them away—I was not surprised to find Pearce and Nash there, or to see a piece of paper on the door—I did not tear the paper down because I thought it was a notice, but because Mr. Pearce's brother told me—I did not expect to see the defendant when I went down to the workshop—I knew
that Thomas Pearce was there; I knew he was going before I went—he told me that we were to go down to put the things ready for the next day—I heard that Mr. Corderoy's things were being removed, because he had taken a shop and he wanted the things—mine were to be fetched because of the sqabble with Williams & James—I did not say anything to the defendant about the paper, because it was burnt—he said nothing to me about it—I did not mention it because his brother was there—I did not see his brother talking to him, we were too busy—it is utterly untrue that any water was brought, or any shavings dipped in water, and the paper damped and pulled off; it is all untrue—Pearce, the broker's man, was tipsy both nights, the 26th and 27th—I did not see the defendant speak to a constable—I don't think I have seen Blundell 215 L before—we were at the workshop till about 10 o'clock—I did not see my brother speak to Blundell as he came away from the premises that night—I did not go home with the defendant—I left the premises and went up Ebenezer Row with him, but I think we separated about the "Elephant and Castle"—I went up Ebenezer Bow with him, but I don't recollect seeing him speak to a constable—it is untrue if the policeman says my brother-in-law came up to him about 10 o'clock, and said "I shall move my goods"—I was bankrupt five years ago—I sold the lease of my shop to Mr. Gill, a chemist, and removed the fittings away till I got a shop to put them in.
Re-examined. I have, since that, served as a juror at the Surrey Sessions—my brother told me the brokers were trying to get into his place and watched to find the door open, and that they had broken one of the windows in trying to get in that way—the goods that I have spoken of belonged to a man named Corderoy; he is a butcher at Wands worth—the goods were worth about 100l.—they were going to be taken away to Corderoy's—they were removed the next day—when I went to the premises and pulled down the paper I was not aware that any notice to quit had been served on George Pearce—he had not told me anything of the sort.
GEORGE SPARROW, JUN . I am the son of the last witness—I know this workshop that you have been hearing about—I went there on 26th September, with my father—we met some more going there—when we got to the workshop, I saw my father tear down a piece of paper from the door—I don't know whether he read it; it was dark—we went into the workshop, and my father lighted a match, and lit the piece of paper—the paper was all torn about—I did not fetch any water or see any brought—we were there two or three hours—no water was fetched during that time, to my knowledge—I saw Nash there—he was rolling about on the scaffold poles outside, and seemed quite drank—the defendant came there about an hour and a quarter after we got there—he was not there when we went.
Cross-examined. We went there about 7 o'clock, I expect—I saw the paper on the door—there was no trouble in pulling it down—it was torn in pieces—my father did not read it—Mr. William Pearce said it was to be torn down—he had not read it—he did not go up to it—he got there at the same time we did—I swear he did not go up to it—there was a lamp there—ray father read it when he was inside; not outside—he put the pieces together—nothing was said to the defendant, when he came, about the notice being pulled down, to my knowledge—I left the place with my father—I did not see a policeman speak to the defendant; nothing of the kind—the place was full of goods at that time—Nash was rolling about on the scaffold
poles; I did not see the other man at all—the scaffold poles were outside the door—I believe they belonged to the defendant—I did not hear anything said to the defendant in the course of the evening about the notice being torn down—we were moving the goods about, and placing them in proper order.
Re-examined. The workshop was divided into two portions, and the goods were at the farther end, and they had to be moved towards the door-way.
COURT. Q. How came you to go down? A. My father asked me to—he was going to get some of his things ready to move—I don't know how long they had been there—he did not say why he wanted them—I did not expect to see the notice on the door—I had heard something about Williams & James—that they wanted my uncle to leave—I expected to find Thomas Pearce there—Thomas Pearce said to my father "Is a notice on the door, tear it down;" and then he did.
THOMAS WILLIAM PHARCE . I am a carpenter, and live at 1, Francis Street, Bermondsey—the prisoner is my brother—I went to this workshop on the evening of 26th September, by myself—I did not go inside—I waited there a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, talking to Nash—he was not sober—he was sitting on the scaffold poles—I had the key of the place—the two Sparrows and my son came down after—the notice was on the door at that time—I did not read it—I tried to but could not, because there was not sufficient light—I opened the door, and told Sparrow to pull the notice down, and destroy it—he did so—my brother was not there—there is no pretence for saying he tore it down—I am quite sure it was Mr. Sparrow who tore it down—I had previously given Nash 2d. for a pint of beer—Pearce, the broker's assistant, was not there at that time, and Nash had gone away for some beer—after the paper was taken down we all went inside—Sparrow and his son lit a fire, and I believe they burnt the paper—I told him to destroy it—I don't know whether he did or net—I did not trouble myself—I don't know whether Sparrow read it—I did not—the defendant was not in the habit of using the workshop at that time—he was not busy, and what little work there was we were doing at Bermondsey—we are not in partnership—I was working in the same shop—the defendant came about two hours after I got to the workshop to rectify Corderoy's things; to remove them—we had been down on several occasions previous to the 26th—we went particularly on the 26th to rectify the goods—they were to be taken away the next day—I did not know there was any notice on the door till I went to the door—my brother never told me that he had been served with a notice to quit—I had not seen my brother during the day—we had made arrangements on the previous day to go down—Corderoy's shop was being fitted up at that time—I was not aware that any notice to quit had been served on my brother.
Cross-examined. I saw the paper on the door when I got down there—I tried to read it—I did not read it sufficiently to know what it was—I told Sparrow to tear it down, because I thought it was put on to annoy more than anything else—if they wanted to serve the notice on my brother he was there frequently for them to do so—the scaffold poles there belonged to my brother—my brother did come there that evening—it was quite two hours after I went there—when Sparrow tore the notice down I did not see the pieces put together—I did not see anyone read it—I did not trouble myself anything about it—I was there a quarter of an hour, talking to Nash—I saw the notice during that time—Sparrow and his son came after that—I
left with my brother, the defendant, that evening—we all left together, five of us—I don't recollect speaking to a policeman, or a policeman speaking to him—I am quite sure he did not—I did not say anything to my brother about the notice—I believed it was a notice to quit—I knew that the rent was in arrcar, and that my brother had offered money for it.
Re-examined. No attempt was made to remove the furniture—the men took all sorts of schemes to annoy us, and obtain an entrance to the place.
COURT. Q. Had you any reason for supposing the notice to quit was on the door? A. No—I was surprised—I did not read it—the lamp was about 12 ft. from the door—I supposed that it was a notice, and I ordered it to be taken down because I thought it was put up to annoy—going down that evening had nothing to do with the notice to quit—I did not think it was necessary to tell my brother that I had torn a paper down from bis premises—I did not tell him—if I told him anything it was that there was a paper on the door, not a notice—I might have told him there was a paper stuck on the door, and it was pulled down—I don't remember whether be made any answer to that—I pulled it down because it created a disturbance outside—it would not' have mattered if there had been no reading on it—when I went down to the workshop I did not know who was going—I did not go by appointment—we intended to go down—there was no specified time—they imagined I was going down because we had been down the previous evening, and we intended to put the things right—we all knew we were going down—there had been a sort of arrangement.
JOHN PEARCE . The last witness is my father—I was at the workshop, and saw the notice torn down by Mr. Sparrow, my uncle—the defendant was not there at the time—I did not see what was done with the notice—no water was brought to the door—I went down with my father to help put the goods in order—I had been there on the previous evening with my father—we were doing a little work, and arranged the furniture, too.
Cross-examined. We went down about 7.30 or 8—the defendant came down about an hour and a half after we got there—I went to assist my father in putting the goods right—there was a gas-light near the door—I did not read the paper—I saw it on the door, but I did not go up to it—I saw Sparrow and my father go up to it—I could not swear that they read it—they were near enough—I should hardly think there was light enough—I did not try—the lamp was three or four yards off.
GUILTY .— One Month's Imprisonment.
140. JOHN WILLIAM TREHERNE (28) , Feloniously forging and uttering an undertaking for the payment of 31l. 3s., with intent to defraud. Third Count—Feloniously demanding money by virtue of the said forged instrument, knowing it to be forged.
WILLIAM FRANK HAITE , I am a music-seller, and live at 8, Grantham Road, King Edward Road, South Hackney—I have also a shop at 38, Great Dover Street, Borough—I was put in business there by my father—I have had dealings with the prisoner about two years and a half—always for ready cash—on Saturday, 10th December, I bought some of him for 3s., I was going to pay for it as usual, and he said he did not care to have the money then, because he was not travelling on his own account, but for a Mr. Pettit; that it was his custom to collect in a lump, and he would cull for
the money about Wednesday—he asked me to give him a little acknowledgment that I had had the music of him, and he produced a piece of paper, and asked me to sign my name to it under the words "three shillings"—this is the paper (produced,) it had "3s." on it when I signed it—it was not then an I O U for 3l. 3s.—when I had signed here he turned it over, and said "Now I must ask you to sign your name and address on this side"—I asked him why he wanted me to do that—he said "Because I shall give it to my employer, he don't know you, and I shall tear it in halves and give it to him"—I then signed my name and address at the bottom—at that time these words were not on it "Should the I O U at the back of this paper not be paid by me when presented, I give full power to the person holding it immediately to take off my premises sufficient furniture, stock-in-trade, fixtures, etc., to repay him and all expenses"—I did not owe the prisoner 31l. 3s. 4d.—never did—I never owed him anything—I told him at the time that I was not acquainted with business forms, but I thought it was a very strange transaction—he said "It seems strange to you, but it is all right"—he thanked me very much indeed, and said I had done him a great favour—he came again on the Tuesday, and asked me for a shilling, which I gave him, and I offered him the other two, but he said he would not take them, he would call on the Wednesday—he came on Wednesday, about 1 o'clock, for the other 2s., which I gave him—I said "Well, that squares us up all right," and he said "Yes" that is all right"—he came back about 2.15, in a very bullying, blusterous way, and asked me if I was prepared to pay him this 31l. 3s.—I was so taken aback that I hardly knew what to do or say—I said, "I don't owe you 31l. 3s."—he said "Yes, you do, and it has been owing over two years; I have given you every latitude, and without you are prepared to pay, I shall immediately take the things"—I told him that I did not owe him any money, that it was a robbery and a swindle, and that the things were my father's, not mine—he said that was no matter, he should take the things, and I should have to fight that out with my father—I protested against it as much as I could, but I was so thoroughly paralyzed and helpless I could hardly speak—he produced this I O U—that was the first I had seen of it—the signature is my writing, but not the other part—when he was so peremptory that I should pay the moneys, I offered to call the landlady, and leave her in charge while I went or sent to my father—he said he would not listen to anything of the sort; without I was prepared to pay the money on it he should immediately take the things, and he ordered his two men to take them away, and they took away two pianos, four violins, two concertinas, two flutes, one Canterbury, and a quantity of violin strings; in fact, the entire stock, to the value of about 50l.—I did not see him again till the following Monday, when I pointed him out to a detective—I afterwards saw one of my pianos at a pawnbroker's, and the officer afterwards showed me other things; the greater part of the other property was found at the prisoner's lodgings, in Russell Court—the greatest amount of my dealings with the prisoner was about 3s. or 3s. 6d. at a time—I can't say in whose writing the body of this I O U is—I saw the prisoner write the "three shillings"—I can't tell who did the other.
Cross-examined. I have been managing my father's business about two years and a half; it is only a very small business—it has not been at all a profitable one—I have not lost anything by it, there is a small gain; it was
improving—the prisoner told me he was travelling for Mr. Pettit, of Oxford Street; I don't know it—when I paid him the 3s. I did not ask to have back the document I had signed; I did not think of it—he did not tell me that he had some difficulty in getting it cashed; oh la! no—I certainly should have remembered that—I was the only person in the shop when he came in—I am told he brought a van to put the things in; but I did not go outside the shop, and did not see it while the things were being taken away—two young fellows came in about a concertina that had been repaired—I did not make any complaint to them, or ask them to assist me in stopping the things—I protested to the prisoner and his men as earnestly as I could; I told them that they must not take the things; but he insisted on taking them—he told me to telegraph to my father for the money—I said he was ill, and could not come, and he said "Then in that case I must immediately have the things"—I can't say how long they were taking the things; it was done very quickly—he left his name and address—he did not say he was going to take the things there—I swear that.
DAVID JAMBS LEWAIN (Detective-officer M.) On Monday morning, 19th December, about 8 o'clock, I went with the prosecutor to 27, Russell Court, Drury Lane—about 11.30 the prisoner came up the court—the prosecutor pointed him out to me—I went up to him and said "How do you account for taking the goods from 38, Great Dover Street?"—we went into the back parlour—I said "Is this your room?"—he said "No"—I said "Do you object to our going to your room?"—he said "Yes"—I said "Have you any books or papers to show that Mr. Haite owes you 31l. 3s.,?"—he said "No, but if you will give me time I can make it out"—I took him into custody, and took him to the Police Court, and found on him these four papers, one of them has the same water-mark as the paper on which the I O U is written—I also found this pawn-ticket for a piano, and this carpet-bag. (One of the papers was a fac-simile of the writing on the back of the I O U.)
JOHN MARSH (Detective-officer M.) After the prisoner was charged I went to 27, Russell Court, Drury Lane, and with a key taken from the prisoner, I went into a back room up stairs, and there found a number of articles, which I made a list of, which the prosecutor identified.
RICHARD SAYER . I am assistant to the executors of my father, a pawnbroker, of 29, Brydges Street, Covent Garden—the piano represented by this ticket was pledged on 14th December, for 4l., by the prisoner, in the name of J. Treherne, New Street—on the 20th the prosecutor came and identified it.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, 30TH JANUARY, 1871.