CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
FOURTH SESSION, HELD JANUARY 30TH, 1871.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND, BY
Short-hand Writters to the Court,
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
REVISED AND EDITED, BY
EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ.,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
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 30th, 1871, and following days,
BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. THOMAS DAKIN, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Sir MONTAGUE SMITH , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; Sir DAVID SALOMONS , Bart., M.P., Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., Sir WILLIAM ANDERSON ROSE , Knt., and Sir THOMAS GABRIEL , Bart., Aldermen of the said City; The Right Hon. RUSSELL GURNEY, Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; Sir SYDNEY HEDLEY WATHRLOW, Knt., and ANDREW LUSK , Esq., M.P., 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. FOURTH SESSION.
A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that 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 30th, 1871.
Before Mr. Recorder.
141. ERNEST DE LOUSADA , was indicted (together with Thomas Arthur, (See vol. lxii. page 609), for unlawfully obtaining 1050l. of David Forrest, by false pretences; also for obtaining 2000 rifles, and 90l .
MR. BIBTON, for the prosecution, offered, no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. BOTTOMLEY conducted the prosecution; and MR. THORNE COLE defended Kelly.
ROBERT CARTER (Detective Officer E.) On Tuesday night, 3rd January, I was in Euston Koad, with Chamberlain, another detective—I saw the three prisoners, in company with a drunken sailor, who afterwards turned out to be O'Hara—I watched them, and saw them go into the "Euston Tavern," at the comer of Judd Street—they remained there about a minute—Kelly and Roach came out together—I placed myself in a urinal, close by the door, and I heard Roach say to Kelly "He says he is going to New York; he must have some chips to do that"—Kelly said "Then go in and bring him out"—Roach went in, and in about half a minute, Cann, O'Hara, and Roach, came out of the house—Kelly said "Old fellow, you are going to New York, so am I, come with me"—he then took him by the arm, and walked across into Judd Street, and just as he got into the middle of the street, I saw Kelly place his left hand in O'Hara's right hand coat pocket—O'Hara said "You blackguard, you are robbing me "—Kelly then struck him in the body with his right hand, and knocked him down, and his face came to the ground—the two women were walking behind—O'Hara cried "Police!"—I ran and caught Kelly, and detained him—the two girls looked round and saw me and Chamberlain, and ran away—I was within three yards of O'Hara when he was knocked down, Chamberlain was behind me—we were in plain clothes—a constable in uniform, E 217, came up at the time, and I gave Kelly into his custody, and said "Be careful of that man, he has got something in his left hand, see that he
does not throw it away "—he was taken to the station, and Chamberlain and I took O'Hara there, and charged him with being drunk and incapable—at the station, I saw the constable open Kelly's hand, and take out four penny pieces—I then went to a public-house, in the Euston Road, and there saw Cann—I said "Annie, I want you"—she said "I have not done anything"—I told her I should charge her with being concerned with Kelly and Roach, in assaulting and attempting to rob a sailor, in Judd Street—she said "Strike me blind! I don't thieve! I am a prostitute, but you know I don't thieve "—I said "I know you do thieve, and you have been convicted for it times"—I took her to the station, absent for the divisional surgeon to examine O'Hara—there was a slight cut in his face, it was covered with blood, but nothing very serious—2l. 5s. 2d. was found in his trowsers pocket—he was fined 1s. next day for being drunk—his right hand coat pocket was torn down.
Cross-examined. The sailor was quite drunk—when I first saw him, the two women were leading him, and Kelly was walking behind—when they came out of the house, I might be four or five yards from them—when he was knocked down, I was not more than three yards from them—O'Hara was too drunk to charge them—he said, next morning, that he missed a bottle of rum from his pocket.
Cann. Q. Did you meet me in Gray's Inn Road, the night before I was taken in charge, and ask me about a girl who had stolen a watch and chain, and I said I knew nothing about it? A. No—I did not say to you "Annie, you have had a pretty good run of it, I will get something up for you, one of these days; nothing of the kind; I don't know what girl you are talking about.
WILLIAM CHAMBERLAIN (Detective Officer E). At 10 o'clock on Tuesday night, 3rd January, I was in the Euston Road, in company with Carter, and saw the two female prisoners with the prosecutor, and Kelly close behind—they went into the "Euston Tavern," at the corner of Judd Street—they were in there about a minute or so—Roach and Kelly then came out—Roach went in again—Cann and Roach then came out with the sailor—I was standing behind the railings, and heard Kelly say something about going to New York; I could not exactly understand the words—they went across the road, and just before they got to the kerb I heard the sailor say something about their robbing him, and no sooner did he say that than he fell to the ground—I saw Kelly's right hand go out—I believe he struck him in the body, but I did not actually see it—the sailor was hurt; blood ran down his cheek—he called out "Police!"—a constable came up almost at the same time—I assisted in taking O'Hara to the station—some time after, I went out and saw Roach in the Euston Road—I told her I should take her into custody for being concerned with Kelly for assaulting a man in Judd Street, and attempting to rob him—she said "Good God! Mr. Chamberlain, I know nothing of it; I saw the man lying down, but I don't know anything of it"—she was taken to the station—at the station the women said they had not been in the "Euston Tavern" that night, and had not had anything to drink with O'Hara.
Cross-examined. I did not know who Kelly was—I first got his name at the station—I saw him searched, and 4d. taken from his hand.
CHARLES BARROW (Policeman E 217). At 10 o'clock on Tuesday night, 3rd January, I was in the Euston Road—I heard a cry of "Police!"—I ran up to the place in Judd Street, and there saw O'Hara—he said he had
been knocked down, and attempted to be robbed—I saw Chamberlain and Carter, and they said "Take that man to the station, be careful, he has got something in his hand"—I took him to the station, searched him, and he had 4l. in coppers in his hand—I found 2l. 5s. 2d. in the prosecutor's browsers pocket—his right hand coat pocket was torn—I went with Chamberlain, and took Roach into custody—she said she knew nothing about it.
JOHN O'HARA . I am a sailor—on Tuesday, 3rd January, I was paid off from my vessel, about 12 o'clock in the day, and was going to Liverpool to join another vessel—I took a good deal of liquor at parting with my friends—I got as far as the Midland Station, and then found I could not get on to Liverpool that night—I spoke to the railway constable, and he got me a lodging—I came out again, and treated him, and was somewhere about the Euston Road—I remember seeing Kelly in a public-house looking over my shoulder while I was treating the railway man—when I came out the man struck me—I fell, and my face was cut—I had 2l. 10s. when I left my ship—I had a bottle of rum in my coat pocket; my pocket was torn and the bottle taken out—I did not lose any money.
Cross-examined. I can't tell who took the bottle of rum—I lost it at the time I was tumbled on the street—I can't say what time of night it was—I was in two public-houses before this.
Cann. Q. Did you take us into the public-house to treat us? A. I don't know—I know nothing at all about you.
KELLY— GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
ROACH— GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
CANN— NOT GUILTY .
MOSES MORRIS (Interpreted). I live at 2, Samuel Street, Spitalfields, and am a skin-dresser—about 12 o'clock on this day week I went into a beer-house in Spitalfields, and saw the prisoner there—I left, and he followed me—he pushed me, and I fell—he laid on my breast, and beat me—I am perfectly certain the prisoner is the man—there were several other there, but I did not observe any one else but him—one of the other men laid across my legs whilst the prisoner was on my breast—the prisoner struck me on the head, and wanted to take my watch away—I struggled—then he tore two buttons from my coat, and I became unconscious—before I became unconscious I missed my watch and chain, hat, and umbrella—I valued the watch and chain at 2l. 10s., the umbrella 5s. and the hat 1s.—I went home when I came to myself, and the next day I went to the police-station, where I saw the prisoner.
COURT. Q. Were you drunk? A. No—I was not drunk in the beer-shop—my deposition was read over to me before the Magistrate, and I signed it—it was read in English, and then some one told me in German.
WILLIAM KAREMELLI . I translated the depositions to the prosecutor in his own language, according to what he stated, and he made his mark—he was asked whether he was drunk, and he said he was not; he had had a glass or two of ale, but he had not had too much.
CHARLES BROWN . I live at 2, Buckle Street, Spitalfields, and am a sugar-baker—I know the prosecutor—I was in a beer-shop, in Windmill Street, Spitalfields, with him—I left with him—the prisoner went out before us—
when we came outside he followed us, and then struck Morris, and threw him down, knelt on his chest, and tried to get his watch away—he was tearing open his coat—I ran for a policeman—there were several men there, but I only noticed the prisoner; some of them were sitting on his legs—when I came back with the policeman, Morris was lying insensible, and the prisoner and the other persons were gone—I saw the prisoner the next day, in a beer-shop, and gave him into custody.
SHARP OLDMETZ (Interpreted). I am a skin-dresser, and live at 2, Samuel Street, Spitalfields—I was with Morris, at this beer-house, last Monday—I saw Morris go out—I went out about five minutes after, and saw the prisoner sitting on Morris's breast, and tearing his coat open—there were several persons there, sitting on his legs and beating him—somebody went for the police, and they all ran away.
FREDERICK NOEL . I am a skin-dresser, and live at 2, Samuel Street—I was at this public-house last Monday, and saw the prosecutor and prisoner inside—I went out before him—the prisoner was out before me—I saw the prosecutor come out—he went up to Morris, knocked him down, sat on his chest, and struck him in the face—there were one or two other persons there, holding him—then a lot more came, and I ran away—I came back with the police, and saw several others with the prisoner, at the bottom of the street, saying "Good night" to one another—they ran away, and I did not see any more of them.
GEORGE COOPER (Policeman H). Last Tuesday, the witness Brown pointed out the prisoner to me, and I took him into custody, for being concerned with others in stealing a watch—he said "Why did not you take me last night, when I was fighting?"—I said "I was not there"—he was placed with several others at the station, and was identified by the whole of the witnesses.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I was very drunk the night before last, and I know nothing of the watch." Prisoner's Defence: I know nothing of the watch or chain.
GUILTY **— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
The following Prisoners PLEADED GUILTY.—
146. ARTHUR WILLIAMS (24) , to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Lee and another, and stealing thirty-five yards of velveteen, their property, having been before convicted in December, 1864**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image] And
147. WILLIAM HENRY SIMPSON (30) , to forging three receipts for the payment of 21l., 7l. 12s. 6d., and 16l. 11s. with intent to defraud— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image] Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Monday, January 30th, 1871.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
150. EDWARD JOHN ARMYTAGE (32) , to feloniously marrying Caroline Sheldrick, his wife being alive— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image] To enter into recognizances to appear and receive judgment if called upon.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and COLERIDGE conducted the Prosecution.
CHARLES DEAR . I keep the "Wilton Arms," Knightsbridge—on 16th January, about 12.30, a lad named Goodridge came in for a quartern of Old Tom, that is, gin—the barmaid served him, and put it into a bottle which he brought—he gave her a half-sovereign, which she gave to me, and I found it was bad—I spoke to the boy, sent him out with the gin, and followed him—he went up to the prisoner, who was standing about twenty yards from my house—he spoke to the lad, but I did not hear what he said, but the lad said "Yes, I have got it"—I told the prisoner he must go with me, as he had been trying to pass a bad half-sovereign, through the boy—he said "It is all a mistake, the boy came and asked me if I was the person who sent him for the gin"—he kept the bottle in his hand—I gave the half-sovereign to the policeman.
WILLIAM GOODRIDGE . I am getting on for fourteen years old, and live with my father, at 41, Kensington Road—on 16th January, about 1.30, I saw the prisoner at the top of Kensington Street—he said "Will you go on an errand for me?"—I said "Yes; where to?"—he said "Get a bottle of Old Tom"—he got a bottle out of his pocket, and gave me a half-sovereign—I went to Mr. Dear's, and said "A quartern of Old Tom"—he served me—I gave him the half-sovereign, and he gave it to the barmaid—he said something to me, and I went out with the gin in the bottle, and saw the prisoner on the other side of the way, not in the same place as before, but a very little way from it—I went up to him, and he said "Have you got it?"—I said "Yes, I have;" and Mr. Dear came up and took hold of him.
Prisoner's Defence. I picked up the half-sovereign in a piece of paper. I had a doubt about it being good, so I sent the boy with it. I know I have done wrong.
GUILTY — Nine Months' Imprisonment.
MR. CRAUFURD conducted the Prosecution.
ALFRED BERRY (City Policeman 123). I was on duty with Potherell, on 14th January, in Fore Street, and saw Roberts—I watched him six or seven minutes—Churchlow joined him; he came out of the "Golden Lion" with this glass ornament in his hand, and joined him—I watched them into Falcon Square, and saw Churchlow go into a baker's—he came out in a few minutes, and was followed by Potherell, who took him—I took Roberts, and as I was taking him into Mr. Mitchell's shop, he dropped these two bad florins—I then opened his hand, and took from it three bad half-crowns, two of which were done up in paper—I went to the shop, and Brown gave me this piece of a bad half-crown, and told me in both prisoners' presence that she gave the other piece back to Churchlow—I took Roberts to the station, and found on him 4s. 6 1/2 d. in good money, and on Churchlow 1 1/2 d.—when the charge was read, Churchlow said "I am guilty"—Roberts said "I have nothing to say"—I went back and picked up the other portion of the bad half-crown on the same side of the way as Churchlow had walked.
AMELIA BROWN . I am shop-woman to Robert Mitchell, of Falcon Street—Churchlow came in and asked for two penny biscuits—he put down a half-crown, which the little girl gave to me—I bent it in the detector, and gave him the largest portion back—he said that he had just received it for a basket—this (produced) is the piece I kept.
Churchlow's Defence. I kicked against a parcel of money, and went into the baker's shop. I did not know it was bad till the lady broke it.
Roberts' Defence. I was not aware they were bad till the party came out of the shop, and when I put my hand in my pocket to give the money to the constable, it dropped.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment each.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 31st, 1871.
Before Mr. Recorder.
153. WILLIAM HARMAN MILTON (23), and GEORGE WILSON (40) , Unlawfully obtaining 105l. of Joseph James Curling, by false pretences. MR. LEDGARD conducted the Prosecution; MR. RIBTON defended Milton, and MR. COLLINS, Wilson.
JOSEPH JAMES CURLING . I am a lieutenant in the Royal Engineers—in October last I was looking about for a pair of horses, for riding and driving—my attention was called to this advertisement, in the Times, on 14th October—(Read: "Horses—together or separate. One of the handsomest pair of Brougham, landau, phaeton, or riding geldings in London; six years old, fifteen hands 3in. high, step exceedingly well together, equally good in single harness; colour, a beautiful rich brown, with breeding and substance; good hunters; masters of sixteen stone; one a perfect charger, and carries a lady; owner a private gentleman. Will give a written warranty. Allows twenty-three days' trial, and accept a moderate price when approved of. Coachman, 28, King's Mews, South Street, Park Lane, Hyde Park, W.")—In consequence of that advertisement I went to King's Mews, South Street, Park Lane, on that same day, Friday, 14th October—I saw the prisoner Wilson in the mews—he gave the name of Davis—it was between 12 and I o'clock in the day when I went there—I asked Wilson where 28, King's Mews was, and then I said I had come for some horses that were referred to in this advertisement—I had the advertisement with me, which I had cut out of the paper—he took me to the stable, opened it, and said those were the horses referred to—there was nobody else in the stable besides Wilson then—I went in and looked at the hones—in a few minutes afterwards the prisoner Milton came in, and Wilson introduced me to him, saying "This is the owner of the horses "—I told Milton I had come in answer to that advertisement, and should like to look at the horses, upon which he showed me the horses in the stable, and asked me if I would like to see them come out—I said "Yes"—they were taken out successively, into the mews, for my inspection—Wilson took them out—I had some conversation with Milton as to what the horses had been doing—he said they had lately come up from the country, and that he wished to dispose of the horses, on account of the death of his father, one of the firm of Scott & Co., the well-known bankers—at the time Milton made that
statement, Wilson was in the stable; he had just brought one of the horses in—Milton said his father had lately died, and his mother and he wished to dispose of the horses on account of that death—I asked the price of the horses—he said 100 guineas—he said I could take them home on trial, and he urged me to do so, for twenty-eight days, saying he would give a written warrant ry with them, and that if the horses were not approved of before the end of that time, the money would be returned—this is the warrantry he produced; my name and the date were not then filled in. (Read: "Received of Mr. J. J. Curling the sum of 105l., for my pair of geldings, which I warrant sound, six years old, and free from vice; quiet in double and single harness, and to ride; good hunters, and quiet to carry ladies. If the purchaser should not approve of the horses within twenty-eight days, he has the option to return the horses to me, and I agree to return the purchase-money in full" Signed, "Alfred J. Scott; October 14th, 1870.") Milton was about to insert my name; there was some difficulty about spelling the name, and I wrote it for him—I then gave him a cheque for the amount—he produced pen and ink—I produced a blank cheque, which I always kept in my pocket—I was about to cross the cheque, when Milton requested me not to do so, as he wished to get the money immediately—in consequence of that request I did not cross the cheque—it was payable to bearer by my bankers, Cox & Co., of Craig's Court—I should say I was there altogether about twenty minutes—I requested that the horses might be sent home by 3 o'clock that afternoon, to my house, 10, Stanhope Gardens—the horses came a little before 3 o'clock—I had given directions to my coachman to take them to some stables that I had engaged, in the Brompton Road, as my own stables were not ready—I went to the stables in the Brompton Road, that afternoon, for the purpose of trying the horses—they were put into a break; my coachman went out in the break with me, and some man stood behind, one of the persons from the livery stable—I drove the horses myself—I had considerable difficulty to begin with, in getting them to start at all; my coachman tried first, and failed, and then I tried; after getting them to start they started off at a good round canter, for a little distance; I then drove them round by the South Kensington Station, about half-a-mile, and before I had gone that distance one of them roared very much; I then just drove round to my house, a distance of about three-quarters of a mile altogether—they were entirely unfit for my purpose, or rather one horse was unfit, being an evident roarer, and that spoilt the pair—being dissatisfied with them I sent them back to the stables, and next morning I went to South Street—I did not see either of the prisoners there—I left a note for the coachman, Wilson or Davis, requesting him to come and take the horses away, and on the next evening, about 8 o'clock, Wilson came, with another man—he was shown into my study—he said that Mr. Scott would be very sorry that the horses did not suit me, and that he would take them away—I requested that a receipt might be given for the horses, which I wrote out, and requested him to sign—this is it (produced)—he was unable to write, and I wrote his name, and he put his mark—he gave me the name of Thomas Davis. (Read: "15th October, 1870. Received from Mr. Curling, of 10, Stanhope Gardens, two horses, bay and brown geldings, the property of Mr. Scott, of 20, Aberdeen Place, Maida Hill; also their clothing. Thomas Davis, X his mark.") Milton had told me that he had a house close to there; but he and his mother were now living in lodgings, at 20, Aberdeen Place, Maida Hill—the horses were taken
away from the stables—I went to 20, Aberdeen Place, on the Saturday afternoon before this interview with Wilson; failing to find the coachman at the mews, I drove straight there, being anxious to settle the question at once—I inquired for Mr. Scott, but was not able to see him—in consequence of that I wrote a letter on that same Saturday evening, and received this in answer. (Read: "Liverpool, October 20th, 1870. Sir,—I am sorry to hear the horses did not meet with your approbation, as I am compelled to remain here with my mother, who is dangerously ill. In all probability I shall return on the 25th, and will call on you the following day and fulfil my agreement with you by placing 105l. at your bankers, to your credit. Trusting this arrangement will not inconvenience you, I am yours, A. J. Scott.") I did not have the 105l. placed to my credit, nor have I ever received any amount—I wrote again, and received this reply. (Read: "Liverpool, November 2nd, 1870. Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 24th ultimo. I shall return to town on the 14th or 15th of this month, and should prefer to pay you then, rather than forward my cheque in a letter. However, if this arrangement should greatly inconvenience you, please to inform me per return, and I will adopt some other plan. Yours, A. Scott.") I have never received a penny of the money—I gave the cheque to the prisoner, believing his statement that he was a gentleman, and the son of the late well-known banker, Mr. Scott—it was upon that representation that I parted with the cheque—finding I could not get the money, I was advised, in the beginning of January, to go to South Street again—I went disguised, with whiskers and moustache—I saw both the prisoners there—I am certain they are the same men that I had seen there on 14th October—a statement was made by the prisoner's Counsel before the Magistrate; other than that, I have no doubt whatever that they are the men.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. As far as I could judge, one of the horses was sound; I did not examine him carefully—if sold alone, he might have been worth 30l. or 40l.; I bought them as a pair—the other was a roarer; I believe roarers are sometimes very good horses in other respects—the interview on the 14th lasted about twenty minutes, it took place partly in the yard, and partly in the stable—I think there was another man in the mews at the time, there was nobody else in our party—there is a row of stables there—it was between 12 and 1 o'clock in the day; I am sure about the time, it was as near 12.30 as possible; I left the War Office at 12 o'clock that day, and went straight up there—I was not talking to anybody else in the yard besides these two men, nor in the stables; I went the wrong way in the mews, at first, and I had to ask my way—I had never seen the men before—when I went on 6th January, and saw Milton there, he did not represent himself as Scott, but as Milton—he gave me some warranties, signed "Milton," not with his address—I went through the form, exactly as I did before, of asking for the horses, and asking for a warranty—I went to see what warranty would be produced, and he showed me a warranty signed "Milton"—I think on some, "Milton's Livery Stables" was on the top, and on some not; I think the warranty shown me was without that, but I cannot speak positively as to that—the letters from Liverpool, and the warranty of 14th October, are evidently in the same handwriting.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. The horses were trotted up and down the mews by Wilson; I am confident he is the man—I did notice the man
who brought the horses in the afternoon, they were brought in front of the house while I was at luncheon, and I gave directions to my butler to go and speak to him, I did not go myself—I did not see the man who afterwards brought them to the stable; it was the same man who ran the horses up and down that came to me on the Saturday evening, to take them away. (Charles French was here called in.) I do not believe that is the man who ran the horses up and down the yard—I will swear the other is the man—only one man ran them up and down—I don't believe I have ever seen that man (French) before—to the best of my belief he is not the man who ran the horses up and down the yard—when the horses were brought to my house, I don't think I went out and gave the man who brought them two florins for bringing them; I will not swear that I did not; my impression is that I gave the money to my coachman to give to him, that I did not go out, that I saw him through the window, and the general idea I had of him was that he was not the same man I had seen at the stable—to the best of my belief, I did not go to the door and speak to the man; if I did go, it would be to take the money to the man—I gave some money, and I think two florins was the amount, but I really don't remember for certain how it was given; I have an idea that I had not got change, and that I got my butler to give it to him—I should have said 5s. was the amount I gave—I feel positive that the man who came to me on the Saturday evening was the man I had seen in the mews.
MR. RIBTON. Q. On 14th October, had not the man you call Milton slight whiskers? A. Yes, I believe he had, very slight dark whiskers, just a few hairs.
GEORGE DOWSETT . I am coachman to Mr. Curling, and was so in October last—he had given me some directions, on 14th October, about some horses that would be brought—on that day two horses were brought to my master's house—I do not see the man here who brought them, it was neither of the prisoners; I did not see more than one man—the horses were taken round to Cape's stables, in the Brompton Road, by the person who brought them; I was with him—in the afternoon, the horses were put in a break, and I went out with my master—one of them was a whistler, or roarer, broken winded, and also a lifter, and a jibber, he was not fit to drive—we were out with them about an hour—they were then taken back to the stable, and I saw no more of them—I was not present when they were fetched away—I did not see anything amiss with one horse, what I saw of the other was quite sufficient.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. I should know the man again who brought the horses—that is the man (French)—I have never said that Wilson was the man.
JOHN COPUS . I am now an assistant stableman at Webb's stables, Edgware Road—in October last I was a helper at Cape's stables, in the Brompton Road—I remember some horses coming there on a Friday in October, for Lieutenant Curling—I went out in the break with them that same afternoon, with Mr. Curling—the coachman and I were there when the horses were brought—I could not swear to the man who brought them—I saw him, but not to take notice of him, I was washing a carriage at the time—they were taken away next day—I was there when the person came for them, I gave them up, I believe to the prisoner Wilson—I can see he is the man—I was at the police court when the prisoner were committed, the week before last—I have not seen Wilson since, till yesterday—yes, I saw him the day after they were at the Police Court, in the Edgware Road—he sent
a man to me at Webb's stables, and he took me to Wilson—he said "How came you to come to swear against me, that I was the man that fetched the horses away?"—I said I was obliged to come and speak the truth—he said no more—the man that came with him said he had fetched the horses away, I said he had not, and I walked back to the yard.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. It was not the same man that brought them who took them away—I never said that a man named Wilmot brought them—I don't know him. (Wilmot was called in). That is the man that came along with Wilson—I did not say that was the man that brought them, I am positive of that—I did not see Wilson after he took the horses away, until he was in the dock at the Police Court—I saw him in the passage before he went into Court—the coachman did not point him out to me, I pointed him out to the coachman.
ALEXANDER POCOCK . I am managing clerk to Messrs. Wilson, Bristows, and Carpmael, who have the management of this case—I accompanied Mr. Curling, on the 6th January, to South Street, and saw the prisoners—I am positive they are the men—Mr. Curling was so well disguised that I did not know him when I met him.
WILLIAM MCMATH (Detective Sergeant D). I went to King's Mews with Mr. Pocock and apprehended the prisoner—I told Milton that I had got a warrant against him for fraud—he requested me to read the warrant; I did so—he said "You have made a mistake, I am not the man, and someone will have to suffer for it"—Wilson said nothing then, but on the way to the station he said he was not there at all on that day, meaning the 14th October—in the month of October, I had occasion to be on duty in the neighbourhood, on several occasions, for the purpose of apprehending some other man—I have seen Wilson repeatedly, and Milton several times in October—I am quite positive, I could not make a mistake—I have known them for some time—Detective Tuffrey was with me on several occasions—I know Milton's family—he has a brother—I only know one, I know him personally; he is much shorter than the prisoner—I can't see any resemblance to him.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. Milton's father is a horse dealer, and his brother also—some persons call them horse dealers, I do not—he deals in horses unfairly, I consider—I can't see the slightest resemblance between the prisoner and his brother—I know that he has been mistaken for his brother, but by a person who did not know either; that mistake occurred some few days previous to their apprehension on this charge—I am quite certain that I saw the prisoner Milton in October—I am aware that Mr. Thorley, his master, is here—I know that he was living with Mr. Thorley in October,—I did not say that I saw the prisoners both together in October, but I saw them in the neighbourhood—I saw Wilson three or four times in October, in the beginning I should say—I have seen him in Brick Street, Park Lane, in South Street, and at the comer of King's Mews—I saw Milton in Brick Street, Park Lane, I should say three or four times in October—I swear that; standing in the street—I did not speak to him, I was near him—it was generally between 11 and 12 o'clock in the day.
Re-examined. Milton was apprehended by Sergeant Monkton in mistake for his brother, against whom a warrant was out—I believe the officer did not know either of them—the gentleman said he was not the man—I found these papers on Milton when I apprehended him.
CHARLES TUFFREY (Detective Officer D). I was on duty with McMath in October last, in the neighbourhood of Grosvenor Square and South Street, and saw the prisoners both together three or four times—I was with
McMath, I think, four different times, looking for a man against whom we had a warrant—I pointed the prisoners out to McMath, and said there were some more of the same sort—I am quite sure I saw them more than twice in October.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. I saw them together in Grosvenor Square, and in South Street—I did not speak to them; I was near them—it was at different times in the day; 12 o'clock, perhaps 2, perhaps 3; I would not say exactly—not so late as 4—I saw them two or three times in October; at the beginning and about the middle, I think; and at the latter end of October, I saw them—I could not say the time within a day or two.
Cross-examined by MR. COLLINS. When I saw them together McMath was with me.
Witnesses for the Defence.
JOSEPH THORLEY . I live at Finchley—Milton was in my service as coachman—he came about June last, and continued till Christmas—he left on account of losing his eyesight—I am in the habit of driving into town almost every day, to my place of business at King's Cross—I generally leave home between 11 and 12 o'clock, and arrive at King's Cross about 12 or 1 o'clock—I believe in October I came to town in my carriage every day, or nearly so—the prisoner drove me in—(referring to a book) on looking at this book I am able to say positively that, on 14th October, Milton drove me in; at least, that I was there—nobody else ever drove me in—I believe I was always driven in in October—I believe I drove in on the 14th—after arriving in town, Milton's ordinary duty was to take his horses out and groom them, and clean the carriage, and he dared not leave the place, because I might go home at 2.30 or 3, or 4, 5, or 6 o'clock—he was bound to remain on the spot to receive his orders—I never found him absent when I required him—he wore a livery—I could not say what time I left town on the 14th.
Cross-examined. I have a managing clerk named Holloway—he is not here—I received a subpoena yesterday—I was not asked to give evidence before the Magistrate—I spoke to Holloway about the case, in consequence of Milton coming to see me—he did not ask me to come and give evidence; he came to see if I could send any of my clerks, or the watchman, or gardener, to prove his case; he did not wish to put me to the inconvenience—I knew he was going before a Magistrate, but I never dreamt that it would come to anything—I did not think it necessary to go and give evidence in his favour, or I would have done so—I told Holloway to go—this is my cashbook—there is a smaller book in which entries are made, from which this is copied—I have not got that book here—this is my own writing—I think Holloway produced the other book before the Magistrate—he does not make the entries; they are made by another clerk, and he or I enter them here, either the same night or next day, or put my initials—the reason I say I was there on the 14th is, that I see my initials here—I can say that I made these entries on the 14th; that shows I was there, not how I got there; but, to the best of my belief, I went in my Brougham—during the winter months I go to business nearly every day, and in the summer every other day—it is not correct to say that sometimes I only go up once a month—I should reckon October as getting into winter—that is our busy time coming on—I always go up in my carriage, except in slippery weather, such as we have had of late, then I have taken to the rail—I generally leave Finchley between 11 and 12 o'clock—it is six miles from town—I have a
pair of horses—I always go straight to King's Cross—it generally takes about an hour—they are very fine horses, and I don't let them go too fast—they are kept in good order by being fed with my own food—after arriving at King's Cross, Milton could not leave the premises; he ought not—I generally leave soon on a Saturday, and on other days at 2.30, 3 o'clock, or later—the usual time would be 6 o'clock, when the letters are gone to the post—it depends on the amount of business—in October we should be getting rather busy, and I should imagine it would be latish; 5 or 6 o'clock, or later—I have many times inquired if Milton was there in the day—I am generally there, smoking my pipe—it is a cash business; we don't give credit; consequently it is well worked—I don't require the coachman till I want to go home, but, usually, when I have asked for him he was always there—I had a good character with him, I can't tell from whom, I sent my man to inquire.
Re-examined. I did not hear of his being taken up on this charge until some time afterwards; until the case had been heard at the Police Court, and adjourned—he was let out on bail, and he came to me, and I called up Holloway in consequence of having seen him, and Holloway was examined before the Magistrate—the prisoner resided with me at Finchley—I can send for Holloway; he is at King's Cross.
EDWARD CONDEN . I am gardener to Mr. Thorley, at Finchley—Milton was coachman there from June to December—I keep the keys of the two gates—I remember on 14th October Mr. Thorley left in his carriage, about 12 o'clock—Milton drove him, and he was home about 7 o'clock, or a little after—I know it was the 14th, because I marked it down—I lost two pigs that day—it was on a Friday—Milton was chaffing my fellow-servant about the pigs, and saying he would get the sack on the morrow, Saturday—the pigs were lost about 4 o'clock on the Friday; at least that was when we found it out—my under-man had orders to shut them up at a certain time, and he came to me about 4 o'clock, saying he could not find them—we told Milton about it, as he was cleaning his horses or harness—Mr. Thorley drove up nearly every day in October, except Sunday, and Milton drove him—it was generally about the same hour, within ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—he generally returned about 7 o'clock; sometimes about 6 o'clock—he did not go by rail during that month—since that time he has gone; since it has been frosty, and the coachman has left; but he did not go by rail before October; if he did it was very rarely.
Cross-examined. I am certain it was on Friday, 14th October, the pigs were lost—I marked it in chalk on the shed that very day, about 4 o'clock—Alexander is the name of my under-man—I was examined before the Magistrate—Milton did not ask me to give evidence; he told me he was locked up, and said "I shall have you up"—I did not tell him then about the pigs; I did the second time I saw him—I can't recollect when that was—I don't think it was before he was committed—I can't recollect—I traced it back by bills that I had received, and then it directly came into my mind that I had made a chalk mark on a certain day—that came into my mind directly I heard of the case—I can't swear whether I talked with Milton about this matter of the pigs helping the case—I am the head gardener—I keep the keys of the carriage entrance, and am obliged to answer the bell when anyone comes—I say that Mr. Thorley went up in his carriage every day in October, or nearly every day—I could not swear
that there were some days on which he did not use the carriage—Alexander is not here today.
Re-examined. It is a fact that we did lose the two pigs on the 14th, and we recovered them the next morning—I was told that Milton was charged with an offence committed on the 14th, and after I heard that, I found that was the day we had lost the pigs—I am quite positive that on that day he drove Mr. Thorley into town—he never wore whiskers or even slight hairs—he never had the least appearance of hairs during the time I knew him.
GEORGE PETTO . I am watchman to Mr. Thorley, at the mills, in town—I knew Milton as coachman—I am not positive whether Mr. Thorley drove into town every day during October, in his carriage; but he did most days, and Milton drove him—I am not able to say anything positive about the 14th—he was in the habit of driving Mr. Thorley in during the middle of the month; he used to arrive about 12.30, generally, and then it would be his duty to clean the horses and the carriage, and then he would go and get a bit of dinner, saying, if he was wanted would I send for him—he never knew the time Mr. Thorley would want him, and he was always obliged to be in the way—he would come back again from dinner about 2 o'clock—I never knew him to be absent during the day for three-quarters of an hour or an hour, because he was uncertain of the time Mr. Thorley would leave.
Cross-examined. He was usually away for about three-quarters of an hour, at his dinner, not longer—he always cleaned the carriage before he went to dinner—I am watchman there, and am in the yard, and the carriage is in the yard—he used to go to a cook-shop to get his dinner, and leave word where he was gone, if he was wanted—I don't recollect any day in October when Mr. Thorley did not come in his carriage; there might be one day in a month, perhaps, when he did not—he usually came from about 12.20 to 12.30.
THOMAS HALL . I am coachman to Mrs. Wells—the stables are at 21, King's Mews, South Street, Park Lane—Milton's father lives opposite our stables—I know the prisoner—I have not seen him since the early part of last year, April or March, or somewhere about that time—I know French—I remember his clipping some horses in October; I can't recollect exactly the day—he was there for about three weeks or two months—I don't know Mr. Curling, not to call him to mind—I remember a gentleman coming there to look at some horses, in October—my mistress came home from the country on 28th September, and this was about the middle of October—French brought in a pair of scissors, which I had lent him to clip some horses, and he began clipping my horse's legs; and during the time he was doing that he was called out to run some horses up and down—I did not go out of my stable—there was another man there; it was not Milton, I believe it was his brother.
Cross-examined. That was not the only time I had seen horses trotted up and down by any of the Miltons—I saw it once or twice that week—I could not fix the dates; but my wife was confined on 4th October, and my mistress went away on the 8th; that was Saturday, and this was the latter end of the next week—I remember when French Charley was clipping my horse's legs he was called away—I can't swear to the gentleman that bought the horses—I know Wilson—I did not see him in South Street in October—I saw him there at the beginning of November—on my oath I never saw him in the mews before November—I never saw him about there, nor in the stables in Brick Street—that is about five
minutes' walk from South Street—I don't know in whose employment Wilson was in November; he was with the Miltons, I think, looking after Mr. Milton's horses, and he was there this morning, and has been continually since November—I don't know a man named Fyfield, who keeps the "Two Brewers"—I have seen him, but not to know him personally—I have not been in the habit of going there.
Re-examined. I saw French running two horses up and down, but he did not run them both at one time; one after the other—there was a black and a bay—one was about thirteen hands high, and the other a little higher—I don't know anything about those horses.
CLARA MILTON . I am the prisoner's sister—Mrs. Milton is my stepmother—I have missed the prisoner from my father's place since some time before April, and I have never seen him there on any occasion since, until he left his situation, just before Christmas.
Cross-examined. My father lives at 28, King's Mews, over the stables—I live there, too—I go to school from 9 in the morning till 12, and from 2 till 4 o'clock—my mother and sister live over the stables, and another brother—he is at home now—the prisoner never lived there, but he used to come there occasionally—the brother who lives there now is a little one—neither of my elder brothers lived with my father at any time, to my recollection.
GEORGE BENNETT . I am coachman to Mr. De Vere—I remember the prosecutor coming to King's Mews, to look at some horses, on Friday, 14th October, about 12.30—I saw two men showing him the horses—I know Milton very well—he is not one of the two men, I am quite positive of that.
MR. COLLINS. Q. Was Wilson one of the men? A. No; it was French, to the test of my belief.
Cross-examined. I have been in the mews for two or three years—I have been coachman to Mr. De Vere three years—I have known the prisoner Milton for some time, but I have not seen him since last April, until this January—we came back to town on 10th October—I have seen French about the mews, but not Wilson, till lately; some time in November, I can't say positively—I know Milton's brother—I believe it was him who sold the horses—I saw him about there at the time, and saw him speaking to the prosecutor—I should say it was from 12.20 to 12.30 that I saw the prosecutor there—I was just pushing my carriage in, and shutting the coach-house doors—I am positive the prosecutor is the gentleman I saw, because I noticed him—there wore two gentlemen, but I can't say that the other was with him—they came down the mews together, but I only saw the prosecutor speaking to the prisoner's brother—of course I was asked if I had seen this—I was not spoken to by Milton, or French, or anybody—I read of it at Marlborough Street, in the paper—I last saw the prisoner's brother that same week that he sold the gentlemen the horses—I know that this was the 14th, because I had only been in the mews four days—I came up on the 10th, which was Monday, and Friday was the 14th.
Re-examined. I have not seen the prisoner's brother since then—I don't know where he is.
ROBERT HOLLOWAY . I have just been fetched from King's Cross, in a cab, by Mrs. Milton—I am manager to Mr. Thorley, and live at the place of business—I know Milton, as his coachman—I know that he drove his master in most of the month of October—he generally arrived shortly after 12 o'clock—I have no recollection of the 14th; particularly; not of the carriage
coming there that day—I know Mr. Thorley was there that day—I see his handwriting in the book.
Cross-examined. I was examined before the Magistrate—I said there that Mr. Thorley might come to town twice in a week by rail, but it was a very rare thing—sometimes it would be once in a month that he would come by rail—I did not mean that it would be sometimes once in a month that he came to business; he was there nearly every day—I have no means of knowing whether he came by rail in that month—he generally came in his carriage.
CHARLES FRENCH . I live at 9, Curtain Road, Shoreditch—I get my living by clipping horses, in the winter, and I travel on the Continent, or any part of England, in the summer time—I know Mr. Curling—on 14th October I was in the King's Head Mews—I was in the stable, just finishing clipping a black horse—the man who had the stable then was named Davis—there were two horses in the stable—the other was a dark bay—Mr. Gulling asked me whether there was a pair of horses on sale—I told him there was, and pushed the door open, and showed him the horses—he looked at them, and asked me where the coachman was—I told him I had not seen the man that day—that was Davis—while he was looking at the horses a very short gentleman came up—I don't think I should know his name—he came and spoke to Mr. Curling—they had a communication together, and they asked me to pull the horse out, and I did so—I pulled the cloths off them, and ran them up and down the yard, and Mr. Curling looked at them—I think the other gentleman's name was Scott—I am not certain—Mr. Curling purchased them, and I saw him give the other a paper, and he gave him another paper—Mr. Curling asked me whether I could take the horse to his place, in some sort of gardens, No. 10, I think it was—I did so, about 3 o'clock—I saw a servant standing on the step at the door, and Mr. Curling came out to me—he said "Wait a minute"—and he then went back again into the house and fetched me two 2s. pieces, to pay me for bringing the horses there—I told him the horses were very fresh, and it would be desirable for him to put them into a break previous to putting them into his chaise—he told me to take them to the back part of the house, and tell the coachman to put the harness on—I did so—the next day I saw Davis, and in consequence of what he said to me I went with him to Mr. Curling's place, about 4 o'clock—he was not at home, and we went again about 6 o'clock—I saw him there—Davis and Mr. Curling went down to the bottom of the passage, into a little room—I remained there a few minutes, and afterwards Mr. Curling and Davis came out, and Mr. Curling went into another room on the left-hand side—Davis afterwards came out, and said "The gentleman has given me 10s.," and he gave me 5s. of it, to pay me for waiting—I then went to the stables, and fetched the horses from the place where I had taken them to—during the whole of that time Wilson was not in the mews at all.
MR. RIBTON. Q. Do you know Milton? A. I have known him for the last fortnight; I never saw him before—he was not there on 14th October.
Cross-examined. I was never in Milton's father's employment—I know Mr. Fyfield, who keeps the "Two Brewers"—I did not clip horses for the Miltous—I have not been long in King's Mews, only backwards and forwards, to do a horse—I am not employed at the mews in Brick Street; I have been there to clip a horse—I never clipped a horse for Milton, or for Davis, or Gray, or Bullock, or Fyfield—the first I knew of the prisoner
Milton was in the last fortnight—I don't know anything of his father at all—I have seen his brother, but I know nothing of him; I should know him if I were to see him—I have seen him only now and then, once within a fortnight or three weeks, I daresay—I will undertake to swear that I am the man that trotted the horses up and down for Mr. Curling, at the request of the man who gave the name, of Scott—I believe I was in the stable when Scott made the representation to Mr. Curling—Milton was not present when the horses were sold to Mr. Curling, it was his brother, I believe—it was not the prisoner, it was his brother.
Re-examined. I had seen his brother before October, but only just for about two days—I believe it was he who represented himself as Scott; I am sure it was not the prisoner—I had never seen the brother before, to my knowledge—I have seen him since; I saw him about three weeks ago, at King's Cress.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. COLLINS conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. METCALFE and THORNE COLE the Defence.
PHILIP ECKHAUS . I am a merchant, and live at Claremont Terrace, Lordship Lane, Stoke Newington—I know the prisoner; he calls himself a general dealer—on 20th June last he purchased 135 bundles of straw boards of me, the price was 32l. 18s.—he gave me his acceptance for the amount; it came back dishonoured—I met the prisoner once or twice after that, in the street, and asked him to pay me—he said he would do so—after that his sister paid me 5l. on account; I think that was in October, about three weeks after the bill was dishonoured—on 26th October, the prisoner came to my office, and asked me to grant him some more time—my clerk was present—I asked what time he required to pay the balance, 27s. 18s.—he said twelve days, but if I would not pay the acceptance away, he would probably be in a position to take it up before that time—I had a bill-stamp in the office, or I got one, and my clerk wrote out this bill (produced) for 27l. 18s., payable in twelve days, and the prisoner accepted it—it would fall due on the 10th November—it has never been paid—on 12th November I received this letter from the prisoner. (Read: "November 11th. Sir,—I have been expecting your bill to be presented, and only now have received the enclosed. I shall take the bill up this evening, and save you further trouble.") It never was taken up, and I gave instructions to my solicitor—I did not tell the prisoner I would renew the bill on its becoming due, nor did he tell me he could not meet it—I did not say it would be all right, and that by his obliging me, and accepting the bill, it would be doing me a personal favour; it was not upon that understanding alone that I consented to accept the bill.
Cross-examined. This was the first transaction I ever had with the prisoner—I sold him the goods on 30th June—I have not got the first bill here, it is at my office—I sued on the second bill, and then he made the affidavit—I got judgment against him—I left the matter in the hands of my solicitor—I had to withdraw the levy, there being a bill of sale, and pay 15l., the costs of the interpleaded—I took out the summons when I found that perjury was committed—I think it was taken out on 15th
January—the affidavit was sworn on 29th November—I wrote a letter to the prisoner in January stating I should take proceedings if he did not pay the money—I did not tell him verbally that I would indict him for perjury if he did not pay—I asked him to pay me when I met him in the street; I think that was in December—he said the matter rested entirely in the hands of his solicitors—I said nothing to him then about perjury—I met him again in Cannon Street, about a month ago, and asked him to settle it, and he again told me it did not lay in his power; it was in the hands of his solicitors—I did not say anything about perjury then—it was he who proposed the second bill—I did not particularly care whether I had it or not; I thought it would be a better security—I paid it away—I did not tell him that was what I wanted it for—I did not agree that I would not pay it away—I did not give up the old bill, because I thought that was a collateral security—when he reaccepted this bill I told him I would not return the other; that I would keep it as a collateral security, and return it to him when the other bill was paid; that was at my office at the time he accepted the bill—this letter (produced) is my clerk's writing; it was no doubt written by my instructions. (This was a Utter to the prisoner stating that it was his intention to prosecute him for perjury, and not to spars him the slightest mercy in dealing with him according to law.) If my clerk wrote that, it was evidently by my instructions—I do not dictate to him what to say, merely to write such and such a letter—Mr. Murray is my attorney, and has been so all through.
FRANCIS BISHOP . I am clerk to the prosecutor—I recollect the defendant calling at the office on 26th October—he asked Mr. Eckhaus if he would take a bill for twelve days for the amount of the account, and Mr. Eckhaus consented to do so—I wrote it out, and saw the prisoner accept it—he said he was expecting to receive money every day, and he should very likely pay the bill before it was due—he did not say he could not meet it when it was due, nor did Mr. Eckhaus say he would see it was all right—if he gave him the bill it would be doing him a great personal favour—the prosecutor did not consent to accept the bill on the understanding that he would renew it when it became due.
Cross-examined. I was scarcely a yard from them, sitting at the opposite desk—I could hear all that was said; I don't remember what was said about the other bill; something was said—the prisoner proposed giving the fresh bill—I have seen the prisoner more than once at the office—he called once to ask the price of some other goods that he wanted to buy—nothing was said about what would happen if this bill was not met—he promised to pay it before it was due.
HENRY THORNTON . I am chamber clerk to Mr. Justice Blackburn—I am a commissioner for taking affidavits—I took this at Rolls Court, Chancery Lane—I swore the person who produced it—I do not at all times see the person sign it.
MR. ECKHAUS (Re-examined). This is the prisoner's signature to the affidavit. (The affidavit being read stated that he was induced to accept the bill on the prosecutor's distinct promise to renew it, as he said he could not meet it, and that the prosecutor said it would be all right, that it would be doing him a personal favour, and that upon that understanding alone he consented to accept the bill.)
GUILTY .—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury and prosecutor.— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday January 31st, 1871.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
156. THOMAS MERRY (15) , to stealing, while employed in the Post Office, a post packet, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image]
157. JAMES SCOTT (20) , to breaking and entering the dwelling house of Thomas Langford, and stealing therein one watch, his property— Nine Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image]
159. FREDERICK HOLMES (25), and JOSEPH CONEY (25) , to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Joseph Salmon, and stealing therein one coat, his property, Holmes having been convicted at Clerkenwell, in April, 1867.— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image] HOLMES**— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. CONEY— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MESSRS. METCALFE and SLADE conducted the Prosecution.
GIDEON CROCKER . I am a constable attached to the General Post Office—on 21st January, I received instructions, and placed myself near the post-office, in Fleet Street, kept by Mr. Smith, in such a position as to see everyone passing in and out—it is a shop—about 2.30 in the afternoon, I saw the prisoner go in; he had two letters and a packet in one hand—he walked up to the counter, put them down and took the packet to some scales on the counter, he then went to the desk again, took up some other papers; and walked to a bag hanging there and put some in, but I saw that he took one away—I followed him up Fleet Street, and found him tearing the cover off a parcel—I took it from him, and said "You must go back with me to the post office," and when we got there I asked him what letters he had to post—he said one for Mr. Hamilton, of Paternoster Row, and one to Wick, and the packet he had was addressed to Leeds—a piece of the paper was gone—any one would see that it was a newspaper—a halfpenny stamp is on it now—I asked him the address on the paper I had taken from him—he said that he did not know—I said "Did you take it from the post-office," and he said "I did; it is no use denying it "—he is employed at a newsagent's, at 29, Bouverie Street—the bag into which he put the letters was for newspapers.
GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth— Six Months' Imprisonment.
WHITE PLEADED GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MR. BRINDLEY conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY RANDALL (City Detective). On 10th January, I was with Lighter, and saw the prisoners together in New Broad Street, about 3 p.m.—I followed them through several streets into New Street, where they both stopped opposite Mr. Banks' shop, No. 19—Richmond placed himself on the edge of the pavement, and White walked to and fro opposite the shop several times—he then went to the front of the shop, and took this roll of indiarubber tubing from the door—he then joined White, and gave him the tubing, and ran away—I immediately took White with the tubing, and Lighter caught Richmond.
Richmond. Q. Was I not walking? A. No, you ran.
SAMUEL LIGHTER (Detective Officer). I was with Randall, and saw the prisoners together at New Broad Street—we followed them to Newgate Street—I did not see the tubing taken, but I saw Randall take White, and then Richmond ran away, and I stopped him—I had seen the prisoners together the day before, trying to get this tubing—they waited about an hour, but could not succeed.
Richmond. Q. Are you certain I was with this prisoner? A. Yes.
Richmond's Defence. I was looking for work, and if I had known that I should be taken in custody, I would have been provided with witnesses to prove that I was not with this prisoner. It is not because I was formerly convicted of embezzlement that I am to be convicted of what I am not guilty of. This prisoner said that he bad a party with him on both days, who has escaped, and in mistake they took me. A policeman might easily be mistaken in a street like Newgate Street.
RICHMOND— GUILTY . He was further charged with a former conviction, at Worship Street, in August, 1869, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY—Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor, who stated that his father would send him abroad.— Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, January 31st, 1871.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MR. MOODY conducted the Prosecution.
JOSEPH HAYNES . I am an agent, at 9, York Buildings, Finsbury—the prisoner was in my employment, as traveller, for about three months, from September till 15th December—his business was to go out and obtain orders for jewellery and other goods—I entrusted him with a quantity of gold and silver watches and rings, to be used as samples, to the value of about 200l.—I had some suspicion, and I went to the tavern where the horse and trap were kept in which he went his rounds—I met him there, and asked him where the samples were—he said they were at home—I insisted on their being produced, and I went to his house with him, and then we went to the office—I went through his stock of samples there, and found a quantity missing—he said he had sold them—he had no authority to do so—I asked him to whom he had sold them, and he said to his uncle, a Mr. Hole, at Bayswater—I said "Come along we must go and see where he is "—I went with him, but we could not and the house—he said
he knew the house, and had been there frequently, and Mr. Hole was a man of means—I said "Where did you leave the samples with him"—he said "At his office, three doors from Fleet Street "—I went there on the following morning, but could not find him there—he then said that he had left them at the "Bell," or at "Punch's Tavern," in Fleet Street—the goods were afterwards found to have been pawned, and I gave him into custody—various articles have been produced by different pawnbrokers, and I identify them as my property.
Prisoner. Q. When were you appointed agent to Smith & Co., of Birmingham? A. On 19th November—I cannot produce the letter of appointment—I have one—you did not give me receipts for sums I paid you—I don't know a Mr. Simons or a Mr. Carr—I believe I saw Mr. Carr in the crowd when you were examined before the Magistrate—I don't remember the day Simons was taken into custody—I had engaged you as servant when you went out with the goods—you were to have 2l. a week, and I said I could not make any arrangement as to the commission until the end of the year—I received ten or twelve payments from you at various times, and gave you receipts—those were the proceeds of sales of samples and other things—you sold a chain in my presence in a public-house, but I told you to do that—that was a sample—I don't know what is due to you for commission and expenses—you took an order for 50l. worth of property from Mr. Lock—I did not execute it, because I did not believe it was genuine—I have not seen him—I could not find him—I did not borrow money from the chief clerk at Glyn's—he has lent me a sovereign once or twice—not 5l.—I was satisfied with your reference.
Re-examined. He had no authority to pawn the goods—I never received the money for the goods that were pledged.
JOSHPH WILLIAM FAWKE (City Policeman). I apprehended the prisoner on 29th December—I told him I should take him for stealing a quantity of rings and watches—he said "Very well," and I took him to Moor Lane police-station, where the charge was read over to him, and he asked Mr. Haynes to withdraw the charge several times, and the goods would be all brought back again—I found on him three memorandum books, and a shilling and a halfpenny in money.
ALFRED TUNSTALL . I am assistant to Mr. Tunstall, of Brompton Road, pawnbroker—a ring was pawned there on 6th December, for 6s., which I have given up to Mr. Haynes—I don't know who it was that pawned it.
FREDERICK ISAACSON . I am assistant to Mr. Walter, pawnbroker, of the City Road—I produce a watch pawned on 7th December for 35s., and also three watches pawned on 9th December for 2l. 10s., and another on 15th December for 15s.—I don't know who pawned them.
him—I saw him with invoices of goods—he said they were his own goods that he was buying from Mr. Haynes, and that I could do business with him by going about town and selling the goods for him—I said I was very glad to do business—he said he would find a horse and trap, and I could go round with him, and he would give me so much at the end of the week—he asked me to pawn some of the things, and he had to pay Mr. Haynes a great deal of money—I pawned some of them, and gave him the money and the duplicates—I pawned them in my own name and address—I believe these are the things which have been produced.
Prisoner. Q. How long have you known Mr. Haynes? A. About three or four months, by seeing him in a public-house—I have spoken to him during that time—I see him pretty well every day—I never gave you any fictitious orders—I never asked you for the samples—I had some of Messrs. Smith & Co.'s cards; you gave them to me—I thought the property was yours—you said you had it from them—I have not been in custody on a charge of false pretences—I refuse to answer why I left Mr. Sloshes'; I don't see that I am obliged to answer it—I got very tipsy—it was not for dishonesty—I will swear that.
Prisoner. Q. Did you give Simons into custody? A. Yes, for being concerned with another person in stealing the property—he said he had merely pawned the goods at your request, and he was discharged—you sold some samples, but it was against my orders—I received money from you from 26th November till the 15th December, and those are my initials in the books—on 9th December you paid me 6l., and I lent you 10s., and the receipt I gave was for 5l. 10s.
Prisoner's Defence. I am not Mr. Haynes' servant at all; I was merely an agent. I did not know the witness Simons was pledging the goods; I gave them to him to sell. Directly I knew it I did all I could to get the duplicates. I am innocent of this charge.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. METCALFE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. F. H. LEWIS the Defence.
FRANCIS MORGAN . I am a messenger in the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the proceedings in bankruptcy of George Byron Rickard, of 24, Austin Friars, stock and share broker—the petition for adjudication was filed on 24th March, 1870, by Joseph Silvani, of King's Road, Brighton, jeweller—there is no statement of debts—he has not surrendered to that bankruptcy—I produce the London Gazette of 15th April, giving notice of the adjudication, and requiring him to surrender.
Cross-examined. It was a substituted service; it was not a service of any petition on Mr. Rickard—there is no proof of debts here—there is a list of creditors present at the meeting—the gross amount there is about 500l.—there is Mr. Duckworth, wine merchant, 74l. 4s. 1d.; Mr. Silvani, 61l. 7s.; a gentleman named Thompson, for law costs, 172l. 8s. 7d.; Mr. Poole, the tailor, 145l. 5s. 6d.; and Harrison & Sons, 6l. those are all the creditors mentioned.
JOSEPH JOHN SAVILL . I am an accountant at 14, Old Jewry Chambers—on 27th April I was appointed trustee under the bankruptcy of Rickard—the office of the prisoner was at 24, Austin Friars—it was shut up—I did not go there; my junior partner went; I was not able to see the prisoner at all till he was taken into custody—I have not received any property from him—about 100s. was given up—that was a debt he was entitled to from a person named Cousens—I received it through the prisoner's solicitor—that is all I have received, except a small balance of 6l. or 7l. at the bank, which I have not drawn—I did not receive any documents of any kind.
Cross-examined. I have not seen the bankrupt, or put any questions to him—I have not seen him, except in custody.
Re-examined. The amount of the debts is about 570l., and another claim of about 200l.
JAMES DODDS HARRISON . I am clerk to Messrs. Davis, of 11, Old Jewry Chambers, solicitors to the trustee, Mr. Savill—on Saturday, 7th May, I went to Boulogne, from information I received, to find the prisoner—I could not find him there.
ROBERT PACKMAN (City Detective Sergeant). I apprehended the prisoner on 22nd November, in Philpot Lane, under a warrant which had been in the hands of the police since May—I told him I was a police-officer, and I held a warrant for his apprehension, charging him with being an absconding bankrupt; the name was Rickard—he said "My name is not Rickard; I know nothing of any bankruptcy"—I took him to the station—he declined to give any name or address—the next morning he gave the name of George Byron Rickard.
Cross-examined. I did not arrest him at the office of Mr. Duckworth, it was in Philpot Lane—Mr. Duckworth's office is in the neighbourhood—I saw him go there—it was net Mr. Duckworth who gave him into custody.
JOHN PEACH . I live at 23, Alma Road, Highbury—I was formerly clerk to the prisoner, at Austin Friars—I saw him last, before he was taken into custody, about the middle of January—I had been with him seven or eight years—he discharged me by letter a short time after that—I kept on in the office till about March, and it was given up then—before the prisoner went, he packed the books up in a box—they were the ordinary business books, ledgers and cashbooks—we were using them up to that time—they were packed in a tin box, and I conveyed them to Mr. Hewitt's office, at the time he went away, in the middle of January—I remained at the office some time after—I did a little business—Mr. Rickard gave me authority to do business for myself after he left—he told me he was going to resign, in March, as a member of the Stock Exchange—I believe there was a writ, at that time, from Mr. Thompson—a notice of the bankruptcy proceedings was left at the office, and I gave it to Mr. Hewitt, the prisoner's solicitor, the day it came.
Cross-examined. I have been with Mr. Rickard seven or eight years—he has done a large business during that period, but not so much lately—he did not owe a single Stock Exchange debt at the time he left—the books to which I refer apply entirely to his Stock Exchange proceedings—I knew that there were proceedings in the Divorce Court—I understood that he was going to resign because he refused to pay the costs in the Divorce Court; he said he would rather give up business—he was very much excited over those divorce proceedings, and very ill for a long time—there were no
Stock Exchange debts owing to him—there were a few debts from customers, but they were not recoverable; they were persons who had been bankrupt.
Re-examined. I know he owed a few private bills; I knew that he owed something to Mr. Silvani and Mr. Thompson—he lived at Clapham Park—he had his own house there—it was very well furnished—he did not leave me instructions to pay the persons he owed money to, or to attend to the writ.
ARTHUR TURNER HEWITT . I am a solicitor, in Nicholas Lane—I acted as solicitor for the prisoner, in the divorce proceedings—that was the first time I acted for him—it was a suit by his wife, for a judicial separation—I afterwards acted for him in other matters—the last time I saw him before he was taken into custody was in January, just a year ago—he said a great deal about going away at various times—he told me he had been very ill, and that the doctors had been treating him for enlargement of the liver, and they said unless he had perfect rest he would not recover—he said that was one of his reasons for going away—he said he certainly should go away—he did not say where he was going to—I knew that he was indebted—the only indebtedness that I was aware of at all was Silvani, Thompson, and I think some other small claim—a writ was brought to me in Thompson's case—I appeared to it—the prisoner told me he had left instructions as to his debts, but he did not leave them with me—he said it was a Mr. Bolton who was going to manage some of his affairs, a relation of his—a few days after he went a box came to my place—it was left some evening after I had gone away—it was a tin box, with the prisoner's initials, "G. P. R.," on it—I never saw it opened, and had nothing to do with it—it was fetched away afterwards by either Mr. Bolton or Mr. Peach, my clerk informed me—I did not try and ascertain who it was—I did not know what it contained, or who brought it, and it was taken away without my knowing who took it, but my clerk said that Mr. Peach or Mr. Bolton had fetched it—on 2nd February I sent the prisoner 50l., on 7th January I paid him 500l., by a cheque on Messrs. Williams, Deacon & Co.—that was part of the proceeds of the sale of his furniture—his furniture was sold in December—I instructed the auctioneer by his directions—I paid him a further sum of 100l., on 14th January, from the same source, except that there were some small debts paid to me—on 2nd February I sent a further cheque for 50l.—that was 650l.—it was sent by post, by me, to Boulogne, to him, in the name of Gregory Roland—I knew I was sending to Mr. Rickard—he wrote to me from Boulogne before I sent the cheque, and he signed his name "Gregory Roland," and I sent him the cheque in that name—he did not tell me he was going to Boulogne before he went—I did not know where he was going—he said in the letter that he had become almost a Frenchman, and had changed his view of things altogether—he did not give any reason for signing his name Gregory Roland—he called on me in November, before he was arrested; on the same day, or the day before—I had not the least notion where he was at that time—he had not communicated with me from the time I had sent the 50l.—he came into my room and said "You don't know me"—but I recognized him immediately, and said "Rickard"—he said "I have come back to look after persons who have robbed me in my absence, I don't mean you, but I left instructions with Bolton and another to collect my moneys, and pay my debts, and they have swindled me"—Mr. Bolton was a relation of his, and lives at West bourne Park, I believe—there was about 100l. to
collect for the prisoner when he went away—at the time he went away I was sueing the parties—I received, in one action, 86l. 17s. 6d., and 25l. 2s. 4d.—that was on 31st January last year, and 20th March—I also recovered a judgment against a Mr. Sheffield, who had been a client of his for 583l. 12s. 9d., and he undertook to pay it at 20l. a month, but that was subsequently altered to 10l. a month—he paid me 55l. in instalments—the balance now owing is 540l.—in consequence of Mr. Rickard going away I had no instructions to press, but the money is owing at this moment—I hare actually received 175l.—I delivered a copy of that account to the prosecution—that money has been paid away for alimony, costs, and various debts that he owed—the sum of the alimony in the Divorce Court was 300l. a year—it was by consent—I also paid his bill at the Croftonville Hotel, where he stayed for some months after the possession by his wife—I paid 194l. 10s. 7d.—Mr. Bolton told me he had to collect an account due from Mr. Pike, at Manchester, and he was receiving it by instalments, for Mr. Rickard—I think he said it was 200l. or 300l., and he told me he had received more than 100l.—he left money to pay his debts when he went away—there was the judgment of 540l. against Sheffield—I received about 60l. of that—I believe Sheffield is solvent—he lives in St. John's Wood Park, but the moment Mr. Rickard went away I did not collect any moneys—I put the notice of bankruptcy away among the other papers—I did not know where Mr. Rickard was—I had not communicated with him after I sent him the cheque in February—I think I wrote to him and told him that bankruptcy proceedings had been taken out—I did not get any answer—I wrote to some lodgings at Boulogne.
Cross-examined. I never heard or had reason to believe that any bankruptcy proceedings were contemplated before he left—Messrs. Merrick & Gage acted as solicitors for his wife, in the divorce suit—the prisoner was very much agitated about the divorce proceedings before he left; he was perfectly mad—I should think he was living, in Clapham Park, at the rate of 3000l. or 4000l. a year ever since I have known him—the alimony agreed upon between the parties was 300l. a year pendente lite—he was fierce about his wife's proceedings and his wife's family—there were negotiations to bring them together; but money was the sine qua non with her family, and he said he would never pay it, and he would give up business on the Stock Exchange, or anything rather—I told those facts to the attorneys, and they stopped the proceedings after he left—they were continued up to the time he left, most vigorously—the furniture and everything was settled on the wife by a post nuptial settlement, and the money that I sent to the defendant was part of the proceeds of the furniture—when the motion of alimony came on I endeavoured to arrange the suit with regard to the furniture at Clapham, because the commencement of Mr. Rickard's fury was the fact of their setting a written ejectment on his front door when he was in the City, and he said he would never go to Clapham again—I told Mr. Gage, who acted for his wife, that I thought we could make some arrangement to purchase the house and the furniture of the trustees, in order that she might have the money to invest, and to put an end to any ejectment or threatened violent taking possession of the place by her trustee, who was her brother; that resulted in the alimony of 300l., and in their agreeing to accept 500l. for the furniture, and assigning the house and furniture to him—that was actually done in September, 1869; and as it was not convenient for him to pay the money, I advanced it—he gave me
instructions then to call an early sale, for he would never show himself at Clapham Park again, after such an indignity, and that was done in December, 1869.
MR. METCALFE stated that, after the evidence of Mr. Hewitt, he should not press the case.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. METCALFE, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
165. JOHN MAY (27) , Unlawfully embezzling and stealing, on 7th February, 10l. 11s. 9d.; on 6th May, 12l.; and on 16th July, 25l. 10s., received by him on account of Hayward, Higginbotham, Smith & Co., his masters.
MESSRS. POLAND and F. H. LEWIS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. METCALFE the Defence.
No evidence was offered.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. POLAND offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
ANNIE STEWART . I am a widow, at 23, Tredegar Street, Stepney—in August last the prisoner came to my house, and said that he was employed by Bache & Co., Government contractors—he said that Earl Granville had summoned him from Hamburgh for writing to England for a supply of guns to supply the Prussians, and that he was to be examined on Wednesday—he asked me to give him board and lodging, and I took him in—he went out on Wednesday, and when he came back he said he had undergone examination by the attorney, who had reprimanded him severely for his conduct, and said that he was a pretty representative to come from such a firm, and all sorts of disagreeable things, which he felt very much hurt at—in September he said he was ashamed of his shabby appearance, but he accounted for that by saying that he had left his clothes in Hull, by reason of bringing over a quantity of cigars to give as presents to his friends—he said he had not sufficient to pay the whole duty, and would I lend him the money, so that he could make a better appearance—I lent him 1l. 17s. 6d.—he left on 21st or 22nd October to go to Aberdeen—he did not pay for his board and lodging, but he said he would pay when Earl Granville paid him for being a witness, and that he was to write to Bache & Co. when he wanted money—I agreed to board him for 25s. a week—he said it was too little; I said it would do, but he could give me any more he liked—he had every meal in the house—I had a letter from him at Aberdeen, and he inviegled me down there, but I could not find him—I did not see him till I saw him at his lodging in Southwark—I said, "You wretch, I have discovered you; you inveigled me all the way to Scotland; if it had not been for an accomplice you could not have acted as you have done "—he said, "That is quite right, I could not help it; you can do nothing with me if you try your best"—I lent the money to him, believing his whole story, and I gave him his board for the same reason.
WILLIAM GLOYN (Policeman M 121). The prisoner was given into my custody at 27, Southwark Bridge Road, on another charge—the prosecutrix saw him when he was in custody—she said "What hare you robbed me for in this manner?"—he said "You can do your best or worst, you can do nothing with me now"—she said something about his representations to her about his coming from Hamburg at Earl Granville's request—he said it was quite right—while I was conveying him from Southwark Police Court, he admitted he had never been to Hamburg at all—he said it was his intention to go as soon as he got money enough—he said he had come from Hull to London direct, and had never been to Hamburg.
Prisoner's Defence. I left Aberdeen for the purpose of going to Hull, in July, and I went from Hull to Hamburg, and was employed by Louis Bache & Co., and then I came to this country, and Mrs. Stewart told me to go to Somerset House, and get a passport to go over and get my things, and she would give me the money for that purpose. That is all I have to say.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
There were two other indictments against the prisoner.
168. WILLIAM BENECKE (41), PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling and stealing a draft for the payment of 159l. 11s., received on account of Henry Francis, and another; and also to feloniously forging and uttering the same draft, with intent to defraud— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, February 1st, 1871.
"Before MR. JUSTICE MONTAGUE SMITH.
MR. BOTTOMLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. BRINDLEY the Defence.
THOMAS RUSS NASH . I live at 1, Leigh Street, Burton Crescent, and am a surveyor and builder—the prisoner was a general servant in my house—she came a fortnight before Christmas—on Sunday night, the 15th January, about 8.30, or from that to 9, I was called by my daughter, and I went directly to the bedroom over an office which I had, and found the bedding on fire, and the room full of smoke, so much so, that I could scarcely get into the room—I began beating the flames out with my hand and smothered them over with the blankets, and in that way got it out, with the assistance of water—after that I got a light, and I closely inspected the place to make out the cause, if possible, and I saw that it had been evidently set on fire between the palliasse and above the rail of the bedstead, under the counterpane—there was a counterpane over the bed—I saw the flames extending each way, evidently starting from the top of the rail—the bed was made, and there was an extra quantity of things on—there was a sealskin mantle and a waterproof also there, amongst the bedding, and the prisoner afterwards said she had put it on—that was the fifth fire I had had in the house—one occurred on 5th January—they extended over ten days, from the 5th to the 15th—seeing that they must have been set on fire, I went to the police-constable to come to inspect it—I asked the prisoner if she had been up into the room and done anything in the way of fire there—she said, in my hearing, that Miss Sherritt was last in the room
—after the police-constable had been in and inspected it and made inquiries, she confessed that she did it—we were sitting in the dining room—I said "You had better confess and tell me whether you really hare done it or not, and we should be inclined to forgive you and look over it"—she was in a very excited condition.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was a good servant while she was with me, as far as abilities were concerned—she was well conducted—I understand her age is 15, on 24th of this month—I had no fault to find with her—she seemed to be willing—I keep the house myself—there are six of my own family in the house, and a young lady and three gentlemen occasionally, lodgers—I kept one servant, a charwoman, and a boy to do all the rough work—I thought the fire was accidental at first, because it did not occur to me that it had been anything else; I really did not investigate or think of it—I thought it was a spark or something.
ROBERT CARTER (Detective Officer E). On 15th January, between 10 and 11 at night I went to the prosecutor's house—I went to the first floor front bedroom with Mr. Nash—I found the room full of smoke, and the bed and bedding completely destroyed—I also saw a sealskin mantle there, burnt—I then went down in the kitchen and saw the prisoner—Mr. Nash, junior, was with me—Mr. Nash might have been there, but he did not stay any length of time—I saw her before she saw Mr. Nash—I am sure of that—I told her I was a police-officer, and I was going to put some questions to her, and she must be Very careful how she answered them—I said "Do you know there has been a fire in the house to night"—she said "Yes, I do"—I said "This looks very suspicious, this is the fifth fire that has occurred here within ten days"—she said "I know nothing about it, I have not been up stairs to night"—I said "I have been informed that you have been up stairs, I was told so by young Miss Nash "—I then sent for Miss Nash and repeated the same again, and Miss Nash said "Ellen, how can you tell such falsehoods I"—she became very much excited and began to cry—she then said "Sir, I will tell you something"—no promise had been made to her at that time, in my presence, and no threat—she said "You said just now, sir, there has been five fires, I only lighted four; I went up stairs, and took some matches and put them to the gas and then threw them under the bed clothes, and placed over the bed clothes a sealskin mantle; I don't know what made me do it; I have a good master and mistress, and they have been very kind to me "—I told her I should take her to the station—she said "Oh dear! tell my mother"—I told her that should be done—before taking her to the station I took her into the dining-room, where Mr. Nash and the family were—she went and sat by Mrs. Nash's side, and made a confession.
Cross-examined. I did not hear Mr. Nash say he would forgive her, and tell her to tell the truth—after the prisoner had told me about it, I went with her into the dining-room, where the family were—she said she wanted to speak to her master, and she did not wish me to be present, and I went outside the door—I am quite sure that was after I had seen her in the kitchen—I put the questions to the girl, which I have told you—Mr. Nash might have been there, but I don't remember—I think he was there a short time—he did not tell the girl in the kitchen that she had better speak the truth—he did not say a word to her in the kitchen—Mr. Nash's son was not present when she made the statement—he had left the kitchen then,
and Miss Nash, too—I had not told Mr. Nash what the girl had said when he told her to tell the truth.
JANE NASH . I am daughter to the prosecutor—on the night of 15th January I came home from church about 9 o'clock, for we did not go straight from church—I went up to see the fire; it was in my bed-room—I had been there before, when I put my things on to go to church—that was about 7 o'clock—no one was there then, and it was quite safe.
ELLEN ANN HYATT SHERRITT . I was staying at Mr. Nash's house on 15th January—I saw the prisoner in my bedroom where the fire took place on that day—I sleep with Miss Nash—I was the last person in the room—Isaw the prisoner there a little before 8 o'clock on the night of the fire—she was in the room when I went up—she had nothing to do there—she left the room when I went in—when I left the room it was quite safe.
Cross-examined. I did not go out of the house at all that night—the prisoner had nothing to do in the room when I found her there—she was just going out of the house, I believe—it was a little before 8 o'clock that I left the room for the last time—I don't know what time the fire took place exactly—there were other persons living in the house: lodging there.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I have nothing to say but that I did not do the one in the drawing-room."
GUILTY —Strongly recommended to mercy on account of her youth, and the character her master had given her— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MR. HUMPHRIES conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM STRODER . I am ten years old, and live with my parents at 118, Pennington Street, St. George's-in-the-East—about 5.30 on Saturday afternoon, 14th January, I was in Pennington Street, and saw the deceased man sweeping with a broom, and the prisoner hit him on the head twice with the broom—they were struggling together—they had both got hold of the broom, and one appeared to be trying to get it from the other—the deceased fell down—that was all I saw—I had seen the prisoner before, nearly every day—they were struggling together when I came up—I did not see how the struggle began.
RICHARD YOUNG . I am eight years old next birthday, and live at 6, Burton Court, St. George's-in-the-East—on Saturday, 14th January, about 5.30 in the afternoon, I was in Pennington Street—I saw the deceased sweeping the pavement—the prisoner came and tried to get the broom away; he got it away, and then struck the deceased twice on the head with it—I was quite close at the time—he did not say anything; neither of them spoke—I did not know the prisoner before.
JOHN HILDEBRAND . I live at 119, Pennington Street—on Saturday afternoon, 14th January, between 5.20 and 5.25, I was coming out by the Custom's Dock House, and saw a man lying in the road—I asked what was the matter with him, and the two lads stated that a man had hit him on the head with a broom—I picked the man up and took him to the hospital, and remained with him till 12 o'clock at night.
COURT. Q. Was there anyone there besides the two lads? A. There was a female—the prisoner was not there.
should charge him with violently assaulting a man, by striking him on the head with a broom—I said "The man is now lying in the London Hospital, and is not expected to recover from the injuries he has received"—the prisoner said "I don't know what you mean, I don't know anything about it"—I said "I am not certain whether you are the man or not; but I shall soon know "—I called the witness Stroder, and he identified the prisoner as the man who had struck the deceased—the prisoner then pulled off his cap, pointed to a wound on his head, and said "What did he do this for I he struck me first, and I struck him again, and I think I should have been a dunce if I had not done so "—on the way to the station he said "I don't know how this row began; I was drunk at the time; if I was the first to give the insult I am sorry for it; all that I know, he struck me first and I struck him again; I don't think I struck him any more than once; I did not intend to murder the man; I hope he won't die."
COURT. Q. Had the prisoner a wound on his head? A. Yes, and a small piece of sticking plaister on—it was a small wound—the blood was dry at the time I saw it; it appeared to be a sort of a graze, what I could see of it—I took him at 8, and this occurred soon after 5 o'clock.
JAMES OSBORNE (Police Inspector H). On 14th instant, about 9.30, I went to the London Hospital, and found the prisoner there—he was taken to the bedside of the deceased—I asked the deceased man how he felt, and if he could explain to me how he received his injuries—the prisoner was at the bedside at the time—the deceased looked round, and pointing to the prisoner, said "That is the man who struck me "—just at that moment Mr. Ley, the house surgeon, spoke to the deceased, and told him he was in a very dangerous state, and he said "Tea, I know I am in a dangerous state; I was sweeping down outside the dock-house, this evening; he (pointing to the prisoner) struck me with a broom once; I saw another blow coming; I remember no more"—the prisoner, in answer to that, said "I am sorry for what I did; I will not contradict you; but did not you strike me first?"—the deceased said "No, certainly not; why should I, I never saw you before, to my knowledge "—the prisoner then said "I hope you will get over it"—I was present when the deposition of the deceased was taken by the Magistrate, at the bed side, about two hours after that—the prisoner was present, and had an opportunity of asking any questions.
Deposition Read. "The deposition of Henry Byatt, 5, Albert Grove; taken at the London Hospital. I was washing down the steps at the London Dock House, Pennington Street, about 5.10, when the prisoner came up, seized the broom, struck me on the head. I saw another blow descending, and I remember no more. Why he attacked me I don't know. He flew at me, wrenched the broom from my hand, and said 'There you b—!' I never saw the man, to my knowledge. I never gave him any provocation. That is all I have to say.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not strike the prisoner. I don't know how he got the wound on his head. He was the worse for drink."
WILLIAM LEY . I was house-surgeon at the London Hospital—the deceased, Henry Byatt, was brought in on Saturday evening—he was suffering from a small laceration on the scalp—he had blood flowing from the left ear, showing the base of the skull was fractured—there was a contusion on the right forehead—he was quite sensible at the time—on the Tuesday he became perfectly insensible, and died in the evening, at 11.30—thecause of death was inflammation of the brain from a fractured skull—
such a wound as he had would be caused by a blow from a broom—I examined the prisoner's head on the Monday morning—there was a slight graze—it was quite dry—I mentioned, at the Police Court, that the man had carious bone by the side of the fracture—I said a fracture would be more easily caused when the bone was carious—the cause of death was from the blow—I think the fracture was caused by the fall—the blow on the forehead was not so likely to get a fracture at the base of the skull—the head was very much bruised—the deceased was about thirty-two, I should think.
Prisoners Defence. On the Saturday night I was coming along Pennington Street, and that man was sweeping in front of the Dock House. I asked him to hold on while I went past him. He swept the mud right over my shoes and trowsers. I said "You might have held on while I passed." He said "Who are you; why should I hold on for you?" I said "You might be civil;" and he struck me on the head with the broom. I have the mark now. I snatched hold of the broom, and got it from him, and struck him on the head. I saw him stagger, and I threw the broom out of my hand. I did not know the man before. The wound on my head was bleeding, and the missus of the house put some sticking plaister on it, and the doctor took it off on the following Monday.
ELLEN FOLEY . The prisoner is a labourer, and lodges with me—I recollect the night he was taken to the hospital to the deceased man—I saw the prisoner about 5.30 that evening—he came in doors, and asked if there was any tea ready—I said "Yes, immediately"—he went up stairs, and laid on the bed—he came down in about half an hour, and went to wipe his face with a towel, and he brought some blood down from his head—I said to him "You have been fighting"—he said "I have been having a bit of a tustle outside the door"—I looked at it—it had been bleeding very much, and I strapped it up—the first piece of strapping came off with the blood, and I put a second piece on—the prisoner had had a drop—I did not notice him drunk—he did not seem excited when he came in—he asked for his tea, and then went up stairs—I did not notice whether there was any blood on the bed afterwards—he had a room to himself—he wiped his face with a towel—I think there was a little blood on the towel.
COURT to RICHARD YOUNG. Q. Did you see the man who had the broom strike the prisoner? A. No.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution, and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.
NOT GUILTY .
The Prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, February 1st, 1871.
Before Mr. Recorder.
173. ALFRED BROWNING (25), JOHN BRYAN (18), JOSEPH BEER (20), and CHARLES DAVEY (19) , Feloniously cutting and wounding John Young, without intent to murder him. Second Count—with intent to do him some grevious bodily harm.
MESSRS. COOPER and MESSRS. W. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution; MR. ST. AUBYN, appeared for Browning; MR. THORNE COLE, for Beer; and MR. M. WILLIAMS, with MR. BROOKE, for Davey.
JOHN YOUNG (Policeman H 105). On Monday night, 2nd January, about 11.10, I was in Thomas Street, Bethnal Green, and heard men shouting and women shrieking in Chilton Street—I went there and found about twenty men and women quarrelling; the men wanted to fight—I advised them to go away and take another time for fighting—the prisoners were all there—I knew Bryan, Beer, and Davey by sight—I advised them to go away, but they would not, and Bryan came behind me, put his hand round my neck, and threw me on my back—I got up and took hold of him, he struggled and we both, fell—while I was on the ground the other prisoners kicked me violently about the head and under the arm—my mouth was hurt, and I lost a tooth—I got up, still holding Bryan, and was making my way to the station, when Browning stood in front of me, and said "Let him go, let him go," and he struck me on the head with something very heavy, which felled me to the ground—they all commenced kicking me, and some one called out "Don't kill him "—with that they ceased, and I got up and seized Bryan again; the word "rouse" was given; they all surrounded me and I was punched—Browning struck me several times on the head with something like a bludgeon; it was large and black, something like this (a truncheon tipped with an iron band)—this is much heavier than one of ours—I drew my truncheon and made a strike, but my arm was caught behind, and my truncheon was taken away from me—some one I do not know asked me for my rattle—I handed it out, and there were several hands to take it—it was sprung, and the prisoners went away—a constable came, or I should have fallen from loss of blood from my head—my nose and mouth were bleeding—my wounds were dressed at the station—Browning had a bandage round his head—Davey, the smallest prisoner, climbed up by the side of me and tried to reach my face—on Wednesday morning the four prisoners were brought to my bed, and I knew them at once—they were not placed with others at that time—Beer kicked me, when I was on the ground, first.
Cross-examined by MR. ST. AUBYN. My beat is round about Chilton Street—that is rather a roughish neighbourhood—I had not seen other rows that day—there were about twenty people there, and four or five women—the "White Horse "is the nearest public-house, and that is a long way off—when I went up, Browning and another man were attacking one another, but I did not see any blows—I will undertake to say that there were not 150 people in the street—a man was being led away by two other men and a woman; a man got in front of me, and he was the first person I spoke to—they were a few yards from the rest of the mob—when I was thrown down, my helmet came off—this was between two gas lamps—I had never seen Browning before, to my knowledge—it was not the first time I have been thrown down—I was just as sensible when I got to the station as I am now, and I described the men—several other men in the crowd hit me, and I described others besides these four.
Cross-examined by MR. COLE. I was in uniform—I had been on duty.
Bryan. Q. Where have you seen me before? A. In the neighbourhood of Brick Lane.
MR. W. SLEIGH. Q. Have two men been brought to you who you declined to identify? A. Yes.
SAMUEL ROBINSON . I live at 51, Chilton Street, Bethnal Green—on 2nd January, about 11 o'clock at night, I was in Chilton Street, and saw about twenty men quarrelling, and using very bad language—Young told them to go away, and not kick up a bother there—they did not go, but the prisoner in the drab jacket (Bryan) struck Young, and they fell together in the road—Young got up, took him by the collar, and asked him what he had done that for—they fell again, and the other men kicked Young while he was on the ground—Browning was one of them; he had a white bandage on his head—I cannot identify the other two—I said "Oh, you vagabonds, to serve a man in that manner!"—I went for a policeman, and when I was half way down Hare Street I heard Bryan behind me—he went into a doorway, peeped round a corner, and then walked out again, and went into the "Hare" public-house—I remained at the opposite corner, what we call the "Crown" corner, looking for a policeman, and while there I saw Browning go into the public-house, with several others—soon afterwards I saw Young going to the station, in a dreadful state, another constable was helping him, and a young man.
Cross-examined by MR. ST. AUBYN. I said before the Magistrate, that I could not swear to Browning's features, but his dress is the same—I swore before the Magistrate that the man with a bandage was a tall man—he was about five feet high—I call the policeman (Young) five feet—I think the man with the bandage was about the same size as the policeman.
Bryan. Q. Did you see my features? A. No, because you all ran so, and while the bother occurred it was so dark—I know you by your dress; a person dressed as you are had a struggle with the policeman, and you are about the same size and figure.
JOHN SHEPPERD (Detective Officer H). On the night of 3rd January I took Davey—I told him he would be charged, with others, with violently assaulting one of our men, on the night previous—he said that he knew nothing about it; he was not there; he was in bed—I said "I was not there, but I am very much misinformed if you were not, and immediately after the row you ran into a public-house, with your shirt sleeves covered with blood, and said that you had had a b—y lark with a policeman"—he then said that he was there, and did all he could to assist the policeman, and got his rattle, and tried to spring it—I told him I had no doubt he did, from what I was informed, and knocked him about the head with it—I got him to the station, and told him to take his coat off, and on both his shirt sleeves there were spots of blood, from the wrist up to the shoulders—I asked him to explain that—he said "Well, that was done at home, three weeks ago last Sunday"—I said "That shirt does not appear to me to have been worn three weeks"—he said "I forgot, it was done at my mother's, last Sunday week."
Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I did not say before the Magistrate that I said "I have been told that you were there, and ran immediately into a public-house in your shirt sleeves, and said 'They have had a b—lark with the policeman'"—I did not say "they" instead of "you"—my deposition was read over to me, and I signed it—I never understood the publican to say that the words he used were "They have had "—if I had noticed that when my deposition was read over I should have corrected it—I may have said, as to the rattle "I am informed you knocked him about the head with it," or I may not—we say a great deal before the Magistrate that never appears here—he said that he had had a fight three weeks
before, at his father's house; but not till after I saw the blood at the station.
MR. COOPER. Q. Was it from the information you received that you requested to look at his shirt? A. Yes.
EMMA BRITTON . I live at 90, Hare Street—on 2nd January I heard women screaming—I went up Chilton Street, and saw a policeman, with fourteen or fifteen men, and two women—the policeman was persuading them to go away, because they wanted to fight; but they would not—he got two of them down Thomas Street, and two more of them wanted to fight—he said "As soon as I stop two of you fighting, two more want to begin," and one in a light jacket struck the policeman, and knocked him down—I do not know who he was—the policeman took him by the collar, and he struggled, and fell, and all the others went round him and kicked him—he got up again, still holding the one with the light jacket; they struggled, and fell again, and they all kicked him as they had before—I cannot tell who they were, it was too dark to discern their features; but one had a bandage on his head—they all ran away but the one who the policeman had got—the one with the baudago said "Who has he got now? I will go back and see"—he came back, and the one who was underneath the policeman said "Cop," and he got away, and ran off, and the one with the bandage hit the policeman upwards of a dozen times on his head with some weapon, I could not see what, and the policeman said "I have had enough"—he had nothing on his head, and he reeled on to the opposite side of the way and said "What, no help?"—I said "Where is your rattle?"—he pulled it out, and tried to ring it; but could not—a little girl, about fourteen, said "Give it to me, master," and she tried to ring it, as well as she could—he said, a second time, "What, no assistance?" and as he said that another policeman came to his assistance, and then Davey came up to me in his shirtsleeves—he lives next door to me—he said "Emma, what is the matter?"—I said fourteen or fifteen chaps have nearly killed this policeman "—he said "Don't you say nothing, or perhaps you will get a crack from some of them"—I said "If I see any of them I shall lock them up "—the policeman was then taken to the station, and Davey followed, and stood outside the station with me till 12.15, in his shirtsleeves, and no cap on.
Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. Davey said "I heard the screams while I was at supper"—he also said that he had just come from his supper—he came from the direction of his father's house—that was after the men had treated the policeman in this way—if he had been there without his coat, assaulting the policeman, before that, I think I must have seen him.
MR. COOPER. Q. What light was there? A. There were lamps outside the public-house, and a lamp at the corner of the first turning in Chilton Street, and this happened between the two lamps.
WILLIAM MUNDAY . I live at 45, Chilton Street—on the night of 2nd January, about 11 o'clock, I saw a mob of men and women in the street—They were commencing a quarrel—they came out of Hare Street into Chilton Street—the policeman came up and told them to go away—he found it was no use, and one of them said that he would fight any man in England—the policeman told him he had better go and fight a beefsteak, it would do him more good—one of them said that he had had one for his dinner, and did not want one now—the policeman got them to move on a little, and a woman shouted out that she would not be knocked down by anybody—
the policeman asked her if she was going to begin again, and then two more began fighting, and the policeman left the woman, and was going to part them, and the one with the drab jacket went behind the policeman and threw him down on the pavement—I should say it was Bryan, but I will not swear to him—he got up again, and caught him by the shoulder; they struggled and fell, and then the others began kicking the constable, and some striking him from the top—he got up, still holding the one with the drab jacket, and they all gathered round, and were striking the policeman, and he went down again—I assisted in lifting him up, and they were all round striking him—they worked him up against the wall, and I caught hold of one of them and turned him round—I then saw one with a bandage on his head strike the policeman with some weapon—I should say that that was Browning—it was a large weapon, about the size of this staff—I thought it was the constable's staff, as I saw it taken away from him—I know Davey very well, but I did not see him there—I saw one like Beer, but I cannot swear to him.
Cross-examined by MR. COLE. I should not like to swear that Beer was there at all.
ISRAEL MARTIN . I am a publican, of 21, Hare Street—on 2nd January, about midnight, Charley Davey came in without his coat, and said "Oh, Christ! there is such a b—y lark, they have almost killed a policeman"—I saw stains of blood on his shirt sleeves.
Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. The blood was plainly conspicuous—I told those words to the constable Shepherd—several other people in the house heard the remark, and saw him—he stayed there about ten minutes.
COURT. Q. Did it appear fresh blood? A. I cannot say that it was fresh; but it was very plain—you could not be any wise from seeing it.
GEORGE BAXTER PHILLIPS . I am surgeon to the H Division of police—on the night of 2nd January, I examined Young—he had from twelve to fifteen wounds between the top of his head and the nape of his neck; the whole integument was one mass of wounds, and there were six clean cut wounds from 2in. to 21/2in. long, reaching to the bone—he also had contusions behind his ears, a tooth knocked out, and he was bruised all over his body—the wounds were evidently inflicted by two different kinds of instruments, some were semi-contused—the four clean cut wounds were of a very serious nature, and his life was in danger—he has progressed very favourably, but he has symptoms about his head which seem to indicate that there will be chronic mischief—there were also wounds about his ankles—such an instrument as this staff would produce the serious wounds—the wounds about his body might be produced by kicks, and also those behind his ears.
WILLIAM LEAKER (Detective Officer H). On the evening of 2nd January, I took Beer, and told him it was for assaulting a policeman named Young, on Monday evening—he said "I was in bed at the time"—I afterwards went with Doughty to a beer-shop, in Slater Street, and apprehended two men—as I was leaving Browning followed me out, and picked up this poker—he said "Let the b—go, don't take an innocent man, or I will knock your brains out"—I kept the men in custody, and when I got into the street I found I had made a mistake, and Browning was the man I wanted—I went back to the beer-house, and he was gone—the inspector afterwards took him—I searched his house, and found this truncheon concealed between the bed and the mattress.
Cross-examined by MR. COLE. The two men we apprehended are not in custody now.
JOHN HOSKISSON (Police-Inspector H). On the day after this transaction, I went with Leaker to 2, Farthing Hill, where Browning lived, and saw him and others—I collared him, and said "I think this is the man we want"—he said "I can prove where I was on Monday night, I was in bed"—I had not then told him what he was charged with—I saw Leaker find this truncheon between the mattresses—I told Browning he would be charged, with others, with violently assaulting a constable at 11 o'clock the night before—I took the four prisoners to Young's house, who was ill in bed, the next morning, and he at once identified the whole of them, stating what each of them did—most of them made some remark—he was quite satisfied as to Browning, and said "That is the man who struck me with something on the head, and that is the man (Bryan) who first struck me; Beer kicked me when I was down, and Davey struck me in the face"—Davey said "Did not I spring your rattle?"—he said "No, you struck me in the face"—Browning had a wound on his head, and a large plaister going round the front of his head.
ROBERT DOUGHTY (Policeman H). I took Bryan about 7 o'clock in the evening, and told him it was for assaulting a constable the night before—he said "I was in bed at the time"—I had not mentioned the time.
Bryan's Defence. I was at home before 10.30 that night, and went to bed; my mother and sister are here.
MR. M. WILLIAMS called—
WILLIAM DAVEY . I am Davey's brother, and am a shoemaker, of 98, Slater Street—on Christmas day we had a few words, and our father took my part, and hit my brother on the nose, in consequence of which his nose bled.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. This was on Christmas afternoon—my brother asked my sister to go on an errand; she did not obey his orders, and there were a few words on family affairs—I had my coat on, and my brother his, and my father his; we were all dressed as usual, in our working dress—I do not know whether my brother took his handkerchief out, but I saw his nose bleeding—my mother was there.
COURT. Q. Had your brother his coat on? A. I cannot say; I said that he was dressed; he had his trowscrs and shirt on—when we are in our own house we do not very often have our coats on.
ELIZABETH DAVEY . I am Davey's mother—I remember the disturbance on Christmas night, but I did not see him struck, as I left the house, and went to my eldest son's house, but when I returned, in "the afternoon, the prisoner said to me" Look, mother, my only bit of shirt I have got to put on," and there were spots of blood on each of the sleeves—I got him a fresh shirt, about 10 o'clock at night—he left the one with the blood on it in the front room, and my daughter gathered it up and put it between her two beds—on the night he was taken in custody, he came in about 11 o'clock; it had not exceeded 11—he asked me for a bit of bread-and-butter; he cut it himself, and went and sat down by the fire, in the front room—I then heard screams in the street; he got up and went out, and I did not see any more of him till after 12 o'clock—when he came home I asked him where he had been, at such a time, with nothing on him—he looked very cold—I had stepped up to shut the door—he said "Mother, there has been a policeman nearly killed across the road"—there was blood on his shirt then, but no
more than when he put it on—he had put on the shirt that morning which he had worn on Christmas night; that is the truth, I assure you—it was because he had not got his other shirt repaired, and he said "Where is the one I wore on Christmas day?"—that one was torn, but he sewed it up him-self—he put on the shirt with blood on it, because the one he wore the week before wanted mending, and he said "Well, mother, give me the one I wore on Christmas day "—there were three shirts.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. He has only two shirts—the one he put on Christmas night was his father's—I wash for him—I did not wash the blood off, because, being Christmas night, we did not make any more washing than we could help—I did not put it into cold water, to take the blood out, because I am not able to do my own washing hardly—there were some drops of blood on the sleeves, where his nose had bled—the spots were here and there, all the way up, nearly to the shoulder, as if he had taken the sleeve and wiped his nose—there was blood, I think, on both sleeves—my daughter pressed him to go out, thinking that the few words would blow over, and he did not come back till 10 o'clock—he generally sits with his coat on at Christmas time—my husband is not here, he is at work at the East India Warehouse; he has been there twenty-eight years.
SARAH BURKITT . I live at 48, Hare Street—I was present at this disturbance between the brothers—I live in the adjoining room—I saw Davey hit by his father, and blood came from his nose—on the Monday before the disturbance I was there, and heard Davey ask his mother for a clean shirt—she said that it was not ready, and he asked for the one he had on on Christmas day, and I went and got it for him—it was between my two beds—I am his sister.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. The squabble was about 3 o'clock on Christmas afternoon—I was in the room at the time—the elder brother was sitting by the fire, and the other stood by the table—the prisoner (Davey) had no coat on; he had just put his clean shirt on, and he asked his little sister to sew his coat up—the shirt was quite clean, I saw it taken off the line—I wash the linen—I had known of a shirt being blooded by the nose—I had not washed it—his elder brother had thrown a can of beer over him, and he wanted to strike him; but my father prevented it, and hit him on the nose, and then carried him into the adjoining room—his shirt was very wet with the beer, and he held his head down, and his nose bled a great deal; he went and sat on my bedstead while I sewed his shirt up, on the shoulder—he had not got a pocket handkerchief, so he held his head down, and his nose bled on the floor, and as he moved from our counter the drops of blood went on one sleeve, and he wiped his nose with the other sleeve, which was spotted—I then persuaded him to go out, and he came back about 10 o'clock—I did not wash his shirt, because, being holiday week, I did not do more washing than I could help; but I had washed him a woollen one; but when he took this shirt off I put it between my two beds, and it was there a week—he had only two shirts; but he had one of his father's—I know Jane Sloane, she is here; she was in the house on the very day the policeman was assaulted—she called on an errand that rooming, it being a leisure day—my brother was in bed, and he asked his mother for the clean shirt.
MR. COLE called—
come home, about 6.55—he had his supper, and sent me for a half-pint of beer—me and his brother Alfred and his mother were there when he had his supper—after he had it he asked me to go outside while he and his brother Alfred went to bed—I went out, and in about five minutes they called me into the bedroom—it was then about 7.30—I saw them in bed then—after that his biggest brother, Charles Beer, came in, and afterwards his sister—his mother was there all the time; but she went out about 10.30, to take her daughter home, and returned about 11.30—I remained there while she was gone—neither Joseph or Alfred went out, they were fast asleep—I stayed there from a little before 7 till 12 o'clock, when my mother called me, and I chained the door—between those times I am perfectly certain that Joseph did not go out.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I live there with my father and mother—my mother is not the landlady—I am in the habit of sitting there of an evening—I run on errands for them almost every evening—I am always there—I do work for Mrs. Beer—I have seen them all since I gave evidence at the Police Court—we all live in the house together—we have talked about this case—what I was going to say has been written down by Mrs. Beer, and all of us, and also what Mrs. Beer has said—nobody in the house has written it—the Magistrate put it down, but no one else—I know Bridget Crawley—I heard Mrs. Beer examined at the Police Court—I mentioned at Worship Street about Mrs. Beer going out with her daughter, and staying out for an hour—my evidence was written down, and I was asked if it was correct—this is my mark. (The deposition being read, did not date that Mrs. Beer and her daughter went out.)
MR. COLE. Q. Can you tell whether everything was taken down? A. I cannot—the policeman took Beer on the Tuesday night, and I am perfectly certain that it was on the night before that that Mrs. Beer went out with her daughter—we talked the matter over with regard to that night—Mrs. Beer was examined before the Magistrate, and so was Charles Beer.
COURT. Q. I want to know what you meant by saying that Mrs. Beer, and all of them, had written down what you were going to say? A. That is a mistake—Mrs. Beer did not write it down, the Magistrate did—that was the only time it was written down—it was read over to me at the time, but not since.
CHARLBS BEER . I am Beer's brother—we live at 10, Little Pearl Street, Spitalfields, in the same house with our mother—I heard of my brother being taken up on Tuesday night between 7 and 8 o'clock—on the night before that, Monday, I came home from work at 7.45, I had my supper and went to bed—my brother Joseph had had his supper, and had gone to bed—we sleep together—he was by my side when I went to sleep—he sleeps again the wall—he did not disturb me in the night—it was very late when we woke—I went to work with him in the morning, and we were both sent back—we are brewer's servants—I am quite certain that it was the day before that that I came home and found my brother in bed.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. He did not have supper with me—I had my supper at 7.45 or 7.50—I did not say, at the Police Court, that he was at work up to 6, and in bed by 7 o'clock—what I swore was written down, and read over—this is my signature.
MR. COLE. Q. You were not referring to Tuesday? A. No, to Monday, 2nd January—I said, at the Police Court, that the night before my brother was
locked up, he came home at 7 o'clock, or I may have said half-past, but he was home before me, and was in bed before I was.
BRIDGLEY CRAWLEY . I live at 10, Little Pearl Street—I heard on Tuesday night that Beer was arrested—he came home at 7 o'clock on the night before that; I stood at the street door, and was there at 7.30, when he had his supper—I came down at 11 o'clock and asked if all was in, and he answered no; his mother was gone to see his sister to the rail—I did not lock the house up because she was out.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I generally lock up the house, but I did not that night—I went into his room at 7.30, while he was having his supper; not later—I stayed there about ten minutes—I did not see Charles Beer come home—I was in the house and heard him, but I was not in the room—it might be 7.45 when he came home—the beer was not sent for while I was in the room—I know the little girl who has been called—Beer's mother spoke to me about going to the Police Court—she said "You remember that me and my daughter went out," and "You remember asking my son if we were all in"—the little girl was in the room, and the mother and the son who was locked up, he was in bed—they all heard this, it was spoken in the room—we talked the matter over as friends—it was on Wednesday morning that the mother asked me to go to the Police Court to speak for her son what I knew; I said that I would go—she said "Do you remember that he came in at 7.30 and that you came down at 11 o'clock and asked if all were in "and then I told her all—she did not tell me what time the policeman was assaulted, but I have heard that it was about 11 o'clock—I heard that on Wednesday—I live in the house—I do not know where Chilton Street is—I heard Alfred Beer examined at the Police Court—Charles Beer did not speak to me when I called out and asked who was in, he was asleep, or he might not be asleep, but he was in bed—I do not know that he was in bed, but I know that the young prisoner answered me.
MR. COLE. Q. When did you hear of his being arrested? A. Not till the Wednesday, and then the mother asked me to say what I knew—I am quite sure she did not tell me anything about the time the policeman was assaulted.
ALFRED BEER . The prisoner Beer is my uncle, but I call him my brother—I live at 10, Little Pearl Street—I heard on Tuesday night that he was taken in custody—he came home on the Monday night, at a little before 7 o'clock—I was there when he came home, and the little girl Saunders as well—he told her to go out while they both undressed—they both went to bed while she was out, it was then a little more than 7.30—he got up at 6 o'clock—the biggest of them was sent back, and my uncle was kept till 10 o'clock, and then he came back—that was on Tuesday.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I went to bed at 7.30—my big brother, Charles, went to bed 8 o'clock—he had had his supper—we all three went to sleep—I did not go to sleep till 9 o'clock, and they were then awake—I did not wake up till 6 o'clock next morning—I know Bridget Crawley—I did not hear her come down and ask if everybody was in.
ELIZABETH BEER . I am Beer's mother—I first heard that he was arrested on Tuesday evening—he came home the evening before, about 7 o'clock, as near as I can think—his supper was all ready for him in the oven, and he went to bed about 7.30—my little grandson, the last witness, went to bed at the same time—the girl Saunders was there all the evening,
except just going out for a minute or so on an errand, for a candle or so—my eldest son Charles came in a quarter of an hour; he sleeps with Joseph and Alfred, all three in one bed—about ten minutes before Charles went to bed, my daughter came in—I stayed in the house, it might be till 10.15 or 10.30; I then went part of the way to Moorgate Street station with my daughter, who had been with me from about 7.45—up to the time I left, Joseph had not gone outside at all, and he went to sleep within fire minutes after going to bed—the girl Saunders was in charge—I came in about 11.15, went into the bedroom, and saw my sons all fast asleep, and Joseph was snoring loud, as he is always in the habit of doing—I went to bed about 12 o'clock—the policemen changed their beats, and the strange policeman did not know what window to call at next morning, and my sons were never called; the policeman used to call them at 5.30.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I did not say at the police-station that I was never out of my room from 7.30 till 6 next morning—I do not know that I said to the Magistrate "He never went out of bed till 6 o'clock next morning, as I was in the room," but I know I told the Magistrate that I went with my daughter a little way—I did not sign my deposition at the Police Court.
MR. COLE. Q. Have you a son William? A. Yes, he called at my place that Monday evening, about 8.30 or 9.
Witnesses for Bryan.
MARGARET BRYAN . I am Bryan's mother—he lives with me at 3, Grey Eagle Street, Spitalfields—he was taken in custody on Tuesday evening, 3rd January—he came home on the previous evening at 10.30, and asked me for a bit of fish—I said "There is no fish "—he out a slice of bread and some cheese, and went to bed—I went out for some beer for supper, and it was 10.45; it was not later—I gave him the money to get the cheese, as I had no fish—he was going to bed when I went out, and he was in bed when I returned—I do not know Chilton Street, I know the little church; it takes about twenty minutes to walk there.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. He generally comes in about 10.30 or 11—he is a labourer, working in the docks—he generally comes home and gives me his money—I went to bed at 10.45; I am going by the publican's clock—my daughter said that he came in at 10.30, but my clock is not right—my son was dressed the same as he is now.
ELLEN BRYAN . I am the prisoner's sister—I remember his being taken on the Tuesday—he came home on the Monday night at 9.30, by our clock—he asked hid mother for some halfpence; she gave him some, and he went out and got some chouse, and had his supper—he was there ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, before he went for the cheese, and after he came in with it he sat there some time, not much over half an hour—I did not look at the clock when he went to bed—I signed my statement, saying that he went to bed about 10 o'clock, and after hearing my mother, I said that it was 11 o'clock—the gentleman wanted to know if I wanted to alter my statement, and I said "No.'
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. I did not talk it over with my mother, before I altered my evidence—I never spoke to her about it at Worship Street—my brother is generally in bed at 11 o'clock—he does not always get bread and cheese, but sometimes he does—I do not often fetch the beer.
Davey's Statement before the Magistrate: "On the 2nd, I was indoors
about 11.5, eating fish, and I heard a scream of females, and I went out and saw Miss Britton, and asked her what was the matter; and a girl was there springing the rattle, and she threw it down in the snow. The policeman was covered with mud, and his face bleeding. I picked up the rattle, and then sprang it, first one way and then the other. The police-man said "Give him his crook" and I gave him his rattle, and a man gave him his staff. Another policeman and Mr. Cotter's son had hold of him, and I gave the rattle under the policeman's arm. I spoke to some people there, and went to the station."
COURT to J. YOUNG. Q. Do you know Great Eagle Street? A. Yes, it is from 400 to 600 yards from Chilton Street: about a quarter of a mile.
BROWNING— GUILTY on Second Count— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .
BRYAN— GUILTY on Second Count— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
BEER— NOT GUILTY .
DAVEY— GUILTY of the attempt to wound. THE COURT considered that this must be taken as a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
THE COURT directed a reward of 10l. to Young, and 5l. to Munday.
No evidence was offered against Beer.
The evidence against Davey, and that on his behalf, was in substance repeated.
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, February 1st, 1871.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
176. GEORGE BELL (34), was indicted for unlawfully obtaining on credit, within four months of his bankruptcy, 36 tons of potatoes, of John Read. Second Count—For a like obtaining of 30 tons of potatoes from Jonathan Read. Third Count—For obtaining the said goods under false pretences. Fourth Count—For obtaining the said goods by means of fraud other than false pretences.
MESSRS. METCALFE and COLLINS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH, with MR. BESLEY, the Defence.
(This case came, in the first instance, before Mr. Justice MONTAGUE SMITH, when application was made by the defendant's counsel, before plea taken, to quash the indictment.
MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH. The two first counts are framed upon 32 and 33 Vic., c. 62, sec. 11, subsection 14, and the two last counts upon the first subsection of the 13th sec. of the same Act, known as the Debtors' Act, 1869. By the 18th section every misdemeanor under the second part of the Act (from sec. 11 to 23 inclusive) is deemed to be an offence within 22 and 23 Vic., c. 17; and it further provides that, when any person is charged with any of the offences there described, the Justice shall take into consideration any evidence tending to show that the act charged was not committed with a guilty intent. In that
section no reference is made to the 30 and 31 Vic., c. 35, which enlarges the power of preferring indictments, and so far controls the original Vexatious Indictments' Act. With regard to the first two counts, there is no order of any Judge of the Superior Courts, nor any consent of the Attorney or Solicitor-General, and the recognizances of the prosecutor contain no reference to the person whose property the goods obtained were; those counts, therefore, are not warranted by the recognizance. As to the two last counts, there is no committal for the offence there set forth, no order of a Judge, and no consent of the Attorney or Solicitor-General.
MR. JUSTICE SMITH. If that be so, those two counts cannot be supported.
MR. METCALFE. That will be so unless I satisfy your Lordship that the Recorder's Act, 30 and 31 Vic., c, 35, applies, and that no consent is necessary for the introduction of counts which may be lawfully joined with other counts upon which there has been a committal.
MR. JUSTICE SMITH. Is it admitted that, assuming the counts have been properly inserted, the facts are referred to, on the face of the depositions?
MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH. For the purpose of the argument, I will concede that is so. There is another objection to the fourth count—viz., that it is bad for uncertainty, as it does not state the nature of the fraud.
MR. BESLEY was heard on the same side.
MR. METCALFE. The Debtors' Act was passed subsequent to the Recorder's Act, and the reference in the Debtors' Act to the Vexatious Indictments' Act must mean a reference to it as controlled and limited by the Recorder's Act, which virtually repeals it. Under the first section of the Recorder's Act there are two provisions, one allowing the introduction of any counts upon the facts or evidence disclosed in the depositions, and the other providing, with the consent of the Court, for the admission of other charges not disclosed in the depositions.
MR. JUSTICE SMITH. It is impossible to say that there may not be some doubt whether the Recorder's Act, 30 and 31 Vic., c. 35, is to be read into the Vexatious Indictments' Act for die purpose of this 18th clause of the Imprison-ment for Debts Act; but on the whole shall hold, for the purposes of today, that it is included As MR. METCALFE puts it, the Vexatious Indictments' Act is, to a certain extent, repealed by the Recorder's Act; if so they must be read together. I shall, therefore, hold that within that Act the third and fourth counts are founded upon the facts appearing in the depositions, and may lawfully be joined without the consent of any Court, because, as I read the first section of the Recorder's Act, it is divisible. With regard to the fourth count I think it is too general, and that it ought to be quashed.)
CHARLES CARMICHAEL . I am a messenger in the Trust Deed Office of the Court of Bankruptcy—I produce the proceedings under the liquidation, filed on 26th May, by the defendant—it was a petition by the defendant for liquidation—the first general meeting was on 14th June. (It appeared that there were eleven creditors, representing a total amount of 1889l. 15s. 8d., five of whom were assenting, and six not, the proposition was 5s. in the pound, 2s. 6d. within fourteen days, and 2s. 6d. in three months).
RICHARD THORNTON . I am an assistant messenger in the London Court of Bankruptcy—I produce the proceedings under the defendant's bankruptcy—the petition is of John Read, dated 22nd June—he was adjudicated bankrupt on 30th June. (It appeared by the proceedings that Clark Ingermall and George Shuter were appointed trustees, and that on 12th
August the order to prosecute the bankrupt was dismissed, and the trustees' costs of the opposition directed to be paid out of the estate.)
JOHN READ . I am a potato merchant, of Bonny Street, Blackpool, Lancashire—I have known the defendant three years—I have had dealings with him in the way of trade, and continued to do so until 9th May last year, my account against him was then 30l. 1s. 6d.—I received this telegram from him on 9th May, and on 12th May I received this cheque for 30l. (produced) on account of the balance of 30l. 1s. 6d.—in consequence of that telegram I sent off 18 tons 19 cwt. of potatoes—the price was 5l. 15s. per ton, altogether 107l. some shillings—I sent those from the 9th to the 13th, a truck at a time—I afterwards received a letter from the defendant, which I have mislaid—it contained an order for a few trucks more, and in consequence of that I sent 17 tons more, amounting to 100l.—altogether 207l. 9s. 8d.—when I received the 30l. cheque I paid it into my banker's the same day—I sent off the last of the 18 tons on the 14th—on 20th May I received this cheque for 100l. (produced)—I also paid that into my banker's—I received both these cheques back dishonoured—I received the 30l. cheque back on the 19th, and the 100l. cheque on the 25th—it was issued on the 19th; I got it on the 20th, and got it back on the 25th—I should not have allowed my potatoes to go if I had known the cheques would hare been dishonoured, or if I had known the 30l. cheque would hare been dishonoured—in consequence of the dishonour of those cheques, I came up to London to see the defendant—and saw him on the 26th, at his house, at 256, Caledonian Road—my brother was there with him before I got to see him—I went in and bid him "Good morning," and I said "Well, George, how is it you sent me those two cheques, they are dishonoured?"—he said "I am very sorry, but it will be all right in a short time "—I said "You must have known your position previous to sending for those goods "—he said "I did, I have known it for two years "—I then asked him if he had any money that I could have—he said "No "—I said "I started off from home in a hurry, and I am short of money, can you let me have 5l.?"—he says "No, I am going to call my creditors together in a few days, and I think there will be 10s. in the pound for you"—I said "Then you have been obtaining these goods from us on purpose to pay other creditors with; well I shall see further into this before I leave London; I shall consult a solicitor to see what can be done in the matter; I am not going to sit down to be robbed with impunity "—he says "You had better let it alone a few days, I had a loss of some goods that I bought of you and your brother some two years ago of 400l."—I said "Well, I don't know anything about that, this is the first time I have known about it"—I also said that he might have got 400l. by them, for anything I knew—I left him at that time—a few days afterwards a notice went down to my place—on 17th June, after receiving a telegram, I saw the defendant at the station, at Blackpool—my brother was there, and a gentleman of the name of Eschwedge—he says "It is a bad job;" and I says "It is"—he says "I am come down to try and get you to take 5s. in the pound down, and I will give you bills; I will sign them, and you can date them as you think proper, after I have got over my difficulties"—I said the bills were no use to us unless they were backed by some one else—he said "I will go back to London, but I don't know that I can have it done; I will see my father-in-law"—I believe I put that to him, asking him if he thought his father-in-law would not do it—he said he did not
know, but he would go back and see, and be would either write or telegraph the result, but he would rather we would accept the bills, and the 5s., than go and ask his father-in-law—he pressed me very hard, and said how honest he would be if we would only accept the bills—I refused to take the bills and the 5s. in the pound, too—I saw him again on the same day, and walked to the station with him—he wanted me to write up to his father-in-law to see if we could bring any influence to bear upon him to back the bills, but I was to do it in such a way that his father-in-law would not detect that he had anything to do with it—I promised to write, and I did write, some time after—this is the letter. (Read: "From John Read, potato merchant, 30, Bonny Street, Blackpool, to Mr. Isaac Peart, potato merchant, London, July 15, 1870. Sir,—In the matter of George Bell, your son-in-law, bankrupt. Before we make application to have him prosecuted, we just wish to say that we are willing to take 10s. in the pound, providing our coats are paid, rather than prosecute him. You know our case is a very clear one; we have our remedy. If this is complied with at once, you can write per return of post. We write this letter without prejudice to the case. Waiting your reply, we are, yours truly, John and Jonathan Read. P.S.—We should have written Bell himself, but knowing the bankruptcy authorities receive the letters, we thought it might be as well to write to you." I did not consult my attorney before I wrote that letter—this is the telegram I spoke of, 17th June—I met him at the station on that day—he telegraphed for me to meet him there—I have not got a penny of this 200l.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH. I have done business with Bell for three years, in the potato line—I have not sold him thousands or hundreds of thousands of tons of potatoes during that three years—hundreds perhaps, not thousands—I think I have had about 2000l. of his money, in all transactions—I am not in partnership with my brother Jonathan—he is here to-day—my transactions have been entirely irrespective of the transactions my brother has had with him—I am not doing a very large business at Blackpool as a potato merchant; not to the extent of thousands a year—it all depends on the trade—if we have a good season, then we have a large trade—there is a great fluctuation in the trade at different seasons of the year, in the spring, perhaps, of 5s. a ton—I believe there was one cheque which was paid to me by Bell that was dishonoured, before this—that was not paid that I know of, but it never came back to me—it was honoured afterwards—I can't tell which it is—it was paid, and that was enough for me—it did not happen, in reference to a cheque for a larger amount than 50l. that that was dishonoured, and that I took a bill of exchange, or a promissory note, for it—I have never held his cheque back at his request for a time, and afterwards presented it—there were two cheques that were dishonoured, and afterwards paid; but I only knew of one till I was at the Clerkenwell Court, and then I found out there were two, when it was shown to me—it did not happen to roe that a cheque for 100l. was presented and not paid at maturity, and subsequently was paid—there is no doubt that I have been paid this 100l. cheque, dated December 1867—it bears on the face of it "Refer to drawer," but it had never been named to me—my bankers never told me of it—I paid it in the ordinary course, and they never returned it to me; I never heard a word of it—it has been paid—I suppose it was paid after it had been dishonoured; I don't know anything more about it—this cheque of April, 1870, for 60l., which has "Refer to drawer" is the only one I know about—I know of only one and this is
it, for 60l.—after December, 1867, I supplied Mr. Bell with potatoes from time to time and was paid—I did not know that my brother took a bill of exchange or a promissory note for a cheque of Bell's which had been dishonoured, till we were in the Court—I know it now—I don't know how much it was—his transactions and mine are quite separate—we always expect the money for the sales of potatoes within a week, or something like it—perhaps I may have sold him potatoes and not been paid the balance for a week afterwards—about the middle of May, after the dishonour of one of these cheques, or both, I received a note from Mr. Bell, countermanding the delivery of any further quantity of potatoes—he had got my lot then; he ought to have sent to me sooner—there was not a quantity of potatoes which would have been forwarded to London, if I had not received that note—I did not send him more than he had ordered—he telegraphed for 20 tons 19 cwt.—he afterwards wrote for a few trucks more, when he sent me the 30l. cheque, and I sent him 17 tons more—I believe the letter, ordering a few trucks more, was written on the 13th—I charged him 115s. a ton—I sought 120s. from him, and then he offered me 115s.—I had not been seeking a market at Blackpool for those very potatoes in vain: that I swear—I had not offered them to any one in London, only to Mr. Bell—I know Mr. Dowse since this affair happened—he is a potato dealer in London, I believe—I never wrote a letter to Mr. Dowse—I had not been offering potatoes to him before I sent these potatoes to Mr. Bell—I had not been in correspondence with him, or in personal communication with him; I had no communication with him whatever—I have not received any communication from him up to this date—the first interview I had with Mr. Bell, after the dishonour of these cheques, was on 26th May, at his house in London—my brother was present; not all the time—he said if I would allow the matter to stand over, he hoped shortly to be able to arrange things—my temper was good enough on that occasion—he said something to this effect "You ought not to be so hard upon me, I suffered a considerable loss by potatoes which you sent to me a couple of years ago, and you need not make such a fuss about your being possibly a loser by me now "—I was not out of temper with him, I merely said I should consult a solicitor, he having obtained these goods so recently, and so barefacedly to telegraph for these goods and get them, and then to call himself together—I said "I shall consult a solicitor before I leave London," and then it was he said to me and my brother "You need not be so put about, I suffered a loss by you some two years ago, in reference to potatoes that you sent to me "—I had previously asked him if he could let me have some money—he did not say "If I am obliged to fail, I cannot give you any money in preference to my other creditors "—he never named no preference whatever—he said "I cannot give you any money "—he did not, at that interview or any other one, say "If I were to give you any money, and were obliged to become bankrupt, it would be doing injustice to the rest of my creditors "—the interview at Blackpool was on 17th June—my brother was present a part of the time—I had had some talk with Mr. Murray, my solicitor, before I left London, in May—I did not tell him to tell Mr. Bell that if he could not find money to pay me, I would see whether I could not prosecute him—I did instruct Mr. Murray, on 17th June—at the interview at Blackpool, I did not tell Mr. Bell that if he would pay me or get for me 120l. for costs, and something in the pound on my debt, that there should be an end of the matter—I said nothing of the kind to him—I was not trying to get 120l. for costs at that time—I never thought
of such a thing as 120l. costs, and part of what he was indebted to me, on 17th June—I was not extremely anxious at that time to settle the matter by getting 120l. out of the defendant—I had a lot of talk with Mr. Bell—I don't know that I have ever been in a bad humour with him all the time, though, there might be now and again a sharp word—he did not dine with me on that day—I believe he had tea at my house, bat I would not swear it—I don't know that he dined at my brother's—I was not there—we had a game at bowls on that day; several games—I was not going to behave badly to him when he came to see me—I don't think I am behaving badly to him now—the 120l. had never been named on that day—I had a lot of talk with him—I was anxious to settle, of course, but it was not named on that date—it was in November last that 120l. was the fixed sum for costs—it was on 17th June that the conversation took place with reference to the father-in-law—I never saw him in my life till I was at the Bankruptcy Court—I said we would have the bills, if his father-in-law would back them—I had heard that his father-in-law was a man of means in the same trade—I did not know it, only from hearing it—I told him if his father-in-law put his name on them I should be satisfied—on 15th July, this letter was written to the father-in-law, at Bell's request—I did not show that letter to Bell before I sent it—I did not see Bell between 17th June and 15th July—I have not had any conversation with the father-in-law, Mr. Peart, yet—my communication to him was by letter, that was all—an application had not been made in the mean time to the Court of Bankruptcy, to sanction a prosecution—I was present when my counsel made the application to the Judge at the Bankruptcy Court for permission to prosecute Mr. Bell for obtaining money from me by fraud—he dismissed it—I did not hear him say that there was no pretence for asking him to give authority for the intervention of the criminal law in this case, or that it was a monstrous application—I would not undertake to say what it was the Judge actually did say—the 120l. was fixed for costs after the application for permission to prosecute—I don't know the amount of costs before, when we had the conversation at Blackpool, on 17th June—we had never had the bill—I never said to the defendant, on 17th June, that I must have 100l. or 120l. to satisfy my lawyer, and some of my own debt besides—I did not name a sum at all; 120l. was fixed in November—there was no other sum fixed at any time—I did not suggest that 80l. would do—it was their side said that—Mr. Webster offered 80l., I believe, to our solicitor, and 5s. in the pound—perhaps 120l. was wanted, and 5s. in the pound, at some time or other—we never consented to take 5s. in the pound—I did not tell him, when he was down at Blackpool, to try and put the screw on the old gentleman, meaning his wife's father, and try and get the money out of him—I asked him if he thought his father-in-law would do it—I did not say to him "If you can't do anything with the old man, see what the wife can do"—I never heard it named before—he said he did not know anybody who would back the bills, and I said to him "Don't you think your father-in-law, Mr. Peart, would do it? '—he did not tell me that he was surprised to find that his bankers had stopped his over-draft?—after he had got all the potatoes, he wrote me a letter to say that his bankers had slopped his over-draft; but he did not say that he was surprised that they had done so—I did not know that he had been in the habit of over drawing his bank account, I first knew it when he wrote that letter—I sent the cheque back to the bank, after it had been returned to me—I did not, on an occasion previously to that, send a dishonoured
cheque back to the bank; it never came to me—if his father-in-law had backed the bills, and we had had the 5s. in the pound paid down, we should have been satisfied—when he desired me not to send any more potatoes, I believe the 100l. cheque had not been dishonoured—I do not think the 100l. cheque was paid in when he directed me not to send any more potatoes—this is the letter, the date is May 19, 1870; that was the day the 100l. cheque was sent—I got it on the 20th. (Read: "Dear Sir.—Enclosed is cheque for 100l.; our trade is very slow this week, and prices is not so good, so don't send any more at present.") He had got all my potatoes then.
Re-examined. The 100l. cheque was the one that was afterwards dishonoured—the cheque for 30l. had been dishonoured then—the proposal of 5s. in the pound, and the bills, came from the prisoner—I received this notice, signed by Mr. Webster, the attorney then acting for the trustees—it is a notice of a proposal to accept 5s. in the pound, and to call a meeting to propose annulling the adjudication (read)—that is Mr. Webster, who is acting for the bankrupt also—I got a subsequent notice, making much the same sort of proposal—the first was on 5th August, and the second on December 10th—an application was made to the Bankruptcy Court to prosecute the prisoner—it was refused by the Judge—Mr. Webster was there, instructing counsel to oppose the application; the same Mr. Webster who acts for the trustees, and for the bankrupt—he instructed Mr. Doria for the trustees, and Mr. Palmer for the bankrupt—it was in June that I gave the prisoner tea, and he was examined in the Bankruptcy Court in August—excepting the cheque of December 20th, I was only aware of the return of one cheque to the bank, that of April 27th, 60l., and I got my money for that soon afterwards; I had no trouble—the prisoner did not Ray that he would give me the preference over the other creditors; there was never a word of the sort—shortly after that he came down to me and proposed to give me 5s. in the pound, and the bills.
JONATHAN READ . I am a potato merchant, of South Beach, Blackpool—I am brother of the last witness; but we are not in partnership—I have known the defendant about three years, and had transactions with him—I had no transaction with him from 5th June, 1869, to May, 1870—in November there was a small balance due to me of 13l. 10s., which has never been paid—on 7th May, 1870, I received this letter from the defendant, dated May 6th. (This was a letter asking the price of flukes.) I sent this reply, dated 7th May. (This stated the price at 120s. per ton). On 9th May I received this telegram, ordering 20 tons—on 10th May I sent the defendant 18 tons and some hundredweight of potatoes, value over 100l., and on 12th May I wrote this letter. (This requested the cheque to be sent, and inquired if more goods were wanted.) On the 14th I received this letter from defendant, dated the 13th (This acknowledged the receipt of the potatoes; but stated he could not give more than 110s., and promised to send a cheque at the beginning of the week. Three other letters from the witness to the defendant were also read, dated 13th, 14th, and 17th May respectively, urging the sending of a cheque at once.) The whole quantity of potatoes I sent him in those few days amounted to 170l.—on 20th May I received a cheque, dated the 19th, for 100l., which I paid into my banker's the same day, and it came back dishonoured—from first to last I never received a penny of that money—I arrived in town on the morning of 26th May, and saw the defendant at his house in the Caledonian Road—I said "How is it, George, you have sent me a cheque for 100l. which has been dishonoured?"—he
said "I am very sorry, but it will be all right in a short lime "—I said "You must have known your position before you sent for these goods"—he said "I did, and have done for two years "—I said "Then you had not ought to have sent for these goods, knowing you were not going to pay for them"—he said "I am very sorry; but I had a loss with you and your brother on some goods I bought from you some two years ago, of about 400l."—I said "It is the first time I have heard of it; I am sorry to hear it; I should have been better pleased if you had got 400l. out of them"—my brother came in about that time, and a conversation took place between him and the bankrupt—I returned in two or three days to Blackpool, and on 11th June I received a telegram—this is a duplicate of it—my brother and I saw him at Blackpool, after he got out of the train; we were walking down the street, and I said "Well, George, what are you going to do now?"—he said "It is a bad job; I have come to try and prevail upon you to take 5s. in the pound down "—I said "And what else?"—he said "I will pay you bills for the remainder, to be not dated, and the date to be put upon them after I have got through my difficulties"—I said that they would be of no use to me unless they were guaranteed by somebody—he said that he did not know that he could get a guarantee—he spoke of his father-in-law and his brother John, and I said "If you can get them to back the bills we will take them "—he said that he did not think he could; but he would go to London, and try to prevail upon his father-in-law to do so, and he would write or telegraph to us the result; in the meantime we were to write, to ask his father-in-law, or try to bring some pressure on his father-in-law, to back these bills—I and said that this transaction of the potatoes was a very cruel robbery, he had not ought to have done it—he said "I know I have done wrong; but I am very sorry, and I hope you will look over it"
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I was not playing at bowls, at Blackpool, at the very time I said it was a cruel robbery—I did play at bowls that day—I do not know whether the defendant had any dinner; I gave him tea—we were on pretty good terms after we had had our tea—as it was warm, I daresay we had a glass or two of beer with our bowls—I enjoyed myself during the afternoon with him—I am quite sure it was he who mentioned his father-in-law and his brother—my brother John and he had had some conversation—I do not know that I mentioned them first; I believe it was Mr. Bell said so—I did say, in my deposition, 'The bills were not worth the paper they were written upon, unless guaranteed by somebody;' he said 'I don't know that I can get any one to guarantee them;' I said 'If they are guaranteed by your father-in-law or brother, either jointly or separately, we will take them;' he said 'I do not know that they will do it;' and in the afternoon, at the railway-station, before he left Blackpool at night, I said 'You must go and try and get them to do it'"—that was the second suggestion—I do not consult with my brother in my dealings, I do not know his prices, and he does not know mine—I had not offered these very potatoes to Mr. Dowse; I had offered him potatoes; I cannot say the price, or that it was not lower—he refused to take them—twenty tons at 120s. would be 120l.—in 1868 I had a cheque returned; it was referred to drawer, and I sent it a second time through the bank—in December, 1867, I believe I had a cheque of 200l. referred to drawer, but I only remember one—both these cheques produced are endorsed by me, but this one of 10th December, for 300l., never came
to hand—the defendant never spoke of any losses in trading—these cheques for 200l. and 300l. are both in favour of Jonathan Read, and both have my name on them—this one for 300l. came to me "Refer to drawer "—they are both marked "Refer to drawer"—the first one of 10th December did not come to my hand marked "Refer to drawer"—I did not know that it was "Refer to drawer"—I put them in my banker's hands for collection—I never was charged with them—the other, of 28th December, is marked "Refer to drawer," too—I did not see Bell on the subject of that one—after all, that was paid too—in May, 1868, I had another cheque with "Refer to drawer" on it—I sent it through the bank, and it came back to me dishonoured—I came up to London to see Bell about it, and took this bill of exchange for 240l. from him, which was afterwards paid—I do not go into the new potato trade—the old potato trade finishes, with us, about the early part of June—the earliest time I begin to trade is September or October; I truck them then—when I came to London, on 26th May, I never asked Bell for anything—I had an interview with him in his house—he told me that he was calling his creditors together—I never said that if he would hand over 100l. it would settle it with me, and I never heard my brother say so—a proposal was not made that we should have 100l. then in cash, and then come in with the other creditors—I was not willing to come in with the other creditors, if I had got the half of 100l. beyond the other creditors—I concurred in the application about the prosecution—the letter of 15th July was signed by my brother—it was written by our dictation—we were anxious to settle the matter afterwards—no such thing as 120l. for costs emanated from me—it was not mentioned by my brother—I don't remember any conversation of the sort—I never knew of a proposal to settle for 5s. in the pound, and 120l. for costs—I don't remember a proposal to give 80l. for costs; I never heard of 80l. being offered—it was left to my brother, or my solicitor—I don't remember that 120l. for costs was ever discussed by word of mouth between me and my brother, or as to whether that would cover all the costs—I won't swear it was not—I don't remember that 80l. was mentioned in December as a probable sum that the friends would pay—it was never refused by me—I knew nothing about it—I don't know whether I was present on 12th August, when the application was made for the order of the Judge to prosecute—I don't remember whether I was in London or not—I was a party to the letter of 15th July—I first presented myself before a Magistrate to charge a criminal offence, in December 1870—I don't know what I was doing between 15th July and December; a lot of work, and other things—I have seen Mr. Peart since I knew Bell was consulting his creditors—I did not propose to Peart that he should give us something more than was being given to the other creditors—I don't remember that I asked him to endorse the bills with blank dates, so that I might get that extra to the dividend—I will swear I did not do that; nothing of the kind—I never put any pressure on Mr. Peart at all to give me any preference—I never spoke to him in reference to helping Bell, or paying off my claim, or preventing a prosecution, or saying I would prosecute if I did not get an advantage—I can't say how many times I saw Mr. Peart between 26th May and 15th July—I did not see him many times—I don't remember seeing him more than once—on 17th June Bell had requested me to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Peart to back the bills—I did not ask Mr. Peart to back the bills when I saw him next—the 15th of July letter had something to do with the interview of 17th June; it was never
suggested that I was to connect that letter with the interview of 17th June—I did not hear Mr. Bell cross-examined by our counsel, Mr. Heed, in the Bankruptcy Court—I was not examined—I was not present in Court when application was made on two occasions for the order to prosecute—I was not there either time—I did not say to Peart or anyone that if he did not pay up to 10s. in the pound on the debt, due by Mr. Bell, that my brother and I would try and get him indicted; I swear that—Mr. Bell said in his letter that his bankers had stopped his orders—he did not say that all the difficulty had occurred from his bankers' stopping his drafts.
Re-examined by MR. METCALFE. I received these notices from Mr. Webster, proposing to act for the trustees, one in August, and one in December—I saw Mr. Peart when I was up on the journey, of 26th May, before I went back—I don't remember seeing him between 17th June and 15th July—on 26th May I went up to King's Cross potato-yard, and his place of business is there, and I promiscuously saw him there—I don't know that I talked to him about the matter then—I did not see him again before my brother sent the letter—I afterwards saw him in the Bankruptcy Court—I met him there on several occasions.
JOHN DAVISON . I am one of the shorthand writers, attached to the Court of Bankruptcy—I am sworn to take these matters correctly, under the Act—I took the examination of the bankrupt on 4th August last—I have my notes here, and the transcript also—I have seen the examination on the proceedings; it is correct.
Cross-examined. I don't think there were counsel on both sides on that occasion—Mr. Reed appeared for the opposing creditor, and I think Mr. Webster appeared as solicitor for the bankrupt, but no Counsel. (The examination of the bankrupt was hire read). An application was made by Counsel against the bankrupt for permission under the Statute, to institute a prosecution against the bankrupt—the Registrar said "I think it is very desirable that we should have an opportunity of so far sifting the matter as to enable us to hear both sides of the case, and not to decide simply upon one side first of all. I will grant the application for an adjournment till November, and I think you had better renew the other application (that is for the permission to prosecute) to me at Basinghall Street some time next week, and in the mean time I shall have an opportunity of seeing the shorthand writer's notes"—It was then adjourned till 11th November—I was not present at the meeting on 12th August before the Registrar, when he gave his determination—I was out of town on that occasion—I have it on my notes that Mr. Reed acted as Counsel against the bankrupt.
Re-examined. And Mr. Webster for the trustees—I don't know whether that gentleman is the trustee (Mr. Ingermall)—I don't know any of them.
THOMAS MILEHAH . I am the manager of the London and County Bank, Caledonian Road branch—we do a great deal of business with the Islington potato market and other markets—the defendant had an account at our bank for some years—it was still open in May last—the last day of payment was on 23rd May—I gave him notice in April about his account, it was this "To Mr. George Bell. Sir,—Your cheques' to so-and-so, and so-and-so,' having been presented and returned unpaid, I have again to request that you will not draw cheques unless you are prepared to meet the same on presentation"—the date of that is 18th April 1870—I must have requested him, before that, not to draw—I returned several cheques in April and May—I should say twenty or thirty—apparently, cheques were returned as
early as 1867, referred to drawer—I have not the book to prove that—the "return" book that I have' brought commences with 1869—the defendant was allowed to overdraw for some long period—on 18th April he was 93l. overdrawn—I had one or two conversations with him about the overdrawing—I had frequently requested him to cover his account—I did that whenever his account was overdrawn—by covering his account, I mean not to overdraw—when the cheques were returned by me in April and May the account was overdrawn, and beyond my wish to increase it—on 11th April the account was overdrawn 151l.—on 18th April, 93l., and on the 11th, 151l., on 11th May, 103l., and on 19th May, 112l.—cheques were returned on 6th May—one, for 24l. 0s. 9d., and the other for 20l. 18s. 2d.—the next return was on 7th May, one for 59l. 10s., and then nothing up to 11th—on the 7th May there was a payment of 31l. 10s.—I can't say whether that was before or after the cheque for 59l. 10s. was dishonoured—it is entered "By cash "—that constitutes cheques, and gold, and silver—"bill" in the pass-book is entered as cash at the time, and debited against him afterwards, if it is not paid—there were subsequent payments in May of 4l. 18s., 31l., 34l., 20l.—from 7th May to the 23rd, the payments amounted to 370l., and he was drawing against that—from April to 23rd May the account appears to have been slightly increased—on 23rd May the balance against him was 112l. 9s. 6d.—that was about the same as it was on the 9th—I told him that it was against the rules of the bank for accounts to be overdrawn, therefore, I must request he would cover it, at the same time the over draft might stand at 100l., but I should expect it paid quickly—he was to pay in money to meet cheques, it being against the rules of the bank to have overdrawn accounts at all.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH. It is not an uncommon practice to overdraw, but it is against the rule; that rule, like every other, has its exceptions—those exceptions are made by the manager at his discretion—it is the fact that, just previous to May, 1870, we had allowed another customer to overdraw to the extent of 700l. or 800l.—Mr. Bell had had a banking account at our branch five or six years, to my knowledge—he banked there when I took the post of manager—he was carrying on business as a potato salesman—I had a high opinion of him, as a man of honour and a man of business—we balance our accounts every quarter—during that period he passed through the bank, in payments and debits, an average of 5000l. or 6000l. a quarter—(referring to the pass-book) in June, 1867, here is 5600l. on each side—bills that are discounted for persons are entered in the book as bills; if paid in with the ordinary cash, they are called cash—in the last quarter in 1870, I see, "Cash, 4296l. that is actual cash, including cheques, of course—during years he has paid in many thousands a year, either in cash or in securities, which have been realized and converted into cash—the balance against him is 112l.—during the whole period that I have been manager, he has, at different times, been permitted to overdraw his account, and been charged interest for it—at times that overdraft amounted to several hundred pounds, which was afterwards honourably replaced by him; at one time to the extent of between 900l. and 1000l.—this cheque for 300l., which at first was referred to drawer, was afterwards passed, and his account was in credit—on 7th May he was 405l. overdrawn, and on 25th his account was in credit—between 13th and 23rd May he paid in somewhere about 400l., in round numbers—on 11th April he was 151l. overdrawn—when he was stopped his account had improved—
on all the overdrafts he was charged a regular interest, and paid it from time to time.
Re-examined. We took no note or any security for hit overdrafts—a bill for 100l. would be put to his credit when handed in, and it would be left to his credit till it was met; if not paid, it would be put to his debit—there appears to have been a draft returned, on 22nd April, for 4l. by the entry, I should say that was a cheque—the balance against him on 31st March was 67l. 5s. 2d., and in October, 1869, about 76l.—on 30th September, 1869, there was a balance in his favour of 3l. 13s. 2d., and in June, 1869, 17l. 6s. 8d.—those are not the only balances in his favour; I find others—on 15th September there was a balance of 111l. 17s. 11d. in his favour—we strike a balance there every quarter, but in our ledger every day.
MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH submitted that there was no cote to go to tlie Jury.
MR. METCALFE did not rely upon like counts for false pretences, but contended that there was evidence for the Jury that the defendant obtained the goods, not intending to treat them in the ordinary course of business, and not intending to pay for them. The COMMON SERJEANT could not say that there was no evidence at all; but was of opinion that there teas realty none that the defendant obtained the goods under a false pretence of carrying on business in the ordinary course of trade; but the case should proceed if the Jury desired it. The Jury, however, stated they had made up their minds, and found the prisoner NOT GUILTY .
177. JOSEPH BEWLEY (31), and JOSEPH DYER DAWSQN (35), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining goods by false pretences. BEW LEY also PLEADED GUILTY to forging And uttering requests for the delivery of goods.
The Prisoners received good characters.
BEWLEY— Six Months' Imprisonment.
DAWSON— Four Months' Imprisonment.
OLD COURT.—Thursday, February 2nd, 1871
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
178. GEORGE MACHLER (47), ABRAHAM LEWTNER (33) , Unlawfully conspiring together, with others unknown, by false pretences, to defraud Edward Eberwein of his money. Second Count—Conspiracy to defraud Adolph Krafft. Third Count—Conspiracy to defraud Gustave Reitz.
MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. STRAIGHT defended Lewtner.
EDWARD EBERWEIN . I live at 21, Lisle Street, and am a mason—I have known Machler three years—on 10th September I saw him at a coffee-shop in Little Newport Street—he offered me some tickets in a German lottery, and I took two, and paid him 6s. for them—this is one of them (produced)—he said it was a lottery that would be drawn on 30th December, and that he disposed of the tickets on commission. (Ticket read: "For the wounded German soldiers and relatives of the dead, the holder of this ticket to receive the prize that may fall on it; price 3s. (The committee was here set out); the drawing includes about 500 splendid old paintings, about 100 clocks, and other works of art. The drawing will take place in public, in the presence of the whole committee, on 30th December. The smallest prize is worth more than the value of the ticket.") I asked him about the committee, if he knew the names signed on the tickets, and the said "Yes, they are merchants in the City"—the next day he asked me If would like
to take some more—that was at the same cafe, in Newport Street—I took four more, and paid him 12s.—I afterwards saw him again, and asked him for some more tickets, as several friends of mine wished to take tickets on behalf of the benefit—I took sixteen tickets, altogether—I paid him for them, and this is the receipt (produced)—I saw him several times before the last payment, on 10th September—nearly every day at the same cafe—I said nothing to him with reference to the matter, till the month of December, when I asked him to show me the prospectus of the drawing—he said "You shall have a prospectus, but the committee intend to have the patronage of the royal family in Germany, and after that I will give you a prospectus "—I told him I should like to make inquiry about it, and speak to one of the gentlemen whose name was on the tickets; I said it was very suspicious to me that a short time before the drawing they should draw a prospectus; and if they had not the prospectus a long time before, how could they alter the tickets—I made some inquiries about some of the names, and I then told him I had been to the German newspaper office, and I had heard there the gentleman had left the place; and that I had been to see Mr. Felsenthall, but I could not find him at all; and I said I was not satisfied with the inquiries—I told him I had left a letter at Mr. Felsenthall's office, and I expected an answer—he said "Well, it will be all right," and the next day I saw Lewtner—when I told Machler I was not satisfied he said "You will have your money back; and if the committee will not give you back the money, I will"—that was about the 26th or 27th December—I told him I had been inquiring about these gentlemen, and I was not satisfied, because the day for the drawing would be in a few days, and I would be obliged to go to the Police Court to make a charge against the committee—he told me I could do what I liked—he said "I am not concerned, I only have the tickets, and sell them on commission; and if you are not satisfied, I will repay you, if the committee will not"—I did not know Lewtner when I first bought the tickets—I saw him the day after I had been to Mr. Felsenthall's office, in the beginning of December, at the cafe in Little Newport Street—he said to me "Are you Mr. Eberwein?" and I said "Yes "—he said he had come from Mr. Felsenthall, to make arrangements with me about the tickets I had—I told him I should like to have my money back—he said "Well, you can have your money back if you like; but the drawing will be in February; the committee intend to change the tickets, and have a portrait of Bismarck on one side, and the Crown Prince of Prussia on the other "—I refused to have the tickets, and he asked me to meet him on 22nd December, and he would bring me half the amount of the tickets—I did not see him then, he did not come, and he wrote this letter. (Read: "To Edward Eberwein. 23rd December, 1870. I returned this morning about 11 o'clock, and found my little boy not very well. I could not call before Monday morning; perhaps I will call on Sunday." I saw him soon after that; but I never got my money—I saw him nearly every night, at the Queen's Theatre, where he came and annoyed me about it—this is the post-card, making the first appointment at the Queen's Theatre (produced).
Cross-examined. I know now that Mr. Felsenthall is a merchant in the City, and I also know that Machler had been engaged at the German newspaper—I was not aware, when I took the tickets, that lotteries were illegal in this country, or that I incurred a penalty of 50l.—I took them for the benefit of my suffering countrymen—Lewtner said to me "I really
have nothing to do with the man Machler"—Machler was in the habit of using the cafe in Little Newport Street—he was a customer there—I did not see Lewtner at first—I did not see him before he came to me, in the beginning of December. (The evidence of the witness was interpreted to the prisoner Machler).
GUSTAVE REITZ . I am employed at the "Gaiety Restaurant"—I have known Machler about five or six months—on 8th October I met him in Little Newport Street—he asked me to take a ticket for a lottery, in aid of the German wounded soldiers—I took a ticket, and paid him 3s. about a fortnight afterwards—I saw him after the appointed day for drawing—he asked me if I had got the ticket, and I said "No"—I had given the ticket to someone—I had seen him several times in the interva'; but I had no conversation about the drawing.
ADOLPH FELSKNTHALL . I am a merchant, and carry on business at 7, Bury Court—about the middle of August I was spoken to by Lewtner about my name being put on the committee—I met him in a restaurant in Broad Street, City—I agreed to have my name used—about 2000 tickets were afterwards issued with the names of the committee on them—Lewtner himself was one—Gilbart, and Meyer, and De Haas were the others—I saw them in reference to their names being there—I resolved to give it up after we received a letter from the Crown Prince of Prussia—that was about the beginning of November, and I repaid the money to the persons I Lad sold tickets to—I told Lewtner about it, and he brought me back fifty-six tickets, and said he would bring back the rest—he had had between 90 and 100—after that date he had no authority whatever from me to offer any for sale, nor had Machler—I never saw Machler before—I never heard of a room being taken at Messrs. Cattins'; it was not done with my authority—I never authorized them to advertise in any newspaper about this matter—I did not see Mr. Eberwein—Lewtner never gave me any money for the tickets.
Cross-examined. I consider myself a respectable man—I was associated with Mr. De Haas, Mr. Gilbart, and Mr. Meyers, whose names were on the tickets—when Lewtner returned the fifty-six tickets, he said the others would be returned, but that he had given thirty-five or thirty-six to Dr. Machler, to sell on commission, and he was trying to get them back—I wrote a letter to Count Bismarck, and after the reply to my letter, I said I would have nothing to do with the lottery—I paid for the printing of the tickets—I sold fifteen tickets to different persons—when I saw Lewtner I said I would not sell any more tickets before we had permission and authority and answers to those letters from the Prussian Embassy.
THE COURT was of opinion that there was no case of conspiracy.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. COLERIDGE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. J. W. COOPER
MART EAST . I live at Creek Street, Deptford—the prisoner lodged with me for three weeks previous to 31st December—he used to pay his rent regularly on Saturday evenings—he is, I think, a sawyer, but he was working
at a manure factory—on 31st December he paid me 9s. 7d. for a week's board and lodging—he gave me five florins, which I put in my pocket—there was no other money there, but I had other money, which my son gave me—on Thursday, 5th January, I sent my daughter out with one of those florins, the last I had left—she brought it back, and I found it was bad—I am certain it was one of those the prisoner gave me on Saturday night—his rent, on the next Saturday, came to 11s., and among the money he gave me was a bad florin—I kid it on the table, for my daughter to examine—my son fetched a policeman, and then accused the prisoner of passing bad money—he said that if we had told him he would have rectified it, and that we were very malicious people.
Cross-examined. He lodged with me three months, and behaved well—I did not mention it to him that one of the former florins was bad—he and my son occupied the same room.
Cross-examined. I said nothing to the prisoner about it—I was present when the prisoner was asked about some bad money—he asked why we did not mention it before—he has always paid regularly.
FRANK EAST . I am a son of Mrs. East—on Saturday evening, 7th January, I came down stairs after the prisoner had paid my mother his rent—she showed me a bad florin, and I fetched a constable, and then said to the prisoner that he had been having a game with us, in fact, giving us bad florins—he said that he had not done such a thing—I gave them to the inspector.
Cross-examined. I did not speak to the prisoner before I fetched the constable—I did not say that we did not mean to be the losers.
GEORGE PARKER (Policeman 194). On 7th January, East fetched me, and charged the prisoner—I took him to the station, and there received two bad florins from East—I afterwards went back to the prisoner's room, which was pointed out to me, where I found a metal box, which contained another bad florin.
GEORGE WALLIS (Policeman R 332). On 7th January, shortly after the prisoner was given in charge, I walked to the back of Mr. East's house, and picked up this florin (produced), in a back street, twelve or fourteen yards from the house.
MR. COLERIDGE to MART EAST. Q. Which way does the window of the room the prisoner occupied, look? A. Towards where the coin was found.
Cross-examined. I do not think he could have thrown it there, unless he went to the back door—he went to the wash-house after he was charged, but I cannot say whether he went out at the back door—the wash-house is close to the back door.
The prisoner received a good character. NOT GUILTY .
MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH the Defence.
GEORGE ELSTON (Police Sergeant P). On 10th January, about 3 a.m., I received information, and found six pigs and seven ducks, dead, on the prisoner's father's premises—some of the ducks had their heads pulled right off, and others had them stretched out from the windpipe—the pigs appeared to have been hit on the head—there was a little blood on them—I concealed myself in a shed, about four yards from where they were lying, and remained there from 3.30 till 5.45, when the prisoner came in through the large shed, which is a railway arch, under the North Kent Line, with doors at each end—he walked through 'the premises, and round the shed, where we were secreted—he moved a temporary board, which stood in front of the little shed, stooped down, and felt in with his hands, then got up, went into the big shed, lit a candle, came out with it, and stood for a second; he then commenced moving the pigs from his left side, passing them over to his right—on picking up the second, he said to himself "Oh, you are nice little chaps, too!"—he bad a lantern in his hand, and as he was picking up the third pig, I stepped out, and said "Halloa, Tyler, what are you doing?—he said "Nothing!"—I said "Well, there were some dead pigs and ducks, for I saw you remove them"—he said "Well, I get up early in the morning, for we have had several things removed from here"—I said "We will see about these ducks and pigs "—he said "I do not know anything of them"—I said "Why, I saw you remove them "—he said Well, three men brought them here last night"—I said "What time?—he said "Between 12 and 1 o'clock "—I said "Who were the men?"—he said "I don't know, they were entire strangers to me"—I took him to the station; we arrived there about 6.30, and about 9 o'clock when I was searching him, he said "Well, I bought them List night"—he afterwards said "If I had not been drinking I should not have gone with them "—he was taken before the Magistrate, and remanded—on 10th January I took his coat off, examined the pockets, and found some feathers in one—both the pockets were clotted with congealed blood—the feathers correspond with those of this duck's neck and head (produced), which was found lying on the premises—the prosecutor's premises are 300 or 400 yards from the Tunbridge Railway; to get there people would go as far as the junction between Lewisham and New Cross, and then down the North Kent line, to the shed, which is right underneath the North Kent Line—this plan (produced) is correct.
Cross-examined. I do not remember his saying that he had been drinking all night till after 11 o'clock—he did not appear under the effect of drink at 6 a.m.—I did not tell the solicitor, at the Police Court, that I could see that the prisoner had been drinking overnight—the prisoner may have said at 6 o'clock that the persons who brought them had asked him to buy them, but I do not recollect it—he did not say "He brought them, and I found they were dead, and then declined to buy them"—he did say "They asked me to buy them"—it is possible that he may have said at 6 a.m. that he was asked to buy these things lute last night by the strangers—he repeated that at the station—I will not swear that he did not tell me that he had been out drinking all night, and met these strangers, who were entire strangers to him—two constables, Fielder and Franklyn, were in the shed with me—they are out of Court—I could not manage to squeeze seven ducks into these pockets—they weigh from 4 lbs. to 5 lbs. each, and the pigs
16 lbs. each—I have seen the prisoner at pigeon-matches—I do not know whether his father keeps ducks, fowls, or pigeons; I saw one lire duck fly over from the Ravensbourne—I was there three hours, but it was dark, and I did not see a duck-pond—this was not on my beat, it is not the section I belong to—there was snow on the ground—I followed the footsteps behind the constable, and the way I traced them it was about a mile and a half from Mr. Sheppard's house to Mr. Tylers's—there were six sets of footsteps, three going each way; they went up to Heather Green Bridge, just through the bridge, which is three-quarters of a mile from where the prisoner lives—I traced the three sets of footsteps to within twenty yards of Tyler's house, and then one set went up to the shed on Mr. Tyler's premises—I did not trace them back, but they went both ways—I did not see a shoe compared with the foot-marks—the snow was just deep enough to cover the ground, so that you could trace the steps, which left a deep impression—one foot-print appeared as if the toe-cap was off; I noticed that for the whole mile and a half, where we could get a direct print of it—that was between 3 and 4 a.m.—it was moonlight, and I had the assistance of my lamp—the snow was not all melted away before we went to the Police Court next morning—we went there at 10.20, and did not leave till 2 p.m.—I did not notice whether the snow had melted then—here is where the toe-cap is off the boot (produced)—I also saw the impression of these four nails—it is not an uncommon kind of boot for a labourer to wear—it was taken from the prisoner's feet—I took two men, named Hazlewood and Calverly, in custody—that was not after comparing their boots with the snow, it was some days afterwards—one set of footsteps was, I believe, smaller than this boot, and another set about the same size.
MR. COOPER. Q. Was not a great club-stick found? A. Yes, at Hazlewood's house, with a large ferule at the top of it—it would kill a pig.
MR. W. SLEIGH. Q. Is not the man in whose house you found that a night watchman? A. He calls himself so—he is foreman to Mr. Jerrard, the builder, who is digging out excavations—this is a special constable's staff, and is Government property.
WILLIAM FRY . I am a labourer, in the service of Mr. Sheppard, of Heather Green—on the afternoon of 9th January my pigs and my master's ducks were safe at 6 o'clock—my sow and six pigs were kept in the piggery, and the ducks near them, in the hen-house—the piggery door was bolted, and the hen-house door locked—I missed them next morning at 6 o'clock, and afterwards identified them—these are duck's feathers which are produced—I saw them compared with the neck of one of the ducks I lost.
Cross-examined. Duck's feathers are much of a muchness, all the world over—these in this envelope do not resemble mine—I sleep about fourteen yards from the shed where the pigs were kept—they would not make a noise, unless they were taken away alive—my father sleeps at the same place, and he was not awoke—I was not at home—there was just a slight fall of snow to sprinkle the ground; it prevented your seeing the earth in level places.
GODFREY FIELDRE (Policeman). I was concealed in the shed, with Elston—I went with him to Sheppard's farm, and found the fowl-house open—I traced footmarks of three people nearly to New Cross, from the prosecutor's premises, and on to the Tunbridge Wells line, and back to the North Kent, down to the shed, where only three foot-prints were visible—I
then secreted myself—I could not trace them quite up to the shed; hut within three yards of it, and that was only of one person—I had traced that particular pair of shoes among the three the whole way from where the robbery was committed to the shed—after some time the prisoner entered the yard; he felt into the shed, and then went back into another shed, and lit a candle—he then commenced moving the pigs—Elston and I went to him—we took one of his hoots and compared it with the impressions in the snow, which was melting; but they were clear and clean—I put the boot alongside the impressions, and then went on further, and tried them again—the toe-plate was off the hoot, and there was a piece off the iron of the heel—I measured the length with a piece of stick, and it exactly fitted, from toe to heel—these nails, from which the plate has been wrenched, fitted the impressions—I compared this boot with all these three impressions, leaving the premises and entering the shed, and found one like it all along.
Cross-examined. I said, at the Police Court, that the plate was off the toe, and the hind clip was loose, and a piece of it off—I will not swear that I said that a piece was off—I heard the prisoner say something when I was in the shed; but I could not tell what—the other officers and I were close together—the shed is about 250 yards from the junction of the railway—where they came off the railway was about four yards from the shed.
SAMUEL FRANKLYN (Policeman). About 10.45, on the night of 9th January, I went round the prosecutor's premises—the ducks and pigs, were safe—I considered them in my custody—at 1.30 I saw the sow running about, very savage at her pigs being gone—she ought to have been in the piggery—I watched, and saw the prisoner enter the shed.
ROBERT EVES . I live at Lewisham, and am a pork-butcher—I dressed these pigs for sale—they had been killed by being struck on the head—this would be a likely instrument to do it with, or something else without a sharpe edge—anybody could see that these pigs were not properly killed—some butchers hit them on the head to save them from halloaing; but not young sucking-pigs.
Cross-examined. If I took hold of a young pig of 16 lbs. it would squeak, so as to be heard a considerable distance off, but if they were knocked on the head first, and then taken, they would not squeak.
Witness for the Defence.
ENGLAND TYLER, JUN . I am the prisoner's brother—he has a gun, and occasionally goes to pigeon matches—this is his shooting coat, he uses it for carrying the birds which he shoots—he lives at home with his father.
Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Pigeons do not generally wear duck's feathers.
MR. W. SLEIGH. Q. Does your father keep ducks? A. Yes, and my brother is in the habit of killing them for him and carrying them home.
COURT. Q. Do you know how ducks are killed? A. They generally have their throats cut.
THOMAS LONG M'CAULL . I am a bootmaker, in a large way of business, at Broadway, Dcptford—my principal business is manufacturing working men's boots—the boot produced is my make—I make four or five dozen pairs of them every week—the nails are placed in this way, as a rule,
precisely, and so are the stubs—this workman's work is all made in one way—he turns out from six to nine pairs a week—the head of a nail is only cut, not stamped—they come off very frequently, and we over and over again have them sent in to be repaired within a fortnight—I have seen some toe-plates wear out the boot, if the man wears it in the centre, but if he wears the toe he will perhaps have five or six on—this boot, and one size smaller, are 70 per cent, of every 100 I make—my principal customers are market-gardeners, brickfield men, bricklayers, and men who work on the roads, also the men of Mr. Sheppard's farm; I make boots for a lot of men who live in that neighbourhood, and for all the district for miles around.
Cross-examined. I see that the heel-plate is loose—I do not believe anybody would draw any conclusion if they saw the impression of a boot clean on the snow, and found that the heel-plate was loose, and that the man who was supposed to make the impression had the toe-plate off, and that the nails all suited the impression, because there arc twenty millions of tips of this sort, and the nails are not peculiar—I have seen plenty of toe-plates wrenched off in the same manner, so that the heads of the nails stood in the same position, and had the same erection.
JURY. Q. Are all these toe-plates stamped? A. Yes, out of wrought iron, and they are all the same size—in all cases these five nails of the iron heel must be exactly in one place; I have made three or four pairs of the same pattern for the same family.
SAMUEL TYLER, SENIOR . I am prisoner's father, and am a market gardener—I keep ducks, and occasionally fowls—my son lives in the house—I had made a communication to him about some ducks shortly before this—I have always told him if he wanted money to apply for it—he bears a good character.
Cross-examined. I went with a friend to Mr. Sheppard, but found him very much averse to abandoning the prosecution—he said that the law must take its course, and if it was his own brother he would not turn it up for 1,000l.—I did not say "I pray you not to prosecute this case, I believe him guilty," nor did my friend.
JOSEPH CALVBRLY . I am a farmer and carpenter, and have worked for Mr. Jerrard for two years—I was apprehended for this robbery on the Tuesday evening, but was discharged at Greenwich Police Court—I was never before a Magistrate before that—on the Monday night I was drinking at the "Bee Hive "with Tyler and another man; we parted as near as I can tell between 10 and 10.30, he was then the worse for liquor—we were also at the "Albion"—I met him at 8 o'clock in the evening, and was drinking with him till 10.30.
Cross-examined. I do not know where Sheppard's place is—I did not see two men with ducks and pigs—I did not see Tyler home—I left him, I think it was just outside the public-house—I know Hazlewood, he works for the same firm as I do—I think I heard him own this stick at the Police Court—I was in bed at 1.15 that morning—I went home at 10.30, and went to bed, and was never out afterwards.
COURT. Q. Was Hazlewood with you at the public-house? A. Yes, we left, I believe, two or three persons there; I left Hazlewood and the prisoner together.
JAMES HAZLEWOOD . I am a carpenter, and have been in Mr. Jerrard's employ seven years in March—I was once fined I/, for the unlawful possession of some cloth; that was about six months' ago—I am still in Mr. Jerrard's
employment—no other charge has ever been made against me, that I am aware of—on 9th January I was with Tyler and Calverly, at the "Albion" and the "Bee Hive "—I left the "Bee Hive" about 10, or 10.30, and got home about 11 o'clock—Calverly lives not fur from the "Bee Hive," and he went home by himself—I left Tyler not far from Lewisham Bridge, and he went towards his home—there are a great many public-houses there—Tyler was much the worse for drink—I did not see him home—when we went past the "Roebuck/' he wanted to go in, but I would not—I thought he had had pretty well enough.
Cross-examined. Calverly and I were both charged with this, on suspicion—this is my club—I put this bit of iron on the end—it was just before Christmas that I was charged about this cloth.
MR. W. SLEIGH. Q. You have been asked if this staff is yours, are you a night watchman? A. Yes, for Mr. Jerrard; the staff was made a present to me for a keepsake, by a chap that was going to America, but the iron was not on it then.
COURT. Q. Are you night watchman, on regular duty? A. Well, I live on the premises, and always, before I go to bed, I walk round the place, and the same in the morning—I walked round on this night—it takes me eight or ten minutes—I then go to bed—I know the prosecutor's premises, but do not know the place where the things were stolen from—I dug the foundations of a water-closet there, but I never went on the farm—I live about two miles off, in two rooms, rent free.
GEORGE SMITH . I am a bricklayer, of Albert Street, Lewisham—the "Roebuck" is close to Lewisham Bridge, and there are two or three other public-houses—on 9th January I saw Tyler going over Lewisham Bridge, about 11.52 or 11.53, before the houses shut up; he said "Goodnight!" and I said "Good night!"
WILLIAM GOODING . I am signal-man, on the Tunbridge line of the North Kent Railway—I was called, at the Police Court, by the prosecutor, to identify three men who were going down the line, on the 9th, towards Sheppard's, at 11.10—I could not identify them then, nor can I now.
Cross-examined. I said that the prisoner resembled one, but that I would not swear to them—I still think that the three men I saw that night resembled the then three prisoners—I was up in my signal-box.
MR. W. SLEIGH. Q. Did you see them not only going towards Mr. Sheppard's, but coming back? A.Yes, there was not light enough for me to swear to them.
COURT to G. ELSTON. Q. Was the single track of one person, or a track going and returning? A. A single track, of a single person, into the shed; he came through the big shed first—the impressions I saw were not made at the time I saw him go into the shed—the three tracks stopped at the railway embankment, coming down to the shed, where we lost two, and the third went to the shed—the three tracks came close to the shed, not a yard from it—that is the shed where the meat was found.
The prisoner received a good character. NOT GUILTY .
TERDRE PLEADED GUILTY .
about 1 o'clock, I went with constables Austin and Goodwin to Goff's house, in Trafalgar Road, East Greenwich—he keeps a second-hand shop for the sale of unredeemed pledges—I told him I had come for some sail-cloth that he had bought of Terdre, who was then in custody—he said yes, he had bought some—I accompanied him down stairs, and he gave me this sail-cloth (produced)—I asked if he had another—he said "No"—I told him I should take him into custody, and charge him with the unlawful possession of this one—I then searched his place, and found this other sail-cloth behind the counter; he told me there was another, and produced it himself—I told him he had other property in his possession, some boots, and a gun, and he said he had not—I then took him to the station, returned, and searched the kitchen, and found these two pairs of water-boots, and a pair of trowsers, and after a time the gun was brought down from a room where Mrs. Goff was confined—it was given to me by a woman who was nursing her—these two saws were given to me by Goff—I took the gun to the station, and showed it to Goff', and he said yes, it was being paid off of—he gave me the key of his strong-room, which the constables used afterwards.
Cross-examined. It is not a very large shop; it is very full of all sorts of things—sail-cloths as good as these are not common in Greenwich—these have been cut away from the masts, not worn—there are three large ones and two small ones.
HENRY GOODWIN (Detective Officer R). I assisted in searching Goff's house, and found this pair of water-boots under the stairs,' with a large old easy chair set over them—Kittmer afterwards gave me the key of the adjoining house, which Goff rents and uses as a warehouse, where he has a better class of goods, and furniture, and there I found a portion of two large sails belonging to a yacht.
JAMBS WEST . I reside at I, Anchor Wharf, East Greenwich—I am a yacht labourer, and take charge of gentlemen's yachts—I know Terdre—his father's workshop joins my premises—I have a barge roofed over; that I use as a store—I have had four robberies; the last was on 15th December, and these two sails I lost at that time, from my barge, and these two saws, besides a sheet of copper in two pieces, and a bag of nails—the gun was stolen on 5th November—this other sail cloth was stolen on 20th October; it was cut off the stay of the Black Swan—there were about twenty-two brass thimbles on it when it was stolen—on 8th October I lost three pairs of boots, three pairs of trowsers, a monkey jacket, and a pipe—I won't swear to the trowsers, but Mr. Dickens can—they were lost from a cutter called the Quiz—the gun was taken from my barge on 5th November, and I offered Terdre 1l. if be would give me any information about it.
Cross-examined. I had a quantity of sails in my store-barge, but I have lost a great number—I have fifteen yachts in my charge—I was on the watch night and day to detect these robbers, but I could not catch them—I swear to the sails, the boots, and the gun.
JOHN PICKNEY (Policeman R 97). I went to Goff's house in October, and gave him information respecting a sail being stolen, and described it, and he said if any one came there and offered it he would let me know—I told him it had been cut from the rigging—after that, in November, I went to his house and gave him the description of a gun that had been stolen from Mr. West, which the party valued at something like 10l. or 20l.—he said "No one has been here; if they do come, I will let you know."
Cross-examined. I told him the gun was a twist barrel gun, and had a part of the stock broken, and was rather jagged at the end.
WILLIAM TEBDRE (the prisoner). I took these sails from Mr. West's, and sold them to Goff; these two sails were the first things I sold him, and this other sail was the last—I can't exactly swear when it was, but it was the same day as they were stolen—they were in the same state then as now; these have had the cord cut off—when I sold them to him, he said that I need not be afraid to bring anything stolen to his house, what was taken there over night would be in London the next morning—I sold him three pairs of water-boots—I had been to his house the day before they were stolen, and told him there was a yacht there and I expected there were something in it—he said "What do you think?"—I said I was not exactly aware, and we then arranged between us that we should go down there that same night, and whilst I took them, he should watch and give me warning—we did go—he watched and I took three pairs of water-boots, and a pair of trowsers, and we went with them to his shop—he said "After all this trouble, they are not worth much "—he valued them at 1l—I sold him the gun about two months after that—I got it from Mr. West's barge—I got 6s. for it.
Cross-examined. I did not know I was going to be called as a witness—I wrote a statement last Monday, and gave it to the warder just this minute—I asked who I had better give it to, and the Governor said I had better hand it over the dock—I live with my father, a boat builder, next to Mr. West's—this yacht was at anchor just outside my father's place—the tide was out—there was no one on board.
JAMES WEST (Re-examined). I had charge of the yacht, it was brought there to lay up for the winter—my place was to take the things out of her, but the weather was so wet when she came in, that it was three or four days before I could get them dry.
GOFF received a good character. GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
TERDRE (who was recommended to mercy by the prosecutor)— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY EDMONDS . I live at Gothic Hall, Broadway, in Kent, and am a labourer—I have known the prisoner two or three weeks; he was employed at the Gothic Hall—I had a carpenter's shop there—on Saturday night last I locked up the place safe, about 4 o'clock—I was there again at 8 o'clock, and all was safe then, and the key was over the door—on the Monday morning, between 7 and 8 o'clock, I went there, and missed a shirt—I afterwards saw it at Mr. Sharp's, the pawnbroker's—it was worth 4s.—this is it (produced).
JOHN SMITH . I am assistant to Mr. Sharp, pawnbroker, Broadway, Deptford—about 10 o'clock on Saturday night, the prisoner pawned this shirt at my shop for 2s.—I gave it up to the prosecutor afterwards.
WILLIAM NORMAN (Policeman R R 23). The prisoner was given into my custody on the Monday morning, for stealing a shirt—he said he knew nothing of it—at the station he admitted pledging the shirt, but he said
he did not steal it, that a man named Jones had given it to him to pledge—he gave a description of Jones, but I could not find him.
Prisoner's Defence. A man named Jones asked me to pledge the shirt, and I did so.
GUILTY . He also PLEADED GUILTY to having leen before convicted, in November, 1868*— Two Years' Imprisonment.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. O'CONNELL and BROWN conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES BRANNAN . I am employed by the Solicitor to the Treasury, in Mint cases—on 7th January I was with Fife, and other officers, in Black-friars Road, and pointed the prisoner out to Fife—when he get under the archway of Blackfriars Bridge, Fife seized him, and said that he had received instructions to take him in custody, as he was suspected of having counterfeit coin—he struggled very violently, and I saw him take his closed hands from both pockets, and drop a packet containing ten half-crowns, wrapped separately, with tissue paper between them—the officers took from his other hand a packet, which fell on the ground—it contained nine bad half-crowns similarly wrapped up—I said "Harry, what name are you going to give now? I need not tell you ray name; I have received instructions from the Treasury to look after you as dealing in counterfeit coin"—I asked where he lived—he said that he had no fixed home—he first gave his name Chandler, and afterwards Johnson.
Prisoner. Q. Did you find any bad coin at my lodging? A. You said you did not lodge there—I went to room No. 13, and it appears you lodge in No. 15—I did not meet Charles Somers in the City a fortnight previously, and ask him where you lived, for I knew—I had you watched to 10, Pitt Street, Old Kent Road, when you were released from Yarmouth Prison—I did not say that I would not mind giving him 5l. if he would put you into my clutches—you set up a similar defence before.
The prisoner, in hit defence, stated that Charles Somers gave him the packets to hold while he went to get measured for a waistcoat.
GUILTY . He was further charged with having been convicted at Yarmouth, in October, 1868, of a like offence, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
MESSRS. O'CONNKLL and BROWN conducted the Prosecution.
ELIZABETH HUTCHINSON . I am the wife of Thomas Hutchinson, of Webber Street, Waterloo Road, chandler—on 9th January I served the prisoner with half-an-ounce of tobacco, which came to 1 1/2 d.—he gave me a half-crown—I put it in the till, and I had to take all there was in the till to give him
change, so that no other coin was left there—next morning I paid some money to Bailey, the baker's man, and among it was this half-crown—he brought it back broken almost directly—I had noticed that it was well worn, and when he brought it back it appeared to be the same—on 10th January, the next afternoon, the prisoner came again for half-an-ounce of tobacco, and tendered a half-crown—my sister, who followed me into the shop, said that she would go and get change—the prisoner said that he would go himself—she said that it would not take her long, and went out, and came back and said, in his presence, that it was not good—he said that he received it, with other money, in payment of 15s. wages—I said that he brought me one the night before, but he denied ever having been in the shop before—I am certain he is the same man—I recognized him when he came in, and tried to make my sister understand, which was the reason she followed me—I afterwards saw him at the station, and identified him—I returned the second half-crown to him, without disfiguring it, as he said that if it was disfigured his master would not change it—I marked the two pieces of the first half-crown, and gave them to him.
Prisoner. I was at Victoria Gate, between 8.30 and 9.30—the night before. Witness. I am sure you are the person who was there on the 9th.
CHARLES MULLETT . I am in the employ of Mr. Bailey, a baker, of Lower Marsh, Lambeth—I went to Mrs. Hutchinson's on this Tuesday morning, and she paid 4s.—there was a half-crown and three sixpences—I afterwards saw my shopman, Watson, break the half-crown; it was bad—I had no other money that morning, but this 4s.—I took the half-crown back to Mrs. Hutchinson, and gave to her—it had not gone out of my possession.
BLESS MILLER . I am single, and live with my father, a stationer—on 11th January, about 3.30, I served the prisoner with thirty postage-stamps—he gave me a half-crown—I directly saw that it was bad, and called my father—directly the prisoner got the stamps he ran out of the shop—my father ran after him and brought him back.
WILLIAM HENRY MILLER . I am a stationer, of 225, Westminster Bridge Road—on 10th June I ran after the prisoner, caught him, took him back to my shop, and gave him in custody with a half-crown, which my daughter gave me.
DAVID MERRITT (Policeman L 108). Mr. Miller gave the prisoner into my custody—I asked him where he got the half-crown—he said "It was paid to him at Fresh Wharf, where he had been at work—he did not know his master's name, or where he lived.
Prisoner's Defence. I have two witnesses to prove that I was at the Victoria Theatre on Monday night from 6.30 till 10.30—I got the money at Fresh Wharf on Monday evening. (The witnesses did not appear).
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY —Recommended to mercy by the Jury— Four Months Imprisonment.
MR. GRIFFITHS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. LANG FORD the
LUCY BISLEY . I am a widow, and keep the "Fishmonger's Arms," St. George's Road, Southwark—on 11th November the prisoner came to me and presented a cheque for 10l. 10s. on the London and County Bank, Covent Garden branch, and signed John Williams—he said he had brought it from Mr. Freeman, and would I cash it—I knew a neighbour named Freeman, and had been in the habit of cashing cheques for him—I had seen the prisoner in his company—I cashed the cheque, and gave the prisoner 10l. 10s.—I should not have cashed it if he had not said that he came from Mr. Freeman—I paid it into my account the next day, to the London and County Bank, and it was afterwards returned, marked "No account."
Cross-examined. I had never cashed a cheque for the prisoner before—I have cashed several for Mr. Freeman in the last three or four years.
WILLIAM FREEMAN . I live at 23 A, Temple Street, St. George's Road, and am a chair-maker—the prisoner has never been in my employment—I never sent him with this cheque to the prosecutor—I do not know anyone of the name of Williams—I know nothing about this cheque—I did not get any of the ten guineas—I have been with the prisoner to Mrs. Bisley's public-house frequently—he has been with me once or twice when she has cashed cheques for me—I have been on friendly terms with him about eighteen months.
Cross-examined. Addington Square is about a mile from my house—I don't know a Mr. Freeman living there—there is not a chair-maker living in that square—I have not given the prisoner authority to use my name on a cheque; I did on a bill—that was in August last—it was for 40l.—I accepted the bill for his accommodation—I had one other transaction with him in the way of bills—that was about February, for 24l.—I have not had any other dealings with him, only in lending money—he has lent me 2l. or 3l., and I have lent him the same—he borrowed money of me about a week or two after the bill in August—the bill for 40l. was never cashed, nor was the one for 24l.—I don't know where the bills are—I had a notice about it—I don't know what has become of the notice—the prisoner is a builder—he told me he had built two houses at Rosemary Road, East Dulwich.
WILLIAM SOUTH . I am ledger-keeper at the London and County Bank, Covent Garden—this cheque was presented there, and I marked it as it now appears, "No account"—there is no one banking with us in the name of John Williams.
WILLIAM BRCRWITH . I am a builder, at 118, High Street, Homerton—I have known the prisoner since last November—he said he had heard I was a builder, and had a piece of land to let at Homerton—I said I had room for five houses, and that the foundations were laid, and part of the brick-work breast-high, and all the door-frames were made, and I should require to be paid for them—on 10th December he agreed to pay a deposit—he said, on that occasion, that Mr. Williams, of Brixton, owed him 12l., for work done—he had seen him, and Mr. Williams was going to pay him 40l. on Monday, into the Bank, and he would give me a cheque—I appointed to meet him on the 12th—I saw him then—he said he had seen Mr. Williams, and he had got a cheque from him for 7l., on account of the 12l.—he gave me this cheque on the Provincial Banking Corporation, Kingston branch, and signed "Edward Williams "—I asked him if the cheque was
good, as I did not know anything about Mr. Williams—he said Mr. Williams was a respectable man, and had given him the cheque at the "European," where he saw him write another cheque on the same bank, and give it to the manager of the "European"—I took the cheque, and gave him 3l. 10s., retaining the rest as deposit—that cheque was afterwards returned to me dishonoured—I told the prisoner of it, and he gave me Williams' address, at 72, Moyston Road, Brixton, and Thames Street, City.
Cross-examined. I was not in difficulty, about 25th November, when he came to me—the landlord had not troubled me about the rent—the prisoner did not lend me money, in order to assist me in paying my taxes—I know a Mr. Abery, a builder—I never told him that the prisoner had lent me money, to pay my taxes, or my rent, or anything of the sort—the prisoner told me he had bad 700l. left him by his mother, and he was going to take my ground—we made arrangements that he should put the slates on my house, and I should do the joiner's work as a set-off—I did not give the prisoner into custody—I was taken into custody, with the prisoner, when the cheque was returned—he was not in my house at that time—we were both taken in the City, in St. Clement's Lane—I had not been there one minute—I was looking after him, and was going to give him in charge—I made out an agreement; but the prisoner burnt the one he was to sign.
WILLIAM YOUNG . I am a cashier at the Kingsland branch of the Provincial Banking Corporation—there is no account there in the name of Edward Williams, and never has been—this cheque was issued to a Mr. Henry Poole, a builder, of Hackney, who had an account some three years ago—that account was opened in. April, and closed in the January following.
JAMES HAM (Detective Sergeant P). On 9th January I was with Mr. Freeman and Detective Ranger, at a public-house in Portugal Street, Chancery Lane—after waiting there some time, the prisoner came in—he asked Mr. Freeman into the parlour, and I followed them in—I said "Berry, I hold a warrant for your apprehension, for obtaining 10l. 10s. from Mrs. Bisley, in St. George's Road, a short time back, by means of a false cheque; you must go with me "—he said "Wait a minute, Mr. Ham"—after we left the house I said "You stated, at the time, that you were sent by Mr. Freeman here"—ht said "Oh, not that Mr. Freeman, I did not mean, I mean Mr. William Freeman, of Addington Square, Camberwell"—I believe he said he was a stone-mason, and lived at 9, Addington Square—he said he had done work for that Mr. Freeman, and that he paid him a cheque, which came to the exact amount, 10l. 10s.—I asked him if he had seen Mr. Freeman lately, and he said he had not seen him since—he then begged me to take him round to some solicitor of the name of Elliot—I allowed him to go as far as the door; but Mr. Elliot was not in, and I then took him to the police-station—I have made inquiries at every house in Addington Square, Camberwell, but find no such name as William Freeman living there.
GEORGE CHAPMAN (Detective Officer N). I took the prisoner, on 30th December, at Mr. Slade's, in Clement's Lane, City—that was before Ham took him—I charged him with passing a cheque for 7l. 10s.—he said "Yes, I received it in part payment of 12l., from Mr. Williams, 72, Moyston Road, Brixton"—he asked me to go to Lincoln's Inn, and he would see Mr. Williams, and get the money—I told him no, I should take him to Hackney—I afterwards went to 72, Moyston Road; but no such person as Mr.
Williams lived there, or is known there, or in Thames Street—Mr. Beckwith was taken at the same time, and his friends paid the money.
Cross-examined. They were remanded for a week, and discharged, because Mr. Beckwith's friend paid the money—Mr. Gibbs gave Beck-with and the prisoner into custody—Gibbs is a greengrocer—he took the cheque of Beckwith, and Beckwith afterwards paid him the money.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. MAYNE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS
ROBERT WILLIAMS (Policeman P 274). On the morning of 6th January, about 1.40, I was in the Park Road, Kent Road—I heard shouts of "Police!" and "Murder!" and saw three men running towards me from the Old Kent Road—when they saw me, they turned and ran back again—I followed—they dodged me backwards and forwards, and one of them said "Down here," and they ran down Alfred Street—I pursued the prisoner, and stopped him—he said "Did not you hear cries of 'Police!' and 'Murder!' "—I said "I did," and he said he was running after them—I said it was a strange thing that he should be running in the opposite direction—I took him to the "Chard Arms," at the corner of Park Road—I rang the bell, and the landlord came, and said his house had been entered—the prisoner said nothing, and I took him to the station.
Cross-examined. I was in Park Road when I first saw the men running—the prosecutor lives at the corner of the Park Road and the Old Kent Road—the prisoner called my attention to the cries of "Murder!" and "Police!" when I stopped him.
ROBERT CORBETT . I keep the "Chard Arms "—on the morning of 6th January I went to bed about 1.30—I had undressed myself, and was standing before the fire, in my night-shirt—I heard a window-pane broken—I went to my sitting-room door, and heard a voice, "Hush, hold your noise,"—upon that I took up a revolver, and went to the sitting-room door—I opened it suddenly, and there were two men about six feet from the door, and a third man was half in the window, with one leg on the sill—I fired at the two men that were in the room—the cap went off, but the bullet did not—it had been loaded for two years—they jumped out of the windows on to the leads—I followed them oh the leads, and they dropped down into the garden adjoining—I called out "Police!" and "Murder!"—I looked out of the window and saw three men running round in front of the house, and they turned down the Park Road—about three minutes afterwards I went down stairs and opened the door to the constable, who had the prisoner in custody—to the best of my belief he is the man who was in at the window—he had a pea-jacket on and a billy-cock hat—the window had been fastened the night before—a table which was standing by the window had been removed—I did not miss anything.
Cross-examined. It all occurred in about a minute—the man who was at the window was only partly in, and the was farthest away—there was no light in the room, or I should have been able to identify him—the other two men were about six feet from my sitting-room door, inside the house, in my private sitting-room—I looked at the men in the room, and I meant shooting them.
ROBERT COE (Policeman P 297). I was in the Old Kent Road, about 1.40 on this morning—I heard cries of "Police!"—I ran up and found the prisoner in the custody of Williams—I examined Mr. Corbett's house—there were foot marks on the window-sill, and the table had been removed from the window—I searched the prisoner's lodging, and found two saws, three knives, a chisel, a bradawl, and a punch—they are not the ordinary professional tools—they are carpenter's tools.
Cross-examined. I also found four duplicates—these are glazier's tools.
THOMAS PETTLEY . I keep a coffee-stand, and live at 88, Cato Street, St. George's Hoad—about 1.30, on this morning, I was at my coffee-stand, about thirty yards from the "Chard Arms "—I saw three men pass my stand, towards the "Chard Arms "—about a quarter of an hour afterwards I heard a rumbling noise, as if a lot of timber was falling, and I saw some men running from the "Chard Arms," round Peckham Park Road—I saw the landlord come out afterwards, and cry out "Police!" and "Murder!"
Prisoners Statement before the Magistrate: "I was not concerned in the robbery. I was going home from the "South London," and I was trying to capture one of the men that I saw escaping from the "Chard Arms," and the constable took me. If I wanted to commit a burglary, I should go to some other house I knew. I have worked at some of the largest houses at Peckham and Forest Hill, where there has been loads of property."
The prisoner received a good character. NOT GUILTY .
Before R. M. Kerr, Esq.
MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS
CHARLES RUNHAM . I am a private in the 1st Battalion of the Grenadier Guards, stationed at the Tower—on 23rd January I was going along High Street, Borough, between 12 and 1 o'clock at night—I was sober—I met the prisoner as I was going along—he drew something out of his pocket, like a ham bone, and struck me over the eye with it, said "Take that"—it knocked me nearly senseless—I had 3s. 6d. in my pocket, a half-crown and two sixpences—he shoved his hand in my pocket, and took them out—he ran away—a constable came up—I ran with him after the prisoner, and I saw him taken in charge and taken to the station.
Cross-examined. I was not drunk—I left the Tower about 8.30, and this was between 12 and 1 o'clock—I don't know how many public-houses I had been into.
Re-examined. I was quite sober—my left eye is still bruised.
GEORGE WRIGHT (Policeman M 259). I saw the prisoner running, and apprehended him—he hit me in the chest, and tried to throw me—we both fell to the ground—the prosecutor came up, and said "That is the man who knocked me down, and robbed me of a half-crown land two sixpences"—I took the prisoner to the station, and found a half-crown in his sleeve—the prosecutor had had a glass or two, but he was sober.
GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment, and Twenty-five Lashes with the Cut.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY, 1871.