CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THIRD SESSION, HELD JANUARY 10TH, 1876.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND, BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
REVISED AND EDITED, BY
EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ.,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
STEVENS & SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE.
On the Queen's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, January 10th, 1876, and following days,
BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM JAMES RICHMOND COTTON , M.P., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; The Hon. Sir JOHN MELLOR , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench; Hon. GEORGE DENMAN , one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; THOMAS QUESTED FINNIS , Esq., WILLIAM FERNELEY ALLEN , Esq., Sir JAMES CLARKE LAWRENCE , Bart., M.P., Sir ANDREW LUSK , Bart., M.P., WILLIAM MCARTHUR , Esq., M.P., JAMES FIGGINS , Esq., and SIMEON CHARLES HADLEY , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., Judge of the Sheriff's 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.
COTTON, MAYOR. THIRD SESSION.
A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—an obelisk (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
OLD COURT—Monday, January 10th, and part of Tuesday, January 11th, 1876.
The following prisoners PLEADED GUILTY :—
94. HENRY SIMS (20) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Samuel Sewell and stealing six forks. six spoons, and other goods, having been before convicted of felony. — Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.
96. ROBERT HENRY BATHOE KILLICK (26) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to two indictments for embezzling monies of Joseph Kiech Aston, his master, and to unlawfully obtaining 24l. 16s. 3d. of Christopher Halford by false pretences— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
97. In the case of EMILY HOWARD (25) , charged with unlawfully publishing a libel of and concerning Mary Alyce Thornycroft , the Jury, upon, the evidence of Mr. John Rowland Gibson, surgeon of Newgate, found the prisoner insane and unfit to plead— Ordered to be detained until Her Majesty's pleasure be known.
98. JOSEPH COLLEMAN (28), ALEXANDER BOBROWNICKI (45), FRANCOIS LOUIS (47), and GEORGE CHAVANNES (47) were indicted for unlawfully inciting one Arthur Edward Pallett, a servant of Arthur William Ellis to steal a book, his property. Second Count—To steal samples of Prussian blue. Other Counts—For inciting John. Rogers to steal the book.
MESSRS. MONTAGU WILLIAMS and HORACE AVORY conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. STRAIGHT and J. P. GRAIN the Defence.
EDWARD PALLETT . I am gatekeeper at the Woodford station—about the 4th November last Colleman called upon me and asked me where Mr. Ellis lived—I pointed over to the house, being nigh the rail—he asked me how long he had been living there—I told him about three or four years—he
asked where his factory was; I said at Millwall—he asked me if I knew anything about Mr. Ellis; I said yes, I had good reason for I had got a son at work for him—he said that was just what he wanted to know; he wanted to find out some information for some Frenchmen concerning the colours—he said if I did not say anything to Mr. Ellis, nor my son about it it would be many a crown in my pocket if I could get any information, and he and one of the Frenchmen would be sure and come down nest day—that was all that passed; he took the train and went off and I did not see him any more.
Cross-examined. I had never seen him before—he came to me and had this conversation in a perfectly open way.
ARTHUR EDWARD PALLETT . I am clerk and manager to Arthur William Ellis, of the Chemical Works, Millwall—they are the premises of Messrs. Simpson and Payne—Mr. Ellis is a contractor—he contracts to make sul phate of ammonia and Prussian blue—on 6th November, about 12 o'clock in the day, a boy brought me a message, in consequence of which I went to the gate of the factory and there saw Colleman; I had never seen him before—he asked me if I left off at 12 o'clock—I said "No, not till 1"—he said "Are you Mr. Pallett,?"—I said "Yes"—he said he had been down to my father's at Woodford a few evenings ago, that he was speaking to him on a little matter, and he should like to have a little private conversation with me, and asked if I could appoint a place to meet him at 1 o'clock, which I did at the Anchor and Hope, Millwall—I went there at 1 o'clock—and found Colleman outside; we then walked on towards Limehouse—he asked me if Mr. Ellis had a patent for the manufacture of ammonia—I said I believed he had—he asked me if water was used with the ammonia; I said I did not know—he said he wanted the information for some Frenchmen, and asked me if it was sold in a powder or liquid—I said in a powder—he said he would pay me for the information if I gave it to him—I said "You are asking me these questions, and I don't know who or what you are, and if I answer them I shall get myself into great trouble"—he asked me if I remembered a foreigner named Alexander being at the works about two years ago—I said I did not, as I had not been there so long—when I spoke about getting into trouble he said that he was a sworn interpreter and any thing I should tell him could not possibly be heard of by anyone again—he asked me some further questions about the Prussian blue; he asked me if Mr. Ellis made colours—I said yes he made several colours—he said "Any blue?"—I said yes, I had seen Mr. Ellis experimenting with blue—he asked me if it was sold in the powder or the liquid, and who were the buyers—I said I did not know—he then gave me half a crown and this card. (Read: " F. Colleman, interpreter, 3, Great Queen Street, Westminster.") He had a small piece of paper in his hands when he was talking to me, nothing else; no pencil—about ten minutes afterwards he asked me the different ingredients that were used to manufacture blue—I said I could not tell him, as Mr. Ellis was so dose when he was experimenting that I could not possibly see them; he always put it down in a book that he kept for the purpose—he then asked me if I could possibly get hold of that book, and if I could take it to him he would take me to the Frenchmen and I should have 5l. for it—I said "I don't think I can, as Mr. Ellis generally keeps it locked up"—he then asked me to get a copy of it, to copy it out and take it up to him—I said I would and an appointment was made for me to take it there on the following Wednesday, but
if I could get it before I was to write to him and let him know that I had got it; but when I wrote I was not to mention what I had got, I was to say "I have got what you want" and if there was anything farther he would write to me and let me know what what was wanted—he said I was to address him as "Dear Friend"—I asked him if he had not better get the Frenchmen to write to me—he said "They won't be d——fool enough to do that"—he gave me the address of the Frenchmen, 5, Fitzroy Square, and said if I wrote to him that would find him—that was all that was said at that interview—I made a communication to Mr. Ellis that night; I told him what had transpired—he gave me certain instructions, and on 8th November I wrote to Colleman and on 10th I received this answer—I subsequently had conversation with Colleman about it. (Read: "Your letter addressed to me at 5, Fitzroy Square, has been duly handed to me. I would wish all communications to be addressed to my residence, 3, Great Queen Street, Westminster. As soon as you can get copy and index write to me at my address as above, and I will then write to you making—appointment where to meet") I then wrote this letter and sent it to Colleman. (Read: " It will take me a week to make a copy of what we talked about, as I can only get at it when the governor is out of the way, &c.") I received this reply. (This was dated 14th November, appointing a meeting on Monday evening.) In consequence of that letter 1 went up to London and went to Colleman's house, 3, Great Queen Street, Westminster, and saw him there—he asked me what I had got—I said I had got the index—he said "Is that all?"—I said "Yes"—he said "Oh, that is no d——use," that he had written to or seen the Frenchmen to say that I was coming up that night and bring ail with me—I told him it was impossible for me to do it in the time, to copy the whole of the book, it would take me a week or more; but if they pointed out from the index what they wanted I would get it for them—he then asked me what my charge was—I told him 12l. to get what they wanted—he said "Oh, that is nonsense, they won't give you no 12l. The Frenchmen are not so free in parting with their money as to give you 12l. for that"—I said I did not mean 12l. for what I had got, that I wanted 2l. for the index, before they had the index, and for two or three samples that I had, and 10l. more when I had got the copy of the book—he said they would not give so much as that, that he had spoken to his governor Mr. Smith, and Mr. Smith said that if they were gentlemen they ought to give me at least two guineas—I said two guineas would not pay me for the risk and trouble 1 was running, but I would take 8l. besides the 2l.—he said "Very well, I will tell them what you want"—he then took me to 5, Fitzroy Square; we went by omnibus—the door was opened by a female—Colleman asked if Mr. Louis was in—she said no, but his nephew was—he said "He will do"—she then turned round and said "Oh here is Mr. Louis," and I then saw the prisoner Louis—Colleman said something to him in French, which I did not understand, and he bowed to me; I expect to introduce me—we then went into a billiard room there and waited there while they played a game—Louis then took me and Colleman up three flights of stairs to a room with a bed in it—I there saw Chavannes sitting in an easy chair—what then passed was in French—Colleman then asked me if I remembered a Mr. Alexander being at the factory about two asked years ago—I said I did not—Louis then went to the door and Alexander or Bobrownicki walked in—they were then all present—they commenced to
question me about the samples I had taken wit. me—Bobr wniki asked me the names of them—I gave them to Colleman and he handed them to Chavannes, and Bobrownicki asked me the names of them—I told him the different names of them, and he asked me the name of the powder—I told him it was Prussian blue—he said "That's right," and asked me if it was manufactured at the works—I said "Yes"—he asked if I knew in what quantity it was manufactured—I said no I did not, they made a great deal of it—he then got some paper and a pencil and asked me to write down from the index something about ten gallons of Columb water, because they wanted to know how much liquour it took to produce the ten gallons—I can hardly think now what the questions were, there were several, and who were the buyers of Prussian blue, and the price it was sold at—I put that down on paper—I gave the paper to Colleman and he read it to the others—Chavannes then gave me 2l.; that was for taking the index and samples, and they agreed to give me 5l. when I brought the book, when I brought the copy of the book—they asked me when I thought I could bring it, and I told them by the end of that week or the beginning of the next—an appointment was made for the following Saturday at 5 o'clock at Colleman's house; I was to go there and take it, and he would take me on to Fitzroy Square—after we got out of the house and on the platform at St. James's Park station I asked him if 1 had not better bring a man up with me that knew more about it than I did—he said "No, you will be a fool if you do, you will get all you want out of him for a pot or two of beer, or even if you have to give him half a crown you will get half a sovereign for all half-crowns you give him; if you bring him up the Frenchmen will think it looks suspicious, that he did not want to have any thing to do with another man if he could help it—he then said he had got this for me, and what was I going to stand him out of it—I gave him 5s.—previous to this I said "I suppose your governor is solicitor for these gentlemen"—he said "Oh no, he is a private detective"—I was speaking of Mr. Smith, his master—I said "I suppose the third gentleman that came into the room was Alexander who used to be down at the works"—he said "Oh no, he was not there this evening"—after I gave him the 5s. he said "Now, Pallett, you do all you can for these men, get all these questions asked and get another sample or so and bring up to me to take them on the following Saturday"—I then left—I afterwards received this letter, dated the 19th, asking me to come up next day—I did so, and brought Rogers with me, acting under Mr. Ellis' directions—I went with Rogers to 3, Great Queen Street, Westminster—Colleman admitted us and took us to 5, Fitzroy Square—on the way Colleman asked Rogers if he remembered a foreigner being at the works about two years ago, and he said no—he asked if we were prepared to answer all that they might ask us—we said yes, we thought we were—he said, "Very well," and asked Rogers if be could speak French—Rogers said he could not, but he could speak very good Irish—when we got to Fitzroy Square we went up into the same room—Louis, Chavannes, and the female were there and we were introduced to them—they asked Rogers if he remembered Mr. Alexander being at the works about two years ago—he said no, he had only been there for a short time—the door was then opened and Bobrownicki came in—they then commenced to ask Rogers upon the samples—they took three samples off the cupboard and put the questions in French through Colleman, and he interpreted them in English—Rogers answered them as far as he could, about
the blue and the two liquids—they then commenced to question him about the nuke of Prussian blue, how much was made, and who were the buyers at Bradford, in Yorkshire, and also about the ten gallons of columb water—Rogers said he could not answer them in that way, he could not get at the different ingredients used without consulting Mr. Ellis' book—Bobrounicki then asked him in English if he could get Mr. Ellis' book—Rogers said he did not think he could as Mr. Ellis kept it locked up—Bobrownicki told him if he got that book and took it up to him on Wednesday night he would give him 10l.-Bobrownicki gave me 10s. on this occasion, and Rogers, Colleman, and I then went downstairs and found three policemen at the door in plain clothes and Colleman was apprehended; he said nothing—Rogers, Colleman, and I then went into the house again and the others were taken in custody—they had a warrant—a short gentleman, not one of the prisoners, asked me to give the money back which I had received—they were remanded from time to time and then discharged, and then this bill was found.
Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I have been in Mr. Ellis' employ about fourteen months—he is a contractor and works for Simpson and Payne—I was not aware that Bobrownicki had a patent in respect of this matter, or that rightly or wrongly he thought that Mr. Ellis was infringing it—I had two interviews with Colleman on Saturday and three afterwards, two of which were at Fitzroy Square—when I was first introduced to Chavannes and Bobrownicki and Louis I promised to bring a copy of the book for 5l.—a sample of blue was also to be brought—I do not know what it was to be put into; it is a powder—I was permitted by Mr. Ellis to make a copy of the index—I don't know whether the book is in his writing—I never looked through it—what I have seen him write was in English—it is what he writes down when be makes experiments himself—I remember being examined and cross-examined before the Magistrate, Mr. Newton—Mr. Ellis was represented by a solicitor—I mentioned before the Magistrate that I heard Bobrownicki say that if Rogers got the book and took it to him on Wednesday he would give him 10l. will not swear that, but I believe I did—I have seen Mr. Froggatt, she solicitor two or three times in the matter, three times at the outside—I never heard Chavannes or Louis speak a word of English—Bobrownicki speaks very broken English—he was at one end of the table, and I, Rogers, and Colleman at the other—I took no sample on the last occasion; the only sample I took was on the 10th.
Re-examined. I have only seen the inside of Mr. Ellis' book when he was writing—I do not know whether he was writing in English or Latin—when Colleman addressed them in French he was seemingly translating and they were all present and could hear what took place.
By THE COURT. The 10l. was to be given for the book, I understood, and not for a copy of it; he was asked to get the book and he was to have 10l.—he spoke very broken English, but I could understand it—I think he was speaking of the book.
By THE JURY. I was not asked to bring the samples on the first occasion; I brought them on my own account.
Tuesday, January 11th.
with Mr. Ellis, and in consequence of instructions from him on 20th November I went to 3, Queen Street, Westminster, with Arthur Pallett—I there saw Colleman—he asked me if I was ready to answer any questions that would be put to me by some parties to whom he was going to introduce me, respecting the manufacture of blue—I said "Yes"—he said he was employed by a person named Smith, of Ironmonger Lane, City, to make these inquiries on behalf of some gentlemen who were about to establish a manufactory of blue—on the way to the omnibus he asked me if I spoke French—I said no, I spoke Irish, by way of a joke—we went to 5, Fitzroy Square, to the third floor, and in a back room there I was introduced by Colleman to Chavannes, Louis, and a lady—Chavannes asked Colleman who I was, and Colleman said "I now introduce to you the principal workman at Mr. Ellis'" (that was said in French—I do understand French thoroughly) "who is competent to answer any questions that may be put to him respecting the manufacture of blue; he is well up to his work; he has not been there very long and consequently does not know any foreigners who may be employed there"—the female interpreted what I said to Mr. Chavannes, who was lying on the bed, ill with the gout—she went together with Mr. Louis to the door and then admitted Bobrownicki—he seated himself at the table, and pens and ink and paper were produced, and he began to ask me some questions about the manufacture of blue—I tad tutored myself with a few answers to questions liable to be put to me—he asked me how many pounds of blue could be manufactured out of a thousand gallons of columb liquor—I answered "I think three-quarters of a hundred weight. I am not sure"—he then told Louis to bring him down two samples from the top of the cupboard, one contained in a glass and one in paper, and he asked me if I knew the nature of the contents—I told him that in the glass was sediment of manufactured blue, but as to the nature of the liquid in the bottle I did not know—he asked me the names of the liquids contained in the two different bottles—there were two bottles, one containing a dark liquid; there were four samples altogether—he asked me if I knew what the liquids were composed of—I told him I could not get that answer without consulting Mr. Ellis' book—I first suggested the existence of the book—Bobrownicki asked me could I procure that book—I said I should have some difficulty in doing so as it was under lock and key—he said "I shall be here on Monday; can you procure the book by that time?"—I said "Yes"—he said "By what time?"—I said "By 6 o'clock on Monday evening"—I was then asked who were the purchasers of the blue and the prices Mr. Ellis sold it at, and so on—Bobrownicki asked what I wanted to procure the book and answers as to the information required, and I said 10l.—I did not bring the samples with me;' Pallett did—four samples were produced to me, they had one of their own—I then went downstairs, and the prisoners were taken into custody—I was called up afterwards to interpret the warrant to them—Pallett introduced me to these men as the principal workman—Colleman did not.
Cross-examined. I did not object to the statement that I was the principal workman—I was once an inspector of police—I am now a messenger in Mr. Ellis' employ—I said before the Magistrate "I was asked how much I wanted for the information as to the manufacture of the blue, and 1 answered 10l.—he said very well; Bobrownicki asked if I understood the manufacture of light and dark blue—I said "Yes"—Bobrownicki asked if
I could procure Mr. Ellis' book—I said it would be a difficult matter as I had no access to Mr. Ellis' book—I said I might perhaps obtain a copy and would endeavour to do so by Monday evening"—that meant acopy of the information they required respecting the sale of the blue; the" prices, the principal customers, and so forth—I did not say it as put down there—when I talked about getting a copy, I intended a copy of some information not in the book; they asked me for the names of the customers, the purchasers of the blue, and the prices, and the copy I referred to there was as to that.
Re-examined. At the time the 10l. was offered me the word book was certainly mentioned—I understood that nothing but the 10l. was to be given me for the book.
ARTHUR WILLIAM ELLIS . I am a manufacturing chemist—I am a contractor with Messrs. Simpson and Payne under a seven years' agreement—I am not their foreman; here are my agreements—I have been. engaged there about ten years and a half—in April 1873 I took out certain patents for the manufacture of blue from ammoniacal liquor—these (produced) are my patents—since then, in order to improve upon those patents, I have made certain researches in my business—I keep a rough experiment book which contains the results of certain experiments made subsequently to these patents—the book is in Court, in the hands of my private solicitor—it contains the results of researches extending over a considerable period and of very great value to myself—I was in the habit of using it almost daily for the purpose of consulting it and of jotting down the result of other enquiries; I kept it under lock and key, sometimes in my desk and sometimes I took it home to Woodford—Pallett was in my employ—I remember his making certain statements to me early in November, in consequence of which I gave him certain instructions, and subsequently, after taking advice from my solicitor, I employed Rogers to act in concert with Pallet—neither Pallett or any other man in my employ would understand. the nature of the operations carried on by me, or be able to describe them without the aid of that book—in 1872 Bobrownicki was engaged at the works under the name of Alexander; I can't say when he left—he was there about eight months off and on—he would be aware of the existence of this book—he came there stating that he had a patent, which afterwards proved to be only a provisional patent, asking us to give him facilities at the works for practically demonstrating the value of it—he tried the patent—it utterly failed—my assistance was asked—I gave it, and his complete specification was patented through the knowledge he there obtained through me, which complete specification was at total variance with the provisional one—it lapsed because the stamp duty was not paid—the entries in my book had nothing whatever to do with that patent of Alexander; in the one air was used, in the other steam—Pallett, the gate-keeper, was the first who gave me information about the visit of Colleman to my place, and subsequently Pallett junior—I applied first to my private solicitor, who advised me to go to inspector Greenfield—he said it was not a matter that he could take up and recommended me to a private inquiry man—the book contains the groundwork of the patents that I am about to take out; more comprehensive patents—there are some entries in French; the rest of the book is chiefly written in English, and those parts I wish to keep secret are written in chemical symbols—I could not put a value on the book; it is one of considerable value to me—I have been paid some hundreds of pounds on these patents—it contains secrets known only to myself.
By THE JURY. When Bobrownicki came to demonstrate his provisional specification he saw the book and made an entry in it—I could not speak French thoroughly at that time and I asked him to write down what he wanted done—he had access to the book when I gave it to him.
Cross-examined. I know a gentleman named Thomas Christie who carries on business at 155, Fenchurch Street—I do not know that in 1872 he was introduced to Bobrownicki; I have seen them in contact—I am aware that a provisional patent of Bobrownicki's in reference to the preparation of ammoniacal liquid was registered in 1872—it was registered jointly in his name and Mr. Christie's—I am informed that in May, 1872, there was an arrangement between Christie and Messrs. Simpson and Payne for Simpson and Payne to work that patent—I cannot explain it—I am in the position of a contractor and, therefore, I don't know what Simpson and Payne do; all I know is from what I have heard—I was acting as contractor for them in 1872—I do not know of any private arrangement between Bobrownicki and Christie, by which, in consideration of Christie having advanced monies, Bobrownicki had agreed to assist in the working of that patent—I have been informed that in August, 1872, there was an arrangement by which a person named Fenner, Christie, and Messrs. Simpson and Payne were jointly to engage in working Bobrownicki's patent—I don't know it of my own personal knowledge—it was after that that Bobrownicki came to the premises and made certain experiments; that would be about June 1872, the entry in my book is the 11th—he was engaged experimenting there I should say three or four months, off and on—I was frequently experimenting with him—the results of one or two of those experiments would be written down in my book—the only writing of Bobrownicki's in the book would be in reference to the first provisional specification—thereis writing of his in the book; there is the direction which I asked him in the first place, on 11th June, to give me, because I was satisfied the thing would not answer—there is the book, it will speak for itself; the pages that are gummed together I do not wish to be opened—I know nothing of Simpson and Payne, Fenner, Christie, and Webley meeting from time to time in reference to the working of this patent of Bobrownicki's—I know nothing except that I have seen Bobrowuicki, Christie, and Fenner together—subsequently to my indicting them for this offence I heard that certain proceedings were threatened by Bobrownicki against Simpson and Payne; but I don't believe it—my patent was taken out in 1873 by Messrs. Bell, Crowder, and Greenfield—I never heard the name of Taylor, Howe, and Co.
Re-examined. This (produced) is my rough experiment book—this (referring to it) is the only entry of Bobrownicki's that I know of—my subsequent entries have nothing whatever to do with any information derived from Bobrownicki or his entry in 1872—I never heard a word about any litigation until after I had brought this charge—I have had a great deal of money offered for my patents and refused it.
By THE COURT. The object that 1 and Bobrownicki wished to obtain by our patents was the same—I was pursuing that object by the original process which I began in 1868—we were pursuing the object by the different processes—my object in the experiments, the results of which I have entered in this book, was to improve my own process, so that in case 1 wanted to renew my patents I might renew them upon wider specifications and upon improved principles; I anticipated taking patents out before these two lapsed—I presume that Bobrownicki wanted if his own process had succeeded
to carry it out—in the notes of the experiments there are notes of some failures; some of my own even were failures—after long trying I would arrive at results that would be satisfactory—the notes are notes of failures as well as of successes.
FREDERICK GREENFIELD (Police Inspector R). On 20th November last, about 7 o'clock, in consequence of instructions I received I went with detectives Boyle and Helston to Fitzroy Square with a warrant—Colleman was pointed out to me leaving the house—I stopped him and told him I had a warrant to apprehend him and three others for inciting a man to steal a book; he said "Me! I am only a poor interpreter, and am paid for what I interpret"—I then went upstairs at 5, Fitzroy Square, and found the other three prisoners—I had the warrant read to them in French and told them they must consider themselves in custody—Chavannes was suffering. from gout, and I sent for a doctor and had him examined—I could not understand what was said, because some of it was in French, Boyle, who, understands French, will speak to that—I sent them all to the station except Chavanaes—I left him at the house in charge of a constable—at the time I took them into custody I told Bobrownicki that I wanted some papers that he had got, and he handed me some papers, and amongst them were two that had been taken to him by Pallett previously, relating to liquors—Colleman afterwards said to me that he should round on the whole lot of them, that his master was nearly as bad as the others for he had found him no counsel or bail.
Cross-examined. He also said "There is one thing wrong, that is to say I said 1 would have 10l. for the book; I did not say that, and I would stand twelve months before I would."
WILLIAM BOYLE (Detective E). On 20th November last, in consequence of information, I followed Pallett and Rogers to 3, Great Queen Street, and saw them leave that house with Colleman—I followed them to 5, Fitzroy Square; I waited outside—when Colleman came out I pointed him out to Greenfield and he was taken into custody—I then went back there with Greenfield and Colleman and found the other three prisoners and a lady-Rogers read the warrant to them—I understand French—the warrant was read first to Bobrownicki, and he said in English "It is ridiculous; I am a partner in the patent"—the warrant was then read to the others-Louis said that Bobrownicki was the father of the patent and remarked that it would cause a great deal of scandal, and he considered it a million in each of their pockets—when the warrant was read by Rogers to Chavannes, he said he would have nothing to do with Rogers; and Ross read it to him—he then said "It is all nonsense, I don't understand it; it is an ambush"—he had some conversation with Ross—Pallett was pointed out to him, and he asked Pallett to return him the money; but I told him not to do so.
At the commencement of the case, after MR. WILLIAMS' opening, MR. STRAIGHT submitted that as it was evident no larceny of the book was intended, there could be no inciting to commit a larceny; and, therefore, there was no case. What the defendants wanted was to obtain certain information contained in the book, which could not be the subject of larceny. MR. WILLIAMS contended that it was a question for the Jury, and cited "Reg. v. Richards, "1" Carrington and Kirwan," page 532, and "Phillips v. Strong, "2" East's Pleas of the Crown," page 662. The COMMON SERJEANT considered the case not free from difficulty, but would not withdraw it from the Jury.
At the close of the case for the prosecution Mr. Straight renewed his objection and urged that in order to support the indictment there must have been on the part of the defendants an intention permanently to deprive the owner of his property; the book itself, being a chattel, would undoubtedly be the subject of larceny, but not the contents, and it was obviously only the information which the contents might afford which the defendants were anxious to obtain.
The COMMON SERJEANT, in leaving the case to the Jury, observed that if the defendants being interested in these experiments had reason to believe that the prosecutor had availed himself of information obtained from Bobrownicki to improve his own patents, and thought, rightly or wrongly, that they had a right to see what was written in the book as the results of those experiments, that would not be felonious motive. The real question was whether they intended permanently to deprive the owner of the possession of the book, or whether it might not be likened to the case of a school boy surreptitiously abstracting from his master's desk a key to his lessons; could the boy in that case be charged with stealing the book? Here it appeared that what the defendants wanted was the information contained in the book, and although they adopted an improper mode of proceeding in order to obtain it, the question was whether their intention was to incite to the commission of a larceny of the book, and if not they could not be found guilty.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Monday, January 10th, 1876.
MR. CRAUFURD conducted the Prosecution.
RICHARD PRIOR . I am a cabdriver of 52, Vauxhall Bridge Road—on 16th December the prisoner hailed me at Charing Cross and asked me how much I would take him to Kensington for—I said "Two shillings"—he replied "That will do," and I drove him there—at the end of the journey he said "What is your fare?"—I said "Two shillings"—he said "You said half a crown"—I said "No, two shillings"—he gave me three shillings, which I put into my pocket—they were bad—I kept my eye upon him and looked for a constable—he returned to me and said "Where are you going to now?"—I said that I was going to remain to give my horse a rest—he offered me a shilling to take him to Earl's Court Road—he got into the cab and stopped at a public-house and at a baked potato stall, where I saw a police-sergeant and gave him in custody, with the three shillings.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You gave me three separate shillings—I did not call you back because I was afraid of your attacking me—you made no remark to make me feel afraid—you got out on the other side of the cab when the policeman came to take you.
CHARLES FONTAINE (Policeman T 29). I was called by Prior and directed him to drive to the station—there I caught hold of the prisoner in the cab, who got out on the other side—I called another policeman from the station, who came out—I searched the prisoner and found one six-pence in his hand, and one sixpence and 3 1/2d. in bronze in his pocket; good coin—Prior handed me these three bad shillings (produced).
Cross-examined. I did not get into the cab and catch hold of you, nor did you say "Let go; I don't want to get away"—you did not offer to escape until I apprehended you in the cab.
Re-examined. I followed the cab—I did not lose sight of it. Malcolm Weston (Policeman T 395). I was called by the last witness
out of the station and saw the prisoner struggling with him—I obtained a lamp and found on the ground near the horse's heels, on the side the prisoner got out of the cab a shilling and five others wrapped up in pieces of paper separately—I said to him "How about this case," and he replied "You—, I have no soft on me this time; I believe I have done you";—he assaulted me, and in consequence of his violence I have been under medical treatment.
Cross-examined. I did not shake the money up and say it would be made hot for you—I did not strike you in the mouth.
WILLIAM BRADFORD (Detective Officer T). I was at the station when the prisoner was brought there—he was violent and kicked the last witness in the testicles; he kicked me also, and said "You b——, I have got you this! time; you will find no snider upon me" (meaning counterfeit coin)—he took: a good sixpence out of his pocket and was in the act of putting it into his mouth when we took it from him.
Cross-examined. The Magistrate at the police-court prevented my speaking about the snider, saying the evidence would serve the next time—I did not say "We will make it hot for you."
He was further charged with a previous conviction of a like offence in June, 1874, to which he.
PLEADED GUILTY— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. CRAUFURD conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY STEVENS . I am a conductor in the service of the General Omni-bus Company—the prisoner got into my omnibus on 23rd December with her sister—she tendered me a bad shilling for the two fares—I gave her in custody, and on the way to the station she dropped a bad florin, which I picked up, and in the dock at the police-station sis or seven counterfeit coins were taken from her.
RICHARD SLADDEN (Policeman E 119). I took the prisoner—at the station 4 1/2d. in bronze fell into the dock, and I took from between her knees outside her clothes these seven counterfeit florins wrapped up in paper separately.
GUILTY — Two Years' Imprisonment.
MR. CRAUFURD conducted the Prosecution.
BYRON WILSON . I am manager to the landlord of the Mitre and Dove public-house, Mitre Street, Westminster—on 14th December the prisoner tendered me a bad shilling for some beer—I asked him if he had not good cheek to come again; he denied that he had been before—he is the man that came in July last and tendered me a bad florin—he was taken before the Magistrate, remanded, and ultimately discharged.
WILLIAM LEACH (Policeman A 81). I was on duty and saw the prisoner running, followed by the last witness—I heard a cry of "Stop him," and did so, and searched him—he said "You have no occasion to do that, I have got no more on me"—I found upon him one shilling, four sixpences,
a threepenny piece, and 7 1/2 d. in bronze, all good—I received this bad shilling from Wilson.
GEORGE GROOMES (Policeman A 292). I took the prisoner from Mr. Wilson in July last on a charge of uttering this bad florin (produced)—I found upon him nine good shillings and sixpence in bronze—he was taken to Bow Street police-court, remanded, and discharged.
ISAAC THOMPSON (Policeman A 225). Groomes gave the prisoner into my custody—he said that he would go wherever I liked to take him—I searched him and found 3s. 6d. in silver and 6 1/2d. in bronze, all good—I received these pieces of counterfeit coin from Groomes (produced)—the prisoner was remanded and discharged.
Prisoner's Defence. He said "Don't run away." That observation incited me to do so, and I was not aware that the 1s. was bad, and the public-house is close to my home.
GUILTY — Two Years' Imprisonment.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 11th to, 1876.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
The following Prisoners PLEADED GUILTY :—
102. JOHN BROWN (19) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to two indictments for embezzling the sums of 93l. 12s. 6d., 91l., 27l.2s.,"' and 23l. 7s. 6d. of Henry Thompson, his master, also forging and uttering receipts for the same— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment and to pay the cods of the Prosecution.
104. SAMUEL BERNARD PAYNE FOWELL (19) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to feloniously forging and uttering endorsements to two orders for the payment of 110l. and 10l. with intent to defraud— Eighteen, Months' Imprisonment.
105. JAMES WALTERS [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Edward George Barr, and stealing a snuff box, 3l., his property,' having been before convicted of felony**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude. And
106. JOHN WALTERS (19) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to a burglary in the dwelling-house of David Cohen and stealing 16 coats and other articles, having been before convicted of felony**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. CAXDT conducted the Prosecution; Mr. Thorne Cole the Defence.
WILLIAM WHITE . I reside at Barrington Road, Brixton—on the evening of the 13th December last I was at the Ludgate Hill station at about 6.30, and about to get into a first-class carriage—the prisoner snatched my watch from my pocket and wrenched it off the bow—he ran away, and I cried out "That man has my watch. Stop him"—I recognise the prisoner as the man.
Cross-examined. I did not lose my chain—the one I have on now is the same as I wore at the time—I had my great coat on—I was on the platform a very few minutes before the train started—the platform was crowded with people—the door of the carriage I was going to enter was open, and to my left—the engine was to my right—the prisoner ran from the engine
—I saw him caught and he was brought back by one of the railway officials—I did not say at the police-station whoever had got my watch had cut the chain."
THOMAS HERRARD . I am ticket collector at the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, Ludgate Hill Station, and was on duty on the evening in question—I heard a cry "Stop that man; he has got my watch"—I saw the prisoner stopped, and I went to the assistance of the chief messenger, who told me to look for the watch—I could not find it, but I picked up the bow of it close to the prisoner's feet.
Cross-examined. I saw the other porters looking about for the. watch with a lantern—they did not find it—the prisoner was searched and a ticket was found upon him.
WILLIAM HELPS . I am Chief Inspector at the Ludgate Hill Railway Station and was on duty on the evening of the 13th December, about 6.30—I heard a cry "Stop him; he has got my watch"—the prisoner was running towards me; he then doubled and ran towards the prosecutor—he was stopped by the prosecutor and a porter—I took hold of his right hand, which was shut, and tried to open it; he drew himself up, and by a sudden wrench got his hand out of mine—I caught him again and opened his right hand, but there was nothing in it—I then ordered the men to look for the watch—When Herrard found the bow I took the prisoner downstairs and gave him in charge of the City constable.
HENRY EVE (City Policeman C 486). I was directed to take the prisoner in custody, and at the police-station I searched him and found 6s. 2d. in money and a third-class railway ticket from Ludgate Hill to the Elephant Castle.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PLATT conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM INWARD (City Policeman). On 8th December, about 4.15, I saw the prisoner in Lombard Street—I watched and followed him—I saw him go through Pope's Head Court, up Cornhill, into St. Michaels' Alley—he remained there about twenty minutes looking at different shop windows—he then went into Cornhill again and went into Mr. Thorburn's—I watched him through the window—I saw him speak to the assistant, who turned and went to the other end of the shop—the prisoner then put his right hand into the tray on the counter, took something and put it into his right-hand trousers' pocket—the assistant brought some paper to him; he took up a sheet of it, passed some remark, and walked out—he did not buy anything—I followed him up Cornhill and several streets, he went into a hosier's in Fenchurch Street and looked at some black kid gloves—when he came out I said to him "I am going to take you into custody for stealing something from the shop in Cornhill"—he said "All right"—I took him to the station—in going along Rood Lane he got his right hand into his trousers pocket—I caught hold of his arm; he drew his hand from his pocket; I clenched his fist and wished him to open it; he refused—with the assistance of another officer I forced him into No. 3, Rood Lane, and by wringing his wrist this pencil case dropped from his hand—I searched him—I found no money on him, only a knife, two postage stamps, and this alluminium gold chain—I went to Mr. Thorburn's, and on the counter just where prisoner stood I saw a tray containing alluminium pencil cases similar to this.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not see what you took, I saw you take something—I am sure this pencil case dropped from you, there was no one else there—you were very violent and two persons came in afterwards—I did not see you drop it, it was dark; but I heard it drop and picked it up.
BENJAMAN GEORGE LONG . I am assistant to Mr. Ralph Thorburn, of 33, Cornhill, a bookseller and stationer—on the evening of 8th December the prisoner came in and asked for some cartridge paper—I went to get it from the end of the shop—there was a tray on the counter containing alluminium pencils—when I came back with the paper he took hold of it and said it was very thin, like tissue paper that he wanted—I told him where he might get it—he apologised for the trouble he had given me and went out—about half an hour after Inward came in with the pencil case; it is similar to those we had in the tray and is worth about 1s. 6d.
Cross-examined. I don't swear to it; it is the same makers'; there are plenty sold elsewhere.
GUILTY —He also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction at this Court in September, 1869, in the name of George Evans , when he was sentenced to seven pears' penal servitude; other convictions were proved against him— Eight Years' Penal Servitude.
GUILTY they found that verdict— Four Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 11th, 1876.
MESSRS. BRINDLEY and WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. GRAIN the Defence.
JAMES WAPLE . I am a jeweller of Northampton Square, Clerkenwell—on 5th August, 1875, the prisoner came to me and asked me to get him a gold watch, value about 25l., for someone in France—I afterwards got three for him and showed them to him—it was to be a cash transaction—he afterwards sent me this letter, enclosing a cheque, and believing it to be worth the money I parted with the watch and chain—I also received these other letters from him, dated September 2nd, October 1st, and November 3rd, but saw nothing of him—it was not till after he was in custody on another charge that I discovered that the watch and chain had been pledged—these are them (produced).
Cross-examined. My brother John is a sleeping partner with me—he is not always there transacting business, but is often there—the prisoner has never bought any goods of us before—these six cheques (produced) bear my brother's endorsement, but they have nothing to do with the firm—my brother is here—I did not take proceedings between August and January owing to the false letters the prisoner sent—I sent an invoice with the watch and another by post, and I gave a receipt to the messenger who brought the cheque.
Re-examined. When the prisoner selected the watch he said nothing about having credit nor did he refer to my brother at all—I did not believe the letters were true, because they contradicted each other.
MISS CROSS. I live at the Red Cow, Albert Embankment—I know the prisoner; he had an office at Salamanca Wharf and was my father's tenant "pope and Williams" was on the office door—he made an agreement and signed it—I saw him write—I have seen him sign two or three cheques—this cheque signed "Pope and Williams" is in his writing, and I believe. these letters to be his also. (Cheque read: "August 5, 1875. Imperial Bank. Pay Messrs. Peffle Brothers, 28l. Pope and Williams.") (One letter was dated Rouen, September 2, requesting the prosecutor not to part with the cheque as the writer had not received the money for the watch and chain from, his friend, and stating that he expected to receive it that day and would send it—Signed, W. ROBERTS. Another letter from the same to the same, dated October 1, 1875, stated (hat he had returned from France and would call on prosecutor and would, if he wished it, forward a draft payable on the 4th of next month, with interest, and that if he could have got the watch and chain back he would have, returned them—Another letter requested a day's longer indulgence, as he had not received a remittance from France.) These other two letters are also in the prisoner's handwriting to the best of my belief. "Aug. 5, 1875. To Messrs. Waple Brothers. Dear Sirs, Finding that my train starts early to-morrow morning, as promised please! find cheque for amount of watch, &c, selected by me, which please hand to bearer, and believe me yours truly, W. ROBERTS." "Aug. 6. Dear Sir,—On going to my bank this morning I found that certain accounts were not paid to them on my behalf, therefore my balance is not so strong as I should wish it; I shall feel extremely obliged if you will not; pay in the cheque my clerk handed to von yesterday for 28l. until next week, say Wednesday or Thursday. It that is inconvenient to you I will send you the money from Rouen, where I start to-day for, as I shall get the money from the gentleman on my arrival. Trusting this will not inconvenience you, I remain, Dear Sirs, yours truly, W. ROBERTS."
Cross-examined. These letters were not shown to meat Bow Street.
WALTER BOLWICK . I am a cashier at the Imperial Bank, Westminster—Pope and Williams have had an account there since January, 1875—the signature on this cheque is that of the persons who opened the account—the account was 11s. 4d. overdrawn on 5th August, and had been in that state since June—there had been no transactions between those dates, though several cheques had been presented which met with the same fate as this one—we have applied to the solicitor for the cheque book, but it was refused, and we have never been able to obtain it.
Cross-examined. This (produced) is the pass book made up by one of our clerks, but it is not completed—it was commenced with 839l. paid in—all these cheques on the other side have been presented and paid—we considered his account closed, although we marked "Refer to drawer" on the cheques—it was not really closed, but we should not have taken any money paid in except to cover the 11s. 4d. overdrawn—I am not the manager.
Re-examined. This is the ledger—the prisoner has not sent the pass-book to be made up since April 10; but here are the cheques paid entered in the ledger—no cheques have been honoured since this one of June 28th for '2l. 10s.—he paid in 230l. on May 1st, nothing since—the small cheques have exhausted that.
Fetter Lane in September and took him to Bow Street station—he gave his name "William Roberts, 1, Great College Street, Westminster"—I found or him a ticket referring to a watch dated 5th August, 1875, pledged at Smith and Diamond's for 17l.—it is a special contract note—I said nothing to him about the watch—I knew nothing about it.
WILLIAM BAXTER . I am assistant to Smith and Diamond, pawnbrokers, of 80, Newgate Street—I produce a watch and chain pawned on 5th August, 1875—this (produced) is our part of the contract note; I have torn it out of the book—I fancy the prisoner is the person who pledged it—he signed the agreement William Roberts.
MISS CROSS (re-examined). I do not think this contract note is the prisoner's writing.
Cross-examined. I gave him an open cheque for this crossed-cheque for 100l.—I think that was in March—I do not know the name of the peeson whose cheque it was—I have not got my pass book here—I have called at the prisoner's place several times since he obtained this watch, but never could see him—I did not leave an invoice there—I had nothing to do with the business at that time.
MESSRS. POLAND and RAM conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.
ALFRED PRITOHARD HUGHES . I am a cashier in the Chartered Bank of India, 65, Old Broad Street—in October last this bill of exchange for 200l. was presented by the prisoner Holmes—it is drawn to the order of Charles Piffard, Esq, and this endorsement, "Charles Piffard," was then on it—that is the highest of the two endorsements—I asked Holmes if that was his name; he said "Yes"—I told him that he would require a stamp; he said he would go and get one—he went out and came back in a minute or two with the stamp—I said "Now I shall require your address"—he wrote his name and address and returned it to me with the ink not dry, "Charles Piflard, 112, Harley Street, West"—I asked him how he would have it; he said "180l. in notes and 20l. in gold"—I gave him five 20l. notes, No. 1,927 to 1,931, dated 19th April, 1875; five 10l. notes, No. 6,160 to 6,166, and six 5l. notes, No. 99,718 to 99,723, dated 25th August, 1875, and twenty sovereigns—this second bill (produced) did not come to me at all, it was paid by cheque—that is the second of exchange—I got it from the accountants, but only a day or two ago.
ROBERT CARVER . I am butler in the service of the Rev. Mr. Reeves, of 112, Harley Street—on 25th October I took a letter out of the box, redirected it to Charles Piffard, Esq., 102, Harley Street, and posted it myself.
Street—I remember a letter being brought there bearing the Calcutta and Brindisi postmarks—I laid it on the slab and did not know what became of it—I did not notice the address until some time in October—I do not know Charles Piffard at our house—I do not know the prisoners or any—one named Holmes or Barrett—it was not addressed to Mr. Vanderbill—I am not quite certain to whom it was addressed, but I think it was to Mr. Piffard—it disappeared from the slab—I always laid Mr. Vanderbill's letters there.
CHARLES ADRIAN DINYER VANSENEW . I am a lieutenant-colonel in the Army and live at Clarendon Road Notting Hill—Charles Piffard is my brother-in-law—he is a barrister at Calcutta—he was in this country in October, and was staying at 8, Hanover Square—I do not know Mr. Harrison of 114, Harley Street—Mr. Piffard resided nowhere else but in. Hanover Square—he left England on 1st December—the first endorsement on this bill has not the slightest resemblanee to his writing nor has the second endorsement—this endorsement on this order bill "Pay London and Westminster Bank" is Mr. Piffard's genuine writing.
Cross-examined. I thought at first that the two names were in different writing, but now I think they are the same—the second bill of exchange has the same bank number as the other—the Indian Banks only issue two bills of exchange instead of three.
WILLIAM LEAVER . I am butler to Mr. Harrison 114, Harley Street—I know Charles Piffard; he used to go there for his letters—I used to take them out of the letter box; some were" Indian letters and some were English.
HENRY GOULD COLLINS . I am* a cashier in the employ of Sir John Bennett, 65, Cheapside—on 27th October the prisoners came there and purchased two gold watches and a gold chain for 31l. 2s.—they paid me to the best of my recollection with a 20l. note, a 10l. note, and a 5l. note—I gave the change to Holmes and receipted the invoice—I cannot say what became of the notes, but it is our custom to pay into the London and Westminster Bank the monies received every day, and during the preceding evening—Holmes gave his name "Captain Graham, 3, Hill Street, Berkeley Square."
WILLIAM CHARLES MCLEWIN . I am receiving cashier at the London and Westminster Bank—Sir John Bennett keeps an accountthere—on the 28th October a 20l. note, No. 19029, and a 10l. note, No. 69165, were paid in to his account.
Cross-examined. No 5l. note was paid in that day nor any other notes.
WALTER MORRIS . I am shopman to Mr. Sangster, umbrella manufacturer, 75, Cheapside—I remember Barrett and another man coming there and buying two umbrellas, which came to 2l. 9s.—the one whom I cannot—identify paid me a 10l. note—I got change from the cashier and gave the note to him—it would be paid into the London and County Bank next day—we stamp our notes—this 10l. note, No. 69166 has our stamp on it.
Cross-examined. I cannot identify Holmes.
JOHN MARSHALL TROTTER . I am a hosier of 20, Newgate Street—on 26th or 27th October the prisoners came there and bought shirts and other things, which came to 2l. 17s.—Holmes paid me this 10l. note, but it came from Barrett's pocket—Holmes wrote on it "Captain Graham, Hill Street, Berkely Square"—I cannot say that this is the note, but it has got our stamp and that endorsement, so I suppose it must be.
Cross-examined. They took away the things—the officer has shown them to me since.
JAMES HALDEN . I am manager to Mr. Dick, boot maker, of 296, Holborn—about the end of October the prisoners came and purchased three pairs of boots and two pairs of slippers similar to these (produced)—they paid with a 5l. note, which had written on it "Captain Graham, 3, Hill Street"—I paid the note to St. Bartholomew's Hospital—two pairs of boots were for Holmes, one pair for the other man, and a pair of slippers for each.
WILLIAM TOULMAN (Detective Sergeant, Beading). On 25th November, in consequence of a telegram, I found Holmes near his mother's house in Reading—I told him I should arrest him on a charge of forgery in London—he said he knew nothing about it—I took him to the station and found on him this gold watch and chain and twelve shillings—I handed him over to Sergeant King—the next morning I searched his lodging with King and found this white umbrella, two pairs of boots, a pair of slippers and a number of other things.
GEORGE KING . On 26th November I took Barrett at 119, Great Tich-field Street—I told him I was a police-sergeant and wished to know what he had done with the watch he had received from the man named Holmes at the shop of Sir John Bennett—he said that he had not received a watch—I said "You have a watch"—he pulled out his watch, showed it to me, and put it back—I said "That is a gold one"—he said "Yes, but I have had it for years"—I found the watch on him at the station, and I went to his lodging, and received from his wife this gold chain, umbrella, boots, and slippers—I told him he would be charged with another man, not in custody, with stealing a post letter and a bill of Exchange on the Chartered and Mercantile Bank—he said he knew nothing about it—Holmes was given into my custody the next day—I said that he would be charged with others for stealing a post letter containing a Bill of Exchange for 200l. and forging and uttering it and obtaining 200l.—he said he did not commit the forgery; that it could be easily proved that it was not his signature—I asked him if he wished to give any account of where he got the bill from—he said that he received it from a woman named Agnes Graham the day previously and did not know where she was to be found, as she was a gay woman—I searched his lodgings and found this pair of boots and these shirts.
Barrett's Defence. The things were given to me.
HOLMES— GUILTY — Five Years' Penal Servitude.
BARRETT— NOT GUILTY .
113. JAMES BROWNING (40) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] to stealing a box and divers quantities of buttons, the property of the Great Western Railway Company after a previous conviction**— Ten Years Penal Servitude.
MR. BRINDLEY conducted the Prosecution.
December, about 1.30—I met the prisoners and two others in Mile End Road—Robinson came up and struck me on my head and rifled my pockets and took from me a purse containing two pawn tickets—they all ran away but a person stopped them—I followed them and the two prisoners were taken—while I was on the ground I was kicked by one of the men. who got away—I have not seen the purse or the tickets since—my pockets were torn right down the side and my coat covered with mud.
Cross-examined by Robinson. I did not strike you, but you knocked me down by a blow on the side of my head and made me nearly senseless.
GEORGE RIPLEY Policeman K 280). I heard cries and saw Fitch running after four men—the prisoners are two of them—Robinson was the foremost, and he knocked a man down who tried to stop him—I pursued him about half a mile and a man called to somebody to run him down, which he did, and I took him—he said that he did not do it; he was coming from the Oriental—he had mud on his face and on his back.
Cross-examined by Robinson. When I came back I could not find the man who was knocked down.
HENRY MORPHET (Policeman K 243). I heard cries and saw five people running—I followed Davis, took him and asked him why he was crying out—Fitch said that Davis with others had knocked him down and robbed him—his back was covered with mud and his pockets were torn open—Davis said "It was not me, Sir. I was only running because the others were running"—I picked up a bat and said to Robinson "Is this your hat?"—he said "Yes"—I asked him why he threw it away—he said "Well, because it was in my way."
Robinson's Defence. I had come out of the Oriental Theatre—three men came towards me and the prosecutor struck me and knocked me down; I got up and said "What was that for?" he said "I will show you," and tried to hit me again—my hat came off—I did not stop to pick it up but ran harder still—I never hit him.
Davis's Defence. I saw the prosecutor knock Robinson down—I work hard and expect my master, Mr. Cook, to come and give me a character.
MR. DAVIS. My son has worked for Mr. Cook about eight years, but he is very busy—he said that he would send his son here, and his son was here yesterday, but not to-day—I never knew a better boy than the prisoner—he is my only support.
Cross-examined. He has never left home—I do not remember his being away last July—he was away once for about three weeks, not more—he went in bad company and was convicted of stealing falls.
They were both further charged with having been before convicted, Robinson at Clerkenwell, in September 1874, and Davis at Worship Street, in July, 1875, to which they both
ROBINSON— Two Years' Imprisonment.—
DAVIS— Nine Month? Imprisonment.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 12th, 1876.
Before Mr. Justice Mellor.
116. JAN HASEN (37) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to unlawfully exposing a certain male child, aged 12 days, in a public street thereby endangering its health—, Six Months' Imprisonment. He was also charged on the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of the said child , upon which no evidence was offered .
MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution.
GEORGE HUDSON PALMER . I have been called to the Bar, and live at 14, Albert Mansions, Victoria Street—in the year 1867 I was visiting at the house of a lady in St. George's Place—the prisoner was a footman there—about a year afterwards I met him accidentally in Piccadilly—he addressed me and said he had been dismissed from the service of the lady where I had seen him as footman, that he was out of place and in want of money—I gave him something, I cannot remember what-from that time down to 1871 I saw him perhaps three times; I can't say positively, they were accidental meetings—I gave him other monies, altogether perhaps a little over 1l., not as much as 2l.—in 1871 I was living with my mother at Rutland Gate—I was possessed of a gold watch, chain, and latch key—I wore it in my waistcoat pocket, without the chain being attached to my button hole, the watch in one pocket, and the latch key in the other—I can't say what the value of the watch was, I did not purchase it—it was worth more than ten guineas—I recollect walking from Hyde Park Corner towards the Albert Gate in the Park roadway about 11 o'clock one night in the beginning of August, 1871—I was wearing my watch as I have described—I met a soldier in the uniform of the Horse Guards Blue—he was not known to me—he made some remark to me which I answered—I do not remember what the remark was—he was only a minute in my presence—I went straight home to Rutland Gate—I found I had not my latch key with me, and 1 suspected that the watch was gone, and it was not there, the key and chain and watch were gone—I have no positive knowedge when or how they were taken from me, I had not felt them taken—I saw the prisoner two or three days after my loss; it was an accidental meeting—I told him of the loss of my watch, I thought he might be able to recover it, that he might go round to the pawnbrokers and try to recover it—I did not know the number of the watch; I could not tell him the number—I told him to make enquiries about it—I saw him again a day or two after wards—when I first met him I pointed out the man I believed to be the man I had seen that evening, who I believed to have stolen the watch, I meant the soldier—the prisoner told me he thought his name was Dale—when I saw him again he said he had been unable to find the watch at the pawnbrokers—I had described it to him—I told him I was leaving town and he said he would write to me if he heard anything of it—I did get a letter from him—I don't know what has become of it, I suppose I destroyed it—I came up to town and met him by appointment in the street, I think it was in the park—I never saw him in any house from the time I saw him as footman, down to the time when the detective Butcher was at my lodging—on meeting him he told me he thought he would be able to get the watch back for 10l.—I gave him the money and it was arranged that he was to bring the watch to me at a certain place, I think at the South Kensington Station, some time that afternoon—he did not come, I did not see him till nearly a year after, nor hear from him—I then met
him accidentally in Piccadilly—he addressed me, he gave no explanation about the 10l. or the watch, hardly any conversation passed—I can't remember what was said—nothing was said about the watch or the 10l.—he was only a minute or two with me, I went away and went home—I do not remember anything that was said, it is nearly five years ago—I can't be certain when I next saw him, not for many months—I can't remember where it was, it was in the street accidentally—I never had any conversation with him in reference to my 10l. or the recovery of my watch, I always avoided him afterwards—I went to reside at Albert Mansions in April, 1872—I never gave the prisoner my address—in June and July, 1872, I received two letters—I received no letter after that until the one dated 7th December—I have given the prisoner a small sum once or twice since I gave him the 10l., when I met him by accident, and he asked me for money, when he was out of place—I gave him small sums—he had always some story about being out of place, and about getting something out of pawn—the largest sum I have given him on those representations has been perhaps 10s.—I can't say exactly the maximum amount I have given him, perhaps over 2l., less than 3l.—when I say I avoided him after he had the money, I mean I never spoke to him unless he spoke to me, and I only remained in his presence a few minutes—he followed me about—I was not exactly alarmed at him, I endeavoured to get rid of him—I was out of town on 7th December, I returned about the 14th, and found this letter awaiting me at the St. James's Club, but it was directed to Victoria Street—I then consulted my solicitor, and afterwards addressed a letter to the address given, Nutford. Place—Sergeant Butcher was brought to my rooms at an appointed time—the prisoner came to my rooms—I held in my hand the letter I had received, and I said "Did you write this letter?"—he said "Yes"—I then said "Did, you send this letter?"—he said "Yes"—I then said "What do you want?"—he replied "Whatever you like to give me"—I said "Supposing I refuse to give you anything, what will you do then?"—I cannot remember what he said, he gave some vague answer—at that moment Butcher came into the room, he had been in the adjoining room—I had never given the prisoner my address—beyond pointing out the soldier who I supposed to be the person who had accosted me I had never seen or spoken to that person afterwards—I don't remember that the prisoner ever gave me Dale's Christian name. (The letter were read as follows:" 3, Nutford Place, Edgware Road, 7th December, 1875. Sir,—I am sorry to inform you that I am very ill, I hope you will assist me, if not I will write to the Club and tell them the number of your watch, how you lost it, and who took it, and where you lost it. I was speaking to a member of the club last Sunday week when you dined there.")
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I never told you that Tom Dale took my watch when I took him into my house at Rutland Gate—I did not tell you to ask him for it, or say that I did not wish the police to know anything about it—I asked you to write to me if you got any tidings of the watch—you wrote to me in the name of Gray, Tunbridge Wells—you asked me what name you should put, and I said "Put your own name, it will be left at the post-office till called for"—you did not write word that Dale had my watch, and that you could get it back for 25l., you said for 10l.—I answered your letter and came up, and met you by appointment—I did not give you 25l. in Hill Street, in front of the officers' quarters, I gave you 10l.—I don't knew where you went with it, you professed to be able to get
the watch—you did not say you would go to the barracks, nor did you tell me at any time that you had been there—I don't remember your telling me that Dale and another man had given you a hiding and cut your eye open, and that you were not able to come to me at the time—you did not show me that you had got your eye kicked open, I did not see you for a year afterwards—I don't remember you telling me that Dale had left the regiment and gone to America—I don't remember anything of the sort—I did not say to you that if you would meet me at such a time I would give you 20l. to give to him, and that I did not want to see him—I did not give you two 10l. notes in an envelope in the park—I employed you to get my watch because I met you by accident in Knightsbridge by the corner of the park—I did not go to the police because I had only a suspicion that it was lost—I had no positive certainty that it had been taken on that occasion—I had no positive certainty as to who the thief was—when I pointed out the man to you in the park I did not stand and talk with him and ask him about it, I never spoke to him—when I found my latch key gone I rang the bell to get into my house—it was only a suspicion at that time that I had lost my watch, because I had frequently left it at home—when I first met you in Piccadilly I did not speak to you first, you spoke to me, I can't remember what you said, it is nearly eight years ago—I may have asked you why you left your place—you told me you had been wrongfully dismissed, you did not say for what—you did not know my name when you were in Lady M——'s service, I have no recollection of you letting me in and asking "What name."
Prisoner. I never wrote to you and did not know what the contents of the letter was.
Witness. I have no recollection of your telling me about Dale's going to America—I did not appoint to meet you the next day as it was a Bank holiday, and I could not get the money, there was no such thing as a Bank holiday in existence then, in 1872—I did not meet you in Hyde Park the next day between 1 and 2 o'clock and give you two 10l. notes in an envelope, I never gave you two 10l. notes—I never get money from the bank—I never stopped to speak to you unless you addressed me.
Re-examined. He has never said until to day that he did not know the contents of the letter—he did not say before the Magistrate that 1 had told him I had taken Dale into my house in Rutland Gate, he said that I had done so, there is no truth in that—my mother was living there at the time—it is positively untrue that I put two 10l. notes in an envelope for him to give to Dale to go to America—it was in 1871 that I told him to address the letter to me at Tuubridge Wells in the name of Gray—I think it was his suggestion, but I can't be positive—I had no reason for concealing my name—the prisoner said he knew my name—I never said to him that I did not wish the police to know—I have on several occasions forgot to put my watch on, and have left it and the chain and latch key at home, and I could not be certain I had lost it until I got home and found it was not forthcoming.
CHARLES BUTCHER (Detective Sergeant C). I had seen the prisoner before 7th December—on 17th December about 12 o'clock in the day by arrangement I was sent to 4, Albert Mansions, and was placed in a room adjoining that in which Mr. Palmer was—the rooms communicated—shortly after I had been placed there the prisoner came in and spoke to Mr. Palmer—I saw Mr. Palmer, he had this letter in his hand, he said to the prisoner
"Did you write this letter?"—the prisoner said "Yes"—Mr. Palmer then said "Did you send it?"—the prisoner said "Yes"—Mr. Palmer said "What do you want me to give you?"—the prisoner said "Anything you like to give me to assist me to go to America"—Mr. Palmer said "Suppose I don't give you anything"—I then went into the room and said to the prisoner "I am a detective officer, I shall take you into custody for sending this letter to Mr. Palmer with threats"—he said "I did not send it, I can't write"—I said "You just told Mr. Palmer you did send it"—he said "I did not, I can't write, I can't write anything"—I told him he would have to; go to the station on the charge—he asked Mr. Palmer several times not to charge him—Mr. Palmer said it was in the hands of the police now, and he must go to the station, and I took him there—he said there was nothing in the letter about money, it might mean old clothes, or anything Mr. Palmer liked to give him—I found on him these two letters dated 15th and 16th December. These were letters written by Mr. Palmer appointing the prisoner to come to the house on the occasion in question.
EDWARD CLOUGH (Detective Officer). My district is at the West End including Piccadilly and Albert Mansions—I have known the prisoner by sight about ten years—in the year 1875 I saw him on many occasions, sometimes two or three times a week at all hours of the day, morning noon and night, in company with various men and soldiers, in the streets and in public-houses also.
Cross-examined. I have not seen you doing anything, only walking along with different men, they may have been friends of yours; I can't say whether they were or not—I have never known you do anything wrong.
THOMAS BRIDGET . I am house porter at 4, Albert Mansions, Victoria Street, where Mr. Palmer lives; it is let out in five flats or suites of rooms—Mr. Palmer has been living there since 1872—I know the prisoner by sight perfectly well—he came there as near as I can remember at the end of July, 1872; three or four months after Mr. Palmer came there—he rang the front door bell and asked me if there was a tall, dark gentleman lived there—I said there were two or three at the time—he said he did not know his name, but he thought it was Plumley, or some such name, he knew the gentleman perfectly well—I said "You can't see any gentleman unless you can tell me the name"—he said "If you will let me see the board, or tell me the names, I shall be able to tell you the one"—there is a board in the hall with the gentle men's cards in—I said I should do no such thing, as I was not authorised to give any gentleman's name in the house to any one; if they gave the name I should take them up to the gentleman to see them—some time afterwards, it might have been a month, I saw the prisoner hanging about; the streets at various times when I had to go out on messages and the like I then lost sight of him for a time—I saw him again, still in 1875, in the neighbourhood once or twice—there was a gentleman named Plunket living in the house.
The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: " I did not write for money, I never asked for any."
Prisoner. I do not wish to say anything.
MR. JUSTICE MELLOR left it to the Jury to say whether in their opinion the letter was a mere importunate begging letter, or whether it amounted to a threat or menace that if the prosecutor did not give him money he would make some statement or charge to the members of his club that would be prejudicial to him, In the former case, he would be entitled to an acquittal; in the latter, it would
come within the statute Upon which the indictment was framed (25 and 26) Vic, c. 96, sec. 44.)
GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, January 12th, 1876.
Before Mr. Justice Denman.
118. MATILDA EYRE (36), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully giving false information concerning the birth of her child— Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, who stated that the offence was committed to avoid the vaccination of the child.
— Fined 1l.
MR. RIBTON, for the prosecution, stated that as the Grand Jury had ignored the bill for manslaughter he would offer no evidence upon the inquisition.
NOT GUILTY .
PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. CHARLES MATHEWS , for the prisoner, stated that the wound on the child's head, from which it appeared to have died, might have been accidental, and that although the body had been mutilated, it was the surgeon's opinion that that was done after death— Judgment respited.
MR. BRINDLEY conducted the Prosecution.
ROBERT JESSOP (Policeman E 143). On 21st December, about 12.40 a.m., I was in Holborn, near Chancery Lane—a cabman called my attention, and I saw McCarthy on the other side of the way on top of a man who was on his back on the ground—Sullivan had hold of his hands, holding him down—McCarthy had his right hand in the man's left trowsers pocket—Donovan was standing about 6 yards from them—I had seen the three prisoners together several times during the night in Fulwood's Rents, which is nearly opposite—I took hold of McCarthy and threw him on his back, he opened his hand and I heard something like money drop, but I could not find it, because I was shoved about—the man got up and said "You scamps, you have robbed me," and began punching them—I told him not to do that, but to follow up to the station—I had a deal of trouble to hold McCarthy; as soon as I took hold of him Donovan came up and said "You b——, you don't take him, and struck me on the chest—McCarthy went towards Fulwood's Rents, but I stuck to him by the neck handkerchief, and the crowd pushed me along—when we got nearly opposite Fulwood's Rents McCarthy kicked me—a gentleman who stood fry said "I will help you, Bobby"—some gentleman fetched two policemen, 152 E and 104 E—I could not find the man who was robbed, I think he must have been got away by some one; there was 100 people at least there at the close.
Cross-examined by McCarthy. I saw your hand in the man's pocket—you were not trying to get the man up; you dropped some money, and you could not have had it in your hand after taking your hand from his pocket unless you had taken this money from his pocket—I saw your hand actually come out of the pocket—the lamp was not far off.
McCarthy. My hand was under him pulling him up.
Cross-examined by Donovan. The place was very well lighted.
GEORGE WHITLOCK (Policeman E 403). I was with Jessop and saw McCarthy on top of a man who was on the ground, and Sullivan was assisting to hold him down; he had hold of his left hand—I saw Jessop take McCarthy off the man and heard something like money drop from McCarthy's hand on the pavement—I took hold of Sullivan by his right hand and took him off the man who was lying on the ground, who got up and said "You scoundrels" or "scamps, you have robbed me," and struck at the prisoners—I asked him not to do that but to follow us to the station Donovan then came up and tried to rescue McCarthy from Jessop's custody, saying "You b——, you shall not take him to the station"—he afterwards left McCarthy and came and tried to rescue Sullivan from my custody—a very severe struggle ensued in which Sullivan struck me two or three very severe blows in the face, and two gentlemen, who were standing by, assisted me till 152 and 104 E came up and took Donovan in custody, I still having Sullivan, and with the gentlemen's assistance we took them to the station—I was not aware that the man was not following us there—there was a crowd and several persons, several of whom were women, attempting to rescue the prisoners.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. You gave me a great deal of trouble at first, but when I got you out of the crowd you went quietly.
Cross-examined by Donovan. The two gentlemen would not go the station and I do not know who they were—I could not find them afterwards—we were informed by some gentleman who went to the station and gave his name and address that one gentleman was Horace Sidney, of 8, Southampton Buildings—I went there but could not find him there.
JESSE PECKHAM (Policeman E 152). At 12.45 on this morning I was in Holborn and saw a policeman with McCarthy in his custody—Donovan had hold of him pulling him away—I took Donovan—he became very violent and kicked me several times on my legs and struck me several times on my jaws with his fist—No. 104 came to my assistance and we took him to the station—104 is not here; he came up after me—there were about 100 people there.
The prisoners' Statements before the Magistrates. McCarthy gays: "We had been in a public and we had some drink. When we came out we got shoving each other about; one of my mates got knocked down and I was pushed over him. As I got up the first constable said I attempted to rob the man. Eight or nine of us were all larking together ten minutes before the constable came up." Sullivan says: "I was a little the worse for drink. Seeing a mob I went up. The constable shoved me and said he would lock me up. I said I had done nothing. The constable tore my shirt and coat." Donovan says: " We were sky larking altogether. I was a little in front, and turning round I saw three of our mates on the ground and the constables ran across the road, and one of them took me to the station. I told them I had done nothing. At the station I told the Inspector the man on the ground was a friend of ours, but I did not know who it was."
The Prisoners in their defence repeated the above statements and denied any attempt at a robbery.
GUILTY . The indictment further charged Sullivan with a previous conviction in September, 1873, in the name of James Staff , but it appeared that the name of "Sullivan" had been erroneously substituted for McCarthy," who admitted that he ought to have been the person 'charged.
SULLIVAN—NOT GUILTY of the previous conviction.
McCARTHY—Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
SULLIVAN— Seven Years' Penal Servitude
DONOVAN— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. DOUGLAS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. C. MATHEWS defended Reeves.
AGUSTE CAPET PICARD (through an Interpreter). I am a jeweller, and am living at the Globe Hotel, Hatton Garden—on Saturday night, 20th December, I was between Holborn and Oxford Street, where some omni-busses stand, and met the two female prisoners—Sullivan, who speaks a little French, asked me to go home with her, before doing so I went with both women to have a glass, but that was only a momentary affair, just inside the house and out again—we then went to Sullivan's lodging, which is down a turning; I don't know the name of—I went into a house with them, and into a room on the ground floor—both the women went into the room with me, and one of them locked the door, I can't say which—I then took off my clothes upon which one of them extinguished the candle and at that moment three men came in who rushed on me and robbed me of my watch and chain, which were in the left breast pocket of the coat I had taken off, and of a parcel containing jewellery—1 had put my clothes on a chair, and they were thrown down when the three men rushed in, and when I found my clothes there was nothing in them—the room door was unlocked from the outside—the men struck me; I rushed upon them—I see one of them here—I defended myself—they did not strike me, they robbed me of my things, and when I cried "Thief" and "Help" then they struck me.
By THE COURT. I only saw them take my clothes. and throw them on the ground—I defended myself and tried to take the clothes away from them, as much as I could—I went quite near to them and then I halloaed out, and they went out and closed the door and locked me in, and then I broke the door in—my clothes remained inside, and I picked them up right and left—when I went into the room I looked round and took off my coat and under coat, and waistcoat, and that was all—I then went to the bed, and at that moment the candle was extinguished—my clothes were on the other side of the room—as soon as the candle was extinguished I saw the shadow of the men who came in—they went to my clothes and searched them—I was 3 or 4 yards from my clothes when they searched them, they then threw them down and ran away—I did not strike them till they went out, when I ran after them.
By MR. DOUGLAS. Light came in at the window, and also through the door, when the door was opened—the window looks into a court where there was a gas light—I was in the house five minutes before this happened—it was about midnight—I saw my property at the station two or three hours afterwards.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. The women were all round me, but they did not strike me; I could not sec that they took any of my things; it was you who blew the candle out; it did not fall down, it was purposely extinguished.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. The men came in at the same time that the candle was put out—1 was questioned at the police-court by
Reeves, and I said that he was one of the three—I said that I was not certain about another one, but that I was almost sure about this one, and the more I see him the more sure I am—Reeves did not interrogate me, but the Magistrate did—I was about five minutes with the women, and a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes when they locked me in, and I was crying "Police"—the woman who blew the candle out was locked in with me.
CHARLES CHANDLER (Policeman E 121). I was called about 12.30 to 7, Bennett's Buildings, which is no thoroughfare—I heard a disturbance and the landlord who was standing at the top of the court told me something—I know the house, it is a brothel—I went into a room on the left on the ground floor and found Sullivan on the bed, and the prosecutor inside the door with his clothes on—the door was unlocked and open—I could not understand the prosecutor's language so I spoke to Sullivan, and asked her if she knew anything of this affair, and said that I should take her to the station for robbing and being concerned in assaulting the man—she said nothing—I took her to the station and on the way she said that she was innocent and knew nothing about it.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. The prosecutor went with us to the station, and anything between you was said in a language I did not understand; you said at the station that you did not know anything about the property, and he said "You know well enough."
CHARLES TYRRELL (Policeman E 37). I was called to Bennett's Buildings, about 1 o'clock a.m., and went into the front parlour—no one was there—I saw Reeves and Reece in the passage, and asked them if they had heard of a robbery a little time ago of a Frenchman—they said "No"—I said "I shall take you two in custody for being concerned with a person now in custody in robbing a gentleman"—Reece said "I know nothing about it"—Reeves said "I know nothing about the matter, I was drinking with the two girls at the Crown public-house"—I took them to the station; I went afterwards into the opposite room on the same floor which I found was Sullivan's, and found this umbrella between the mattrass and the bed-stead—I searched Reece's room, and found two gold pencil cases in this pocket handkerchief behind the window curtains in Reece's room, and at 9 o'clock next morning I found this pencil case and this pair of gold slipper earrings in the passage where Reeves was standing when I took him in custody—nothing was found on Reeves—the female searcher found some other things—she is not here—I did not see her find them—when Reece was taken she said that was her room.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. The umbrella was hidden between the mattrass and the bed.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. It was 1.45 when I went there the second time—I did not call these pencil cases "keys" before the Magistrate—I do not know what the prosecutor calls them—I found Reece and Reeves in the front passage, not in the front parlour—my deposition was read over to me "the front passage." (The depositions stated "Parlour.") Reeves walked beside me quietly to the station.
Re-examined. I only saw Reeves in the passage.
Reeves' Statement the Magistrate was that he treated the. other two prisoners at a public-house in Oxford Street, but that he was in the court outside the
house until the prosecutor arrived. Sullivan stated: "When the candle went out I do not know who came into the room; I never saw his watch he gave me 3s. and 6d., and she would not stay for that." Reece stated: "I am quite innocent; the prosecutor does not speak the truth; he gave me 6d., for the use of the room."
Sullivan's Defence. Reece lives next door to me and when I met this I man we three went to a public-house. I said to Reece "Do you know of any room," and she said "You can have mine if you like. "I went to her room with the gentleman; he gave me 3s., he had promised me a half-sovereign and I asked him for it as I had to give her half of it; he wanted to get away and took out a penknife; she took up a poker and said "If you touch me with the knife I will strike you with the poker;" she screamed and the men came in and there was an awful noise and the candle was knocked out. They were all scurrying out of the passage and she said "Come along." I was taken to the station and heard that he had been robbed of his watch and chain.
Reece's Defence. What he says is quite false, I am innocent of the charge.
MR. DOUGLAS submitted that there was evidence to constitute a robbery from I the person, the property being under the prosecutor's control, and the evident intention being to deprive him of it, and, therefore, that it was a larceny accompanied by assault and violence. THE COURT, having consulted MR. JUSTICE MELLOR, considered that it was not a case of robbery or of stealing, from the person, although approaching it in spirit, and that therefore it was a question for the Jury of larceny or no larceny.
GUILTY of larceny.
REECE— Twelve Months' Imprisonment each. REEVES— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, January 12th, 1876.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
The Jury in this case being unable to agree, were discharged without giving a verdict.
FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, January 12th, 1876.
126. EBENEZER BOWYER (41), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing two delivery orders relating to goods, value 56l. and 27l. 9s. 8d., the property of Thomas Westwick and others, his masters— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. J. P. GRAIN conducted the Prosecution.
MICHAEL SULLIVAN . I am a seaman—on the night of Boxing-Day I was in Seal's House, Everard Street—Seal is a rule maker—we were sitting out enjoying ourselves when I heard a noise in the street—one of my friends went with me to see what it was—he is not here, he is gone to sea—I saw the prisoner there and another man who is here to-day—I got stabbed in the side by the prisoner—I had nothing in my hand—the prisoner had something in his hand—the policeman has got it—I then went in and was taken to the hospital and examined—I was quite sober—I belonged to the Warspite—1 didn't take any notice of the sort of knife he had in his hand—I saw a knife in his hand.
Prisoner. This man states to-day that he saw a knife in my hand. He stated at the examination that he did not see a knife in my hand.
The deposition being referred to, so stated.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. SIMS conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM WATTS . I live at 44, Castle Street, Long Acre, and am a wheelwright—on the afternoon of December 27th, about 4 o'clock, I was in Hart Street, Covent Garden with my son when I saw the prisoner and another man on the top of a third man, and he asked the other man to hold him down—I distinctly saw him break the chain away from the old man; an old-fashioned silver guard—he then said "Cut it, Bill," or some expression of that kind, to his companion, who ran away—I immediately went up to the prisoner and said "You vagabond! you have been robbing that man"—he said "No I haven't; its all right, isn't it Bill?"—the man who was robbed was going away; slipping away as if he were afraid of anybody looking at him; but to make it appear all right he said "It's all right, isn't it Bill?"—I said "I will not allow you to go"—he went down Long Acre and I followed him—when I said he had been robbing the man he threw his coat back, "You say I have been robbing the man, search me"—I have since seen the prosecutor Buck.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You and the other man were holding him down—that is the only violence I saw you use.
CHARLES WATTS . I am the son of the last witness and was with him in Hart Street on the 27th December—I saw the prisoner and another man on the top of an old man in the middle of the road—the prisoner snatched the chain from the old man and said to the other man, "Cut it, Bill"—my father went up to him and said "You have been robbing that man and you shall not go till a policeman comes"—he said "I have not been robbing that man" and he threw his coat back and threw the chain behind on to a grating. '
MRS. BUCK. The prosecutor is my husband—he is is a lunatic—I identify this chain (produced).
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I said that I had given my husband 10s. on the 27th to get his watch out of pawn.
Prisoner's Defence. The 27th was a Bank holiday and no pawnbroker was open. By trade I am a tin plate worker, but these last few weeks I have been going round to public-houses and giving recitations. On Monday,
the 27th December, I was in the Fountain public-house in Edwin Street, Long Acre. I called for a pint of beer, and as there were some persons in there drinking, I asked the company if they had any objection to my singing them a song. They said "Not the least." I sang a song and gave a recitation, and received 10d. in coppers and some whiskey, and the mad man (the prosecutor) gave me two pieces of broken chain, and he called for a pot of ale. He followed me out and said "Will you have another?" We went to the corner of Long Acre into another public-house. He said "One more pint," and while there a gentleman came up and spoke to Mr. Buck, and then said to me "I will speak to you outside." He said "Do you know who you have got in your company?" I said "No". He said, "That man is mad." I said "You don't mean that?" I showed him the two pieces of chain, and he said "If I were you I should not keep his company. "This man's name I don't know. Mr. Buck left the house and I returned the chain and said "Here is your chain." He pulled me into the middle of the road, and the man that was with me rushed at him and the three ran into the road and the man who tried to get him from me ran away. He (Buck) made another rush at me. I stood in defence, and he then walked away. I was then accused of robbing him of his watch and chain. That is the explanation I have to give.
He also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction for felony, in 1875, at the Bow Street Police Court, and several others were proved against him— Seven Years Penal Servitude.
130. ALFRED MARCHANT (32) , Unlawfully conspiring with divers persons and obtaining, by false pretences, from George Kingham, eighty-five and a half dozen skins of the value of 220l. 19s. with intent to defraud.
MESSRS. BESLET and CRISPE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. F. H. LEWIS the Defence.
WALTER MORGAN . In October last I was in search of a situation, and saw in the newspaper an advertisement, in consequence of which I went to 7, Lambeth Court, where I saw Adrian and Ferdinand Marchant—the name on the door was "Beaumont & Company"—they made out that they were Beaumont & Co.—I was engaged as office boy—I often saw the prisoner there—there was no business going on at all—they spent their time in singing and dancing about the place—the prisoner was not introduced to me—I knew his name as Alfred Marchant—he came there nearly every morning—I recollect the 4th November, when I was there till about 6.45—Ferdinand was there, and Alfred came with a truck with skins; I helped take them in—Ferdinand did not tell me anything about the skins then; he did subsequently, but Alfred was not present—I recollect Mr. Kingham calling on a Saturday; I don't recollect the date—I cannot recollect how long since it is that I saw Ferdinand—I remained in the office a week after he went away—he told me nothing about Kingham, except that he was in a hurry for his money—they spoke in French when not addressing me—I do not know; I assume it was French—Adrian went away a long time before Ferdinand, I think three weeks or a month—the premises were closed after I left—I had no idea they were going, they went suddenly—they rose me a shilling every other week nearly; they were to give me 9s. when they went away and 10s. the next week—I did not get my money—I don't recollect how many weeks I was paid for—there was nobody else there besides; no other clerk and no books.
GEORGE KINGHAM . I carry on business at 285, Old Street, as importer of foreign goods—the prisoner called on my clerk the first week in November—I saw him on the previous Monday, the 1st November—I had seen him before, but had had no transactions with him—I knew him to have beentravelling for a party of the name of Fevrier—he said he knew a person who could buy skins—I did not know prisoner's name—I have it signed in my books as "Marshall"—I had heard him called Marsall—he was about four months in the employ of Fevrier—I told him I would give him samples, and asked the name of the buyer and whether I could see him—he said I could not see him, but he would take the samples and submit them to him—I let him have three dozen skins as samples; the value of them was about 10l.; they have never been returned to me—he mentioned the name of a firm (Underwood), of Birmingham, and spoke of their buyer as Mr. Clarke, and that he was in London—he said he would submit the samples to him and let me know the following day—when he came on the following day he said the price was rather high for some of them, but Mr. Clarke had returned to Birmingham, and he produced a card of "E. Beaumont & Compy."—I had never heard of them before—he spoke of Mr. Clarke, of Birmingham, as being connected with a highly respectable firm importing oil from Italy, and that I should have to do business with them—I said I would rather do business with Underwood; I asked him then how he. knew Underwood—he said he had been in the leather trade in Paris for about twelve years, and that Underwood was a very large buyer of the firm he was connected with in Paris—then he said I could not see Mr. Clarke as he had returned to Birmingham, and he made an appointment for me to see Messrs. Beaumont til; Co. on the following morning and gave me the card produced—I called there the next morning and saw the prisoner and the boy (the last witness), and the prisoner said to me "Mr. Beaumont's partner is not in" I said I would return in about half an hour—I went back again and he came to meet me at the the door and said "Mr. Beaumont's partner is in," and conducted me to a desk and introduced me to a person as Beaumont's partner I had no idea that he was a brother of the prisoner's—he said the goods were considered by the person who had seen them as being inferior and high in price, and would I take a discount off the price—I said I had given the quotations as low as I could make them—I produce a letterpress copy of the invoice prices quoted amounting to 220l. 19s. for eighty-five and a half dozen skins—the prisoner was present—I refused to take off any discount, and said I had agreed to give the person who negotiated the sale a commission of 5 per cent in the presence of the prisoner—he said "Well, in consideration of your giving Mr. Marchant this commission, we will not say anything about the discount and would take them at that price—he called him "Mr. Marchant," and not his brother—I said I had other goods with these, Russia goods and sheep skins for the backs of chairs which would do equally well as morocco, and to break them would be a loss—he said he knew a man who was a very large buyer of these goods and probably he could do with them, and after going into the matter and an approximation of what they would be, consented to take the whole parcel at 220l. 19s., the terms of payment being thirty days—I wanted cash—Underwood was the person referred to as the large buyer whom he spoke of in the presence the prisoner and Ferdinand—I had taken with me a stamped bill for 200l. thinking there would be no difficulty in having the 20l. 19s. in cash—he he said "We cannot afford to do it, all we get out of the transaction
is a commission ourselves"—I said "I would rather have the balance in cash I have brought a stamped bill for 200l.," and he took another 3d. stamp from his pocket-book—the goods were afterwards fetched from my shop in Old Street—the prisoner came and said that the goods were to go that night to Birmingham—I said I was so much occupied I could not attend to it then, but would send them round the following morning—he said "I will go and fetch Messrs. Beaumont's man"—I said I should much prefer having them counted, but he came back with a man and a barrow—he said he bad come for the goods, and I said I should not have time, that it was much too late to send them away, and if the goods were left there I should have them prepared and packed ready to go, he said "No," they had got packing cases of their own, and they would prepare and send them that night—he waited, having the man there, and I asked the man in the presence of the prisoner if he was Messrs. Beaumont's man, and he said he was—I have seen him since—he is the porter of Sambrook Court—the goods were taken away at about 6 o'clock in the evening—I arranged I should call on them the following morning which I did—the prisoner was there and Ferdinand came in after—Ferdinand said in the prisoner's presence that the goods had gone off to Birmingham that morning, and then we had the conversation about the bill—I wanted cash for the 20l. 19s., and a 200l. acceptance"—I produced my stamped bill in blank, and he produced another stamp from his pocket, and another bill for the 20l. 19s. was drawn, and they were accepted by Ferdinaud Marchant, and were handed to me—(produced)—I got no money whatever—they were signed "E. Beaumont & Co."—they came due and I never got a 6d. for them—as to the commission I said to the prisoner "It is customory to give the commission when the goods are paid for, that is my experience"—he said he thought otherwise, and he was going to take a tobacconist's business in the Edgware Road—I was curious enough to ask the man's name, and he said "Johnson," and he said he wanted the money to buy the business, which he had agreed to do for 40l.—I demurred at paying—there were two silk dresses I had of which I believe he had samples—they are not in the ordinary course of my trade, but were taken on a contra account from some person, and he agreed to take them and the balance (2l. 4s. 3d.) in money, which I gave him—I went to Sambrook Court about a week afterwards, when they seemed to be getting on with their business as usual—I did not see any one at first, but ultimately I saw Ferdinand Marchant—my suspicions were then aroused that my goods had been taken from me by fraud—I did not speak to the prisoner about it, though 1 saw him at the time—they wanted to get some more goods from a person in the Hackney Road—I did not speak to Ferdinand in the prisoner's presence—I met him at the entrance of the door and said I must request his address where he slept last night—I then pressed him—he refused to give it to me at first, and I said "If you do not I shall give you into the custody of a police-constable"—he then took out his pocket book and took out two envelopes, one bearing the address of "34, Mount Pleasant, Gray's Inn Lane," and the other "8, Mount Pleasant"—on the following day I applied for a warrant to issue from Old Jewry against the prisoner—I never saw Ferdinand afterwards—I went to the place of business again and found the boy there, who said they had gone away—I have been there since the boy left—I could not get in, it was shut up—when I got the address, was Friday, the 18th November—I have since had occasion to go to Paris where I saw Adrian in charge of the
police—I know Layland—I have never bought goods of him—his traveller Tomliuson called on me the same day that Ferdinand left the office, and I believe the prisoner, viz., 18th November—he brought me samples of skins and quotations, it was an exact copy of my invoice—I afterwards saw the goods and identified them—they were more than the value mentioned in the invoice—I was induced to part with the goods in consequence of a reference which they gave me, a Mr. Purvey, of Bedford Square—the statement to me was that the goods were going to Underwood of Birmingham, and that he had been connected with houses in Paris which I knew—I asked him the name of some of the houses in Paris—one was De La Selle—I should not have parted with the goods but for these statements, and that Beaumont & Co. did exist—I believed the card presented to me was the card of a real firm.
Cross-examined. When the prisoner called on me neither of us said anything about commission of 5 per cent.—it was spoken about after the delivery of the goods, before the bill of exchange, because I mentioned to his brother then that I had to pay him commission, and that I could not take off the discount—the commission was not mentioned except at the conclusion of the sale of the goods in question—I knew he was selling on commission for a tenant of mine, and I assumed there would be a commission, as it was his living—he did not tell me he was to make a profit of the transaction—I knew I was not selling to him—the reference was given to me the day before the goods were delivered—I called on Mr. Purvey in Bedford Square—he has a house there and servants—there is a Mr. Underwood of Birmingham—I believe he is not here, neither is Mr. Clarke.
RICHARD NURSEY ((Detective Officer.) On the 24th November I arrested the prisoner and produced my warrant—I read the warrant to him—he said "My brother had the goods, I did not"—Ferdinand was the brother he spoke of, and his name was mentioned in the warrant—on the way to the station he took something from his pocket—I asked him what he had in his hand, he said "Nothing"—I said "Let me have it"—he said "You must not have it, it is a piece of blank paper; it is an order for some purses from Messrs. Braskier & Company to Mr. Elshacker, Seckford Street"—I found two pocket-books on him and two purses, pawn tickets and news papers; they do not refer to anything in this charge.
Re-examined. I noticed he had a guard with a corkscrew at the end—there were some of Beaumont's cards in his diary.
WILLIAM WARREN . I live at 13, Edwin's Place and ana watchman in Sambrook Court—I have seen the prisoner at No. 7, the place of business—I recollect the 4th November drawing a truck with goods at about 6.30 and the prisoner was in charge of them; about an hour afterwards the prisoner went and fetched a cab and the things were taken away—I did not see him go with the cab but I think one of the Beaumont's went.
CHARLES ALBERT . I am an interpreter—I produce the diary of which you have a correct translation there—this was translated and I looked over it and compared it; it was in French. (Several extracts from the diary were read containing reference to the transaction in question).
DAVID ELSHACHER . I occupy a portion of the house No. 38, Seckford Street, Clerkenwell, the two kitchens—I have been there for five years and manufacture purses—Ferdinand called on me and showed me some samples of skin—I cannot tell exactly the date but a few days before they were sold to Ross—a few days after he came again and I went with him to Mr.
Ross; he told me he had received some leather from France and should like to sell it—I took the samples to Ross'—he would not buy them then but did a few days afterwards—I was present when he bought them—the paper found on the prisoner is an order from a house for goods the prices of which the prisoner had—I cannot tell when, except that it was some time ago.
Cross-examined. I had known Alfred Marchant and his brother-in-law and sister as respectable persons—the prisoner did not call upon me with reference to the skins.
AUGUSTUS ROSS . My place of business is in Northampton Square and I am a manufacturer of fancy leather goods—I know the last witness—he. brought me samples of skin November last, he came alone—it must have been a day or two after that I bought them—he brought me about 80 dozen—he said he was agent for Beaumont & Co., leather merchants in France—immediately after I bought them he brought Mr. Layland to me—I was not satisfied with the leather so I told the agent I would sooner take other leather for them because he showed me samples from other leather—he said "Oh, if they do not suit I have others," and he was to take it back, but one day he came and said he had a customer for my leather and could get me 100l. down and 40l., I subsequently sold the goods to Mr. Layland—when I bought the goods I gave cash 59l. and I wanted to give a bill for 70l. but he would not take it—he said he would take some goods and he took 11l. worth; purses and cigar cases and a cheque for 70l.
THOMAS ALEXANDER LAYLAND . I have seen the prisoner and his brother Ferdinand before and knew them as Beaumonts of Sambrook Court—I have had conversation, I believe, with Ferdinand—he called on me about the 6th November and said he had a manufacturer in Clerkenwell who had bought a lot of skins which were of no use to him and he wanted to resell them for cash and asked me to go to Northampton Square, Clerkenwell—I went to see them and gave 100l. nett—I had the goods removed; they were afterwards produced at the police-court and they are here.
Recommended to mercy on the ground of being the dupe of others— Judgment respited. —
OLD COURT.—Thursday, January 13th, 1876.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
Upon the opening of MR. THORNE COLE for the prosecution, Mr. Besley, on behalf of the prisoner, contended that the indictment could not be sustained. A post-office order was sent from the country to the prisoner in London, to be received by him and applied to a certain purpose; he received the money and did not apply it as desired. He was charged as a bailee of the post-office order; the order was payable to himself; no one but himself had a right to be paid by the post-office order, and the particular coins in which it was paid must have been perfectly indifferent to the sender. The case of " Reg. v. Hassall," 8, Cox, Criminal Cases, 491, was conclusive upon this point. There was no bailment here; it was physically impossible that the prisoner could pay the specific coins handed to the postmaster by the sended of the order, he must pay it with other monies received by him upon the order in London. The order was never to be returned to the sender, it was simply an order from the postmaster in the
country to the postmaster in London, and when that order was obeyed by payment to the payee, all was done that the bailment required. It was not a negotiable instrument, and no action would lie against the postmaster for refusal to pay any other than the payee. Mr. Cole relied upon the case of "Reg. v. Aden," 12, Cox, Criminal Cases, 512, which he contended was precisely on all fours with the present case. That case shewed that there was no necessity for the specific coins being received, if a man had money holding for another, it did not matter what the coins were, he would be liable under the section upon which this indictment was framed, it was a matter for the Jury whether at the time the prisoner cashed the order he intended to appropriate the money, and if so he would be guilty of larceny. The Common* Serjeant: "This indictment consists of two counts, both counts charge the prisoner as a bailee; the first count charges him with stealing the post-office order. Now that was not a bailment to the prisoner, it was sent to him, and he was to cash it. The second count charges him as a bailee with stealing the money. The money never was the money of the sender, the money paid in at the post-office in the country was one thing, the money received in London was another; therefore on both counts the case fails in point of law, and the prisoner must be acquitted."
NOT GUILTY .
MR. THORNE COLE conducted the Prosecution; and Mr. Besley the Defence.
ALBERT MAURICE DIXON . I am a rate collector of 21, Delhi Street, Landport—I am the bother of Frederick Sanders, of Stoke Newington, and during 1872 I had two or it may be three interviews with the defendant in connection with Mr. Sanders' affairs—I advanced to the defendant 10l. 10s. for the purpose of paying a composition to my brother-in-law's creditors and I discounted a bill for 6l. given by the defendant to my brother-in-law—that bill was dishonoured and noted which came to eighteenpence—it was to be paid at the second advance on the Saturday, but it was not—about 20th April, 1875, the defendant gave me the duplicate of a watch, which was pledged for 15l., and I gave him a receipt—I took it out, and I think I paid 15s. for interest—I paid 15 guineas altogether to get it—he did not pay one penny composition to the creditors with the ten guineas, and when I found that out I wrote and threatened him that I should take proceedings for misappropriating the money and I told him so as well—I also wrote this letter. (Read: "F. W. Mophett, Esq. Sir,—I must earnestly request you to send me the amount you agreed to pay after your examination, as you must be aware that money is better to me than the watch and want it pressingly, &c., and I beg you to send me a cheque by Wednesday") I had threatened to summon him for misappropriating the ten guineas and he came to where I live at Stamford Hill and told me he was shortly to be married, and persuaded me not to take proceedings as it would ruin him—he asked me to come next morning, and I did so, and he gave me the ticket of what he said was his late father's watch and worth 50 guineas—I took it out and it was a new watch, worth a little more than half that—the prisoner drew up a receipt for the duplicate—I remember the form of it—it was "35, Moorgate Street, April, 1875" (I won't be certain about the date, but it was about the 20th, within three days either way) "I, A.
M. DIXON, hereby acknowledge that I have this day received from Mr. F. W, Morphett the duplicate of his gold watch and chain as security for the due payment of the sum of 17l."(some odd shillings which I do not know)" and I undertake not to deal with the said duplicate until after the 25th of June next ensuing. A. M. Dixon"—that was made up of the ten guineas for the composition, the dishonoured bill of 6l., which was returned to me, 1s. 6d., the noting of the bill, and as he would not allow me to redeem the watch for two months, he allowed me the pawnbroker's interest, 15s.—that was on blue paper and I rather think it was ruled not quite half a sheet, or it may have been half a sheet—this receipt marked A (produced) is not what I gave to the defendant—there was not one word in the receipt I gave him about Messrs. Edmunds and Company's claim in composition 10l.—it is utterly impossible that this could be my signature, though it staggered me at first—it is very easy to imitate my writing, because I never take my pen off—I positively swear that it is not my signature, and that there was nothing at all about Messrs. Edmunds and Co.'s claim—I was present at Guildhall when this was produced by the defendant.
Cross-examined. The case was before Sir J. C. Lawrence and the charge was in regard to the non-payment of Edmunds' sum of 6l. 17s. 4d.—there was no committal for forgery, but we intimated that we should proceed on that charge here—Sir J. C. Lawrence did not send the case for trial for forgery, but he knew we were going to proceed—it was my own act—three or four years ago Mr. Sanders had the smallpox for about eleven months—I cannot tell you more exactly—that was the cause of our liquidation, because his house had been shut up—there was only one liquidation before the one the prisoner had to deal with—the one the prisoner had to deal with was the one caused by the smallpox—the smallpox did not last through both liquidations—I was a person claiming on a bill of sale on the second liquidation, or rather I claimed nothing; I gave it up in favour of the general creditors—the Registrar in Bankruptcy did not charge me with a fictitious bill of sale to my knowledge—I know that there was an appeal to the Judge, but not on that ground—I have not got the bill of sale, I believe it was torn up, of course it was given up—I gave it up, and then I voted by proxy for the liquidation of my brother-in-law at 1s. in the pound—that was not objected to on the ground that the bill of sale was an entire myth, it was on account of the bungling of our accountant—I do not know that if I had held the bill of sale as a secured creditor I could not vote, I am not up in these things—I do not know whether my bill of sale was to cover every atom of the stock, I know that for years I have been advancing him money—I do not know whether my bill covered all the stock, but I know it was thoroughly genuine, and that it was my own bill—I know that there were months before the matter was discussed, but 1 do not know that it was not till February, 1875, that the liquidation fell through; I have so much to do with my time and I am a long way off—the defendant gave me this receipt at Guildhall for the ten guineas (produced)—I paid the money to him with my own hand at his office—when I pressed the prisoner to pay the ten guineas he wrote and told me that he was bankrupt, that was his answer—I do not know whether I have got the letter, I have not looked for it—I came up to London in April, 1875, and saw him at his place—he did not tell me that he was bankrupt and that as he was holding the composition money and the proceeds of the composition order he would give me security for those amounts—I received this bill, dated January 1, from my brother-in-law—I
got it somewhere between the date of his getting it and it being due, it is impossible for me to say now—it came into my possession, to the best of my belief, some time in February, and I gave cash to my brother-in-law for it—I paid it to a spirit merchant at Southsea, and it was returned to me not many days afterwards—it was brought back directly it was refused; if I look at it I dare say I can tell you(looking at it)—it is a two months' bill on 1st January and would be due on 4th March; I do not think I had it till 5th March; I have held it ever since—I did not come up to London from 5th March till April, and when I came up I did not bring it—the 6l. was part of the bill—I sold the watch and chain in July or August for 15l. and a silver watch—I got the watch in July, I believe—having got the pawn ticket as security for the bill, I did not send Mr. Morphett back the bill; it was only for part of it, and I wanted to see whether he would pay me; he was to have the watch back again—I should have sent back the bill when I got the money; I was only taking additional security—I had my brother-in-law's security as well, but ho was very hard up—I have the bill now—the receipt I have describe 1 did not describe what the 17l. was for—the 15s. interest was not due in April, but it was allowed to me because I was not allowed to take the watch out; that is very simple indeed; your client allowed me the interest in April which the pawnbroker would charge me in the following July—I told Sir J. C. Lawrence that the pounds were seventeen and the shillings I was uncertain of—I said "I gave the defendant a receipt in the following words as far as I recollect—I did not say "I, A. M. Dikon acknowledge as earnest for the payment of 17l. odd, a gold watch and chain, and I hereby undertake not to deal with the security till 24th June next ensuing"—I recollect the pounds very clearly, that was the most important part—I swear that on 27th April I did not sign my name to this paper—I will swear that this "A. M. Dixon" is not my writing—I swore before Sir J. C. Lawrence that if it was my signature the words describing the amount of Edmunds & Co.'s claim for 6l. 17s. 4d. and composition 10l. had been put in afterwards, because the resemblance staggered me—I am not aware that I signed my name standing, Mr. Morphett generally offered me a seat—I will not swear that I did or did not sign it standing—he did not in my presence read "Duplicate of my gold chain, &c, that has been given as security to A. M. Dixon, &c., being an amount paid to me in re Sanders"—he did not write that in my presence—I did not stay five minutes—I wanted to catch my train—this letter is in my writing. (Bead: "November 12, 1875, signed A. M. Dixon to F. W. Morphett, Esq., Delhi Street, Land-port. Dear Sir,—I shall be in London on Wednesday, the 20th instant, and I shall call at your office at 3 p.m. of that day. I will bring all you require and a form I received from the solicitor, as I will fill that up at your office. I shall also bring the money so that all may be paid if possible at once. If I do not hear from you between this day and the 20th I shall conclude that my appointment will suit you.") This other letter is also in ray writing. (Read: "October 21, from A. M. Dixon to F. W. Morpbett. Re sanders. Sir,—Understanding from Mrs. S. that you wish me to send the amount of bills enclosed for settlement I herewith forward cash per post-office order to pay the same, sending the amount less the discount; I shall be in London on the 14th of next month and will call on you at 3 p.m. that day.")—this other letter without date is also in my writing, I wrote it when I found that I had been humbugged about the watch—I think I had taken it out of pawn and found that it was not what I thought. (This was written
in pencil as follows:—"Dear Sir,—I have redeemed the watch, &c, if you want it you must send cash and expenses in three days or it is sold, at the same time I do not think it was your property, it looks like the 10l. one in thenext window.") I had not then found out the cost of it, I am no judge of a watch—I did not turn it into 15l. and another watch, for two months afterwards—I had just got it out when that was written—this letter is my brother-in-law's writing. (Read: "118, Stoke Newington, November 13th, 1875, I herewith send you the statement of account as to Edmunds & Son, and unless that amount is at once forwarded I shall act upon the judge's advice, and at once institute criminal proceedings under the fraudulent bailee act; Edmunds debt and costs, including counsels fees, etc., 10l. 16s., my costs, and solicitors fees, 1l. 10s.; total 12l.16s. This is also an answer to yours just received during the writing of this, your immediate attention to this will oblige, yours, &c, H. T. Sanders.") I knew of that letter being written some time afterwards—I did not go to the police-court and get a summons within two or three days after that letter was written, I was in Portsmouth—I afterwards attended at Guidlhall four times—I never said a word about a blue paper receipt till Mr. Wontner put this receipt into my hands, I was asked "Is that your signature?"—I did not look at the contents, and for a moment it staggered me and I said "It is very much like it, but if it is this has been added to it since, and it is the wrong colour—I mean to swear that I mentioned the blue colour, though Mr. Wontner said in his speech that I did not.
Q. Is it not the fact that nothing was said about the blue paper till your sister-in-law, Mrs. Sanders, was examined? A. I was the first to mention it—when the white paper was shown to me I did not say anything about the colour of the paper, because a paper was handed to me, and I was asked if it was my signature I could not say that it was not until I had read it, and I said "Here is this addition to it, it cannot be, and the colour of the paper I signed was blue," if any paper was put before you and the question was asked "Is that your writing?" you would look at it first; I did not read it through before I said that; I was simply looking at the signature; I did not read it through before I said that the words about Edmunds it Co. were added, but they were close to the signature, and in a different ink; I did read the paper through before it left my hands.
Q. Did you say that if the signature was yours, the words before the signature about composition had been added? A. I said it before, not afterwards, I got stronger afterwards.
Re-examined. Sir J. C. Lawrence was not asked to commit the prisoner for forgery—I was up from Portsmouth four times, which cost me a good deal of money—I understood that if the charge of forgery was gone into I should have to come two or three times again—it was understood that a bill for forgery would be preferred at these sessions—the liquidation under the prisoner's management was a complete humbug, nothing came of it but chaos—the prisoner made the calculation himself in April, about the interest on the watch when I took it out—the date I was to hold it to without taking it out was I believe June 24th.
By THE COURT. In the course of my examination before the Magistrate, this receipt was put into my hands; I thought at first that it was my signature, afterwards I read it carefully—I remembered at that time that the receipt I had given was on blue paper.
Q. How were you assisted then—how was it that it became necessary to
read the words written on the white paper when you knew that what you had signed was on blue paper A. Several letters were put to me—I was asked "Is that your signature?" and I did not notice that this was the receipt when it was given to me, I only looked at my name; it is nothing like a receipt, if you will look at it there are no figures in the corner—I am short sighted and that prevented my seeing that it begins with the word "Received."
EMILY SANDERS . I am the wife of Henry Frederick Sanders, a tailor, of 1, High Street, Stoke Newington—in the latter part of October, 1874, and early in 1875, I called on the defendant at his office in Newgate Street, about business generally—I called a great many times, and on one occasion I think it was in July, I asked him whether he had paid the Messrs. Edmunds, as he had not sent a receipt—he said "I will show you a paper which will prove it," and he showed me half-sheet of blue paper square, about the size of this sheet before me—he had told me that Mr. Edmunds' name was on it, and I asked him to show it to me—I did not read it all down, I merely looked to see if Mr. Edmunds' name was on it, and it was not—Mr. Dixon's name was on it and Mr. Morphett's, but no other—I said "I don't see Mr. Edmunds' name on that paper, will you be kind enough to show it to me?"—and he snatched it out of my hand and threatened to push me out of the office—I noticed "17l." on it and some odd shillings, which I cannot remember—this receipt now produced is not the one, he put into my hands in July—I am certain it is not—I appeared at Guildhall, as one of the witnesses against the defendant when charged with stealing 6l.17s. 4d. from Mr. Dixon—while he was under remand he came to our house about 1 o'clock one day—my husband was then ill, and was upstairs lying down—the bolt of the door was down, and the prisoner kicked the door and said "I must come in," rather rough "Mrs. Sanders"—I said "The door is made for rough people"—he said that he wanted to see my husband particularly; I told him that he could not, for he was ill—he said that he wanted Mr. Sanders to go to Southampton to Mr. Dixon, to arrange about the money—I assured him that he could not see Mr. Sanders, and then he said "I would give you 40l., not to know the colour of the paper."
Cross-examined. I had not been turned out of the place in July, but he threatened to—he did not request me to go, I said that I would go—he got up out of his chair and said that he would turn me out—I do not know that it was in July, but it was the same day that I saw the blue paper—I went there for the receipt for the payment to Edmunds—I do not know that it was a receipt that I saw, I only saw that the two names were on it, and the amount—it was in my shop that he offered me the 40l.—Mrs. Kent who lives with me was behind—she is an independent person—she is not here, she is too old to come—I have no living soul to confirm his offering me 40l., I cannot bring the old lady, and I cannot bring my child who is only seven years of age—I believe this was on the day before I went to the police-court the second time.
Q. Is it not a fact that being a witness before Sir J. C. Lawrence the very day after you swear that the prisoner offered you 40l. to keep back evidence, you did not say one word about it? A. I named it to Mr. Pratt our solicitor—I did not say a word about it to the Magistrate or in Court—I was examined and cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. Wontner on the first examination, but it was very hurried—I was not cross-examined for many quarter-hours on December 3rd, nor for more than.
half an hour on that point—I might have been in the box half an hour on 3rd December, but it was a very short half-hour—I did not say a syllable to Aldenman Lawrence about this man offering me 40l. to conceal evidence, Mr. Pratt is the man that I named it to—I took the County Court summons with me to the prisoner and asked him what I was to do with it—I did not demand the 6l. 17s. 1d. of him—I do not know of my husband writing and demanding the money and the expenses—I did not have the prisoner as a witness at the County Court—I took the summons and showed him, but did not tell him before—I did not know in July that he had handed over security to my brother in respect of Edmunds' amount; I knew he had handed over the duplicate of a watch and chain, but I did not know what for—I did not get the money from my brother for the composition, Mr. Dixon paid it to Mr. Morphett in my presence—I do not know whether my husband employed a solicitor in his liquidation or whether he employed Mr. Earl of Charles Street, Hatton Garden.
Re-examined. The examination on 3rd December at Guildhall was hurried—I answered the questions you put in my examination-in-chief—the old lady at my house is eighty-two years old and my child is seven—the child was there when Morphett called at my house.
By a Juror. I mentioned to my husband that Morphett had called—when Dixon paid Morphett the composition he paid him 10l. 10s. in gold.
Witnesses for (he defence.
CHAFLES GROJEAN RENE L'ENFANT . I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the proceedings in the defendant's bankruptcy—he was made a bankrupt on 12th April—I find here the statement of his accounts filed on 27th April in the usual printed form—I find in Schedule G a description of the property—the heading is "Full statement to nature of property, duplicate of my gold watch and chain pledged at Russell & Co.'s, Fore Street, E.C., for 15l.; that has been given as security to Mr. A. M. Dixon, of 21, Delhi Street, Landport for 16l. 17s. 4d., being an amount paid to me in two sums in re Saunders, a liquidating debtor by the said Dixon in October and November, 1874"—that is in Mr. Morphett's writing—this file has been from that moment in the possession of the authorities of the Bankruptcy Court—there is an affidavit verifying that statement upon oath—I find hero that Sanders is returned as a creditor for 10l.—it reads "Sanders, 118, High Street, Stoke Newington, 10l."—it does not say what for.
Cross-examined. This book has not been under my permanent charge from that time to this—he failed for 2,039l.—the assets were nothing and the book debts nothing.
Re-examined. That statement is initialled by Mr. Austin the clerk to Mr. Murray—I find a subsequent statement of accounts—he was in partnership with some person named Hunter—that is the full amount of the debts of the partnership.
FPEDERICK GEORGE NETHERCLIFT . The letters annexed to the depositions signed and seeming to have been signed by Mr. Dixon have been placed in my hands, and also the paper marked A, the impugned receipt—after careful study of the writing 1 say that the receipt was written by the same hand which wrote the letters—I have not the slightest doubt of it; it is freely written, and it is utterly impossible that it could be forged—I have never met with such a thing in thirty years' experience—I think that the signature was put at the same time as the body, and after the words about
the composition and about Edmunds' debt—the signature is in different ink—the words "Edmunds & Co., composition 10l." is in a different coloured ink; that might arise from dipping the pen more freely in the ink—I do not mean that it came from a different bottle, you might have an inkstand with three different colours—there is nothing inconsistent with a man having put his signature standing.
Cross-examined. I have given evidence at the Old Bailey before and at the New Bailey for thirty years—the case of Davis v. May on 11th December last year was in the Probate Court, "Westminster—they sought in that case to upset a will on the ground that the signature to it was forged—I gave evidence on that occasion from a comparison of that signature with the acknowledged signature of the testator—I swore that it was a forgery and I believe so now—that action was not based upon the evidence of myself and Mr. Chabot, nothing of the kind—I unhesitatingly swear that it was not—litigation began in 1874 and I was not called till 1875—I heard that the Jury stopped the case when they had heard my evidence, but I was not in Court—they did not want to hear the summing up of the Judge—I was not present when a man named Parsons swore that he saw the testator sign it, that was the day before—Sir James Hannen tried the case—if he said that a more reckless charge of forgery he never heard in his life, that was no fault of mine—he said that it was painful to reflect on the enormous expense gone to, because Mr. Chabot and Mr. Netherclift thought their opinion better than the testimony; that was an unjust speech.
Re-examined. The banker's clerk of the testator said that he would not honour the signature—the case was that the man's health was so impaired that it affected his writing, but the doctor said that it had nothing to do with it—it was an ulcer on the leg—he drew several cheques that day, and they were not forthcoming—there is not the slightest analogy between that case and this—I have not the slightest doubt that this is Dixon's signature—I do not form my opinion upon his evidence—I was not there to hear him say that if it was his signature it had been altered.
CHARLES CHABOT . I have had experience in the study of handwriting—I was employed to look at the impugned document, and before I did so 1 warned the prisoner that if I formed an opinion against him I should give evidence against him on his trial—I cautioned him very carefully, and said "I have been before consulted by prisoners and have found against them, and they have had penal servitude, and therefore be careful; I shall not shield you for a moment. I won't be dragged in to shield a man to commit a crime"—he still persisted in submitting the writing to me and said that he was not the least afraid—I went from Mr. Wontner's office to Guildhall, when the document was in the possession of the officer of the Court—I looked at the admitted signature of Dixon, and after a careful,. analysis of document A I said that the "A. M. Dixon "on that was in the same hand that wrote the other—I should like to call attention to a particular point—there is another signature to the depositions and the letter "x" is disjoined from the "o" in Dixon; after forming the "x" the pen has been lifted before forming the "o," but you will find that the up-stroke of the "x" terminates in a little hook—that is a point which would hardly be observed by anybody but an expert—the same hook is in this receipt, but it is done exquisitely—if it had been done by a forger it would have been done more clumsily—I say that in the alleged forgery the up-stroke of the "x" is so beautifully done that none but an expert would
notice it, and it would require a skilful hand to do it—I have made several attempts and could not do it—I think there was another signature on the depositions Mr. Wontner showed me. which I have not here—looking at the signature to the letter marked B, at the first moment one misses the dot of the "i" in "Dixon," but on carefully looking it touches the "c" in "etcetera," and it is a dash obliquely, and when I look at the other signature I notice it there also, that is an indication of a natural hand of the person signing; then I say that the whole of the signature is done with some rapidity, the lines are smooth and clear, and it would be impossible for a person to write with rapidity and make a signature so like, and particularly to execute this minute hook, except by natural handwriting—then again there is the flourish underneath the alleged signature which is precisely like the flourish to the letter—all those reasons render it certain that it was written by the same hand; I do not see the slightest difference—the difference in the receipt is attributable to a fresh dip of the pen—the words "Edmunds and Co." and "Composition 10l." is a different tone, a different tone of ink—it is—not every one who could write it off to the bottom—a person might write down to "2 months" and then blot it, and then write the rest—if you look at the body of the document you will find that the ink differs in colour—in the body of the document the "6l. 17s. 4d" with the "4d." is in regular writing, and it is my opinion that the receipt was written down to "2 months," and then blotted, and then that "Edmunds and Co. 10l." was put in—I suspect that it was not all written at one writing, and then with the same pen the signature was written—from what I see here it is consistent with the whole being written by Mr. Morphett and then signed.
Re-examined. I believe that this was not put in some time afterwards, but that it was done at the same time and not at a very considerable interval—I did not express a different opinion before—I am doubtful whether I have expressed that opinion—a forger generally does try to imitate a signature pretty closely, but I never saw one like this—I have seen some excellent imitations of signatures; I do not know what you call delicate imitations—I have seen very good imitations; but there is always something about them, however well the forms may be imitated, the signatures want spirit—I gave Morphett a caution before the examination at the police-court, before I gave my evidence at Guildhall—I did not say a single word at the police-court about giving him a caution—when I was examined there I was not asked.
By MR. COLE. I was consulted in "Davis v. May," but did not give a definite opinion—Mr. Netherclift and I gave evidence on the same side; that was the side of the people who sought to upset the will.
By MR. BESLEY. It was a trial in which a brother was trying to obtain the cancellation of the probate—eighty signatures and sixty-six initials were produced, and I said that I could not identify the signature of the will with the known signature of the deceased particularly, when a banker's clerk said "I would not have paid a cheque with the same signature as this is to the will, the Judge reproached me for bringing about all the expenses of the trial; but I was not consulted till six mouths afterwards, and I discouraged the parties right through at the time of my giving evidence—without mentioning names, it was a will made by a solicitor, benefiting himself to the amount of 1,000l. and his son also, the deceased's brother being altogether excluded, the same attorney who
made the will and who had the disposal and the management of the property—the first words of the receipt are "Re Sanders"—that is precisely the same coloured ink as that below, which is said to be interpolated—the lines tend upwards; that is a peculiarity of Morphett's writing—the line said to be interpolated also tends upwards, and you know it at two or three yards distance from that 'circumstance—I made my comparison in Morphett's absence that I might express an unfettered opinion to Mr. Wontner.
The Prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. GRIFFITHS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. CROOME the Defence.
ROWLAND GOULD . I am trading under the name of Gould and Company, twine manufacturers of Bull and Mouth Street—the prisoner was in my employ in May last or the beginning of June—his duties were to get orders on commission—he had no authority from me at any time to receive money on my behalf—he was paid nothing in addition to his commission—he left me in June and came to me again in October—he was out of a situation and asked me to let him take some orders for me—I had been lending him money and thought if he could get some orders he might as well, and I did so—he finally ceased to do anything for me on the 13th November—that is the last time I saw him—in the month of November I supplied some goods to Messrs. Whitworth, and that is the invoice (produced)—I know the prisoner's handwriting—I never received that 3l. 2s. from the prisoner and he has never accounted for it in any way—in the month of November I also supplied some goods to Mr. Cooper for 1l. 10s. 3d., allowing for discount—prisoner has never accounted for that—from information I received I afterwards went to see the prisoner with reference to these amounts—he told me, before I had an opportunity of asking him what he had done with the money that he had taken some accounts in the hope of being able to repay me before they were really due; because he took them before they really were due at a greater discount.
Cross-examined. I had not known the prisoner before May last—he was introduced to me by a friend of mine and I allowed him to have some samples—I took him into my employ some few weeks after—we had not been in the habit of frequenting the same tavern—I took him into my employ about the end of May or the beginning of June—he took out my samples marked at a certain price, and if he could get more he was to have half the additional cost—I never called that by the name of "plunder"—he continued in my employ on these terms for four or five weeks; not more—I never authorised him to receive money.
By THE COURT. On one occasion, after he left me to take a situation as traveller in the country, he came up and looked in on me as a friend, and on that particular day one of my City houses always paid, and I asked him to run down to get a cheque which I knew was waiting for me; but he was out of my employ.
By MR. CROOME. I know Mr. Newells, of Belgrave Square—I did not authorise him to go there and receive money—I received a cheque from
him, but he had no authority to receive it—that was in May or June—a previous arrangement altogether—he was prohibited, but I accepted the money when he brought it—I thought I had no alternative—I did not dismiss him for breach of contract, neither did I say if it occurred again I would send him away—I think if these two sums had been brought to me by him I should have received them—I scarcely know what I should have done—I did not say to him when he brought the money from Belgrave Square, that he should not have done it—I continued him in my employ—Kino, of Regent Street, is a customer of mine—he never received a sum of money from Kino, and brought it to me or on my account—I believe Turner, of Forest Gate, was a customer—I never received through the prisoner a sum of 12s. 6d. from him at any time, that I swear—Copping is the gentleman I referred to when the prisoner was not in my employ, and called on me—it was sometime previous to the last engagement, and the amount was 3l. or 4l.
NOT GUILTY .
There was another indictment aganist the prisoner, upon which no evidence was offered.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MEAD the Defence.
CHRISTIANA CURRIE . I assist at the Essex Arms, West Ham—on 16th December, I served the prisoner with a glass of ale, he gave me a florin—I put it in the tester and told him it was bad, and asked him where he took it—he said "At a shop"—I said that he had better take it back, and he left without paying for the beer.
Cross-examined. It was 6.50—he was by himself in the private bar—I saw him in custody next morning and identified him.
HARRIETT MURRAY . My mother keeps the Victoria beerhouse, West Ham, next door to the Essex Arms—on 16th December, about 6.55 I served the prisoner with a glass of ale, he gave me a florin; I gave him a shilling, a sixpence, and 4 1/2d. change and put the florin in the till; there was no other florin there—I gave it to a constable next morning—I saw the prisoner at the station-house, on the 22nd alone—he is the man who gave me the florin; I gave it to the constable.
Cross-examined. I only saw him for a minute in the public-house, but I can swear to him—we were slack that week.
CLARA PERRIN . My father keeps a general shop at 15, Alice Street, Canning Town, which is about ten minutes walk from the Essex Arms—on Thursday night, 16th December, I sold the prisoner some cheese which came to 3d., he gave me a florin; I gave him 1s. 9d. change—there were no florins in the till, only two or three sixpences—I went to the till five minutes afterwards and found the florin was bad; I gave it to the constable who I saw in the street with the prisoner ten minutes afterwards.
Cross-examined. No one else had been in the shop before my mother came down.
ELIZA TODD . I keep a general shop at West Ham—on Thursday evening, 16th December, I was in the street and saw the prisoner just opposite my shop with another young man, I had served five minutes before counting some money; I caught hold of him, but he got away, and then I caught hold of the prisoner's coat, a boy assisted me and threw him down, and he was given in custody—the other man got away. Edward Gorman. On 16th December, I was in Alice Street, about 7
o'clock, and saw the prisoner and another man, they each took a 2s. piece out of their pockets, one went into Mr. Todd's, and the other into Perrins—they both came out, look off their hats to each other and walked across the road and stood there and counted it, and shared it between them—Miss Todd came out and tried to stop them—my mate threw the prisoner down, and he was taken in custody.
THOMAS WINTER (Policeman). On 16th December, a little after 7 o'clock the prisoner was given into my custody, he was detained by Edward Stanford and Gorman—I searched him at the station, and found twentythree separate shillings, three sixpences, and 1s. 9d. in copper—I produce three florins given me by Todd, Perrin, and Murray.
GUILTY — Two Years' Imprisonment.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
135. WILLIAM HENRY STRINGER (18), Pleaded Guilty to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Ellen Walker, and stealing one locket, and other goods, and 7l. in money, having been before convicted— Fifteen Month's Imprisonment.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. POLAND and MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. THORNE COLE the Defence.
WILLIAM HARDING . I live near Bideford—in November last I saw this advertisement in the Western Times newspaper. (Head: "Money! Money! Money! A private capitalist of long standing is desirious of making advances to gentlemen, farmers, tradesmen, and all respectable persons, male or female, in sums of not less than 30l. and not more than 500l., for any term up to ten years, on security of the borrower's own note of hand only, at 6 per cent. Mortgages negotiated at less interest. Strict secrecy in all cases. Applicants should at once state the amount required, for how long, and how they propose to repay; enclosing stamped envelope to Mr. Samuel Burcham, 7, Bath Street, City Road, E.C.") I wrote a letter on 11th November, addressed. to "Samuel Burcham, Esq., 7, Bath Street, City Road"—I made a copy of it, it was "Sir,—Having seen an advertisement in the Western Times I beg to apply to you for the sum of 100l., to be paid in two instalments of. 50l., in November, 1876, and November, 1877; I can give you good references and answer every career in my life." (Notice to produce certain letters was proved to be served on the prisoner in Newgate.) I sent the letter by post, enclosing an envelope addressed to myself, and nest day but one I received this letter, dated 13th November, purporting to come from Samuel Burcham, and asking for 5s. in postage stamps—I wrote back the same day, enclosing 5s. in stamps and posted it myself—on 16th November I received another letter signed "S. Burcham" from the head office, 6, Nile Street East Road, enclosing this draft of a promissory note and a little memorandum marked "private," explaining why the address 6, Nile Street
was given and not Bath Street—I took a copy of the note and sent it back on the 16th to 6, Nile Street, enclosing a P.O. order for 6l. 1s. for the first year's interest—I registered the letter and posted it—I have the receipt of the registration signed by the post-master at Bideford, and this is the P.O. order I sent—the 100l. was promised on the Friday; it did not come—I waited till the next day—I was then suspicious—I spoke to Mr. Major, and on the 20th I wrote again to S. Burcham at 6, Nile Street, telling him that I was disappointed at not receiving the loan as promised and wanting to know the reason—on the 22nd I received a letter dated the 20th signed S. Burcham, telling me he had been defrauded by a borrower at Wrexham, who had disputed his signature and that his agent would wait on me to witness my signature and requesting me to forward two guineas for his expenses—I wrote again, pressing for the money, but not sending the two guineas—I received an answer dated the 24th, pressing me again to send the two guineas or the matter would be closed—I did not reply to that—I then got a letter dated 27th November, telling me that there had been an explosion of gas at 6, Nile Street, and that letter was addressed from Oakley Street, his private residence—all the letters but one were in the same handwriting—I communicated with the police in London for I saw that I was done—I was directed by the police to address a letter to Oakley Street and a duplicate to Nile Street—this is one of them (produced)—at the time I sent the postage stamps and the post-office order for 6l. 1s. I believed there was an office in Bath Street—I believed that the contents of. the letters were true, or else I should not have sent the money—I was induced to part with my stamps and the order to borrow the 100l.—I should not have parted with them if I had not believed the contents of the letters.
Cross-examined. I parted with 6l. 6s. althogether—the 5s. worth of stamps was for the expense of telegraphing to his agent at South Moulton—I had not borrowed money from any society before—I sent the 67. 1s. for the first year's interest—the 100l. was to be sent on the 19th and I communicated with the police on the Wednesday after.
JOHN WILLIS MAJOR . I am an auctioneer and house agent at Bideford—I know Mr. Harding—I saw the advertisement headed "Money" in the the Western Times—I afterwards had some communication with Mr. Harding, and on the 19th I wrote to the address mentioned in the advertisement—I sent that letter by post, inclosing a stamped envelope directed to myself—I applied for a loan of 30l.—I got a reply in my own envelope from "The Private Monetary Auxilium"—I wrote again—I did not send any stamps; I asked for an extension of the loan from 30l. to 60l.—I sent that to the address in Bath Street—I then got this letter, dated November 23rd, from 15, Oakley Street, Westminster Bridge Road, stating that the premises had been destroyed by an explosion of gas—I wrote again and then received this letter, dated 25th November, from 15th Oakley Street; that letter contained a form of promissory note—I did not send it back—I sent nothing, either stamps or order—I wrote a letter at the request of the police addressed to Mr. S. Burcham, Oakley Street.
Cross-examined. I wrote quite unknown to Mr. Harding—finding he did not get the 100l. I wrote to see whether it was a legal transaction or no—my whole and sole purpose was to find out if possible whether my friend had been deceived—I did not want to borrow any money—I wrote about four or five letters altogether.
JAMES WALLIS BUTCHER (Detective Sergeant). On 30th November, about 8.30 a.m.—I went to Oakley Street, Westminster Bridge Road, and watched there—I was in plain clothes—No. 15 is a newspaper shop, kept by Mrs. Brown—I saw the prisoner go to that shop—he spoke to the landlady and left—she made a sign to me and I followed him—I said "Mr. Burcham;" he took no notice, but continued to walk along—I again addressed him, "Mr. Burcham;" he said "That is not my name"—I said "I am a police officer and wish to speak to you about the letters you have been in the habit of receiving at the house you have just left, 15, Oakley Street, in that name"—he said "Stand out of my way, will you?" and struck me—I took him into custody—on the way to the station he said "What are you going to do with me"—I said "I am not at all sure that you will not have to go to Ireland; you are making a pretty good thing out of the poor dupes in different parts of the country"—he said "What do you mean?"—I said. "You know as well as I do, about pretending to lend them money"—he said "It is no use denying it"—I asked him his name and address—he said "John Reed"—after I had written that down he said "No; not John, Samuel"—that he lived at 51, Duke Street, Waterloo Road, and that he was a walking-stick maker—I have been there—it is a private-house—I found a Mr. Liddamore living there, a walking-stick maker—I got these three unopened letters after the prisoner was in custody, one from Oakley Street and two from Nile Street—they were delivered a few minutes after I took him. '
Cross-examined. He had got 15 or 16 yards from the shop when I went up to him—I addressed him as Mr. Burcham—I did not enter into conversation with him in order to worm anything out of him—he asked me a question and I replied to it—I took him to Scotland Yard and searched him—I found nothing on him.
Re-examined. It was when he asked "What are you going to do with me?" that I said "I am not sure you will not have to go to Ireland"—I had a reason for mentioning Ireland.
ANN BROWN . I am the wife of James Brown, living at 15, Oakley, Street, Lambeth, and keep a news shop—I know the prisoner and recollect his coming to my shop, about the 15th November, for a pennyworth of note paper—he also asked if letters might be addressed to him there—I said "Yes," and asked in what name—he said Burcham—I do not know whether he said "S" at the time, but the letters were addressed to "S. Burcham"—a day or two afterwards a letter came addressed to S. Burcham, Esq.—the prisoner called and I gave it to him—he put a 1d. down and said he always gave a 1d. for a letter—he called everyday for about a week or ten days—he had about a dozen letters altogether—I recollect his being taken into custody—until then I received letters for him—one letter was from Bideford, I noticed a second from Exeter, and a third from the country, but I do not know what place—on the 30th November, the day he was taken into custody, he came before the postman who brought one letter afterwards, which I gave to Butcher, and it was marked "W"—the prisoner never said who he was, nor where he lived—he gave no address—he said nothing more than he had three years good character and did not want to throw it away for nothing; I thought he was advertising for a situation—post cards that came were in reference to advertisements.
Cross-examined. I never took any notice of the date he called upon me
—at the police-court I said I could not say to a day or two; I simply handed the letters over—I did not notice very particularly the post marks upon them until the postman drew my attention to it—I have not seen Butcher, the detective, in this case several times—he has never asked me any question—the police spoke to me first about the postmark, and asked if I could recollect what the postmark was—I had no difficulty to refresh my memory.
ANN LACEY . I am the wife of William Lacey, an 1 live at 6, Nile Street, East Road, City Road—it is a tobacconist's and news agent's—I have lived there going on for six years—there is not head office there of a private monetary auxilium—I remember sometime in November, a woman calling upon me and asked if I would take in some letters—she was about thirty years of age—she wrote down the name S. Burcham, on a piece of paper which I have destroyed—she did it at my request—in this name she asked me to receive letters—the first thing that came was a postcard—afterwards the prisoner called and received two letters and a postcard, in the name of S. Burcham—the woman nest came and received a letter and paid 2d. for the four—subsequently two more letters came addressed to S. Burcham, which I gave to the prisoner—all the letters I received with the exception of the postcard I think, bore the postmark, Bideford—I remember a registered letter coming which was delivered to the prisoner in my presence, and that bore the postmark, Bideford—I do not know at all where the prisoner lived—on one occasion I told him two gentlemen had called for him, and he said "No matter"—I know nothing more of him except receiving the letters—I know nothing of any loan office, or any explosion of gas at any place.
Cross-examined. I did not notice particularly the woman that came—she was very shabbily dressed—she called twice altogether; I do not recollect the date that she called first—it was about a week or ten days in November, I was not asked by the police about the postmarks on the letters; I noticed them myself—I have often taken letters in for a gentleman before.
JOHN GLADWIN . I live at 7, Bath Street, City Road—it is a coffee house, not a private monetary auxilium—I know nothing whatever of the prisoner—I have been in the habit of taking in letters there in the name of S. Burcham—I commenced about three months ago to do so—about a dozen came altogether, and were all given up to the person who called from time to time—I only knew the person who called as a customer—he was different altogether to the prisoner—he was about forty.
Cross-examined. He had the appearance of a gentlemen and looked respectable—he was the only person who called at my place and he looked an intelligent sort of man—I often take letters in at my place for customers.
GUILTY — Five Years' Penal Servitude.
MESSRS. POLAND and MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MR. DALTON conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WARNER SLEIGH defended
HEXBY GILES . I am a waiter and live at 44, Falmouth Road, Borough—on the night of the 15th December last I was in the Borough Road with a friend and we saw the female prisoners standing at the corner with other females—my friend had had a little drop to drink, I was perfectly sober—the females were trying to decoy my friend away, I got him round the corner, and he being a little in liquor I could not get him away—after we had got round the corner of Kell Street they tried to push him into a door way, and Hogan struck me in the face and cut my cheek, and all four got hold of me, and took my watch and chain and picked my pockets of everything I had—I stopped at the door and called "Police!" and a constable came up and I said "I have been robbed in this passage"—he said "Do you know the persons?"—I said "Yes," and gave a description of them, and he went into the house—they would not admit him till he threatened to break the door in, and he then found Hogan lying under some old clothes in a back room conceded!—my watch was a silver geneva—I have not seen it since.
Cross-examined. I was positive of the transaction at the police-court—I did not say two of the women had hold of me, but three—I didn't say that I thought—I think two of the women had hold of me while the man snatched the watch from my pocket—I said the same at the police-court about the man being concealed under the clothes in the room—I heard my deposition read over and signed it—I was only a few minutes in the house—it was about ten minutes after my friend went down Kell Street that they were taken into custody—I swear it was not half an hour—I had nothing to drink in the house—I don't know whether my friend did, I did not know whether my friend was in the house or not—he is not here—he did not see anything of the robbery—I did not wish him to go into the police-station on the night they were given into custody—he was not prevented—he was not shut out or turned out—I don't know that he said outside that the man had got nothing to do with it—I was inside—I heard the prisoner make a statement at the police-court—I did not hear him say" The prosecutor came and said I had taken his watch—I knew nothing, more about it then a new born babe—he had a friend outside the station who said "I knew nothing about it"—I would not swear he did or did not say that I went up into the room with the policeman where Hogan was there was no bed there—it was about 1 o'clock in the morning—I don't think he was asleep—he had not his eyes shut—I never saw him till the policeman went up to him when he awoke, he was up at once—whether he was asleep or not I don't know—the robbery of the watch took place in the passage—there was light from the street and light from the room—I should not have gone round there at all, except to try and get my friend—he is a big man.
Re-examined. There was light from the door and from the room by which I could recognise the man's features. Clarke Your friend went upstairs with a young woman and the policeman knocked at the door and I went down and opened the street door, and you and the policeman stood at the floor till your friend and the young woman came downstairs, and as she came down you said "That is the woman who had my watch." Lamb. I was in the back room and had half a gallon of beer and we were drinking—I don't know anything about it.
cries of "Police!" and "Help!" in Kell Street, and I went down there—I saw Giles standing there with his face covered with blood and asked him what was the matter—the prisoner was inside the house—I went in and saw Clarke in the passage and Lamb in the backyard and found the man concealed under some old sacking and bed clothes in the back room—there was no bed there—it was a round heap and he was lying coiled up awake, not in a sleeping position—I saw the prosecutor's friend afterwards—he was the worse for drink—Hogan said he didn't have the watch, and the prosecutor said in his presence he had robbed him of his watch while two women held him—I found these pieces of chain attached to the prosecutor's waistcoat (produced)—I have not found the watch or remains of the chain.
Cross-examined. The prosecutor was quite sober, he knew what he was about—he said he had had a glass—he said he had lost about 10s.—I said at the police-court that prosecutor said he had lost his money, but did not know how much—his friend was not turned out of the station—he went away—I am sure he was not pressed to go away—I have not made enquiries about Hogan—we usually do when we have a case—I never knew where he worked—I heard his mother give her evidence at the police-court as to his character and say he was a carman—she said he is a hardworking chap and never sleeps away from home, and you can refer to Mr. Heeseman, the man he has been working for for many years—I knew he had not been working there for the last nine months because I have seen him loitering about—the prosecutor pointed out these two women and the others he could not—Lamb was in the back yard, in the w.c.
Hogan's statement before the Magistrate. Read: "I was going along and met my sister, and I went into her room and drank several glasses of beer with others. They all went out and left me in the room by myself. There was a bed in a corner of the room and I lay down and fell asleep and was awoke when the prosecutor said I had taken his watch. I know no more about it than a new-born babe. He had a friend who came to say I knew nothing about the matter and he was not allowed to come in."
NOT GUILTY .
MR. SAFFORD conducted the Prosecution; and
MR. WARNER SLEIGH the Defence.
CHARLES LOUCH . I keep a coffee-house at 7, Duke Street, London Bridge—on the 29th December the prisoner came and had a bed which was the next room to the prosecutrix—about 8 o'clock next morning the prisoner came downstairs and I took her money for the bed—she said she was going to the station to meet some one and would be back to breakfast and I saw her again in the evening—she seemed to be right as to sobriety.
Cross-examined. She had not slept at my house before that I know of—I had not seen her before the morning she gave me the money for the bed, but I believe she had some months before slept there—I did not see her the night before—there is no one else here from my house—the rooms were on the same floor—there are three—she had a shawl on when she went out in the morning—she came back in about an hour's time—I don't know whether she had been wearing a seal-skin jacket.
me on the 30th of last month at about 8.30 in the morning for 5s. by the prisoner in the name of Mary Thomas.
Cross-examined. It is worth half a sovereign.
CAROLINE TERRY . I am the wife of John Terry, of Portsmouth—I had a room in Mr. Louch's coffee-house, London Bridge, on the night of the 29th December—I did not know the prisoner's room—that is my sealskin jacket—I last saw it on the morning of the 28th—I missed it on the moming of the 30th—I next saw it at the pawnbroker's.
Cross-examined. I took her at the coffee-shop in Duke Street, where the jacket was taken from—I told her I should take into custody and she made no reply—she was drunk.
Prisoner's Defence. When I went to bed on Wednesday night (the 29th) I was very tipsy indeed and I woke up in the middle of the night and found myself uncovered, with half a bottle of brandy by my side, and 1 crept out of bed and put on a jacket, thinking it was my own—I have one like it, only a better one—I went to bed again until 7 o'clock in the morning, when I came downstairs and paid for my bed, and I had my jacket on—I went over to London Bridge station to meet a friend, but didn't do so, and I went up to Mr. Amhurst's and pawned the jacket for 55.—I went back and the landlady and myself began drinking brandy and I felt very poorly, and she gave me something which she said was to do my rheumatism good—I stayed there half an hour after that and then went away—about 4 o'clock I came to my senses again and went back to the coffee-house to go to bed and took a bed there till the Monday following—the landlady said something about a jacket having been stolen, and just as we were talking the two officers came in and would not allow me to say anything, but dragged me off to the station—I was very ill going up the Borough and begged the officers to allow me to have something, and they took me into a chemist's shop, and they gave me something.
GEORGE UPSON (re-called). At the time I went there the prisoner was locked into into the w.c, and the landlady had the key—on the way to the station, going along Blackman Street, she complained of a choking sensation in her throat and asked me to go into a chemist's shop and she had a pennyworth of something—she had two parcels at the house.
WILLIAM LIPSCOMBE PLEADED GUILTY to stealing one of the three coats.
JAMES MIDDLETON (Policeman R 344). On Saturday evening, December 18th—I was employed to watch the prosecutor's shop—I was in plain clothes—I saw Lipscombe, Welsh, and Brown in company with another man loitering outside the shop for something like half an hour—I saw Welsh take a coat from the prosecutor's shop outside, and I saw Brown covering
Welsh while he took his coat—they ran off and I followed Lipscombe and caught him—he dropped the coat and ran some distance—I took him into custody—I put myself in communication with the M Division and afterwards saw Welsh in the Borough police-station, and I identified him as one I saw take a coat—some time afterwards Brown was brought to the Rotherhithe police-station and I identified him—I am positive of the prisoners' identity.
Welsh. I was not there at all. I had been to the Commercial Docks looking for work. Brown. I had nothing to do with it. I didn't know these boys till they were brought up at the police-court. I was not there.
RICHARD STEPHENS (Policeman M 66). On 20th December, I apprehended Welsh, in Blackman Street, Borough—I charged him with being concerned, with another in custody, in stealing a coat in Rotherhithe—he said "Stephens, you have made a mistake this time, I know nothing about"—on 27th, I apprehend Brown, and charged him in the same manner, and he said I had made a mistake.
FREDERICK DOBBY . I am a general salesman, and live in Rotherhithe—on 16th December, I placed outside my shop a quantity of coats—on missing some I gave information at the police-station—on Saturday night, the 18th December, I lost some more—these coats (produced) are my property, and the ones I lost on the 18th.
HENRY JOSEPH . 'I am assistant to Mr. Gilson Reeve, pawnbroker, of 190, Union Street, Southwark—I produce one of the coats belonging to prosecutor, which was pawned with me by Peckham, on the 18th December.
GEORGE UPSON (Detective Officer if 100). I was in the Southwark Road—on 18th December, and took Peckham into custody—I charged her with receiving two coats, knowing them to have been stolen—she asked me to go to her house and accompanied her to 33, Orange Street, the first floor, where I saw Anthony—when we got up she said "What coats?"—I said "The coats pledged at the pawnbrokers," and then Peckham said to Anthony "Here, they are come about those coats"—she said "You pledged the coats"—two chaps came up in our room and asked us to pledge the coats, and I said "No, I don't like to pledge them, and I referred them to Peckham, and Mrs. Peckham pledged the coats, and I went with her—we went to Union Street and pledged one coat, and then from there to Mr. Blizard's, in High Street, Borough, and pledged the other coat—Peckham said "I should not have pledged the coats, but they told me they would pay me well for pledging them, and I had 1s. for my trouble, and Anthony 11d. for her trouble."
Peckham's Defence. I was sitting at needlework, and they said they would give me 6d. if I would take a coat across the road; he put down 6d. first, and then took it up and gave me 1s.
ANTHONY— NOT GUILTY . A former conviction was proved against Welsh and Brown— Judgment respited.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
DENNIS MLHAM . I keep a coffee stall in the Dover Road—on 4th December, between 2 and 3 a.m.—I served the prisoner with a cup of coffee—he gave me a bad shilling—I said "Have you got nothing better than
this?"—he said "Let me have it back"—I said "No"—he was very quarrelsome, and I called a constable to take him to the station and take his name and address—he afterwards came to my stall and thanked me for not charging him—I gave the shilling to Turner.
JOHN TURNER (Policeman M 177). I took the prisoner at Mehaux's stall, who said that if I could find any bad money on him he would charge him—I searched him at the station, but found only 2s. 8d. in good money—he gave his name Mark Morris, Levy's lodging-house, Mint Street, and was allowed to go.
EDWIN YATES . I am landlord of the Manchester Arms, Walworth—on 13th December, between 5 and 6 o'clock—I served the prisoner with a glass of ale, he gave me a shilling; I gave him the change and while I had it in my hand I found it was bad—he was just outside the door: I followed him and said "I want you"—I took him into the taproom, and gave him in custody—the shilling was marked in my presence—the prisoner was taken to Lambeth police-court, on the 22nd and discharged, that being the only case against him.
EDWIN ALLWAY (Policeman). I took the prisoner, and received this shilling from Yates—he was remanded and afterwards discharged—I am sure he is the man—I found on him 1*., two florins and a 6d. good money.
HENRY GEORGE BARROW . I keep the Fox and Hounds, Little Guildford Street—on 1st January I served the prisoner with 1 1/2d. of rum—he gave me a florin, I told him it was bad, and that I should detain him and the florin, and that if it corresponded with the one which was among my takings on Wednesday last, I should lock him up—they did correspond and I gave him in custody with the florin.
Prisoner's Defence. On 3rd December I changed a florin at a coffee stall and got the first shilling in change. I got the other coin by selling a silk handkerchief. I had no intention to defraud.
** GUILTY .
The prisoner stated that since his last conviction he had had an excellent situation as entering clerk at a ginger beer manufactory, but had been discharged in consequence of a communication made by Detective Gilby to his master.
MR. POLAND withdrew from the Prosecution.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
ALICE BRIDGEN . I live at a coffee-house in Rodney Row, Walworth—on 14th December I served the prisoner, he gave me a bad florin—I gave it to my master, Mr. Perry, and asked the prisoner to wait while I got change—he said "All right, never mind, here is 2d.," and snatched the florin from my hand giving me 2d.—I had bitten it—I am sure it was bad—I saw him again at the Masons' Arms on the 17th, he had a ring on with a white stone in it which I had noticed on the 14th, the police have since shown it to me.
bad florin on a Tuesday in the kitchen, and I gave it back to her—I did not see the prisoner.
ELIZABETH RUSSELL . I am barmaid to Mr. Mapleson, of the Lord Camden at Walworth—on 16th December about 6 p.m. I served the prisoner and another man with 2d. worth of whiskey and 2d. worth of rum—the man not in custody gave me a florin, I bent it and showed it to my mistress, who spoke to them and after a little talking the florin was given back to the man—I noticed a pale gold or a silver ring with a white stone in it on one of the prisoner's fingers, which has since been shown to me by the police—I saw the prisoner again three weeks afterwards, he is the man.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I have said that I was not certain you were the man, but I did not say you were not.
SARAH ELIZABETH MAPLES . The last witness showed me a bad florin—I went to the bar and saw two men there, the prisoner was one of them—I said "This a bad one"—the prisoner said to the other man "You have taken that at the Nelson, we will go and see about it, and if they don't change it we will lock them up"—I gave it back to the other man, and they left—the prisoner wore a ring with a white stone in it—I have been shown a ring like it since—I saw the prisoner again the same night.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I said at first that you were not the man, and then I said "Have you a ring on?."—you put your hand forward, and there was no ring on it—I believe this (produced) to be the ring you wore.
FREDERICK JENKINS . I keep a cigar shop in the New Kent Road—on 1 6th December between 5 and 6 o'clock the prisoner and another man came in—I stood close to my wife and heard the other man ask for two penny smokes, he tendered her a florin, and she said to me "Fred, is this good?"—I looked at it, found it was bad, went round the counter, and said "I shall have the police for you gentlemen, you are coming it too hot for me"—one said "Never mind, give him the 2d."—they ran out and I ran after them—a policeman came and I gave him the florin—this is it (produced).
Prisoner. I was never in your shop in my life.
WILLIAM PARTINGTON . I am now a soldier, I was barman at the Masona' Arms—on 16th December I served two little girls with half an ounce of tobacco, they gave me a florin—I showed it to my master who went out at another door—I jumped over the counter and caught the prisoner who had been looking through the window—the girls identified him and one of them said "You are the man who gave me the florin to come in for the tobacco"—I do not think he made any answer—the prisoner was taken in custody—the girls were frightened and went away—I have not been able to find them.
Cross-examined by (he Prisoner. You were running down the street and you said "I am not the right man."
CHARLES WIGMORE . I keep the Masons' Arms—on 16th December ray barman showed me a bad florin—I went out and saw the prisoner running away—we went after him and brought him back—he came back quietly—I said to the girls "Is this the man who sent you in with the 2s. piece?"—they said "Yes"—the prisoner and I had a desperate struggle and he bit my arm, but I kept him and gave him in charge with the florin.
WILLIAM BROWN (Policeman). I took the prisoner and found on him several good coins—he was wearing this mock ring with a white stone—I did not take it from him; ho was allowed to go into the cell with it—when he was brought out to be identified ho was not wearing the ring—I sent
to search for it and it was found in my presence in a water-closet connected with his cell.
Prisoner's Defence. Two barmen ran out and caught hold of me. I asked what it was for, they said for sending a girl in with a florin. They took me back, but the girls did not know me. I have been getting an honest living all the summer.
GUILTY . He was further charged with a former conviction of larceny from the person in 1873, having then been previously convicted, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY— Two Years' Imprisonment.
MR. POLAND conducted Prosecution; and MR. A. METCALFE the Defence.
RICHARD CHAPMAN . I am barman to Mr. Nash, of the Blackfriars Road—on December 8th, between 7 and 8 o'clock, I served the prisoner with half a pint of beer—he gave me a bad shilling—he asked me to give it back to him—I refused and took it to my employer, who came and asked him if he had any more—he said that he took it in the morning; he did not know where—he was taken in custody with the shilling and was remanded at Southwark police-court till the 15th and then discharged—he gave his name, William Smith.
Cross-examined. I told him it was bad—I did not go round to the prisoner's side of the bar; prisoner remained there till he was given into custody.
WILLIAM CLEMENTS (Policeman). The prisoner was given into my custody on 8th December with this shilling—he gave his name William Smith—I found nothing on him—he said that he was a dock labourer—he was remanded and then discharged.
Cross-examined. He was remanded for me to make enquiries, and then he was discharged.
THOMAS BBDNSDEN . I am barman at the King's Head, Newington Cause-way—on the morning of 22nd December, about 10 o'clock, I served the prisoner with half a pint of ale, he gave me a shilling—I bent it with my teeth, told him it was bad, and jumped over the counter—he ran away, I ran after him, brought him back, and gave him in charge with the shilling—he had run from 100 to 120 yards.
Cross-examined. I told him I should send for the police and he asked me not to lock him up—I have seen his face there before.
GUILTY — Two Years' Imprisonment.
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution; and
MR. METCALFE defended Treadaway.
RICHARD EDMUNDS . I live at the Moulder's Arms, Red Cross Street, Borough, and assist the landlord—on 18th December I served Williams with a screw of tobacco—he gave me 1s. and I gave him 11d. change and put the la. in the till; being rather busy I did not notice it—after he had got a light he left—I put no other shilling in the till before I went to tea—Mr. Maple then relieved me and he shortly afterwards brought me a bad shilling, I broke it and the pieces were afterwards put on the mantlepiece
and on 23rd December they were given to the policeman—there was no other shilling in the till only four or five sixpences—on 23rd December Mr. Maple called me and I saw Treadaway leaving the bar—I followed him, he turned into Southwark Street and went sharp to the left—Williams was standing 10 or 12 yards off and whistled—I spoke to a man named Pledge who followed Williams and I followed Treadaway, stopped him and gave him in custody—Williams was brought back and they were taken to the Masons' Anns—Treadaway said that he had never been in the house before.
Cross-examined. I told Pledge to keep his eye on Williams—the prisoners were both in front of us and Pledge was on one side of the way and I on the other—they both went the same way but they were never together—I had not seen Treadaway before but I had seen Williams.
ILLIDGE MAPLE . I keep the Moulder's Arms—on 18th December Edmunds was serving and I relieved him and took charge of the till—there was only one shilling there, and I found that that was bad—I showed it to Edmunds, broke it in his presence, and gave the pieces to a constable—on 23rd December I saw Treadaway at my place—I did not see my wife serve him, but he went out and Edmunds and Pledge followed him—the prisoners were both brought back, and I charged Treadaway with passing a bad shilling; he said that he had never been in the house before—my brother charged Williams with passing a bad shilling on the Saturday previous; he said that he had never been in the house.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. RAM conducted the Prosecution.
GEORGE CLEMENTS (Policeman M E 4). On 27th December, about 12 o'clock I saw the prosecutor standing against the shutters of a shop in Black-more Street the worse for drink—the prisoner went up to him and put his hand in his pocket, but I could not see whether he took anything out—he afterwards took him by the collar, pulled him from the shutters, took him by the legs, butted him in the chest, and threw him on the pavement insensible—I ran after the prisoner and brought him back to where the prosecutor was lying and told him I should charge him with attempting to rob him—he became very violent and began kicking—he kicked me and I had to send for two other constables, and before we could get him to the station he struck one of them in the eye and bit a finger of the other.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I caught you 40 yards off, but I was only 6 yards from you when you put your hand in the man's pocket—I was standing in the shade of a lamp.
EDWARD PHILLIPS . I live at Wood's lodging-house and am a labourer—I was not quite sober on this Sunday night at 11.30, but I remember two chaps picking me up, and one shoved me against the shutters and felt in my pockets—I holloaed "police," and then received a blow in the face—I missed 3s. 8d. from my pocket and a purse, which I have not seen since. George Stephens. I live at 34, Bermondsey Square—I saw the prisoner take the prosecutor against the shutters, unbutton his coat, and turn him round and give him a blow which knocked him down, and he lay as if he was dead—I saw the constable take the prisoner—he was so violent that I had to get more constables to get him to the station.
By THE COURT. I was 7 or 8 yards off, or it may be 9—I did not stand and look on, but it was all done so quick—we done it as quick as we could.
Prisoner. I tell you how it was I struck him. They had my arms behind me and were kicking my heels, and he struck me on my mouth and knocked a bit of a tooth out.
COURT. Q. How could he hit you in the mouth if his hands were held behind? A. I caught hold of him with my left hand; he struck me on the mouth, I caught hold of him, and he struck me again; I looked for the purse, but could not find it.
Prisoner's Defence. I was walking home down Mint Street, and ran up against him and he lay down,' the policeman said "You must go with mo." I said "What for, I have done nothing," and he punched me in the jaw; I burst out crying, and another constable came and held my hands behind me and kicked my heels, 1s. 6d. was all the money I had on me.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. GREENWOOD conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN JACOB KLUMPT . I keep the Rose public-house—on 28th December, I was passing from the bar parlour to the private parlour and saw the prisoner about six steps up the stairs—I said "What are you doing up stairs?"—he said "Nothing"—I said "You have been robbing me, I believe," and I caught hold of him and shook him—I took him into the bar and he dropped some of the stolen goods; I cannot say which—I called a policeman and gave him in custody—he begged me to forgive him on account of his wife and family.
MARY KLUMPT . I am the wife of the last witness—this linen was safe at 10 o'clock, in my bedroom, on the first floor—the prisoner dropped a table cloth downstairs, and saw the rest in the possession of the police, a counterpane was afterwards brought back.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I saw no one with you.
THOMAS FOWLER (Policeman). I took the prisoner—he said that his wife had brought them to him and given them to him at the foot of the stairs—he had been drinking but was not drunk—I found some of the articles round his waist and down the legs of his trousers.
Prisoner's Defence. I asked the inspector if I mentioned my wife's name and he said "No." A woman asked me to fetch the things, and said that they were on the fourth stair up. I put them in my trowsers; I had them unlawfully in my possession, but I did not steal them. I was drunk.
PLEADED GUILTY**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
148. THOMAS PRICE (27), PLEADED GUILTY to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Charles Cox and stealing therein six forks, six spoons, one box of sardines, and other articles of William James Stamp, after a previous conviction at this Court in the name of Thomas Carter in November, 1869— Judgment respited.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, JANUARY 31ST, 1876.