CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OWDEN, MAYOR. SIXTH 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, April 8th, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. STRAIGHT and GILL conducted the Prosecution; MR. SERJEANT PARRY with MR. BESLEY appeared for Johnson; MR. HARRIS for Harrison; and MR. BRINDLEY for Burton.
EDMUND GEORGE FRANCIS . I am manager and shareholder in the works of the Mambré Saccharine Company—I produce the certificate of registration—we are manufacturers of malt saccharine—we have a wharf in the Fulham Road, on the River Thames—we have been in the habit for some time past of buying coals from the prisoner Johnson—with reference to the purchase of those coals I have had interviews with Burton—the coals bought from Johnson were delivered at our wharf in his barges—we were to be supplied by him with coal from the Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company—before a barge load of coals was delivered to us we should receive an advice note from Johnson stating the quantity—latterly I desired that the numbers of the trucks should be stated on the back of the advice note, and the width of each truck—that would be towards the end of December—Harrison was in our employment—it was part of his duty on the wharf to count the number of skips that were taken from the barges—sometimes three, and sometimes two skips are unloaded at a time—each skip weighs 7 1/2 cwt.—it would be Harrison's duty to give in to me the number of skips delivered—he would have no means of knowing from me the quantity that a barge would contain—he always reported to me the number of skips from the barge—I compared the number of skips with the quantity of coal in the advice note—I found that the number of skips he returned corresponded with the quantity of coal advised by Johnson—I always found they agreed with the quantity advised by Johnson—I sometimes found them over weight—I never found that Harrison's weights were less than Johnson's—early in January when I was making up my books I found that the coal account was rather heavy, that the coal was going very fast—in consequence of that
I employed Ryan to check Harrison's quantities—on 5th Jan. I received an advice note from Johnson—they generally came by post—I don't know in whose handwriting they were—I took them to be Burton's—this (marked A) seems to me like Burton's writing. (This was dated Jan. 3rd, 1378, from Johnson, and advised 54 tons 7 cwt. of Welsh coal ex barge Henry.) On the back of the invoice the numbers of the trucks are given—Harrison as usual counted the number of skips by the Henry, and returned them as 145 1/2—he made the return verbally—that would amount to 54 tons 7 cwt.—the last three skips were actually weighed, they averaged about 7 3/4 cwt.—Harrison weighed them—as a rule I was not present—I had instructed Ryan to watch the numbers of the skips in the barge; he made a return to me—in consequence of that return I instructed him to watch the next barge—I received this invoice (B) with reference to the 54 tons. (This was on a billhead of Johnson's, 54 tons 7 cwt., at 15l. 9, 42l. 16s. 1d.) On 10th of January I received this invoice (C) referring to the barge Joe—the quantity of coals mentioned in the advice note was 53 tons 10 cwt.—the last three skips were weighed by Harrison—the numbers of the trucks were on the back of the advice note—Ryan made a return with reference to that barge—a little before 12th of January I received this advice note with reference to a barge called the Jack—I weighed the barge on the 12th—the quantity of coal appearing on the advice note is 61 tons 6 cwt.—the numbers of the trucks appear on the back of the advice note—one is No. 1742 represented as containing 10 tons 1 cwt.—I had the contents of the Jack weighed; Ryan weighed them—I was there a part of the time, not the whole—Harrison was present—I afterwards went to the Chelsea station of the North-Western Railway, and endeavoured to trace the truck 1742, but was not able to—I then went to Johnson's office, and there saw a clerk—he read something to me from a book—I was not able to trace the truck there—I saw Burton with reference to these purchases of coal—I imagined that the invoices were not written by a clerk, from the handwriting, and I asked Burton if he did not employ a clerk to write them, because they seemed to be written in such a loose slovenly manner—he said they were all written either by himself or Mr. Johnson at Johnson's house, as they did not wish the clerk to know the price they were selling at—the conversation related both to the advice notes and the invoices—I had agreed to pay 15s. 9d. for this coal delivered at the wharf—that was the price charged in all the invoices—on 15th January Burton called at my office and wanted me to give him the number of the last truck on the advice note, referring to the Jack—he said he had been sent from Johnson, for he had heard from a customer that he had received too much coal, and if some one had received too much, some one else must have received too little—I did not give him the number—it was about 5 o'clock in the evening that he called—I had spoken to Harrison that morning—he said there were rumours in the factory that the coal was wrong, and that his name was mentioned in connection with it, and he asked me for an explanation—I told him I did not desire to have anything to say to him then, that an opportunity would be given him to clear himself if he had nothing to do with it—he seemed satisfied with that and went away—this was after I had been to the railway station and to Johnson's office about the number of the truck—about 10th January I received this advice note referring to the barge Hetty, advising 56 tons—the numbers of the
trucks on the back of the invoice (one was number 1356, purporting to contain 8 tons 11 cwt.)—a few days after receiving that advice note I informed Johnson that I proposed having that barge weighed—I wrote him a letter—that barge was weighed by Ryan—I was present part of the time—I only know the result from Ryan's report—I made inquiries about truck 1356, but could not trace it in any way—at the end of December or beginning of January I paid Johnson the December account by this cheque for 331l. 5s.—the quantity of coal in the bill tallied with the invoices sent during December—this is the receipt for the cheque signed by Burton—he did not sign it in my presence—on 3rd December I received this advice note (4) relating to the barge Jack, advising 60 tons—the skips taken out of the barge were counted by Harrison and returned to me as 165—some of the reports were made to me, but most of them to my clerk—I can speak positively as to two cases, the Henry and the Joe—this is the book I refer to—it was kept by a clerk named Pearce—some of the entries are made by him and some by myself—the entry of 5th December of the Jack is Pearce's writing—I received the following advice notes, the entries referring to which are in Pearce's writing; on 6th December the barge Grace, 45 tons; 10th December, barge Grace, 45 tons; 13th December, the barge Elm, 60 tons; 18th December, the Joe, 60 tons; also on 22nd December, by the Ned, 60 tons, the entry of which is in my writing—I received the information from Harrison—there were 161 skips, which would equal 60 tons—also of 26th December, by the barge Doe, 63 tons—the writing referring to that is Dodd's; also of 2nd January, by the barge Ned, 55 tons, the entry being in Dodd's writing: I paid for all but the last—I find these entries made in Dodd's writing—3rd and 5th January, barge Henry; 10th January, barge Joe; and 8th January, barge Jack.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. I did not know Johnson—I had never seen him previous to this inquiry—I went to the coal depôt but not to his office—I did not communicate with him about this business—I employ a man named Tisdale—I did not inquire of him about this matter—I do not remember asking Harrison to speak to Tisdale about it—I was not aware that Tisdale was going to see Harrison about these coals and their weights—I did not know that Tisdale was lodging at the same place as Harrison—Tisdale made a communication to me—he is a painter, and is now employed by me on the same terms as he was before this inquiry—I did not tell Ryan why I wanted the countings—he is a weight clerk—I did not know of Harrison receiving plug-money from Johnson or others till after this inquiry—I do not remember seeing Harrison plugging a barge on Sunday morning, or saying that he ought to be paid—I would not say it did not occur—our men sometimes plug barges, but it is done in our own time—this is Welsh coal—I dealt with other merchants besides Johnson for eighteen months or two years—I never heard of any complaints as to the weights before this.
Cross-examined by MR HARRIS. Harrison has been in our service about three years—he came as a hammer-man, and was promoted to drive an engine as soon as we got a crane in the summer of 1875—the engine works the crane—he would also have to count the skips and report how many were made, and the entries were made in a book—he would also have to unload thousands of bags of sago—the clerk who weighed it would make the entries of the sago—coals were sometimes unloaded in the evening—there was sometimes a break in the unloading—the barge Jack was
begun on the 12th and finished on the 14th—I do not remember Harrison coming to borrow my water-boots, to plug a barge, before Christmas, 1876—I would not say I did not lend them to him, but I do not remember it—I do not remember his saying he got 3s. and my saying it was plenty—there were two skips when Harrison unloaded the barge—there are sometimes three—two are of the same size, the third is a little larger—I have not measured the skips—oh, yes I have, but I cannot remember their dimensions—the third skip holds half a cwt. more than the others—a bushel of large coal would weigh heavier than a bushel of small—the difference in the weight of a skip of small and a skip of large would be nearly 1/2 cwt.—a skip averages 7 1/2 or 8 cwt., if piled up to the top, but it never holds 10 cwt.—I never knew it to hold 9—I never weighed it—Ryan can tell you more about the weight—we have two sets of scales, one of iron and the other partly of wood—7 or 8 lb. of lead was not put to make the scales balance—there is a receptacle for adjusting the scales—Pierce was timekeeper as well as weight clerk occasionally, but taking weights was not his duty, but Ryan's—I do not remember complaining to Harrison about a year ago with regard to his being short—I know Ellmore and Scott's barges, but do not remember their being short by 9 tons and Harrison speaking about it, or saying "I will do the best I can"—I asked Harrison how many tons there would be in the Jack, when he said about 60—I do not remember his saying he could tell by her length and width—after Burton called on me on 15th January. I sent for Harrison and said "Now, Harrison, you have got a wife and children, and I do not see why they should suffer. I have sent for you to give you an opportunity of confessing"—I do not remember using the word "repent" or "foolishness"—he said he had nothing to be afraid of—I said "I took you to be an honest man;" I do not remember his replying"I am one yet"—I do not believe he did say it—he had no more to say and went away.
Cross-examined by MR. BRINDLEY. Burton called on me as Johnson's agent for orders—the quantities would only be known of a barge of coals when the notes were supplied—I was not aware of Burton being agent for anybody else but Johnson—I am giving my evidence from memory—I understood Burton to ask for the number of a particular truck.
Re-examined. Some of the small coals were brought in carts, and some in barges—Harrison raised the skips by a steam crane—he counted them as they came up, and put them down on a slate provided for the purpose—I have seen him mark them—I obtained the weights of the skips from Harrison himself, and I find they average about 7 1/2 cwt.—I have assumed they were full—the sago was weighed after it had been unloaded, and in the top story of the building—I had been advised from Johnson's office the day before Burton called what the Nos. of the trucks were—Harrison has been employed by the company about three years—he was a hardworking industrous man—my object in sending for him was to give him an opportunity of confessing if he had done anything wrong.
THOMAS PIERCE . I live at 3 Lewis Place, Fulham Road—in December last I was in the employ of the Mambré Saccharine Company as a clerk, it was my duty to keep this book—this entry of 2nd December was made at the time the barge Jack arrived alongside—the number of skips that came by that barge was supplied by Harrison, it was 165; the average weight of the last three skips he gave as 7 cwt. 2 qrs., 7 cwt. 2 qrs. 14 lb., 7 cwt. 2 qrs. 11 lb.—on 5th December there is an entry with reference
to the Grace; Harrison there returns the number of skips as 120, the weights of the last three being 7 cwt. 2 qrs. 9lb., 7 cwt. 2 qrs. 26lb., and 8 cwt. 0 qrs. 11 lb.—the skips vary a little in size and weight—on 9th December he returned 122 skips by the Grace, the weights of the last three being 7cwt. 1 qr. 71b., 8 cwt. 0 qrs. 9 lb., and 7 cwt. 2 qrs. 5 lb.—on December 13th there is no number of skips placed; I can't say how that is, whether I weighed those myself, and Harrison was not there, I could not say—I do not find any entry of the barge Elm—on December 17th there is an entry of the Joe, but not of the skips—in neither of the two last cases was any complaint made to me by Harrison about there being short quantities.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. I sometimes took the weights myself and saw them weighed by the burgeman—I might have done so on the 13th; I could not say positively—I have heard of plug-money being paid by barge-owners—I have seen Harrison plug barges many times—I don't know whether Mr. Francis knew anything about the plugging—I never heard Harrison speak to him about it—I was there three years with Harrison—he was at first employed in the smith's shop and afterwards at unloading barges—Ryan did not unload coal-barges, he weighed the sago.
Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I took the weight of the skips from Harrison—sometimes Harrison would be at work a long time at a stretch, not so long as forty or fifty hours; it might be thirty hours, with intervals for meals and refreshment.
Re-examined. Harrison would sometimes weigh three skips in the middle of the barge, sometimes at the finish, but he always gave an average of three skips—formerly we only had two, latterly we had three.
JOHN ALPHONSO DODD . I live at 5, Chester Terrace, Hammersmith, and am a clerk in the employ of the Mambré Saccharine Company—it was my duty when I entered the employ to commence making entries in this book—on 26th December I find an entry in my handwriting relating to the barge Doe, and the number of skips 160—I obtained that information from Harrison—the weights are 7 cwt. 3qrs. 2 lb., 8 cwt 0 qr. 16 lb. and 8 cwt. 1 qr. 0 lb.—on 2nd February there is an entry in my writing in reference to the barge Ned, 159 1/2 skips, and the weights of three, 7 cwt. 3qrs. 4 lb., 7cwt. 2qrs. 10 lb., and 8 cwt. 0 qr. 13 lb.—on 3rd January by the Henry, 145 1/2 skips, the weights of three being 7 cwt. 3 qrs. 27 lb., 7 cwt. 1 qr. 17lb., and 7cwt. 3qr. 15lb.—on 5th January, 143 skips by the Joe, the weights of three being 7cwt. 3qrs. 15lb., 8cwt. 1qr. 10lb., and 8cwt. 0qr. 0lb.—on January 9, by the Jack, 131 skips; that was weighed by somebody else.
WILLIAM ERNEST MORAN . I am clerk to Messrs. Wontner, solicitors for the prosecution—I served a notice to produce upon the solicitors for Johnson and Burton—I served the notice as to Johnson upon a clerk of Mr. Newman, of Clifford's Inn—the clerk took the notice in to Mr. Newman, and he sent me to Mr. Fairman, the solicitor to Burton, and I served him personally.
ST. JOHN WONTNER . I am the solicitor acting for this prosecution—I also conducted it before the Magistrate—Mr. Newman, who is now instructed by Serjeant Parry, appeared on behalf of Johnson before the Magistrate, and Mr. Fairman on behalf of Burton—I have never known a notice served upon a prisoner where he was represented by a solicitor; but the same notice was served on the prisoners when they were before the Magistrate, so they had notice of the contents of it.
JAMES JOSEPH RYAN . I am a weigher to the Mambré Saccharine Company—on 5th and 7th January last, in consequence of instructions from Mr. Francis, I checked the unloading of the barge Henry—I counted the number of skips that were taken out of that barge; it was 133 1/2—I am quite sure as to that—on 10th January my attention was called to the barge Joe, and I counted the number of skips that came out of that; it was 131—I did not count the skips in any other barge—I had to weigh the next—the paper I am looking at contains the number of skips—I merely made it as a memorandum for myself about a month ago—I have the original paper that I made at the time (producing it)—I was desired by Mr. Francis to weight the barge Jack—I found it contained 49 tons 12 cwt.—I also, under Mr. Francis's instructions, weighed the barge Hetty; that weighed 47 tons 8 cwt.—I got the weights in this way: the skips were filled in the barge, they were then taken up by a steam crane out of the barge and lowered on to iron scales, and I then ascertained the weight from the scales, the gross weight of the skips; and at the end, when I had finished all the skips, I deducted the tare of the skips, which I had previously ascertained, and that gave the net weight—I made an entry of the weight of each skip as it came out of the barge.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. I counted the skips of two barges; one barge, the Henry, occupied two days, the 5th and the 7th, and the other, the Joe, one day, the 18th; the Jack and the Hetty I weighed—I have weighed others since this inquiry—Mr. Francis directed me to tally these barges and to weigh them to check Harrison—he did not tell me that was the object; he told me to do it—I knew afterwards that it was to check Harrison, not at first—Harrison was numbering the skips and taking the coals out of the barges—I believe he put the weights on a slate, the number of skips—the barges were drawn up at the side of the wharf—I stood in the laboratory while I was doing this; that is a room—I was concealed from Harrison—Mr. Francis told me to go into the laboratory and tally the skips as they came out of the barge—he told me to conceal myself from Harrison—I don't believe Harrison could see me—the laboratory is just at the top of the building—I could see down on the wharf from the window—the laboratory is about four stories up—I commenced to tally out the Henry about 10 minutes to 1 in the day and was at work till 4 that evening—I started again on Monday morning to finish the Henry—Harrison was working on the wharf at the same time—the house is on the wharf—I was about as far from the barge as across part of this Court—no one was with me—the skips are let down by a steam crane into a truck and then into a stokehole—I marked the skips as they were turned into the truck—I gave these papers to Mr. Francis after I had made them—no one was with me when I weighed the barges—Harrison was on the engine of the crane.
Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I had nothing to do but to take a note of the skips as I saw them—I had not to work any crane or engine—Harrison had to work the engine, and had to make a mark on the slate when he stopped the engine—I had pen and ink, and desk and paper—I had no book, this is the paper on which I put the weights—I peeped out of; he window—I had to keep my eye upon the thing the whole time—the skips are all put down here in two's because the truck they were turned into held two—I counted the skips and put them down at once—it occupied my attention all day—I left off counting on Saturday at 4,
they had finished then—I began again on Monday morning about 7.30 and went on until 6 p.m.—I actually weighed the coal out of the barge—Harrison did not do that—I was directed to weigh them—one skip was not full—some might come up with 6 cwt. of coal in it and some with 8 cwt., none 10 or 9 cwt., the average is about 7 1/2 cwt.—the skip and coal together might weigh 12 cwt. 2 qrs. 2 lb.—a skip's weight is 3 cwt. and some pounds.,
Re-examined. The largest skip would hold about 8 1/2 cwt.—I should think that would be the maximum, they might hold more—in weighing the Jack and the Hetty I weighed the contents of those two barges in skips—I took down the quantity in each skip, that is what I entered on this paper—the largest quantity was 12cwt. 3qrs. 24lb., taking the skip and coal together—I could perfectly see the crane from the laboratory—there was no difficulty in seeing the skips as they came up—Harrison had nothing to do with the filling of the skips in the barge or tipping them into the trucks—he would have the opportunity of taking the number of each skip—he would stop the engine every time the skip came up and then make the mark.
THOMAS TISDALE . I live at 7, Dawson Cross, Fulham, and am a painter in the employ of the Mambré Saccharine Company—I did lodge in Harrison's house. I do not now—on 12th January last I went with him to Chelsea—he said he was going for his plug-money—I asked him what the governor meant by putting Ryan out there to weigh the coals—he said "I don't know, he has got something in his head"—we went to Johnson's coal-office—we waited outside, as there was somebody there he could not go in; he looked in at the window and said he could not go in while Fred the foreman was there—after waiting for about an hour he went in, I remained outside—he remained inside half an hour—I saw the foreman leave the office and go into a public-house—when Harrison came out of Johnson's office we went into the public-house to the foreman—they had some conversation together—I did not listen to it—he then rejoined me and we left—he asked me if I knew where Ryan lived—I said I did not know, but he could very likely find him at Cox's public-house in the Fulham Road—I asked what he wanted Ryan for—he said he had got a sovereign for him, and if that would not do the foreman had got two more—I asked what he wanted to give it him for—he said "I am in a mess about the coals"—I asked him if they were short—he said yes—I asked him if he could not get the foreman to put two tons in the barge—he said two tons would be no use—I asked him if Johnson knew anything about it—he said he knew but he would not know—I said he would lose his job through it—he said "No, I have got my backers, and they will see me through it"—we then went on to Cox's public-house—before we got there he told me to go on down the town, that it would not do for me to be with him if Ryan was there, " he won't come to terms while you are with me"—he went into the public-house—Ryan was not there—I went into the house—a man there said to him that he thought the governor (meaning Mr. Francis) was going mad, as he had put a man out there to watch the barges—Harrison then said to me "Come on, Tom, it is no good now, I am shopped"—I afterwards told Mr. Francis of this conversation—Harrison spoke to me again the day I was going to Mr. Wontner's—he said "Don't mention about any letters coming to this house, and don't say anything about Ryan"—I know there had been a good many letters
come for Harrison, but I did not know what they were about—they were not for me, and there was only me and Harrison in the house.
Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I had been lodging with Harrison seven months—I left a fortnight ago—I now lodge at 44, Anson Street—I am still in the employ of the Saccharine Company—Harrison and I were fellow-workmen; we were friendly together—we used to go out together in the evening and were on good terms—I knew that Ryan used Cox's public-house with the rest of us—he had not told me he should be there—I had not talked to Mr. Francis before that about the coals being short—I knew nothing about it till I spoke to Harrison on the Saturday night—I asked him about it then by seeing Ryan out there with his desk, weighing them—I did not then know that there was any short weight—I understood what he meant by plug-money—I saw Mr. Francis on the Monday morning as this occurred on the Saturday—I did not go to him, he came to me and asked me whether I was out with Harrison on Saturday night—I said "Yes"—he asked where we went and I told him—I don't know justly what he said—he asked me if Harrison had said anything to me about the coals, and what passed between us, and I told him all I have told now—I had not mentioned it to anybody else before Mr. Francis came to me—I was with Harrison that same night, and we were friendly together—I did not tell him I should tell Mr. Francis about what he had told me, and I don't suppose I should have told him if he had not come to me—what Harrison said was not "I would rather have given a sovereign than this should have happened"—I thought he might make it right with 2 tons—I suggested that he might cheat the master so; that was what I said, at any rate, and I meant it—I did not know where he was to get the 2 tons from, I left that to Harrison—Mr. Francis did not know that I was going to see Harrison about this.
THOMAS DICKENSON . I am wharf clerk to the Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company, Limited—my office is at the Paddington railway station—our coals come from Wales by the Great Western system—we have advices of the coals when they are tipped into the barges at Chelsea, and also the numbers of the trucks—I forwarded copies of the advice notes and the weights to Johnson—Mr. Marfell is our agent for selling these coals—I advised Johnson of the barge Grace on 4th December, and of the barge Jack on 29th November by post, addressed to Mr. Johnson, coal merchant, Beaufort Street, Chelsea—of my own knowledge I knew nothing of this barge or its contents—I posted the letter myself—I was advised of five trucks and I advised Johnson of the numbers of the trucks and the weights, which amounted to 49 tons 15 cwt. by the Jack, and 38 tons 15cwt. by the Grace (four trucks); also on 8th December, by the Grace (four trucks), 38 tons 14cwt.; on 13th December, by the Elm (five trucks), 47 tons 6 cwt.; on 15th December, by the Doe (five trucks), 48 tons 9 cwt.; 22nd December, by the Ned (five trucks), 48 tons 14 cwt.; and on the same day by the Joe (five trucks), 48 tons 18 cwt.; January 1st, by the Ned (five trucks), 48 tons 16 cwt.; January 3rd, by the Henry (five trucks), 49 tons 10 cwt.; January 4th, by the Joe (five trucks), 47 tons 16 cwt.; and 8th January (five trucks), 49 tons 2 cwt.; and 9th January, by the Hetty (five trucks), 48 tons 9 cwt.—I have no record of trucks Nos. 1742 and 1356—I have not received any money in respect of these coals—the money was paid by Johnson to the company—I know nothing of two additional trucks having been paid for—I received no complaint as to the weight from Johnson, nor of any trucks missing.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. Coals are weighed at the mouth of the colliery—we have stations at Paddington and Chelsea—Johnson's barges come to Chelsea to be loaded because of the convenience of the river—both the Great Western and North-Western run there—as soon as we received notice from the colliery of certain trucks being weighed, our manager sold them, and they were tipped into barges and we had advices—there is no one here to speak to the accuracy of the weights in the trucks—we have had reports of short weights—we allowed for them—the collieries do not allow for them.
RICHARD MARFELL . I am agent in London of the Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company, Limited—Johnson bought coals of me—I was in the habit of meeting him at the Coal Exchange—he generally bought a barge load at a time, or a sufficient number of trucks to fill a barge—the coal I supplied him with came from our colliery—about the end of last November I had a verbal arrangement with him to supply him with coal for six months at 16s. a ton—the expense of delivery to be his own.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. Coals fluctuate very much in the market—I have known them sell for 39s. and 21s. and 30s. a ton—this bargain was made for the then current price of 16s. a ton—I had known Johnson previously for about ten years—he was a respectable man—I always found him honourable in his dealings—I once disputed a truck being 1 ton 11 cwt. short—I think I sold Johnson that identical truck—I do not remember whether I allowed for it.
JOSEPH PRATT . I live at 46, Station Street, Chelsea, and am employed at the Chelsea depôt of the London and North-Western Railway—I received orders to discharge the Powell Duffryn trucks, namely, on 29th November into the barge Jack five trucks; on 4th December into the Grace four trucks, and on 8th December four trucks; on 15th December into the Doe five trucks; on 22nd December into the Ned five trucks, and on 1st January five trucks; on 3rd January into the Henry five trucks; on 4th January into the Joe five trucks; on 9th January into the Jack five trucks—I do not find 1742 amongst the numbers of the trucks I have got—on 10th January five trucks were turned into the Hetty—neither of them was numbered 1356—the advices contain the numbers of the trucks—I did not receive any complaint from Johnson of a truck being missing. Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. We have trucks numbered up to 2000—no doubt there is a 1742—I know nothing of an inquiry for truck 1742—Mr. Wood, the foreman, gives me the numbers of the truck, and I put them in my book to advise the Colliery Company—the foreman gives the numbers to the bargemen in some cases—I always advise the merchant—I do not know of a truck being at our station on 9th January—I have no record of it—the No. 1295 was altered by me from 1275, because it was a mistake of the foreman—"not f" means that a barge is not finished in unloading on the same day.
JOB CLEMENTS . I am employed at the Chelsea station of the Great Western Railway—on 12th December I received directions from the Powell Duffryn Company to load the barge Elm for Johnson—it was leaded with five trucks.
JOSEPH WOOD . I am foreman at the Chelsea Basin—I assisted to discharge the Powell Duffryn coal trucks into Johnson's barges—I took the numbers, and reported them to Pratt, who I believe checked them—until the commencement of this prosecution I heard no complaint from the
Company or Johnson about the weights, or that trucks had gone wrong.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. I have given papers of numbers hundreds of times—I do not remember giving one to anybody on 9th January of No. 1742. (A piece of paper was produced containing the No.1742). I believe this is my writing on the back—I gave it a lighterman to give to Johnson—I could tell you whether No. 1742 truck was there on the 9th without my book—there might be 200 or 300 waggons standing there—I have not the least idea when I wrote the number on the back of this paper—I might have picked up a piece of paper in the office and have written on it days before—I have not inquired for the truck—I am not aware that anybody has done so—some of these numbers have been put in since—I made up this book on 7th January—those are my pencil marks—as I check the waggons those figures are marked off the book—the other part might be obliterated when the dust blows—the entry Jack is mine, also those of the 4th, 7th, and 8th.
Re-examined. There are five numbers on this paper, and plenty of room for another—my name is signed by the word Jack, the name of the barge—I kept this book at the time and entered the numbers of the truck—I find on the 7th we unloaded 1295, 1347, 1733 and 1363 before the Jack, and on the 8th, 1336—I find no trace of having unloaded 1742—I picked up the first bit of paper I found in the office and wrote on it—it might have had the numbers on before.
JAMES DAUNCEY (Policeman T 307). On 22nd March I received a warrant for the apprehension of the prisoners—I went to the office of the Saccharine Company, and Harrison was brought there—I read the warrant to him—he said "Very well"—I afterwards went to Johnson's house and read the warrant to Johnson—he said "You are not going to lock me up, are you?"—I said "Yes"—he said "I have written to Mr. Francis about the coals, and told him I would send a man to weigh the barges, and if he was not satisfied he could choose one of his own men, and I would be satisfied with the conclusion he came to; I do not know what I can do more"—I omitted to state that before the Magistrate—I afterwards saw Burton at North End Road, Fulham—I read the warrant to him—he said "I am innocent"—also I think he said "I am only the agent."
Cross-examined by MR. BRINDLEY. He seemed surprised and said "You don't mean it."
FREDERICK ABBOTT . I am an inspector to the Watermen's Company—these entries in this book are the prisoner Johnson's—the barge Jack carries 50 tons—there are many barges of this same name—this is the declaration of ownership of the Jack signed by Johnson, declaring it to carry 50 tons—the Grace is registered to carry 45 tons, the Elm 49 tons, the Henry 50, the Doe 49, and the Hetty 50.
Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT PARRY. Barges are registered below their actual tonnage, sometimes five, six, or even seven tons below—a Conservancy bye-law requires that a barge of over fifty tons should have two hands—it is a mooted question whether one is enough or not—I should not like to say that the tonnage is sometimes understated.
JOSEPH PRATT (Re-examined). There are three trucks entered in this book, Nos. 1336, 1182, and 45, to be sent by the Jack and the Hetty to Johnson, but they were labelled to Compton by mistake—a truck from the
same colliery went to Compton—the words "reversed to Johnson" does not refer to the weights—Compton has his trucks labelled to himself, all the others are labelled to the Powell Duffryn Company—if we are short of a truck of the Company's we put on one of Compton's and make a remark to that effect in in the book.
A great number of witnesses deposed to Johnson's good character. Harrison also received a good character.
As to Burton the COURT was of opinion that the case was too slight to go to the Jury .
JOHNSON— GUILTY.— Five Years' Penal Servitude . HARRISON— GUILTY, strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury, believing him to be a tool in the hands of Johnson. — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment . BURTON—NOT GUILTY.
NEW COURT.—Monday, April 8th, 1878.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD conducted the Prosecution.
JAMES NORTHCOTT . I am an umbrella-maker, of 161, Tottenham Court Road—on 26th January I sold the prisoner a sixpenny cane—he gave me a half-crown—I gave him 2s. change, and after he left I found the half-crown was bad, and sent my son to follow him, but did not see him again—I gave the half-crown to a policeman; this is it (produced).
CHARLES BOND . I am a hairdresser, of 239, Oxford Street—on 22nd February I heard the prisoner ask my son for some soap, value 6d.—I heard a coin thrown down on the counter, and my son gave me a bad florin—I told the prisoner that it was bad, he said that he was not aware of it—I gave him in charge—he was taken before a Magistrate, remanded, and eventually discharged—this is the coin (produced).
WILLIAM JORDAN . I am a tobacconist, of 420, Strand—on 26th March the prisoner came in for a book of cigarette papers and half an ounce of tobacco, which came to 3d.—he tendered a counterfeit florin—I gave him in charge with the coin.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not say that you had given my assistant bad coin until my assistant was sent for.
ELIZA VADDAN . I am assistant to Mr. Jordan—on the Monday or Tuesday before this happened, March 18th or 19th, I saw the prisoner in the shop—he asked for 1/2 oz. of tobacco and a box of cigar lights, and gave me a shilling—I put it in the tester and told him it was bad—he said "Is that the shilling I gave you?"—I said "Yes, I have not got another in the till"—he took the bad one back and gave me a good one—I was sent for on the 26th and saw the prisoner in the shop—I said at first that I thought I recognised him, but when he spoke I recognised his voice and have no doubt of him.
Cross-examined. It was in the evening, but I cannot say whether it was 7 o'clock or 9 o'clock; I know the gas was alight—it was either Monday or Tuesday.
— BOWDEN (Policeman E 428). On the night of 26th March, Mr. Jordan gave the prisoner into my custody for passing a bad florin
—the prisoner asked him what proof he had that he passed it; he said because he had not taken one since—I received this florin from Mr. Jordan and a bad half-crown from Northcott—I found on the prisoner a shilling, a penny, and a book of cigarette papers.
Prisoner's Defence. I can prove that I was not at Mr. Jordan's shop on the 19th. I never went out all day. I took the florin somewhere, and if I had known it was bad it is not likely I should have gone into the same shop where I had been refused before; as to the half-crown, I never went into the shop to my knowledge.
Witness for the Defence
ANNIE HAKES . I am the prisoner's sister—on 19th March he came to my shop at 1 o'clock or half-past and stayed till the next day—I am certain of the date because I have looked at my book, and I remember things coming in on that day, and I bound the prisoner's coat.
Cross-examined. It was on a Tuesday—I cannot tell you where he was on Monday the 18th; I did not see him.
GUILTY *— Two Years' Imprisonment .
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. PURCELL the Defence
ROSINA STEEDER . I live with my father, a greengrocer, at 102, Boundary Road—about the end of January I served the prisoner with two-pennyworth of apples—she tendered a florin; I told her it was bad—she said that she did not know it, and asked me to give it back to her—I had seen her in the shop about a week before—she left without the apples—I kept the coin by itself and afterwards gave it to Davis.
ELIZA HAMBLING . My husband keeps a brushmaker's shop, at 13, Church Street, Marylebone—on 19th March I served the prisoner with an egg-boiler; she gave me a florin, I gave her 1s. 10d. change, and she left—I put the florin in the till on the top of the other money; there was no other florin there—I afterwards tried it in the tester and threw it in the fire and it melted—on 26th February the prisoner came again to the shop and I saw my sister take a florin of him—she tried it and I gave it to the detective.
CATHERINE WILBY . I serve in my brother's shop, 13, Church Street, Lisson Grove—on 6th February I served the prisoner with a threepenny nail-rush—he gave me a florin; I laid it on a ledge of the counter and gave her the change—my sister-in-law came into the shop, and in consequence of what she said I looked at the florin, found it was bad, and gave it to her.
JAMES HAMBLING . I am a brush-maker, of 13, Church Street—on 5th March the prisoner came in for a penny scent fountain and gave me a florin—I told her it was bad—she said "Is it?"—I insisted on her going with me to my other shop—I took her there and asked my sister if she had ever seen her before—she said "Yes, she is the person I served with a threepenny nail-brush last week, who gave me a bad-florin"—I took her to the station and gave the florin to the detective.
Cross-examined. She went with me willingly, and she walked with me to the station—my name is over both my shops.
prisoner to the station and gave me these two bad florins—I received this other florin from Rosina Steeder—I found on the prisoner a penny, a key, and a bag.
The Prisoner received a good character, in reply to which WILLIAM CLIFFORD, Detective Y, stated that he had the prisoner in custody for passing a bad half-crown in May, 1874.
GUILTY .— Two Years' Imprisonment .
MR. A. B. KELLY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH the Defence.
LORD DENBIGH. On 17th January I was in my brougham in the Strand—I got out at Steward's, the optician's, having taken my spectacles out of my despatch-box. which I shut up again and ordered the brougham to meet me—when I returned I missed the box, which contained four 5l. notes, an antique ring, and some private memoranda of great value—I had received 80l, in a series of 5l. notes from Messrs. Hoare, my bankers—I have seen the notes since, but not the other contents of the box—I went straight to Bow Street.
Cross-examined. I think I received them early in November.
GEORGE GOLDSMITH . I kept the Crown, Back Hill, in January—one day in January a man came in and tendered a 5l. note for change and I changed it—later in the day the prisoner and another man came in and the other man changed two 5l. notes—they both stood in front of the bar—I got the notes changed and handed the other man the money, but I did not change them both at the same time—I changed the second, five minutes after the first—they drank together and I drank with them, as they asked me to have something—I took one of the notes to Mr. Fowler, of Leather Lane, and changed it, and handed the man the proceeds—I had seen the prisoner several times before—I endorsed all four notes with my name—these are them (produced).
Cross-examined. This fourth note must have been changed at my house, but under what circumstances I do not recollect—it was not changed by the prisoner—the person who asked me to drink was not the prisoner—the prisoner has been at my house on several occasions—his sister lives next door to me—I was taken to identify the prisoner, and I should have walked up to him, but he said, "I know him and he knows me," and walked out—the man who changed the notes may have stayed there an hour—I believe the prisoner came in with him—I will swear he was there when I gave the money for the last note—I know the man by sight for whom I changed the second note—I did not go into the passage with him.
WILLIAM BOYEL (Detective Officer). I received information on 18th January, and on 6th March I saw the prisoner in Holborn—I asked him his name—he said "William Jones"—I asked where he lived—he said 2, Bedford Row—I said "That is wrong, I do not believe it"—I told him I was a detective and took him into the gateway of Gray's Inn and searched him, but found nothing on him—I told him he would be charged on suspicion of stealing from the carriage of the Earl of Denbigh, in the Strand, a despatch-box, containing notes, a ring, and
other articles—he made no reply—I took him to Bow Street, where he was placed with others, and when Goldsmith said "That is the man"—he stepped out and said "Yes, I know him."
Cross-examined. He said "Yes, that is quite right, I know him"—Goldsmith had walked up in front of the prisoner and pointed him out—when I caught the prisoner he was running away—I had said nothing then about my being a detective.
Re-examined. He knew me, to the best of my belief—he ran away when I approached him.
JOHN ALLISON (Detective E). I was at Bow Street and asked the prisoner if he was satisfied with the manner in which he had been identified—he said "Yes, I am sorry I had anything to do with the robbery; I will put Goldsmith in the box"—I asked him where the documents were—he said "They were all destroyed 10 minutes afterwards"—I asked him where the ring was—he said that it was broken up.
Cross-examined. I did not tell him that that conversation might be used against him, but he knew I was a detective—he said "Goldsmith ought to be in the dock, he knows all about the notes"—he did not tell me that he had been in the public-house on Back Hill that day, or that he had been drinking—he gave me an address—I went there and found he did not live there, but his sister did—that was next door to Mr. Goldsmith's.
CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS . I am a clerk in the Bank of England—I produce four 5l. Bank of England notes, Nos. 75736 to 75739, dated May 7, 1877, and endorsed with Goldsmith's name—they were paid into the bank through four different channels.
Cross-examined. To the best of my belief I paid them myself—I certainly saw his lordship, and I believe I handed them to him—they are entered in my cash book.
GUILTY . He was further charged with a previous conviction at Clerkenwell in March, 1875, to which he PLEADED GUILTY**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .
MESSRS. CRAUFORD and LLOYD conducted the Procecution.
WILLIAM HARRIS . I live at the Old Red Cow, Cleveland Street, and serve in the bar—on 19th March, about 6.30 a.m., I served the prisoner with twopennyworth of rum and milk—he tendered a shilling; I took it to the till and bent it, it bent easily—he then asked for twopennyworth of tobacco, and while doing so Constable O'Neil came in—I told the prisoner the shilling was bad, and handed it to O'Neil—the prisoner put down a florin and I gave him the change and told him to leave his name and address, which he did, and said that he worked at Mr. White's, the builder's—the policeman kept the shilling and I told him to follow him—I went outside the door and saw him standing at the corner of the grove putting his head round the corner—two policemen came up and took him; he was brought back and searched, but no bad money was found.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I could see you when I first came out, but I did not see another man—I do not know which way you went; I went in to the customers.
PATRICK MCGOWAN (Policeman K 219). On 19th March, about 6.80, I saw the prisoner near Cleveland Grove, 20 or 30 yards from the Old Red Cow—he kicked a black rag and covered it up with mud—I afterwards met O'Neil and went back with him to the public-house, when the prisoner was taken back and searched—I afterwards went back and picked up the black rag, it contained six bad shillings with paper between each—I showed them to the prisoner, and he asked where I got them—I told him where I spoke to him at the corner of Cleveland Bow—he said that he knew nothing about them.
Cross-examined. You were in Cleveland Grove when I spoke to you, and you kicked the black rag away—I saw no man there—I went to the station and told Harris to take you, as you had been taken to the Bethnal Green station before for a similar offence but not charged—I did not pick up the rag when you kicked it because I did not know then that you had been passing bad money—I never saw you drunk on my beat and shoved you away—I know that a coffee-shop keeper charged you with passing bad money—I was at the station at the time.
Re-examined. No one else was near when he kicked the rag.
EUGENE O'NEILL (Policeman K 424). I was in the Old Red Cow at 6.30 a.m., and heard the prisoner call for some rum and milk and tobacco—he tendered a shilling, which the barman said was bad—I asked his name and address—he said "George Smith, 9, Arthur Street, Wells Street, Hackney"—he left, and I followed-him to the comer of Cleveland Street, and met another policeman, who told me that he had been taken to Bethnal Green on a similar charge—I went after him, took him, and found 2s. 6 1/2d. on him—I took him to the station, when McGowan gave me six bad shillings, and said that he found them at the corner of the street where the prisoner was standing—they were in this black rag (produced) with paper between them—the prisoner gave a different address at the station—I saw no one else at the comer of Cleveland Row.
Cross-examined. The constable passed the corner while you were there and spoke to you, and I said when we were at the corner "You had better see if you find anything there"—after he picked it up he came after us.
Prisoner's Defence. I am an honest, hard-working man. It is not feasible that I should go and pass bad money with a constable at my elbow. My only fault is drink. If the constable saw me kick a black rag, would he not have picked it up? I earn 9l. or 10l. a week, and should not throw myself away for bad money.
The Prisoner received a good character. NOT GUILTY . (See page 557.)
407. EDWARD LANGLEY (40) to two indictments for embezzling the sums of 8l. 11s. 9d., 2l. 18s. 6d., and other sums, the moneys of Harry Wright Atkins and others. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutors. — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment .
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, April 9th, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
408. JOHN CORLETT , FREDERICK AUGUSTUS BARNARD , and WILLIAM OAKLEY WALBROOK PLEADED GUILTY to a libel upon Joseph Moses Levy.— To enter into recognizances to appear and receive judgment if called upon .
409. RALPH HENRY DALEY COOPER to embezzling the sums of 13l. 19s., 10l. 5s. 9d., and 9l. 7s. 6d. received on account of Thomas William Matthews and others, his masters.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
410. WILLIAM SMALE (36), CHARLES FRANCIS KNOX (41), and SAMUEL GREENSLADE (34) to unlawfully conspiring to cheat and defraud the creditors of Smale.—. Judgment Respited [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
411. THOMAS KINGSFORD BOHN (22) to stealing 10l. 11s. 8d. and other moneys of William Hopgood, his master; also stealing orders for the payment of 2l. 12s. 7d. and other sums; and to forging and uttering receipts for 1l. 2s. and 1l. 3s. 3d. — Judgment Respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
412. HENRY BORDOCH (22) to stealing a watch of Charles East Strong from his person; and to a conviction for felony in November, 1875, at Clerkenwell, in the name of John Winmore. **— Twelve Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
413. EDWARD DOWNS (37) to nine indictments for forging and uttering certain leases and conveyances from the British Land Company.— Twenty Years' Penal Servitude. He received a good character' but Mr. Poland, for the Prosecution, stated that there were 35 forged deeds, the forgery of which was traced to the prisoner. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. LILLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. RIBTON defended Donovan.
WILLIAM FRANCIS EDGELL . I am a cabinet-maker and live at 10, Elston Street, but I lived at 5, Royston Street, on 9th of March—I am a volunteer—on 9th March I was in a fried-fish shop in Weaver Street—Hurley was leaning on the counter—he said "I know how to use that b—thing as well as you," meaning my rifle—he also said "I will take your bayonet from you and put it in your b—guts"—I said I did not come there to make a disturbance, and my wife told him not to interfere with me—he struck my wife and I struck him—I was thrown on the ground and forced into the street—about a dozen people were in the fish shop—two men seized my rifle and tried to take it from me—I struggled—Hurley struck me on the nose and knocked me down—I was kicked—my wife was then in the shop—I felt that my bayonet was being drawn—I heard my wife call out "Murder," "Police"—I lost my bayonet—when I got up a man gave me information—I walked with him till we met a policeman, in Commercial Road, when he ran away—I saw my wife when I got up; she said "I have lost my purse," and I said, "I have lost my bayonet"—the man who went away was one of the men who held me.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. I had not seen Hurley before that I know—I believe he is a militiaman—he was not in uniform.
Cross-examined by Hurley. I called for fish and potatoes—I had no time to pay—you were at the far end of the shop—I did not swing my gun
about—You did not tell me to be quiet—I struck you after you struck my wife—I did not threaten to hit you with my bayonet and challenge you to fight—I do not know who put me out.
By the COURT. I only quarrelled with Hurley—he began it.
Re-examined. This is my tunic which I was wearing—it is all bloodstained—I was perfectly sober—I put my arms round my wife's neck to save her from further violence—I did not strike Hurley till he struck my wife.
BARBARA EDGELL . I am the wife of William Edgell—I was in his company on the evening of the 9th March in the fish shop—I heard Hurley say to my husband "Put that bayonet down, I know how to use it as well as you do, and if you do not put it down I will put it through your b—guts"—my husband was pushed out—when I came out I saw a man standing over my husband with a bayonet as if he was going to push it in him—Hurley put his hand in my pocket and took out my purse—I held him by the collar—the shop door was shut—1l. 12s. 6d. Was in the purse—there was a half-sovereign, two two-shilling pieces, some shillings and small change—it was a brown leather purse—Donovan came up and said "Have you got it?"—Hurley said "Yes"—Donovan kicked me on the leg and ran away—I was then obliged to let go my hold of Hurley—I went into the fried-fish shop about 10 minutes to 12, and the affair lasted about three-quarters of an hour.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. I did not see my husband thrown down—I saw Hurley when he came out of the fish shop—there were twenty or thirty people outside—Donovan is a stranger to me—there was plenty of light from a public-house and from a lamp—Donovan appeared to be waiting for Hurley—he was close to the fish-shop door—I did not hear the policeman say "That is one of them"—Donovan was taken to the station; another man followed him.
Re-examined. I described Donovan to the inspector.
GEORGE SEABRIGHT (Policeman H 67). From information I received, I stopped Donovan in Little Pole Street at 12.45 on 10th March—Mrs. Edgell was with me—she identified him—I told him the charge—he replied that he had not been in the fish shop or near it, but that he had been to an Irish wake and had only just come out—I was at the station when Mrs. Edgell came, and it was from her description that I apprehended Donovan—I went to Hurley's house with another constable—I told him the charge—he replied that he had been drinking at a public-house in Whitechapel and had heard of the occurrence about an hour previous—at the station he said he saw and knew all about it, but he did not leave the fish shop but stayed in the shop the whole time—I found nothing on him.
Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. I put down Mrs. Edgell's description of Donovan at the time (referring to it)—she said he was about seventeen, about 5 feet 1 or 2 inches, dressed in a black coat, a round felt hat, and a black and white scarf—I might have apprehended any boy answering that description—Donovan said the wake was in Vine Yard—I heard that there had been an Irish wake in Vine Yard.
Re-examined. I knew Donovan by sight.
FREDERICK WHISBEY (Policeman H 131). I was at the station when Donovan was brought in, also when Mrs. Edgell gave a description of Hurley, and I went with Seabright to Hurley's lodging in Spitalfields and asked for James Hurley—Michael Hurley came, and said "I know
what you are come about, that affair in Pole Street. I was drinking in the Whitechapel Road and I heard of it and came through the court at 12.45"—I said "You had better come downstairs; you seem to know all about it"—he put on his trousers, but refused to come down—the prosecutor and prosecutrix went upstairs and the prosecutrix identified him as the man who had taken her purse—at the station he told the sergeant that he was at the fish shop and knew the man who had taken the bayonet.
Cross-examined by Hurley. I asked for your brother; your mother answered the door—it was about 2.30 a.m.—she said she had not seen your brother for some time—your two sisters were in the room.
Witnesses for the Defence.
DENNIS REGAN . I remember the night of the row—I was with Donovan at a wake in Vine Court, Pearl Street, about two minutes' walk from the fish shop—we left the wake about 1.15 or 1.30—we passed the fish shop when the constable took Donovan—we went into no fish shop that night—we had been at the wake since 9 p.m.
Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY. Donovan did not leave the house where the wake was to fetch beer or anything—he sat by me in the middle of the room—I told Mrs. Edgell when Donovan was taken that he took no purse—I do not know Hurley—I have never seen him in Donovan's company.
WILLIAM HUDSON . I live at 19, Bethnal Green Road—I employ Hurley occasionally—I keep this fried fish shop—the volunteer came in and ordered some fish and potatoes—I stopped for the money—there was a row—I ordered them all out of the shop because it was closing time—they went out and I followed and shut the door—the volunteer went first and a young chap was between Hurley and Mrs. Edgell—Hurley was among them.
Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY. I did not hear Mrs. Edgell call out that she had lost her purse—I did not see Donovan there—I first heard of the robbery on the Sunday morning.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. LILLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. RIBTON the Defence.
William Francis Edgell, Barbara Edgell, George Seabright, Frederick Whisbey, and William Hudson repeated the evidence given by them in the preceding trial, Seabright adding, "Hurley denied the assault; he said he did not do anything at all, but he saw it." NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, April 9th, 1878.
Before Rober Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
417. WILLIAM SMITH(23) to feloniously forging and uttering an endorsement to an order for the payment of 5l., also another order for the payment of 5l., with intent to defraud. — Twelve Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
418. FREDERICK COOPER (18) to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Hannah Glen, and stealing a jacket, her property.— Judgment Respited [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.].
419. ARTHUR WHITE (32) to two indictments for embezzling the sums of 4l. 3s., 4l. 2s. 8d., 3l. 11s. 10d., and 4l. 13s. 7d. of Walter Spencer Chapman, his master.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
420. ADOLPH MEYERS (21) to unlawfully obtaining four boxes of cigars from Robert James Gow, and eight boxes of cigars from Charles Nohaschik, with intent to defraud.— Five Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
422. JOHN BARNARD FALVEY (62) to unlawfully failing to discover to his trustees the whole of his estate, to wit, certain furniture— Twelve Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and LLOYD, for the Prosecution, abandoned the First Count, and proceeded on the Second Count only.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PURCELL conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH the Defence.
HENRY CORKEY . I live at 60, Oxley Street, and am in no employment—on 6th March, between 10 and 11 p.m., the prisoner and another man overtook me in the Commercial Road—the prisoner came on my right, and the other man on my left—the prisoner asked me to treat them—I refused, and walked on a few yards further, and he put his hand into my trousers pocket and took some money, and at the same time I was tripped up and my ear and finger were cut—I had seen my money safe when I had a glass of beer just before—it was in my waistcoat pocket, which was torn when it was taken out—I met a constable and described the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I was not quite sober—I did not pass two police stations—I know there was a police-court within 50 yards—I walked about half a mile before I spoke to a policeman—the other man was much taller than the prisoner—I did not notice his beard—he was as much unlike the prisoner as he possibly could be—Sandy asked me if I could identify the prisoner, I said that I could not—that was not in front of the cell—I was taken to a cell in which were two men—I do not think anything was said to me, I simply said "That is the man."
NOT GUILTY .
MR. MILLWOOD conducted the Prosecution.
I asked him if he had signed the ship's articles—he said "Yes, at Green's"—I asked him what he wanted—he said "5l. in cash and 2l. in goods"—it was endorsed "Henry Morgan"—when he presented it I said "How did you obtain it? tell me truthfully"—he said "To tell you the truth, I bought it for a penny, and got a friend to fill it in for me"—I said "You could not buy it for a penny, because the note is a penny and the stamp a penny, that is 2d."—I sent for a policeman and gave him in charge.
ALFRED WAKEMAN . I am clerk to Mr. King, of 65, Cornhill—I know Captain Cowell—I believe he is in America—he left in November last—he was the captain of one of our ships—I know his signature; this is not his signature—the ship had not signed articles on March 23rd.
MICHAEL MAYER (Policeman 272 H). I was called and the prisoner was given into my charge—he said that he bought the note and another party filled it in for him—I took him to the station and found on him another advance note, signed J. Cowell, Master, and dated 23rd March, payable to the order of James McDonald—I also found an old advance note upon him.
Prisoner's Defence. I had seen the gentleman who gave me the note two or three times before. He asked me if I was in want of a ship and if I had my certificate in my pocket. I showed it to him, and he said "I can give you half a month's advance now. "He did so, and I took it to a man who said he believed it was forged. I paid him 5s. commission, and I have never received my certificate and papers since they were taken from me at the police-station. I have been six years in one employ, and was chief engineer of the Gresham in 1874.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. BESLEY and DOUGLAS METCALFE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WILLIAMS the Defence.
SAMUEL PAGE . I am clerk to James Proctor, of 22, Wellclose Square—on 27th February I went to Milner Square, Islington, and saw the prisoner write this receipt marked X (produced)—he said that his hand shook—Woolley was present and saw him write it.
JOHN CROUCH (Policeman 288 G). I was entrusted with a warrant against the prisoner—I took him on 8th March and read the warrant to him—I searched him at the station and found this Alexandra Palace season ticket on him, also a letter, a portion of an envelope addressed Mrs. A. Elmer, 1, Cliff Town Parade, Southend, an envelope addressed S. H. Gooch, 13, Milner Square, Islington, and a memorandum and letter from the Alexandra Palace.
ALFRED FISHER . I am a correspondent in the manager's department of the Alexandra Palace—this memorandum and letter found on the prisoner are in my writing—they were sent in answer to letters L., M., and N.
is dated 2nd December, 1877, the anniversary of my husband's birthday.
Cross-examined. Miss Elmer is my sister—she is on very friendly terms with the prisoner, but I do not know him at all.
JAMES PROCTOR . I have never spoken to the prisoner or communicated with him in any way—I only know him by repute—in consequence of something I heard I made a communication to Mrs. Elmer—the first anonymous letter was on 2nd December, 1876—I kept them all—five of them are to Mrs. Proctor, four of which she gave me, and one I received from the postman on 3rd January—I also received these two from Mr. Hoppe, marked C. and G.—I then advertised in all the daily papers—it is not true that I gave a woman money not to go to my wife, nor about the child, nor about giving money to a woman—after the receipt of letter H at the beginning of the year I took steps to get the prisoner's writing.
Cross-examined. Since the prisoner has been in custody a letter to Mr. Proctor was sent to my care—he has it.
JAMES PROCTOR (Re-examined). On the Saturday after the prisoner was committed for trial on Friday I received a letter addressed to Mrs. Proctor—it is in a different writing to the other, and was simply obscene, quite distinct from the others, and one which a blackguard might write—the prisoner had been on bail during the remand, but he was in prison when I received that letter.
By MR. BESLEY. When he was committed for trial I saw him in conversation with Miss Elmer.
ELLEN ELMER . I received letter E addressed to me at Adelaide Terrace, Packington Street—my unmarried daughter was living at home with me—Mrs. Proctor lives at a different place—I have known the prisoner twelve months—I had no conversation with him about the receipt of this letter—Miss Elmer is only half-sister of Mrs. Proctor.
— ELLIS. I live at Lower Edmonton—I received letter I by post and handed it to Mr. Proctor—I am not his landlord, but I was instrumental in conveying the lease to him.
CHARLES CHABOT . These letters L and M are in the same writing as the direction to this season ticket—these letters A to I are all in the same writing and the envelopes also—there is not the slightest doubt about it, but they are in a distorted hand.
Cross-examined. In twenty-five years I may have made some mistakes as to writing—juries have found so, but other juries have contradicted them—Mr. Netherclift is another expert—there are occasions on which the has been of one opinion and I of another.
Re-examined. The word "to" occurs in all the admitted letters, and in every instance the "o" is finished in a very marked manner, and it occurs several times in the anonymous letters in the same emphatic manner—that appears to be an inveterate habit, and the "o" in "you" is habitually the same—"you" occurs twice in letter L and several times in the other letters—the defendant, although he writes a very good hand, hardly knows how to form the "k," it is sometimes hardly distinguishable from "h," and in other places it looks like "In," and I find in the
anonymous letter the "k" is formed both ways—then there is the "k" in the word "think"—there are a number of other points, but I have selected the strongest—it would take a very long time to go through them all—in all the letters there is a dash after the date, and in some of the anonymous letters there is the same kind of dash—I must also call attention to the figures 7 and 8; they do not occur in every letter, but there are some in both—I could carry on my evidence ad infinitum—all the admitted letters begin as close to the margin as possible—that is an inveterate habit, and without exception the anonymous letters begin in the same way and they all correspond—they are begun so close to the edge that there is no room to put a letter in—I was employed before Mr. Netherclift—I saw some of the letters ten months ago, before the others arrived—the writing of two persons was submitted to me, one ten months ago and one six months ago—I negatived both.
FREDERICK JOHN NETHERCLIFT . I did not know that Mr. Chabot had been employed, and I have formed my opinion separate and apart from him—I have heard his evidence—acting independently of him, I noticed the same points as he did with the exception of the dash, and I wish to call attention to the manner of crossing the capital F; the cross goes through it—there are many F's in the correspondence, every time it says, "From a Friend"—speaking generally, I have not had the slightest difficulty in coming to a conclusion.
Cross-examined. I made a careful comparison of the letters, but the dash escaped me altogether—Mr. Chabot and I have disagreed as to the signature to a will—I have sworn to the best of my belief one way, and he has sworn to the best of his belief the other way.
Witnesses for the Defence.
PHILIP HALL . I live in the Green Lanes, Hornsey—I have known the prisoner nine years—I have received about four letters from him—to the best of my belief these letters are not in the prisoner's writing.
Cross-examined. I went to the police-court with the prisoner's father and saw Miss Elmer there—I have known her intimately for some years—she asked me to come and give evidence for the prisoner—I heard the solicitor apply to the Magistrate that I should be allowed to look at the letters—to the best of my belief I never said "It is of no use calling me as a witness"—I did not decline to be called—I did not see the prisoner give Miss Elmer a letter at the police-court—I went away with her when the prisoner asked me to take charge of her—these letters (Looking at some others) are more likely to be in the prisoner's writing than the former ones—I should say that they are his—I see the words "the fact of it is" in letter J, 6th line, and I see the same words in letter M, from the Alexandra Palace, but they do not resemble—I say that they are not written by the same hand because they differ—looking at the M in "Middlesex" on this envelope addressed to Mrs. Proctor, and the M in "Milner Square" on the other envelope, in my opinion they do not resemble, there is a slight difference—in letter N there is a capital letter to the word "Holder" in "Season ticket Holder," that is somewhat similar to the letter H in the word "Hoppe," but there is a difference in the loop—I adhere to my opinion that the anonymous letters are not written by the prisoner—they are not in the same hand as the letters from the Alexandra Palace Company.
Re-examined. I have no other object in coming here but to give my opinion to the best of my belief.
ROSE BEATRICE GOOCH . I am the prisoner's sister, and acquained with his writing—I have seen these anonymous letters once before—they are not in the least like my brother's writing—I have sat beside him many years learning from him, and I know his writing well.
Cross-examined. I did not attend before the Magistrate—I saw them first last Saturday—these other three letters (produced) are my brother's writing—I saw them at the Court on Saturday—I sat beside my brother when one or two of them were written—looking at the words "The fact of it is" in this letter, and the same words in letter J, some part is alike, but very little—the word "is" is the only part that is alike—that is not because it is written a little more uprightly, for the purpose of disguise; I do not think they are written by the same hand—there is a similarity between the letters "Ho" in "Holder" and "Ho" in "Hoppy"—it is easy enough to copy—I can copy my brother's writing—I never spoke to Miss Elmer—my father and I attended at the police-court—my brother did not return with us, but he was bailed the next day—he had been on bail for a week.
Re-examined. I saw the writing at this Court on Saturday, and I have looked at the letters to-day and have given most truthful evidence.
Cross-examined. I have only spoken to Miss Elmer since my son has been in custody—I think I attended the police-court on the first occasion—on the second occasion he was represented by a solicitor, and I sat at the table and saw the writing—I rather think Mr. Hall was sitting at the back—Mr. Isherwood was also there, and I took Mr. Williams, a writing master, there to examine the writing—he professes to be an expert in writing—I did not hear a request by Mr. Williams and Mr. Isherwood that I should examine the letters in Court—Mr. Williams did not report to me that the writing was the same as the writing produced from the Alexandra Palace—he did not report that it was the same writing as the receipt, he seemed to think there was a degree of similarity—Mr. Williams is not interested in my son, he came for the purpose of giving his opinion; he was a stranger to all the parties—he, in my presence, examined some portion of the anonymous letters with the receipt—I do not recollect his saying that the similarity was so great that he could not give evidence for me—I did not decline to go into the witness box—I have no recollection of saying "You must not call me"—Mr. Williams and Hall and I were there looking at the letters, and none of us were called.
Re-examined. I was represented by Mr. Ricketts, a solicitor, and left it to him.
ANNIE MARIA ELMER . I know the prisoner and have received several letters from him—I saw these nine letters on Saturday; to the best of my belief they are not his writing—I know nothing about this letter.(The one received after the prisoner's committal for trial.) I did not write it—I heard that libels had been written to Mr. Proctor and my half-sister, but I do not know who the writer is.
Cross-examined. I have no letters with me—I did not ask anybody to
go to the police-court to be a witness in the prisoner's favour—I cannot recollect whether I was in Packington Street on Tuesday evening, January 1, 1878, with the prisoner—he did not show me an anonymous letter—I have been told from time to time of my half-sister receiving these letters—I did not decline to give any opinion about them, I was never asked—the only one I saw was one which my mother received, letter E; that came by post, and I opened it—that was on 22nd October, 1877, and I knew that that was Mrs. Proctor's wedding-day—I don't know whether it came on her wedding-day; it has a post-mark—the writing does not resemble the prisoner's in the least.
Re-examined. I would not in any way have countenanced libels on my half-sister.
The letters were as follow—Letter A:—"Madam, I sit down to write this letter with great pain, as it will cause you to believe in your husband no more. Believe me I do not do it to annoy you, but to show up your husband, James Proctor. He has been the ruin of me, and I do not see that I should spare him. You had two of your servants leave you in the family way, and if you do not keep a sharp look-out you may have more in the same way. Numbers of nights when your husband has been stopping late, and told you it's been business, he has been with me. He boasts openly that he has had twenty women since he has been married. From what I know of him I should think it quite possible. When he was with me one night he happened to drop three letters; they had your address, a Mrs. Elmer's, and a Mr. Hoppe's. I mean to send them all a letter each, and if I can get hold of any of his relations' addresses I will send them letters also. I do not like to see people imposed upon, so I have gotten my brother to write these letters. Should I hear any more about his goings on with other women I will let you know. From a Friend."Letter B stated: "Since I wrote last your husband as called on me several times and tried to come to an arrangement. He offered me 50l. if I would not write any more letters,"&c.—C was addressed to Mr. Hoppe, signed "From a Friend," and stated: "I take up my pen once again to worn you again a person named James Proctor. He has been the ruin of me, and he boasts that he has of others,"&c.—D was addressed to Mrs. Proctor, post-mark October 22nd, 1877, "From a Deluded One," and stated: "Your husband has visited me several times since I last wrote. The child I have by him is now four years old, and doing well. If you really want to find him out, just employ a private detective to watch him, &c. James pays regularly towards the support of the child, or you would have had me down before this. "—E was also signed "From a Deluded One," addressed to Mrs. Ellmer, post-mark October 22nd, 1877. It stated: "I have known him (Mr. Proctor) though to my sorrow in private life. I may tell you at once that I have a child four years old by him which he pays for the keep of. I threatened to come and expose him to you, but he paid me a sum of money to forego it."—Letters F and G to Mrs. Proctor and Mrs. Hoppe, unsigned, stated: "My mother was an Italian woman; you will understand an Italian never forgives."—H was addressed to Mrs. Proctor and stated: "I met your husband a short time back with your son, and he then told me he had had an addition to his family in the shape of another boy. That of course makes three sons that you have now with my one. I do not think I ever saw a more ugly child than the one he had with him. I hope your
next is better looking, &c. I am sorry to think you are married to such a villain, but you cannot help that."—E was addressed to Mr. G. Ellis, Mr. Proctor's landlord, and stated: "You have heard of the servants leaving his service in the family-way; well, I am another of his victims in the same way. He makes his wife believe that he is hard at work all day, when, in reality, he spends his time with fast women." GUILTY .— Six Months' Imprisonment .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, April 10th, and Thursday, 11th, 1878.
Before Baron Huddleston.
427. ELLEN OLDMAN (31) was charged with the wilful murder of her child. Upon the evidence of MR. JOHN ROWLAND GIBSON, Surgeon of Newgate, the Jury found the prisoner insane and unable to plead. Ordered to he detained until Her Majesty's pleasure he known .
428. SARAH RACHEL LEVERSON (58) was indicted for unlawfully obtaining from Cecilia Maria Pearse two necklaces and other articles by false pretences. Other Counts for attempting to obtain 500l., and for inducing her to execute an agreement for the payment of money.
MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. DAY, Q. C., with MESSRS. BESLEY and ROBERT WILLAMS, the Defence.
CECILIA MARIA PEARSE . I am the wife of Mr. Godfrey Pearse, of 40, Ebury Street, Pimlico—I am twenty-three years of age—I am daughter of Signor Mario—I have resided abroad up to the time of my marriage—my marriage took place in 1872—in the latter part of 1876 I was calling frequently on a doctor who lived in the neighbourhood of Duke Street, Grosvenor Square, and in the course of passing along Duke Street I observed a perfumer's shop—there was over the shop "Arabian Perfumer to the Queen"—I went into the shop and for the first time saw the defendant—my first purchase was of some tooth-powder—she served me with it and I ultimately bought some violet powder—she said she had something far more harmless than violet powder and far better for my skin—she said it would be a wash which would cleanse my skin and keep it in a healthy state—she showed me something in a bottle at that time—she said it came from the East—the price she asked was a pound for the bottle—I did not take it then because I did not know what it was, but on the next occasion I purchased a bottle of the wash—she told me I should have to purchase more bottles as it would be a process—I purchased bottles to the extent of 3l. or 4l.—she called the use of the wash enamelling—when she mentioned enamelling I said I would not be painted—she said it had the same relation to her wash as that of a painter to his painting, or a doctor and his prescription—she said it was not paint or anything approaching paint—she said "Do you know Lady Dudley?"—I said I did—she asked me if I thought she was painted, and I said "No"—she said Lady Dudley had used her washes fifty times, and that, she was finishing her process with Lady Dudley at that time—she said, as to the use of these things, that the effect would be like that of a Turkish bath—I was to write to her and put "enamelling" or a "little enamelling" in my note—she said her fee was a thousand guineas, and that the process would take some months—all this was said before I went to Rome—she said on one occasion a lady who had left the shop had told her I
was Signor Mario's daughter, and I said it was so—she said she had heard I could sing; she had been told so by persons who had heard me in society—I saw in the shop in Duke Street a bust of the great Rachel the tragedienne—I asked if she was any relation of hers; she said she was—I saw a portrait of Rachel as well—I then went to Rome about the end of February, 1877, and came home the 25th or 26th of May—before going away to Rome I wrote this letter to the prisoner. (Read: "I was not able to leave on the 5th, but I shall start on the 17th. Could you see me on Friday or Saturday morning? If at all events you could send me a little enamelling, it would spare you sending any to Rome. If you can please try to see me about this matter, if you are not too ill. Address me as ' Mrs. Pearse, 40, Ebury Street, ' without putting your name to the letter.—C. M. P.—Please burn this letter.") That I wrote before going to Rome—I did not, to the best of my recollection, see her again—on returning home I found she had changed her shop from Duke Street to 153, Great Portland Street—at that time I was not acquainted with Mrs. Crossman Turner, but I received a letter from her, which I destroyed—in consequence of the receipt of this letter I went to Mrs. Turner's house at St. John's Wood, and it was arranged I should meet her at 153, Great Portland Street—at that time I was not aware the prisoner was the mother of Mrs. Turner—when I went to meet her some time in June, 1877, it was my second visit to Great Portland Street—I then ascertained, for the first time, that the defendant was Mrs. Turner's mother—on the first occasion of going to Portland Street Mrs Turner was not there—I had no conversation then with the defendant about enamelling—we never spoke about that any more, but I bought another bottle of wash, which I paid for—I remember asking why she did not apply the process to herself, and she said, "Oh, when you are about 60 your skin will be in such a healthy and purified state that you will look as young as you do now"—I asked why she did not apply it to herself—she said, "Are you aware how old I am?"—I said I was not, and then she said she was 85—that was what took place at the first interview at Great Portland Street—at the next meeting I met Mrs. Turner, and there was then some conversation about giving a concert, and I was invited to sing—my husband knew of this invitation by Mrs. Turner to sing at this concert for the Turkish Compassionate Fund—it was an invitation by Mrs Turner—the prisoner asked me not to mention to my husband who she was, she said she had been locked up five years through a conspiracy some years ago, that she had cleared her name before the public, but that she would rather I should not mention that I knew her—in the course of conversation with reference to the concert, the name of Mr. Arthur Sullivan was mentioned, and she said she knew of me through him—the name of Lady Coutts-Lindsay was mentioned, and reference was made to a concert at Stafford House—she asked me if I knew the Duchess of Sutherland—I said I did and I would write to her—the question of the Turkish concert was discussed—there was also a question of getting up a concert for my father—Mrs. Turner, who was on the stage, said that she knew more about the artistes and could get persons to help—it has never taken place—it was to be in two or three months—while that concert was under conversation, Madame Rachel said she was using her influence to obtain patronage and subscriptions—Her Majesty sent a subscription to the fund for my father, and I mentioned it to Madame
Rachel, and she said she was not astonished, for it was through her influence that the Queen sent it—she said she brought her influence to bear upon the Queen through ladies of honour near the Queen—she showed me a letter—she said a good lot of things about the concert—I recollect the first occasion when the sum of 500l. was mentioned—after using the washes an eruption came out—that was about the end of December, 1877—in the intervening period from June to December I occasionally used these washes—I paid her altogether, from the first I saw of her, about 20l.—in buying these washed I believed the statement she made as to the effects the wash would have in clearing and cleansing my complexion—I believed the statement that these washes were used by ladies whose names she mentioned—after this rash came out upon my face I went to Madame Rachel, and called her attention to the state of my face—she said I was in a terrible state, that all the pores of my skin were open, and that unless I let her finish her process at once I should be ruined for life—I said to her, "I must go to my doctor"—she said it would do me no good, that it was not a matter of the constitution, but entirely that of the skin—she said she had studied the skin for more than 30 years, and that doctors brought ladies there to her to be cured of any rash or marks on the skin or complexion, consequently she was the only person who could save me from being disfigured—she then said, "You know my fee is a thousand guineas, but for you, as you are a friend of my daughter's, I will make it 500"—I said, "It is impossible; I cannot do it"—she said, "Very well, you will be sorry in after life; and I warn you, you are in such a state that if you put even cold cream or water on your face you will be disfigured for life"—that ended the interview, and I went away—in consequence of a letter I received from the defendant I went and saw her—a sum of 200l. was then mentioned—she said she could not bear to see me in the terrible state I was, but if I would let her finish the process she would take 200l.; that Lady Dudley had given her 2000l. for the same thing, so of course it was worth while my giving 200l.—on that occasion I wrote this letter (produced) to the defendant, not at her dictation—I wrote that from my house—it was the same day—I wrote that letter on December 21st, 1877. (Read: "Dear Friend, I have ascertained that by the first or middle of February I can have the 200l. Now will you promise me faithfully to finish me for that sum? if not, alas, I must throw up the whole thing. Please send me a small pot of cream, for I have very little to last till February. Please give Jane an answer, as I hardly know what I have to do for that sum; so if you say frankly you won't, I must of course stop what I have begun to realise the same. I cannot promise any more.—Yours, C. M. P. Please send me Gye's letter. If you consent to finish me for that sum, I will give you 100l. the first day I see you, and the other 100l. the day you tell me I am finished. Is that right?") In order to carry, out what I promised in that letter I went to several money-lenders for the purpose of raising the money, but found I could not do it without my husband's signature—I then wrote a letter to the defendant—that was two or three days after the other letter—I wrote to say that I could not pay more than 50l.—I sent it by my maid Orsolina, an Italian, who brought back a message that I was to go and see the defendant—I went with my maid—she then began by asking if I could not in any way give her the 200l.—I said "No"—she then suggested I
should draw the sum from my father's fund at Coutts's—I said that would be robbing my father, and I got up to leave the room—she said, "You use too strong a term"—she thought over the matter for a time, and then she said she would do it for 50l.—there was a conversation as to how the money was to be obtained—I said I did not know how I could manage it, unless I pledged my jewels—she said she had jewels in the next room brought to her by Lady Dudley's maid, that there had been a reward offered for them of 1000l., that there were diamonds as big as the top of her thumb—she stated the value of them to be 8, 000l.—as to my jewels, the matter ended there—as I was going down, a woman, who was coming up met me—when I got to the bottom of the stairs I heard Madame Rachel say that it was Lady Dudley's maid—she had a room in Great Portland Street on the first-floor—it was like an ordinary drawing-room, but on the table there were bottles and things—I cannot say what other rooms were occupied by her—on the day following, Saturday, in the morning, about ten o'clock, I went to Great Portland Street, and took my jewels. (The jewels were produced.) that is the case in which I put them, and the jewels produced are mine—most of them were my mother's—I saw Madame Rachel—I said I had brought my jewels, and that later I would bring her the 50l.—she said they were in trustworthy hands—she again remarked that I was in a terrible state—the rash was still out upon me—my husband had noticed the state of my skin—she said the bath she would give me would take it away—she had not said anything about a bath before, but she pulled it from under the table, and said that I was to have a bath there and then—it was a tin bath, an ordinary hip-bath—she refused to do anything to take away the rash until she saw the jewels—I had a bath, and my maid was present—I handed my jewels over into the custody of the defendant—at that time I believed the rash upon my face was a serious matter—I believed the defendant had the power to cure that rash—I still believed the statement that she made as to her having treated other ladies whose names she mentioned—I believed the statement she made on the preceding day that she had 8,000l. worth of Lady Dudley's jewels in her possession—I believed the woman I had seen coming up the stairs was the Countess of Dudley's maid, and it was my belief in those matters which induced me to hand over my jewels—I was also under apprehension as to the condition of my skin at the time—Madame Rachel said Lady Dudley had sent her jewels instead of the money for finishing her; or for the finishing process—I dressed and went away then immediately, leaving the jewellery—on the Monday I went again—I was to have met Mrs. Turner on the Monday, and I wrote to her—she (Madame Rachel) said, "Would you like to have your jewels back?"—I said, "I would"—she then said she knew of a lady who would give the 50l. to her, that I might take my jewels back with me, and the lady would look to me for the money; but to do that I should have to write her a letter—I wrote that letter—she dictated me the letter that I would bring her my jewels for her to raise a sum of money on—I said I had better put in 50l., and I did then put in 50l.—after that I left the letter with her, and when I got home I sent my maid with this letter. (Read: "Monday. Dear Mrs. Leverson, thinking it over, it is better that you sent me back my box, for I have seen a man who will give me the money on Wednesday. I will bring the 45l. I owe you. Please do not put them in pawn, as I wish to do that myself. If you send the box
by bearer, I will send you the money. Yours affectionately, C. M. P.") I sent 5l., and my maid came back without the 5l. and without the jewels—in consequence of what the maid said I went on the following Saturday to the prisoner—I saw her, and asked why she had not sent the jewels—she told me she had pledged them—I was very angry, and then she said I need not be afraid over jewellery worth 50l. when she had jewellery worth thousands in her charge—she then gave the name of the gentleman who had the jewellery, Mr. Sheldrake—she then dictated to me a letter to send to Mr. Sheldrake, the pawnbroker, and to begin it either "Dear Mr. Sheldrake," or "Dear Sir," I can't remember which. This is the letter. (Read: "Dear Sir,—Madame Rachel has informed me that she has placed in your care my jewels, of which I have the list of memorandum; and she also assures me I can have them when applying to you at an hour's notice within six months, by forwarding to you the amount I authorised her to get. I hope to have, by the end of the month, the money, and Madame Rachel assures me of every care you will take of them; and also all secrecy and the respectability of your firm. Address me under cover here, 153, Great Portland Street. C. M. Pearse.") This (produced) is the list of my jewels, which I had enclosed in the jewel box when I gave it to the prisoner. (This stated "I deposit with Madame Rachel in her care" various articles of jewellery "instead of 50l. ") I inquired on that occasion, if the 50l. were paid, if I could get my jewels back—she replied that they could be—I asked for a receipt for the 50l. which she had received in connection with my jewellery—she asked me to write a receipt for the money I had promised her—she opened a book with printed forms in it, which she placed before me—she told me to fill up one—I objected to a printed form—she said it did net matter, for it was only a receipt, no one saw it—upon that I signed it—I was going to put 50l.—she asked me to put 200l., but I objected—she then asked me if I would put down 50l.—my maid witnessed my signature to the document (The document bore the signature of A. M. Pearse, and the name of Orsolina Palmiera as witness.) She gave me no receipt for the 50l.—I sent my maid for it, but she came back without it—before that I had not mentioned the subject to my husband, but I mentioned it to him that night—at that time I had remaining some of the wash I had bought at Madame Rachel's—it was afterwards handed by me to my husband and analysed, but I do not know by whom—my husband, accompanied by my maid, went to see Madame Rachel on the Sunday—I went on the Sunday week and saw the defendant, at 153, Great Portland Street—there was was not a very long interview—she denied she had dictated the letter to the lady, and said I owed her 150l. beyond what I paid her—she went into a variety of matters—my husband said he should go for his solicitor; but I do not think he mentioned a name—the defendant said she should be very pleased to meet me in Court, if I dare appear, and that she had letters that would incriminate me—my husband said he could not discuss the matter, that he should take proceedings—she abused us all the way downstairs, calling us names—that very day Mr. Lewis was communicated with—I have written other letters to Madame Rachel than those produced, from time to time, on various subjects, especially with reference to the concert.
Cross-examined by MR. DAY. I went first to the shop in Duke Street at the end of December, 1876—before that I had been visiting my doctor for
four years, and since December, 1876, I have frequently seen my doctor; about once a fortnight, when I have been in London, having suffered in health for some years—I was living in Pimlico in December, 1876, the doctor was living near Grosvenor Square, and sometimes I passed the prisoner's shop—it was not quite in my way—I went in to buy some tooth powder—I had not heard of her name before; I knew the name as being the same as the great French tragedienne—I had not heard of her wares at all—I was passing the shop and I went in to buy this tooth powder—her name had never been mentioned to me—I found the tooth powder was very good, but not better than any other—I went afterwards and bought some violet powder that is used for children after bathing, and things of that sort; not for ornamentation necessarily—I had been in the habit of buying such powder ever since my childhood; washes I had never used before, powder I had used—I used to buy the powder anywhere—the powder was very good—I think on my second visit there was some talk about the wash—I did not buy it then—I think it was talked of the day that she recommended the violet powder—the third time I went in would have been less than a fortnight—I went to buy the wash, she called it enamelling, and that it would cleanse the skin—whenever enamelling was spoken of, I understood some liquid which would clean and cleanse the skin; that is all it was—it was not to leave any coat of plaster on the face—it was explained that the enamelling had nothing to do with any paint, pigment, or powder—I then bought a bottle of liquid which was to be used for the whole body—before going to Rome I don't remember exactly how many bottles I had; perhaps three or four—a bottle would last several times; it was not all put in, about two or three tablespoons were to be put into one bath—there was no label on the bottle—I was to use it whenever I liked, occasionally—I continued that till I went to Rome in February, I think—the effect of the washes was nothing particular; beneficial rather—I did not notice anything particular—I asked her for something that would remove hair—she said she would give me some; she did not do so or caution me as to the use of it—I had only one bath at her house—the effect of the washes I think was satisfactory, but I did not notice any difference—(looking at a letter) this is my writing, I was not staying at Grove Hall in Staffordshire while I was using Madame Rachel's washes—I was at Market Drayton in Shropshire—my friends there said I looked quite "lovely"—the defendant had given me some powder to put on my arms and neck when I went to a ball, and she told me to write to tell her what effect I produced—before I went to Rome I was on very friendly terms with Madame Rachel—I wrote her a number of letters and post-cards—I was not short of money at that time—on December 8, 1876, probably I owed her money—the post-cards were written in French. (They were put in and read. The first was to this effect, translated: "I have not the 5l. to-day, but hope to come and see you next week." The next bore date December 19, "I will be with you to-morrow (Wednesday) at half-past eleven." Another dated December 26, "I will be with you on Thursday." Also a letter dated Jan. 5, 1877: ("Luton, Jan. 5, 1877. Dear Madame Rachel,—I am so sorry to hear you have been ill, and waited outside your door the other day three-quarters of an hour in vain, but I hope you will be able to finish me on Thursday. I have my 5l. at last. I will be at your door at half-past ten, so if you are not there that means you are still ill, I will come away, but hope that will not be
the case. Au revoir till Thursday.") I was very anxious at that time to see Madame Rachel—I believe it was for the purpose of getting more of these washes to complete the cleansing process—I had not been able to pay her the 5l. between Dec. 8 and Jan 5. (Two other letters were put in and read, one dated Jan. 19 from Luton, stating she would come to see her on Tuesday, and the other from London, Jan. 23: "I have to leave England on 5th Feb., and would like to be made beautiful for ever before I leave.") Madame Rachel had been ill for a considerable time, and I had not seen her most likely for a month before writing that letter—the expression "beautiful for ever" was her expression, I used it—I was in Paris on 19th Feb.—I don't think I was at Market Drayton then—I don't think this envelope (produced) is my writing—I could not take my oath of it—I have no notion whose writing it is—this letter of 19th August is mine, but not this dated from Market Drayton on 19th Feb.—I had not mentioned to any one at Market Drayton that Madame Rachel dealt in these things—I was stopping at Chesney, not at Hodnet Hall. This letter is mine. ("Rome, April 6, 1877. Dear Madame Rachel,—I am in want of some more pink powder, and also a little red powder and some cream. Could you send me them here? My address is Madame Pearse, 4, Corso Prima Piazza. I hope you are now quite well, and can get about again. Please let me know if you can send me these things.") At that time I was in Rome—I had to act in some private theatricals—I wanted cream and two sorts of powder for use in the private theatricals—my father told me so—they are things which can be purchased in Rome, but I thought it better to send to London for them, as she had said they were harmless—I am a foreigner when in Rome—my father was living there at the time—he had been living there for two years—I don't think my father could have told me where to get innocuous cream in Rome—Madame Rachel never answered my letter nor sent the things—my father gave me his cream and I used it for three performances without experiencing any ill results from the use of it—when I returned to London from Rome I went to see Madame Rachel—most likely I went to see her at once, most likely not—I have no recollection of how soon I went to see her after I returned—it was probably early in June—I went there to buy washes—I had no letter from Madame Rachel during my absence in Rome—I cannot remember whether I saw an advertisement that she had removed to Great Portland Street—I don't remember what occurred at the first interview with her in Portland Street—she never did anything else for me except to supply me with washes and powders for my personal decoration—sometimes she would apply these washes to my face to show me how to use them—she never removed any spots from my face—I was to put the wash into a bath—she said sometimes I might use it in a bath and sometimes without—I was to use it on a sponge and it would dean my face as if I was to use some acid—that was not to remove hair or spots—I do not remember "black spots" or any slight spots alluded to—she had spoken about removing hair from my arms, not from the face—she said these washes would have the same influence upon everything—I saw Mrs. Turner at the defendant's house—I had heard that she was a distinguished vocalist—I have heard some of my friends say that she is a pretty fair artiste—she performs at Her Majesty's Theatre—to the best of my belief I paid Madame Rachel about 20l. in all, but how I paid it, whether in large or small instalments, I don't remember—I have
paid for some washes singly as I got them—on the occasion of the second visit which I paid to Madame Rachel, after I came from Rome, she spoke to me about her having undergone five years' imprisonment—she said that her daughter was upon the stage, and that for her sake she did not wish the relationship between them to be known—she said that she had been imprisoned as the result of a conspiracy—I knew in June or July that she had been imprisoned—she did not go into the matter very fully—she said that they wanted to obtain 30,000l. from her; that not being able to get it a conspiracy was entered into against her, and in the result she was locked up for five years; that the Home Office was taking it up to prove her innocence—she was talking for three hours, and at the end of the conversation that is all I know about it—she produced letters from many ladies referring to the matter, but I did not read them—she showed a very strong feeling against a solicitor, Mr. George Lewis—I cannot say that she very often mentioned his name—she told me that some people wanted to get 30,000l. from her, but she never explained it to me—I did not suppose that it had anything to do with the washes—she said she did not wish her daughter's name to be mixed up with the affair—I continued to deal with her on the strength of the document from the Home Office—I saw the beginning of it, but I do not know what it was—it being from the Home Office led me to believe it was truthful—it was about this time that the conversation took place about my father—Mrs. Turner said she knew the artistes were ready to come forward to sing as a sort of tribute to my father's name—I understood that a daughter-in-law of the defendant's was at the Royal Academy of Music—I understood that she and Mrs. Turner were engaged in getting up a concert, and a great many letters passed between me and Mrs. Turner on the subject. This letter is my writing. (Read: "Wednesday, February 11.40, Ebury Street. My dear Madame Rachel. Should I not hear from you am I to understand that I am to go to you on Saturday at 11 o'clock at 29, Duke Street. I hope to go and see Mrs. Turner next week to arrange about the concert, but everyone thinks I had better put it off for February, as in November we could not make so much. I fear if the Albert Hall were chock full it would not bring altogether 400l., as most of the boxes and stalls are private property.") (Another letter dated July 19th stated that she had heard from Mr. Gye, who thought it was too late in the season to do anything now, referring to the concert.) I believe it was Mrs. Turner's idea to write that letter—my idea of "finishing" was when this process was over—she told me three or four months as the time for it to be used—I believe I used some in June and July—the rash had not then come out—it came out at the end of December, 1877—I had used this wash in its pure state to my face and no rash came out—I don't remember saying before the Magistrate, "I rarely used the wash, and when I did the rash came out"—rashes did now and then come out on me, but I can't say whether it was from her washes or anything else—I don't think, except the measles, I ever had any rash before dealing with Madame Rachel—I never had a rash like that which broke out at the end of December—before that date I had merely little spots and blotches, and that sort of thing—I went down to Luton about this time—I wrote this letter dated July 30th, 1877:—"Dear Madame Rachel,—I write to remind you that I shall be with you on Wednesday between 11 and 12. Did you get
Gye's letter all right?—Yours, C. M. Pearse."—I also wrote this dated August 2nd, from Luton:—"Dear Madame Rachel,—I find no letter from Mrs. Turner; if you see her tell her to write to me to The Elms Dartmouth, Devonshire. I had an accident coming up. One of the bottles you gave me I let fail and broke it. The other is all safe. Perhaps at Dartmouth I will take sea baths. Do you think they will do harm to my skin? Let me know at 40, Ebury Street, if you can see me on Friday afternoon between three and four, so that you may touch my face for the last time, as when I come back perhaps I shall be improved enough to be finished off. I will be up in the morning, and hope to hear from you.—Yours, very sincerely, C. M. Pearse. "She told me there were different processes—I really cannot explain more than I have—the "touching" was with the wash to cleanse the skin—she said when I was finished I should have a receipt from her which I could have made up at any chemist's, and which I could throw into my bath at ordinary times, and which would keep my skin in the healthy state she had got it into—she had most likely touched me several times before that—she was always saying that she wanted to touch it up herself—she told me if I went to a doctor's for one illness he would not always give the same medicine, but various medicines, and it was the same with her washes, which were not always the same—I really don't know whether what she gave me was anything different—she used to tell me to touch myself with the same thing that I put into my bath—I wrote this letter from The Elms:—"Dartmouth, August 10th. Dear Madame Bachel—Give me your views how you are getting on? It is lovely here, and we are enjoying ourselves a good deal. I heard from papa, who is very well, and very poor. However, he is in hope of better times. My face improves every day, and I hope you will find it so when I return. Write soon.—Yours sincerely, C. M. P. "My face had very much improved—I was anxious about her health—she always said she was ill whenever I saw her—sometimes I had difficulty in seeing her on that account—I wrote this letter:—"Thursday, 15th. Dear Madame Rachel—I will be up in London for one day before going to Staffordshire. Can you see me on the morning of the 21st (Tuesday), between 11 and 12 o'clock? Please let me know, either here or at 40, Ebury Street. I leave here on the morning of the 20th. If you cannot see me on Tuesday I must put it off for another fortnight, but I hope you can see me. Please let me know. From yours very sincerely, C. M. P. "I also wrote these:—"40, Ebury Street, Monday, August 20th. Just arrived from Dartmouth. So sorry not to have heard from you. Please telegraph to me if I am not to come to-morrow.—From yours affectionately. If I don't hear from you I shall be with you between one and two o'clock. "—"August 30th, 1876. Dear Friend—I hope to hear from you soon. I am pretty well, and very admired, thanks to you. I will leave here Sunday, 9th September. Will you be in London about that time? If so, I will come next day after I arrive, Monday, or any other day that suits you best. Write and tell me how you get on. Have you seen Mrs. Turner yet? It is bitterly cold here, but fine. With very kind regards, I am, yours sincerely, C. M. Pearse. "I wrote a great number of letters in September, October, and November, asking to see her—I used to write to thank her, because she always used to ask me whenever anything was said about my being admired, to let her know, and naturally thinking that she was helping me for my father, I
wrote those things to please her—it was not in consequence of the wash that I was admired, it was some powder she gave me to put on my arms and neck. (Letter read: "Dear Madame Rachel,—I find I won't be up in town till the 19th, so won't see you until the 20th. I made a great sensation at the ball, and was considered quite lovely, thanks to you. I have received a most kind letter from Mr. S. He wishes to see me personally about the concert, and encourages me to every hope of realising a good sum by it. Please write to me at the above address if you have any news. Have you seen Mrs. Turner, and has she seen C.—Yours most sincerely, C. M. P.") There are many letters which I have written to Madame Rachel addressing her as "Dear friend," and "Dear Madame Rachel," and subscribed. I also wrote several letters to Mrs. Turner on the same subject, in which I urged her to exert herself on the matter—the first conversation about any fixed sum was the day that I had the rash out; I spoke to Madame Rachel, and something was said about the price I was to pay for finishing—I don't think that at that time I was under my doctor—I have not seen him for some time, two or three months, but I am seeing him now—Madame Rachel did not say that I had better have a medical certificate that I was well in health before she performed the process—she did say that she would prefer my having a medical certificate to see whether the application of the wash had done me any harm—I don't know why—it was not when the rash came out that she said she would like me to have a medical certificate—upon my oath it was not—it was before the rash came out—when the rash came out she said I was not to go to a doctor on any account—she looked me all over with a sort of little microscope thing, and said that all the pores of my skin were open—she said I must only use cold water, as anything else might ruin me—she told me not to use anything except cold water, not even soap—it was not then that she suggested I had better have a medical certificate—I had a bath when I took the jewels—I saw the bath prepared—I don't know what was put in—to me, it seemed only bran and water—I have no reason to suspect that anything else was put in—the rash was on my face, arms, and neck, and that necessitated a bath, so she told me, to cure it—I kept my face perfectly dry—I did what she told me—the action of the bran and the water was to be to bring the rash down—there was no requirement for me to take a number of baths—at this time my jewelers was in the house—I have sometimes obtained money upon jewellery, but I never authorised Madame Rachel to pawn these—she told me she had pledged the jewellery—I heard at the police-court that it was in my name—she has sold small things for me, in connection with acts of charity, and handed me over the money—she has sold things for me twice for a charity I am interested in—I entrusted her with things to sell that she sold for me, and handed over the money—one occasion was probably as late as last December—the letter to the pawnbroker was written on the Saturday at her house—the one relating to the jewellery was written a week before—the printed form was filled up in my own handwriting—I thought she could not read—I never saw her write—the jewels were taken to Madame Rachel's on a Saturday—the letter of January 5th was written, I believe, on the day I had my bath—it was written from my own house—(Two letters referring to the proposed concert were here read)—the last time I saw the defendant was the day I wrote the letter to the pawnbroker; that was on the Saturday—there had not been any
arrangement that the jewels should be put in pawn before I wrote the letter marked "E"—I wrote a letter to the prisoner, which was to be placed in the hands of the lady who was to give the 50l.—I don't know what has become of that letter, it was to tell her that I was bringing her the jewels for her to raise a sum of money—she said this lady would know me personally, and would take my own security, and that I was to give back the 50l. and I might take my jewels home—I understood she was to go and see the lady who would give her the 50l. and send back my jewels; that conversation was on the Monday after the Saturday when I had the bath—no arrangement had been made before the Monday for pawning the jewels—I call giving them to the lady putting them in pawn—I had not seen a man before that about advancing the money—that was incorrect—I never had conversation with Madame Rachel about the loss of any jewellery—my husband was on the jury in the detective trial, and she spoke to me about the detective trial, not about the jewellery—she never said anything to me about jewellery, except on the occasion when I objected to pawning my own jewellery—I had heard of Lady Dudley's jewellery being stolen, but I and never had any conversation with the prisoner on the subject—Lady Dudley's jewellery being in her back-room was no business of mine—I was astonished to hear that Lady Dudley's jewels were in Madame Rachel's house; and then she explained that they had been brought by Lady Dudley's maid because Lady Dudley had to pay her 2,000l. for finishing her—that was the day I pledged my jewels to the pawnbroker, and she said "You make such a fuss about jewels worth 50l., when I have jewels in my house worth thousands"—she said 1, 000l. reward had been offered for them—I said my husband was on the detective trial, and I could not dine with her—she then jumped up and screamed, said she knew Froggatt, who was one of the prisoners, and that he was one of the conspirators, with Mr. George Lewis, against her—nothing was said about jewels in connection with that trial—I went with my husband to her after telling him about this, and my husband understood then that my acquaintance was only of three or four months' duration—subsequently, after going to Madame Rachel, my husband had a further explanation from me, and then we went together, a week after, on the Sunday.—I believe at that interview my husband mentioned Mr. George Lewis's name, just as we were going out of the door—the defendant did not then say that nothing would give her greater pleasure than to meet Mr. George Lewis in a Court of law—she did not say she was willing to return the 50l.—she said that Mr. Lewis wanted to hang her, and she said a good deal all the way down stairs, but I believe she was abusing us, and not Mr. Lewis.
Re-examined. When I wrote the letters to Madame Rachel my father was in want of money, and I wished the concert to be a pecuniary success for him—I said the things about being admired to please her—when I wrote about having seen a man, I was anxious on the subject—the proceeds of little articles which prisoner disposed of for me went to an English charity—with regard to all the other letters I wrote, I wrote them on account of her wish to know how the washes acted.
GODFREY PEARSE . I am the husband of the last witness—I am a stockbroker, and live at 40, Ebury Street—I was not at all aware that my wife was in the habit of going to Madame Rachel, either in Duke Street or Great Portland Street—my wife made a communication to me
on a Saturday in January, in consequence of which I went to Madame Rachel's at Great Portland Street on the Sunday, the next day—I said to her "I have heard you have some jewels and some letters of my wife's. I insist upon your returning them to me at once"—she refused entirely, and said "So far from my owing your wife anything she owes me a large sum of money"—she showed me a letter in which the sum of 200l. was named—nothing further passed on that occasion except that she tried to talk about the use that she had been to my wife—I saw her again on the Tuesday or Wednesday—I told her from what I had further heard it was just what I had supposed, namely, a fraud, and I again demanded all the jewels and the letters—she then said that she was never alone, and that she had a witness who was listening, to prove that on the former occasion I had promised to pay her—she again tried to talk about the services which she had rendered to my wife, but I would not listen to that tale—I said that if she considered she had fairly earned 10l. for the things which she had supplied to Mrs. Pearse, I would give her 10l. as the seller of messes—she then said that if I would bring my wife she was sure that she would make me believe that it was all right—I went away, saying that I would bring her—on that occasion she said that she had a witness to prove that on the former occasion I had promised to pay her 200l., or any other sum which my wife might owe her—after that interview I had a letter purporting to come from her—I believe I burned it—I saw her again on the following Sunday—I took my wife with me—there was a repetition of her former statements with reference to the services which she had rendered, and she made an offer to go on with the process—I refused, and then said that that was the last time that she would have a chance of treating with me—I said I should go to a solicitor—I did not mention his name; I had no one in my mind at that time—she said I could not do so because the letters which she held of my wife's were such as could not be produced—she gave me to understand that I should not dare to have them published, and added that she had been on the most intimate terms with my wife for nearly two years, knew all my friends, and all the members of my family and a great deal of their personal affairs—when we were going downstairs she said she would make the City ring with it—she said she knew every friend I had—there was nothing further then—I saw her again before I went to Mr. Lewis—I saw her the morning after I saw Mr. Lewis—one of my clerks told me she had been sitting in the office an hour—she then showed me Mr. Lewis's letter, and said "What is this about Lady Dudley's jewels?" and that it was very unfair mentioning this, as it was said in confidence—I said that the whole thing was now in Mr. Lewis's hands—she then said she would give up all the letters conditionally if I went up to Great Portland Street—she said that Mr. Lewis had made up his mind to ruin her, hang her, I think she said; and that she would do anything rather than face him—I saw her again either that evening or the next—when she spoke about giving me the letters I said I would go and see her—I said I had come for the letters—she said "What, give them up and put myself in the hands of that man?"—I stated she must trust to my word that no further steps should be taken if the letters were given up—it ended in my going away without anything—she refused to give the letters up—she said they were "compromising"—she said "I have got letters of your
wife's that you dare not have brought forward,"and added that the letters were compromising to my wife—she said I should not dare to prosecute her, as she would make the City ring with it—nothing further passed then, and I determined to prosecute—I received from my wife a bottle containing some stuff; that was about five weeks ago—I gave it to my family chemist—I gave it into the hands of Mr. Saunders—at the end of last year I noticed a rash on my wife's face, a rash which I had never seen before, and I spoke to her at the time.
Cross-examined by MR. DAY. One bottle was taken to Godfrey and Cooke's and one to the family chemist—I found them both in the same cupboard—I never looked into the cupboard to see how many bottles there were—my wife brought one bottle from the cupboard, that went to Godfrey and Cooke—they are supposed to have had both bottles—I had never seen the bottles before—when I saw them I did not observe any label—there was no label of directions—when I went up for the letters the prisoner said "What, give myself up and put myself into the hands of that man?"—I understood her to refer to Mr. Lewis—she would not part with the possession of the letters until she knew that Mr. Lewis would not prosecute her—she said she should want the letters if she were prosecuted, and therefore she would not trust them to Mr. Lewis—she became violently abusive, and on one occasion said that there was nothing she desired so much as to meet Mr. George Lewis in a Court of law, but on another occasion she said she would rather meet the devil—I think I went to her house five or six times—I did call on Mr. Grossman Turner—I went with my wife at her request as a matter of civility to persons whom she thought had been of great service to her, but I never went to Mr. Turner's after I went to Madame Rachel—I left a card at his address that I should be at my office at a certain time—he had been to me several times of his own accord—there was a difficulty about getting the jewels—the prisoner said they were pawned, and if I let her have a fortnight I could have them—the prisoner gave me the pawn-ticket—my wife was not then aware that the jewels were pawned—it was probably on my second interview that I got the pawn-ticket, when Mr. George Lewis's name was mentioned—my wife told me on the Saturday before we went together that she was not aware that they had been pawned—she had told me about the letter she had written from dictation, and from what she told me I was certain they had been pawned—she thought they were in the hands of a gentleman—she mentioned the name of Mr. Sheldrake. Re-examined. She said she knew that the things had gone to a Mr. Sheldrake—this (produced) is the pawn-ticket the prisoner gave me—it has on it the name of Mr. Robert Attenborough, 40, Duke Street, Manchester Square.
SABINA PINNEY . I am living in service at Kentish Town Road—in the month of August I entered Madame Rachel's service and continued with her until the 21st of January in the present year, at 153, Great Portland Street—my wages were 11l. a year—Madame Rachel occupied the first floor and kitchen downstairs—the first floor comprised three rooms, one room in the front and two at the back—the front room was used as a shop—the back rooms were a bedroom and a sitting-room—I slept in the back room on the first floor, Madame Rachel slept in the sitting-room—she invariably resided there by herself—she had a little child with her—in the room which was used as a shop there were powders and washes exposed
for sale—sometimes I used to help her make up the washes—starch and fuller's earth and something out of a paper, which I don't know what it was, used to be put into a small bottle and then water was added—I got the water from the ordinary water-tap of the house—Madame Rachel told me that those washes were made for the ladies to put on their faces—she said that sometimes the washes would bring out a rash—I thought she told me that to prevent my using any myself—she said it would make the ladies good-looking—she mentioned names of ladies who she said had used the washes—she told me that she was sixty-three years of age—she could read, but said she had hurt her thumb and so she could not write—I know Mrs. Turner—she was in the habit of calling upon her mother from time to time—Madame Rachel told me once that Mrs. Pearse was poor—I have seen Mrs. Pearse there—I cannot remember upon how many occasions, but several times—she was accompanied by her maid—I never saw Madame Rachel put any wash on Mrs. Pearse's face—I remember the bottles that she used to give Mrs. Pearse—some of the bottles contained hair-wash, pearlash and water mixed up together—I have helped mix it—I don't know what Mrs. Pearse was charged for them—some of the bottles of pearlash and water were charged one guinea for—the skin wash was the same price—I only used to help to make up those two—I have seen the skin-wash given to Mrs. Pearse—I remember on more than one occasion seeing bottles of the skin-wash handed to Mrs. Turner in the presence of Mrs. Pearse—Mrs. Turner never took them away with her—I do not remember the prisoner naming Lady Dudley to me—I remember the occasion when Mrs. Pearse brought her jewellery—I remember preparing the bath that Mrs. Pearse had—hot water and bran were put into it, and nothing else that I know of—I was not present when Mrs. Pearse had her bath—I left her and Madame Rachel and the servant—I saw the Jewellery after Mrs. Pearse had gone away—I saw Madame Rachel wearing some of that jewellery, three lockets and a necklace—she told me they were a Christmas present from Mrs. Pearse, and I said they were very nice ones—on the occasion of the visits of Mrs. Pearse to Madame Rachel I have heard conversations between them—I heard the words "Write this to-day, darling," and I have been sent to fetch the ink—I remember Mr. Pearse coming on the Sunday, and the next Monday with his wife.
Cross-examined by MR. DAY. I was present the first and second time, but was not in the room, and did not hear what was said—I went in August and I left on January 21—I think the rash was talked about just before Christmas—I did not notice any rash on Mrs. Pearse when she had the bath—I noticed it once, that was not long before she had the bath—it was before I saw the rash on Mrs. Pearse that Madame Rachel told me it sometimes caused a rash—it was the starch and fuller's earth that was likely to bring out a rash—I suppose the hair wash was safe—I did not use it, Madame Rachel did, and she used it to the child; it was generally used in the family, and found very beneficial—I never used the starch and fuller's earth, Madame Rachel did—I did not attend to the shop very much—I don't remember what name was given to the hair wash; it was called perfume—there were circulars, I never read them, I can't read very well—labels were fixed to the bottles with her name and address on them—I have put them on—there was no name to the liquid—she used to tell me what labels to put on the different bottles—she used to make up other things,
and sell powders, tooth powder, and paint, and violet powder—she gave me some glycerin once when my hands were chapped, it did them good.
ORSOLINA PALMIERA (Interpreted). I am maid to Mrs. Godfrey Pearse—I understand a little English—I remember going with Mrs. Pearse to 153, Great Portland Street, I there saw the prisoner—at that time there was a rash on Mrs. Pearse's face—it was in December—I heard something said in regard to the rash by Mrs. Pearse, who asked "What is the cause of all this rash upon my face?" and the prisoner said "If you don't bring the money to be finished, you will be ruined for all your lifetime"—Mrs. Pearse was very angry with Madame Rachel, who said the best thing she could do was to get some money out of the bank belonging to her father, but Mrs. Pearse declined—the prisoner said "I want you to bring me 60l."—Mrs. Pearse said "As I cannot get the money, the only thing I can do is to bring my jewels"—the prisoner then said she had jewels belonging to the Countess of Dudley, with diamonds as big as her thumb—the conversation was in English, but I understood enough to follow it—it was "Mrs. Pearse, I have got in my house jewels of the Lady Dudley, brought to me by that lady's maid"—the day after the conversation about the jewels I went again with my mistress to Madame Rachel—I took the jewels—on that occasion Mrs. Pearse had a bath at the suggestion of the prisoner—she said "You have got a rash all over your face, don't you see? I will give you a bath, and the rash will go"—I assisted Mrs. Pearse in having her bath—I did not hear Madame Rachel say anything more then—on the following Monday I received a letter from my mistress—she and I went together in a cab to Great Portland Street, and saw the prisoner—she asked Mrs. Pearse to address a letter to her—she said "I will give it to a lady who will advance you 50l., and then you can have your jewels back"—she then dictated a letter to Mrs. Pearse in the same way as she would do to a child just going to school—after we got home I took a letter from Mrs. Pearse to Madame Eachel and 5l.—I asked her for Mrs. Pearse's jewels, and she said "Mrs. Pearse was shama (foolish)"—I went again on the Saturday with Mrs. Pearse to Madame Rachel's, and on that occasion she made Mrs. Pearse write a letter to a gentleman; and she also made Mrs. Pearse write her name to something in a book—I went again alone to Madame Rachel's before going with Mrs. Pearse—I asked her for the counterpart of the receipt from the book—she said no, she would not give it to me—the next day, on the Sunday morning, I went to Madame Rachel's with Mrs. Pearse—I remember trying some of the wash myself, and Mary, a servant then in the employ of Mrs. Pearse also tried some—a rash came out upon my arm, the same as came on Mrs. Pearse's face—Mary had it oftener than I had, because whenever Mrs. Pearse threw away the bottles she always made use of some—Mary had the rash come out all over her face.
Cross-examined by MR. DAY. On the 25th of this month I shall have been 11 months in England—I was engaged in Rome—that was my first visit to England—when I first came I did not know English at all—I do not remember when I first went to Madame Rachel's—I really do not remember—I remember that before the month of January I had been there several times—I cannot tell you whether it was five, six, seven, or eight times—I have not been 20 times—I observed
the rash on Mrs. Pearse in December, but I had seen it before—it was at the end of December that I particularly noticed the rash—I perceived a slight rash on Mrs. Pearse's face, but I did not notice it so much—I don't remember when I first noticed it—the rash came out on my arm—I did not apply it to my face when I saw Mrs. Pearse was so ruined (ruinata)—a bottle of the same stuff was given to me by Madame Rachel—she gave me a bottle and said "It is for you"—to see what effect it would have upon me I put it on my arm from the wrist up—the rash came out two or three days after—the rash did not last very long, as I did not use a great deal of it—I applied it twice—the rash came out in about four or five days—it was after Mr. Pearse had been to Madame Rachel's that I applied it—Mary is not here—she is an Englishwoman—she was housemaid—I do not know when she first used it—she used the stuff left in the bottles thrown away by Mrs. Pearse—I cannot tell you when Mary first used these washes—after Mr. Pearse had been to Madame Rachel's Mary left—I do not remember the date of her leaving—she had not left before Mr. Pearse went to Madame Rachel's—I cannot tell you when Mary first used these bottles—I did not pay any great attention to it—I know she used some bottles, because she took them to her room—I have seen the rash on Mary's face, it came out now and then during the time Mary was in the service of Mrs. Pearse; she had a rash upon her face after she took the bottle to her room—sometimes she did not have the rash upon her face—all the time I knew her she was subject to a rash upon her face—I saw a rash on her face in June, July, August, and September; sometimes e little more, sometimes a little less—she seemed always to have a rash on her face—I cannot say whether more rash came out after using the wash—I don't know what they cost—sometimes she used to put them on one side when they were almost full—Mrs. Pearse wrote a letter in my presence in English—I did not know the contents—I only knew she was writing to a lady—the prisoner said "You write this letter to the lady, she will advance 50l., and then I will return your jewellery"—Mrs. Pearse speaks Italian very well—the letter was written in the room at Madame Rachel's where all the bottles were—the letter was left with her—I took a letter once from Mrs. Pearse to Madame Rachel, but I do not remember the time—I once took her 5l. and then I took a letter also—that was not the letter I described as written just like a child who was going to school, because Mrs. Pearse wrote that herself—it was when I took the 5l. and asked for the jewellery—there was one letter on Monday and one on Saturday—on the Monday I went for the jewels—on Saturday I asked for the receipt, not for the jewels—I spoke to her in English—I said "Will you, if you please, give me the receipt out of the book?"—my mistress told me to ask for the receipt—the contents of the letter was asking for the receipt—I did not read the letter—I don't read English—I had taken letters frequently—I said at the police-court "I have been many times to the defendant's. I used to take letters; but I had no conversation with her"—I remember going to Madame Rachel's, but I don't remember how many letters I took—I never went to fetch things for my mistress from Madame Rachel's—my mistress only took one bath at Madame Rachel's.
Re-examined. I mentioned before the Magistrate all the conversations with Madame Rachel that I have stated to-day—it was on tho day I took the 5l. and the letter that Madame Rachel gave me the bottle for myself
—I had not used the wash before that—I seldom spoke with Mr. Pearse; if he asked me for anything of course I gave it to him, but I always conversed with Mrs. Pearse.
ISABELLA SCOTT . I am lady's-maid to the Countess of Dudley—I have been so for many years—I attended at the Marlborough Street Police Court—up to that time I had never seen the defendant, nor been to her places of business—I never took nor sent her any jewellery—about three years ago I had charge of the Countess of Dudley's jewels at the Pad-dington railway station; they were worth many thousands of pounds—perhaps 20,000l.—15,000l. at all events—I beg to say that they were stolen from me most assuredly, and not disposed of in any other way as has been stated—they have never been recovered—Lady Dudley uses no washes of any kind—I don't include in that soap and water, which are the only washes she uses—Lady Dudley is unwell; she if suffering from a very bad cold at present.
CHARLES SHELDRAKE . I am an assistant to Mr. Attenborough, pawnbroker, 39, Duke Street, Grosvenor Square—I produce certain articles of jewellery contained in a box—they were placed on deposit with me on the afternoon of the 9th January by the prisoner—she brought the jewels to our shop and said that she wanted a loan of 50l. upon them—she said she brought them for Mrs. Pearse, and when I asked her to sign the agreement she said she could not write—she put her mark to the paper, and gave me the name and address of Mrs. Pearse, 40, Ebury Street. (The agreement was produced and read, containing a list of the jewellery, and setting out that a loan of 50l. was advanced on the same at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum, to be repaid by or before the 9th July, 1878, or the jewels to be absolutely forfeited.) I do not think that the jewels would realise more than 50l. if we had them for sale—a few days after the advance of the 50l. I received the letter F, the envelope of which I destroyed.
HAROLD SENIOR . I am an analyst—I received a bottle containing some stuff from Mr. Saunders, the last witness—I analysed its contents—it was a 6 oz. bottle—there were 10 grains of a lead compound, 50 grains of day-like earth, common fuller's earth, 160 grains of starch, 15 grains of hydrochloric acid, and 2, 400 grains of water, making 2, 635 grains, or about six fluid ounces.
Cross-examined by MR. DAY. There are at least 30 compounds of lead—in this case part of it was in solution, and part of it was at the bottom of the bottle—the lead in the solution was chloride of lead—as to the insoluble portion of the lead, I cannot say exactly in what form it was, but it was in an insoluble form—altogether I had to analyse not more than 2 oz.—that would be about a third of a 6 oz. bottle—the lead not in solution was very small in quantity—there was not a great deal of difference as to the proportions—the soluble was 3.8 grains, the insoluble 5.3 grains, making 9.1 grains—there was more insoluble than soluble—from what I analysed that would be the proportion of a 6 oz. bottle—the smaller quantity was soluble, and the larger quantity was chloride of lead—the larger quantity I would define as an insoluble form of lead, but I found chloride of lead as well as hydrochloric acid—Godfrey and Cooke have two shops, in Conduit Street and St. George's Place—the firm has now
been established about 200 years—they have a great number of very valuable nostrums—I distinguish hydrochloric acid from chloride of lead in this way: in the first place the solution which was separated was distinctly acid; but chloride of lead would be neutral in solution—Goulard water is sold as a wash, and sold by Godfrey and Cooke—I don't know exactly how much load there is in Goulard water, quite ten times as much as this—it is used for women's skin occasionally—the defendant applied to have some of the wash for analysis by Professor Redwood—I declined, because there was none left, the quantity I had beings small; hut I offered to submit my analysis to any qualified person—Professor Redwood is the very best authority on that point.
Re-examined. My analysis has his authority—there is no hydrochloric acid in Goulard water—I mot Professor Redwood, and I supplied him with the details of my analysis.
DR. THOMAS BOND . I live at 50, Parliament Street, Westminster—I am F. R. C. S. and surgeon to the Westminster Hospital; lecturer also on forensic medicine at the hospital—I have heard the evidence of the last witness—if a wash of the description mentioned were applied to a lady's face it would cause great roughness of the skin, and I believe it would bring out an eruption if applied sufficiently often—the hydrochloric acid would produce the roughness of the skin—a wash of this description is a stimulating wash, and also irritating, and it cannot be applied to a lady's face unless she has a very bad skin disease—it certainly cannot properly be applied to a lady's neck—it would not have the effect of removing the hair—the intrinsic value of a bottle of stuff of this sort would be 6d. at the outside—Goulard water is a very common lotion.
Cross-examined by MR. DAY. For internal administration one would take about 15 minims of dilute hydrochloric acid, which would contain rather over a grain of hydrochloric acid—that is about the dose, the ordinary dilution of the acid—about 6 grains in an 8 oz. bottle would be a tonic to be drunk—it could not well be taken in a more concentrated form than that I have given—if 6 grains were in 8 ounces of water as a drink you would drink about one-sixth of it—in that way it is recommended as a drink in hot weather, but not so strong, I think—I should give about half a drachm, or about 3 grains in a pint for a person to drink as a refreshing draught—I don't know whether acetic acid is frequently used by ladies for the purpose of decoration—I have no doubt that all the "toilette vinegars" sold in London are acetic acid—hydrochloric acid is irritating, but acetic acid is soothing—fuller's earth, with starch in combination, would not be irritating—hydrochloric acid, with starch in combination, would not be soothing.
Re-examined. I have tried a little of this composition upon myself—the second application caused a tingling; the day after there was a perceptible roughness of the skin, and the fingers had a grani-exfoliated look—I did not experiment any further with it—that would be the precursor of a rash; that is my opinion—if the lotion was continued the irritation would increase, and eventually cause a rash—supposing the composition to consist of fuller's earth, starch, and water, I should not expect any irritation then—if lead was added to that it would not cause irritation—I am not sure what effect chloride of load would produce—I attribute the irritation to the presence of free hydrochloric acid—I personally use no cosmetic—I am of opinion that soap and water forms
the best wash—the quality of the skin varies very much in different persons.
GEORGE HENRY LEWIS . I am a member of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place—on the 24th of January in the present year I was consulted by Mr. and Mrs. Pearse on this case—I ultimately instituted proceedings against the defendant at the Marlborough Street police-court on summons—before the committal of the prisoner I acted for Mr. Pearse, but the Treasury took up the proceedings—Mr. Blanchard Wontner, who is now instructing Mr. Day, defended the prisoner at the police-court—I recollect at the third hearing Mr. Wontner making a statement with reference to Lady Dudley—he said that he did so at the request of the prisoner, and he desired to state that Lady Dudley had never been in Madame Rachel's shop, neither had the prisoner any acquaintanceship with her ladyship, and in unqualified terms he wished it to be known that Madame Rachel had never in any way attended upon or supplied any washes to Lady Dudley, and that statement Mr. Wontner repeated a second time after Lord Dudley arrived in Court—Mr. Wontner also, at the same time, made a further statement of the prisoner's explanation of her conversation with Mrs. Pearse with reference to the Dudley jewels—he stated that Madame Rachel denied that she had ever stated to Mrs. Pearse that the Countess of Dudley's jewels had been brought to her house—her explanation of the Countess of Dudley's name being mentioned arose in this way, that Mr. Pearse was upon the Jury in the detective case, and that Madame Rachel said to Mr. Pearse that one of the persons accused could give information with reference to the Countess of Dudley's jewels.
Witness for the Defence.
THEOPHILUS REDWOOD . I am professor at the Institute of Pharmacy to the Pharmaceutical Society, and have been so more than 30 years—I have studied chemistry all my life—I have been in consultation with Mr. Senior—we conferred together as to the probable mode in which the lotion of Madame Rachel was made—we made an analysis—we found 10 grains of carbonate of load, 50 grains of fuller's earth, 160 grains of starch, 24 grains of hydrochloric acid, and six ounces of distilled water, making up a 16-ounce mixture—two of the constituents would enter into combination to form the chloride of lead—part would remain as free hydrochloric acid—as to the effect of such a mixture applied to the skin, so far as the lead is concerned, it would be the same as that produced by extract of load, which acts as an astringent and desiccant, and is commonly used for allaying irritation on the surface of the skin—the fuller's earth possesses detergent properties—starch is an absorbent, and is frequently used—salts of lead are frequently used as lotions, perhaps none more frequently, and I do not consider their use dangerous—as to the lotion I have described, the result to be looked for would not be the bringing out of a rash upon the skin—I applied it to my own arm—I did not find any such result—as it dries, the starch and fuller's earth and chloride of lead tend to whiten the skin—the result was only the effect of whitening of the skin as the lotion dried—I am 68 years of age—in a 6 oz. bottle of Goulard water there would be about 30 grains of lead—as to the effect upon the skin, in connection with the chloride, I judge by inference in saying that its effect would be the same as that of the acetate—what is called toilet vinegar is a mixture of acetic acid,
diluted with water, and scented—the mixture would not perhaps be so strong as Rim ell's vinegar—toilet vinegar would probably have a stronger action than the lotion about which we have heard—I know pearl white, which is a name for carbonate of lead—it is habitually used by ladies for whitening the skin—it frequently is applied as a powder—it is quite insoluble—it is not put on the face to cool it, rather to whiten it—the deposit would be whitehead—it is put on the face to produce a temporary effect—the undue or continued use of cosmetics of that description are more or less injurious—anything which fills up the pores of the skin is injurious—the use of the ordinary violet powder is much better left alone—soap and water and nothing else is the best—I do not consider pearlash with ordinary water a dangerous hair wash, unless it is very strong—I believe the best hair wash is an alkaline solution of that kind—I frequently conduct analyses for the Government in poisoning cases—hydrochloric acid is a liquid—it could not exist as a powder to be shaken out of a paper. Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. A wash of that description would not in the slightest degree remove hair—dilute acetic acid rather softens the skin—hydrochloric acid is not used as an application to the skin—I am unable to say, therefore, how it would affect the skin—I have no experience of its effects—I applied it to my arm—I am not prepared to say that the application of wash to a delicate lady's skin would not produce a rash, but I should be very much surprised to find that it did—I have never known it applied to a lady's skin; there are certain idiosyncrasies, some persons possess a skin which would be irritated by almost any application, especially if any irritation were anticipated—imagination has often much to do with it—I don't mean to say that imagination would produce a rash on my face, but I believe the mere application of soap and water would do so with some persons—soap is an alkaline which would act on and irritate the skin quite as much as the dilute hydrochloric acid referred to, and for that reason many persons cannot use soap—I don't mean that a lady, under those circumstances, would bring out a rash—soap is an irritant, and imagination with a slight irritant may produce much that an irritant without the imagination would not—I can understand a beneficial effect from a wash of this kind where there is an ammoniacal emanation from the skin, the acid would neutralise that—I agree with the Countess of Dudley's maid that soap and water only are the best things—this lotion might be properly used in a skin disease, or where an abnormal state of the skin existed—this lotion would not act as an irritant if there were any ammoniacal effect on the skin.
Re-examined. Ammoniacal exhalations of the skin are not at all an uncommon thing—it is to neutralise those symptoms that the application of this wash or toilet vinegar would be useful and beneficial.
By the COURT. This lotion is not quite calculated to keep the bloom of youth upon the skin, quite the reverse—no cosmetics ever preserve the bloom of youth nor make you look as young at 60 or 85 as at 24.
By MR. WILLIAMS. The skin is very likely to be influenced by the imagination, in the form of blushing, turning pale, and changing colour under the influence of passion—the application of this lotion to the skin would not be likely to produce any irritation if applied to the arm of a servant girl—I cannot say it would not, but I should be very much surprised if it did—lead and hydrochloric acid combine in certain proportions; any chemist could tell what would be the proportions—the result
is as certain as a sum in arithmetic—hydrochloric acid is muriatic acid—it is frequently used in combination with nitric acid for certain diseases of the liver, as a foot bath it has an astringent effect on the feet—it is not to be found in water—it would be impossible to get 15 grains of it from ordinary water from a tap.
MRS. PEARSE (Re-examined). I do not remember whether the name of "Rachel" was over the door in Duke Street; I believe it was in Great Portland Street—my attention was attracted in the first instance by seeing "Arabian perfumer to the Queen." GUILTY .
She also PLEADED GUILTY to having been before convicted, in September, 1868, at this Court.— Five Years' Penal Servitude .
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, April 10th, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution.
ROBERT OUTRAM (Detective). I took the prisoner in custody on a charge of loitering about warehouses—he was examined on the 16th and remanded till the 25th—he gave his name William Johnson, but refused his address—on the 22nd he gave his name William Cromer Palmer, 18, St. John's Terrace, Upper Holloway—I went there with Roper, and in consequence of the information I obtained I went to a house m Marylebone Lane, Mrs. Ribley's, who is related to him by his first wife I believe—I there saw a box, which I took to the police-station, and found it contained 4 pieces of silk and 13 or 14 remnants of various lengths—some of it is identified by Messrs. Candy—I saw the prisoner on the 30th and told him that since the last remand I had traced a box from his house to 11, Marylebone Lane, and had found in it several pieces of silk which were identified as stolen from different warehouses—he said "I know nothing about it, I bought them of a Frenchman."
FREDERICK ROWSE . I am assistant salesman to Candy and Co., of Watling Street—this piece of silk is their property, and has their private mark on it—it is worth 25l.—it has not been sold because there is no entry in our books—it was safe on 13th March and I missed it on the 15th—I saw the prisoner in the warehouse once in March—he passed through my department and went upstairs but he made no purchase.
ELIZABETH HOLLENBY . I live at 74, Falkland Road, Kentish Town my husband is a traveller—the prisoner married my daughter—he lives at 18, Craven Terrace, St. John's Road, Upper Holloway—on 26th March I was there in consequence of his wife's illness—I saw this box (produced) in the breakfast room—it was locked and corded—I saw a man take it away that day whose name I have since learned is Green.
WILLIAM GREEN . I am a greengrocer, of Upper Holloway—on 21st of March a young woman came and asked me if à could move a box for her, and I moved this box in a cart to No. 11—I had seen the prisoner in my shop some days before—he came in to buy something.
and left it for me to take care of till the Wednesday, but an officer came the next day and I delivered it up to him—it had not been opened.
Prisoner's Defence. I bought these goods on 14th March, but unfortunately I do not know where the man lives who I bought them of.
MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN LYNCH . I am salesman to Robert Bentley and Son, of 136, Cheapside—this piece of silk belongs to them—it has never been sold, or the paper would not be on it—I had it in my hand on the 11th and missed it two or three days afterwards—I have seen the prisoner several times in the warehouse, matching patterns, but he never bought anything to my knowledge—I have no doubt it belongs to the firm—I saw the invoice of it here.
He was further charged with having been convicted at Clerkenwell, in November, 1863, of obtaining goods by false pretences, to which he PLEADED GUILTY**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .
MR. A. METCALFE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. PURCELL the Defence.
HENRY GROVES . I am a navy and live at Bristol—I came up to town with my brother on 2nd April—we arrived at Paddington about 2.30 p.m.—we met a man in the road and went with him to the Victoria public-house, where we saw the prisoner, but no conversation took place for awhile—the man asked us if we would have anything to drink—we had a quart between us and the prisoner had a glass of gin—about five minutes after we went in the prisoner asked the other man whether we were relations—I told him "No"—they were on each side of us—the prisoner said that he was up in London about a lawsuit with a railway company, and if he spent 50l. to-day he could get 50l. more to-morrow—he showed us a purse which appeared to have bank notes and sovereigns in it—we did not know that they were medals—we all four left the house together and went into Hyde Park, and the other man said "I shall wish you good day" and went up the first turning—the prisoner then said "If you are hard up, if you can show me 1l. I will give you another 1l."—I said "We have only 7s."—he said "As you are hard up I will give you 1l. if you will lend me 5s.," and then he wrapped a coin up in a handkerchief and gave it to my brother and I gave him a five-shilling piece and afterwards 2s.—I had an odd halfpenny, and I said "I will keep that for luck"—we went into a public-house and he asked us what we were going to have to drink—we said "A pot of beer between the two of us"—he said that he would not have any—he wanted to retire, and asked the landlord if there was a back way—he went out at the front, and my brother took the coin out of the handkerchief and saw "This is a bad one"—I went out and found the prisoner behind a
waggon—I caught hold of him and said "This is a bad one; if you don't give me my 7s. I will knock your nose off"—he gave it back to me after a while, not at once—I would not give him back the coin—this is it (produced)—I went for a constable while my brother held him.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I thought the prisoner was an innocent Londoner and I should get 15s. out of him—he gave us the sovereign first and I gave him the 5s. afterwards—when I found I had not made such a good bargain as I thought, I threatened to knock his nose off.
EDWARD GROVES . I am the brother of the last witness, and was with him—we first saw the prisoner at a public-house—what my brother has said is correct—while he was gone for a constable I held the prisoner—he tried to throw me twice.
Cross-examined. I thought we should get 15s. for 5s.—he had plenty of money, I thought.
ROBERT GENTRY (Policeman 142 D). I was called and found the prisoner outside the Hanover public-house, Bayswater Road, being held by Edward Groves—I told him the charge—he said "It is only a betting transaction, but these d—d country fellows do not understand it"—I found on him this purse containing five Hanoverian medals and five flash notes on the Bank of Engraving, also an empty purse, 6s. 7 1/2d., and a brass watch and chain.
GUILTY .— One Month's Imprisonment .
MR. ISAACSON conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN HENRY DAVIES . I am a plasterer, of 90, Richmond Terrace, Shepherd's Bush—the prisoner was my porter and assistant—he had no authority to sign bills of exchange for me—if he collected money he would sign his own name, he had no authority to sign mine—he would sign for me—this promissory note (produced) is a forgery—it bears my name but it is not written with my authority—it is the prisoner's writing.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. If you signed for a cheque or bank notes you would put my name and your own underneath—I never saw you sign without—I trusted you as you are my son-in-law—you were in my employ as porter for eighteen months—you paid the men's wages and took orders when I was ill in 1876—I allowed you to fill up this form of acceptance (produced)—I do not keep a banker's account, and when cheques were paid you endorsed them with my name and put your initials.
GEORGE DONALD WESTON . I am a carman, of Portobello Road, Notting Hill—on 18th February the prisoner came and represented himself as the son of Mr. Davis, who owed me over 10l.—he said that Mr. Davis was very sorry he could not settle my account, as they had not received their remittances for the goods I had forwarded into the country, and were rather short of money, and would I advance him 3l. to pay the men's wages, and he would give me a bill for the whole amount, 16l.—he asked me if I would have it payable at the London and North-Western Bank or at my house—I said at the bank, as it would be easier to collect—I gave him the 3l. and he wrote this promissory note in my presence: "February 15th, 1878. Fourteen days after date I will pay J. D.
Watson's order, 16l. for value received. J. H. Davis. "Crossed" London and North-Western Bank."
Cross-examined. I said "Are you Mr. Davis's son?" and you said "Yes"—I knew you to be his managing man—I have taken orders of you—I cannot tell you whether written orders have been "For J. H. Davis, per C. Fox"—I remember receiving a letter last Christmas and sending it to you, but I did not know you were Fox.
WILLIAM BLAKE . On 20th March I had a warrant for the prisoner and saw him in High Street, Notting Hill—I said "Fox, you had better step across the road, Mr. Davis wishes to speak to you; I hold a warrant for your apprehension, you will have to go with me to Hammersmith"—I put him into a cab with the prosecutor—he said on the road "Oh father, I hope you will not do this, it is only 5l., and I should not have done it if I had not been drunk."
Cross-examined. I did not say "If you tell me all about it I will make it all right with Mr. Davis, it is only a family affair"—I did not say that it was only a matter of form, a family matter, and Mr. Davis would not do anything if I told him all about it.
J. H. DAVIS (Re-examined). The prisoner was not in my service on 15th February, he left on the 11th, and I did not see him again till he was in custody—a detective had been looking for him—I heard of this promissory note a fortnight afterwards, when it became due.
Prisoner's Defence. The money I received from Mr. Davis was not sufficient. I had only 10s. a week, and I worked from 7.30 a.m. till 10 p.m. I had to pay for my own board out of that.
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the insufficiency of his wages.
— Four Months' Imprisonment .
MR. PURCELL conducted the Prosecution.
EDWIN LINFOOT . I am a tailor, of 146, Central Street, St. Luke's—on 5th April, about 12.30 a.m., I heard a noise, got out of bed, looked out at the window, and saw a light in the back yard—I lit a lamp, and heard a door breaking open, and on rushing upstairs, I opened my bedroom door and saw the prisoner—I asked him what he was doing there—he said that there was a quarrel at the back, and he got in there out of the way—I called for assistance and my brother came down—I asked the prisoner again, and he said "I have been here since 10 o'clock, I came for a night's lodging, I am not a thief"—he pleaded very hard to be let go—I called a policeman and gave him into custody—I had left the kitchen door bolted securely, and when I went down I found it forced open and the window was open likewise—the window had been very insecurely fastened by a little drop latch, but I did not see it when I went to bed, only the door—I did not go into the kitchen, nor was there any one else who went in.
GEORGE CLEAVE (Policeman 284 G). I was called and found the prisoner being held—the kitchen window could only be opened by a knife—there wore no marks on it—I found on the prisoner six keys and a small candle and matches—he said that there was a disturbance and he got in there out of the way—he afterwards said that he had quarrelled with his landlord and got in there for the night.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I had been drinking all the night. I do not know how I got there. I remember hearing the gentleman bolt the door. I sat there two hours smoking in the closet, and then I wanted to get out. I had no intention whatever of robbing the place, that was the last thing in my thoughts."
Prisoner's Defence. I had no intention of thieving. I had been drinking over night. I was not breaking into the place, I was getting out. I never touched a single thing.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. CUNNINGHAM conducted the Prosecution. WILLIAM LONDON (Policeman G 158). On 11th March, about 1.45 a.m., I was on duty in Cross Street, Finsbury, and saw the two prisoners opposite the Red Lion public-house—I went up Wilson Street and came back and missed De Warr—I saw Poile go into Eldon Street, where I lost him—I saw him in charge on 23rd, at Guildhall, and identified him.
SAMUEL BREEDY (Policeman G 252). I was on duty near the Red Lion and saw the two prisoners talking on the cellar flap about 12.30—they walked away and I found the flap secure—I examined it again about 2 o'clock and saw that it had been lifted, because the dirt had come away, and I lifted it with my finger, which I could not do before—I posted a man on it, called the landlord up, and found De Warr in the cellar behind the door—I took him in custody—Poile was taken in the City on the 14th, and I identified him from other prisoners—he said nothing.
WILLIAM LINDSAY . I keep the Old Red Cow, Wilson Street—on 10th March I went round the house at night and saw that the bolts of the cellar flap were secure—I was aroused by the policeman about 2 a.m., Went in with him to the cellar, and found De Warr there and the bolts wrenched—he could get from the cellar into the house.
OLIVER HUNT (City Policeman 181). On 14th March, about 1.30, I saw Poile stooping over the cellar flap of a public-house at 53, Fore Street, trying to do something to it—he saw me and ran away—I found that the flap had been raised, and ran after him—just before I took him he dropped something down a grating in Fore Street—it jinked like iron. POILE— NOT GUILTY . DE WARR— Six Months' Imprisonment .
MR. TAMPLIN conducted the Prosecution.
VINCENT GROOM . I am steward's room boy at the Junior Naval and Military Club—on Saturday afternoon, 2nd March, I was sent to the London and County Bank, Hanover Square, to change two cheques belonging to Mr. Elliott—I saw the prisoner in Hanover Square and said "Is this the bank?"—he said "Here," and took hold of my arm and struggled with me—I had the two cheques in my hand—it was not a violent struggle—I called out "Police, police," and he ran away—he was not pulling me towards the bank, he was over me and I was stooping down—I ran after him and saw him caught.
Square surrounded by a crowd—I took him in custody and the boy charged him with trying to steal two cheques from his hand—he said that he only caught hold of his arm—he gave a false address.
FREDERICK WILLIAM LOBB . I am a letter-carrier, of 5, Brook's Mews North, Paddington—I was in Princes Street, heard a cry of "Stop thief!" and saw the prisoner running, pursued by the prosecutor—I stopped him—he said, "For God's sake, let me go, or you will ruin me for life"—I detained him, and the boy came up and gave him in custody, and said that he had tried to steal some cheques from him; he made no answer.
Prisoner's Defence. I had no intention of taking the cheques. I had no knowledge that the boy had any cheques. He asked me if I could show him the bank. I took hold of his arm, and said, "There is the bank," and I turned and went away.
VINCENT GROOM (Re-examined). The prisoner had hold of my arm, and tried to force my hand open—he had a stick in his hand—he did not try to throw me down—I was stooping down, and he was over me—he said nothing—one cheque was for 5l. and the other for 8l. 5s. 9d.
GUILTY .— Six Months' Imprisonment .
FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, April 10th, 1878.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MR. HUMPHREYS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COLE the Defence.
HORACE EVERETT (Policeman Y 550). On 8th March, about 5.45, I was on duty in Arundel Square, and heard a noise at the rear of 17, Allington Street—I looked over the wall and saw the prisoner, with this jemmy in his hand—he ran and climbed over the wall into No. 21—I followed—a nail in the wall caught me, and he got away—I went back to see if all was right, and then went to the station—I am quite sure the prisoner is the man.
Cross-examined. I got to the station about half an hour after—I first told a policeman, who came and asked me what was amiss—I had sprung my rattle—I am a countryman. (Mr. Bates and Mr. Darnold were here brought into Court.) I did not arrest Mr. Bates—Mr. Darnold did not say "I know him; he is a respectable man"—I did not say to the prisoner when he was arrested at 8 in the evening, "You look like the man I saw at the back of Arundel Square."
WILLIAM WITHAM (Detective Officer). I received information on the 8th, and went to 18, Arundel Square, the garden of which is separated by a wall from the garden of 17, Allington Street—I examined the premises, and found a shutter had been taken out at the back of No. 18—there were marks corresponding with this jemmy—in the evening I went with Everett to Hornsey Road—we saw the prisoner go into Brunswick Road—Everett said, "That looks like the man"—I followed him, and said to him, "You are the man I saw at the back of Arundel Square; come to the light and let us look at you"—the prisoner went to the lamp, and Everett said, "I am certain you are the man"—I told the prisoner
he would be charged with being in the backs—he said, "What time?"—I said, "A quarter to 6"—he said, "I could prove I was at home up to 9 in the morning"—he was taken to the station, where he said that he could prove he was not out of the house till after 8—Everett said it was soon after 6.30—the prisoner said it might be another man—the inspector sent for Everett, who came and identified the man—the prisoner said he went to Ellington Street for half a pint of beer and some brandy for his wife's tea between 6 and 7.
JAMES MARTIN (Policeman 27 Y R). I have known the prisoner seventeen or eighteen years—I saw him on 8th March, about 6 a.m., pass down Wellington Road and go into the Wellington public-house, which is about 300 yards from Ellington Street.
CAROLINE LONG HURST . I am servant to Mr. Andrew Miller, of 18, Ellington Square—on the morning of 8th March I came down and found the fastening forced off the kitchen window, and a panel taken out of the shutter.
Witnesses for the Defence.
THOMAS BATES . I am a coach-builder, and live at 12, Roundel Square, Westbourne Road, with Mr. Darn old, a greengrocer—on Friday, 8th March, about 5.50 a.m., I was in Roundel Square on my way to business and was arrested by a young constable very much like Everett—he took hold of my coat-sleeve and said "I want you"—I said "What do you want with me?"—he said "You must come along with me"—we went back and met Mr. Darn old, and I said to him "I have soon got into a muddle"—Mr. Darn old told the constable that he knew me, and the constable said "Then I am mistaken," and went away, and I went to my work.
Cross-examined. I work for the General Omnibus Company.
Re-examined. I fix the time by the Model Prison clock chiming at ten minutes to 6, as it does every morning.
ROBERT JOHN DARN OLD . I am Mr. Bates's landlord—the Model Prison clock bell rings at ten minutes to 6 every morning, I do not know what for—on 8th March I saw Mr. Bates in custody as it was ringing—he was coming round the square about twenty houses from Mr. Miller's house—Everett is very much like the constable who had him in custody.
Cross-examined. The constable said he had made a mistake—I do not know whether he is a Suffolk man.
MARY BIGGS . I live at 6, Brand Street, Holloway—on 8th March I went to call Mrs. Hobbs to go to Farringdon Market, about twenty minutes to 6 a.m.—Mrs. Coles was with me—Mrs. Hobbs was ill in bed and could not go.
Cross-examined. This was buying morning—I call for Mrs. Hobbs three or four times a week—I was not called at the police-court.
Re-examined. I heard of Hobbs's arrest on the Saturday afternoon—I was at the police-court ready to be called—a solicitor was employed.
JANE COLES . I live at 59, Queensland Road, Holloway—on Friday, 8th March, my husband called me about 5.30 a.m.—I went with Mrs. BIGGS to the prisoner's house about 5.40—Mrs. Hobbs was not able to go, having been taken ill in the night—it was striking 6 by the Cattle Market clock as we were going down the steps of the house—we went then to Farringdon Market—I heard of the prisoner's arrest about 10 o'clock the same day—I was at the police-court, but was not required.
Cross-examined. Mr. Ricketts was the solicitor—we were going to Farringdon Market because it was buying morning at Covent Garden—we frequently went to market together.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. COLE conducted the Prosecution. NATHAN COLE. I live at 6, Victoria Grove, Kensington, and am a gardener—on 16th February I went to bed at 10.30 p.m.—all the doors and windows were secured—on the 17th about 3.15 a.m. I was aroused by the barking of a lodger's dog—I went downstairs and found the area door open—I ran into the street and called "Police!"—I examined the premises and missed a mustard-pot—this is the lining of it—this dagger is my lodger's—I have seen it in his possession—his name is on it—the hasp of the area window had been forced—it was left shut—I found a pair of boots that did not belong to me, also a chisel on the mantelpiece—I also missed two coats and a waterproof—I have only seen this portion of the mustard-pot and the dagger since.
HERBERT SHAW . I lodge with Mr. Cole—I was awoke about 3.30 by the barking of my dog, which was at the foot of my bed—I kicked him and told him to keep quiet, but he growled—I woke up again and saw a tall man enter my bedroom—the dog flew at him—I heard some one say, I do not know to whom, "Get out, you s—," or "Go it, you s—"—he shut the door in my face—this dagger is mine—I missed this pair of gloves, a silver pepper castor, and these other articles—I was afterwards taken to a pawnbroker.
WILLIAM GOLDSWORTHY (Policeman 131 X). I was in Bletchington Street, Notting Hill, on 18th February, about 12.45 a.m., and saw Neville—I watched him three-quarters of an hour—I asked him what he was doing there—he said "Nothing"—I asked if he had anything in his pockets—he said "No, I can assure you"—he pulled off his coat, threw it on the ground, and ran away—I picked it up and ran after him—he got away—I took the coat to the station, and found this mustardpot in the lining—I saw him at the station in custody on the 20th, and am sure he is the man—I have known him. Cross-examined by Neville. You had no tunic on.
JOSSE COUCHMAN (Policeman 393 X). I arrested Neville, in company with another policeman at Notting Hill on the 20th, for loitering—on the way to the station he threw away this jemmy—at the station I found on him this dirk, a piece of candle, two matches, and three duplicates—one refers to the coat and one to the vest.
GEORGE WHITE (Policeman 75 X). I saw Jones on the 28th coming out of Gothic Villa, Shepherd's Bush—he ran away—on 2nd March I arrested him in a public-house—I said he would be charged with being in a house—he said "Do you mean it?"—I said "Yes"—he said "I
have been expecting this; all right"—I searched him at the station and found some duplicates, this chisel, and a fog signal—one duplicate refers to a pair of gloves, another to a shawl pawned to a Mr. Reeve.
Neville's Defence. On the 18th I was talking to a young woman, advising her to go away from a young man, when the policeman came to apprehend me as a deserter. He pulled my coat from under my arm, but I got away. He never asked me what I had in my pocket. The jemmy was not found on me. It was "chucked" away. All the resistance I made was to say "Mother, pick up my hat." The things were left with me by a young chap I don't know on the Sunday night. He gave me some ale and asked me to take them. He said he had had a row with his mother. I put them under my bed. I put the coat on because it was windy.
NEVILLE— GUILTY . JONES— NOT GUILTY .
MR. COLE conducted the Prosecution. LUCY HOOKER. I am the wife of William Hooker, a stableman, of 1A Somerset Terrace, Kensington—I went to bed on 1st February about 9.30 p.m. after fastening all the doors and windows—I and my husband got up about 6.45 a.m.—we found the window open and missed this shawl, jacket, and vest (produced), a little teapot, 11 teaspoons, two dessert-spoons, a tablecloth, cruet-stand, and other things, and this riding-whip.
WILLIAM HARDING . I am manager to Edward Fowler and live at Shepherd's Bush—on 2nd February, when I came into my office, it was all in an uproar, the books and papers being scattered about—two whips had been cut and the butt ends taken away—I produce the other part of one of them—my premises are under the same roof and communicate with those of Hooker.
JONES— NOT GUILTY . Sentence on NEVILLE*— Five Years' Penal Servitude .
MR. HUMPHREYS conducted the Prosecution.
MARY MOORE . I am the prisoner's wife—I remember 23rd March—I did not have words with him—I was at the police-court and gave evidence against him, but I was not quite right—I never said I was rowing with him—it was an accident—I went to get the bread, and I was so long he came and pushed me—he did not say that he would go his ways and I
should go mine, nor threaten to stab me—I deny the truth of what is in the deposition.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. HUMPHREYS conducted the Prosecution.
MIRIAM COX . I am the wife of William Cox, an omnibus conductor—on the afternoon of the 1st of April I was in Gracechurch Street carrying a bag—I had a purse in my jacket containing 3s. 5 3/4d. and a duplicate—the prisoner came and put his hand in my pocket, took my purse, and ran across the road—I told a gentleman, who ran after him—the prisoner ran into a constable's arms—I charged him.
WILLIAM JOSEPH HINES (City Policeman 743). On the afternoon of 1st April I was on duty in Bell Yard, and saw the prisoner running and a gentleman shouting "Stop thief"—I followed, overtook the prisoner, and took him to the station—I saw him throw this purse away—I found 7¼d. on him.
MR. HUMPHREYS conducted the Prosecution.
ROBERT JOHN HAYES . I am a publican of 8, Leman Street—on 23rd March the prisoner came to my house a little after 11 a.m., and said that he had been there the day before and his cousin had left 3l. 10s. with my wife—I said "You know nothing about it, it was not 3l. 10s."—he said "How much was it?"—I said "I will not give you any satisfaction, I will not tell you what it was"—he said "I am going to see my cousin at the Home and I will return"—he returned in about a quarter of an hour and said "I have been down and found my cousin has been locked up for being drunk, and he has given me this note for you; I have seen the PoliceInspector and everything is all right"—I said "I should like to make inquiries to know whether it is all right or not, I will get you to sign your name and your cousin's on this piece of paper"—he did so and I sent for a policeman—we walked to the station and saw the sergeant on duty, who made inquiries—the seaman said he had never given any authority to any one to receive the money.
MARY HAYES . I am the wife of the last witness—on 22nd March the prisoner came to our house with a sailor who left 3l. 10s. in gold and a 10l. note from the Sailors' Home, for me to take care of—I saw the prisoner sign this paper: "Please to let my cousin have the money that I, William Stileman, left last night. Edwin Burrows. William Stileman."
GEORGE LIGHTMAN . I am a sailor living at the Sailors' Home—on 22nd March I was locked up—I left 3l. 10s. and a note with Mrs. Hayes—I had a couple of glasses with the prisoner—I had not seen him before—I never sent him for the money nor authorised him to sign his name—he is not my cousin.
morning"—I said "Where?"—he said "At the Court "—I said "What sort of a man is your cousin?"—he said "He is a man with a long beard"—I said "Where was he paid off, at Tower Hill?" he then said "No, he was paid off at Liverpool"—on the way to the station he said that he had been to the station before—at the station the prisoner said to the seaman "You gave me authority to receive the money"—the seaman denied it—the seaman had been locked up for being drunk on the 22nd and was discharged the next morning.
Prisoner's Defence. I tried to get the money to pay his fine and get him off.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. HUMPHREYS conducted the Prosecution.
ROBERT FLOOD . On 6th March, about 11.20 p.m., I was in Leadenhall Street, at the corner of Sussex Place—the prisoner got in front of me and took my watch and chain, and ran away—I ran after him and caught him—he tried to get away—a policeman came and assisted me—I charged him with the robbery—we took him to the station—we went back to Leadenhall Street and afterwards found the watch in my great-coat pocket—the chain was broken—I value them at 11l.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not say to you as you were passing me "I want you," and then follow you.
ROBERT WILSON (City Policeman 897). On the night of 6th March I was on duty in Sussex Place—I met the prisoner running, and caught hold of him—he said "All right, let me go"—I held him—the prosecutor came up and said he had got his watch and chain—the prisoner had his right arm behind him—we took him to the station and charged him—we did not find the watch and chain on him.
Cross-examined. I saw something in your hand—you did not ask me to take you into the hotel to search you.
JAMES WANT (City Policeman 43). On March 7th, at 12.45 a.m., I found this piece of chain and ring on the spot pointed out to me by Flood as the place of the robbery—it is outside the entrance to Sussex Place, in Leadenhall Street.
Prisoner's Defence. I met the prosecutor intoxicated; he said "I want you." I walked on about six yards; when he ran after me I ran through Sussex Place and a constable and two gentlemen stopped me, twisted me round, and asked me what I had done. I said "Nothing," and asked them to take me into the hotel to see whether I had any watch and chain on me. They would not do it. An hour after the prosecutor found them in his pocket. I can assure you I am innocent.
GUILTY*— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment .
MESSRS. BESLEY and FULTON conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. M. WILLIAMS and PURCELL the Defence.
LOUISA HARRIET STRICKLAND . I am a widow—I live at 178, Amherst Road, and occupy premises at 90, Curtain Road—my husband was a veneer merchant—I am the executrix of his will—I produce the probate—he died on 28th February this year—the prisoner was then his manager
—I gave instructions to my late husband's brother to see the prisoner—I received two keys from the prisoner on 2nd March, one big one and one small—they remained in my possession till 23rd March—in consequence of what I then heard I saw my solicitor, Mr. Books—the prisoner called on me one morning a few days after my husband's death, and said if I would pay him his weekly salary up to the 25th he would forego the three years or whatever remained of the lease, and I thanked him—his wages were 2l. 10s. a week—he did not ask to purchase anything—I never gave him authority to remove any veneer.
Cross-examined. The premises were leased from the prisoner—I do not know that he has a claim for what he paid for rates and taxes, nor whether any receipts were found on him when he was taken.
WILLIAM STRICKLAND . I am the brother-in-law of the last witness, and live at 44, Canterbury Road, Balls Pond—on 2nd March, about 3 p.m., in consequence of instructions received from her, I went to 90, Curtain Road, and saw the prisoner—I told him that I had Mrs. Strickland's instructions that the place was to be locked up and the business suspended, and I was to take the keys back to her—he showed some reluctance to close, and said it was customary to close at 4 o'clock, and on his undertaking to close I left him in charge.
Cross-examined. I was not concerned in the business.
BENJAMIN NEWSTEAD . I am a member of the firm of Lovring and Co., accountants—I was consulted with reference to Mrs. Strickland's affairs on 23rd March, about 12 o'clock, by Mr. Rooks—I received directions from him—on the 25th, about 11 a.m., I went with Mr. Collins, one of our stock-takers, to 90, Curtain Road, and found the door open—the shutters were up—I went in and saw two or three men—the prisoner was one—I asked him what business he had there, as I had the keys—he said that he had another key and he was the manager, and that Mr. Rooks had authorised him to come in, and he borrowed the key from next door—I asked him for the key and he gave it to me—it fits No. 90—I have not tried it at No. 88—he said he always had a key—I asked him why he did not give it up—he said he did not think it was requisite—the men were looking at some veneer—I locked up the place and went away—I afterwards saw Mr. Rooks, and then went back to 90, Curtain Road, and searched for a carpenter—I saw the prisoner at No. 88, at a desk, and asked him if he could find me a carpenter to barricade the windows up, as I observed they were open and the door also—I noticed some mahoganies on the floor at the prisoner's house—I did not have any conversation about them with him.
Cross-examined. The premises belong to the prisoner—I did not know that he paid out an execution for rates and taxes—I know it now—Mr. Strickland committed suicide on Hackney Downs.
Re-examined. About 15l. was due for rent—the rates and taxes amounted to 6l. or 7l.
HENRY BARRALET . I live at Paul Street, Great Eastern Street, Shoreditch—I was formerly tenant of 88 and 90, Curtain Road, paying 60l. rent for 90, and 50l. for 88, I kept No. 88 up to 25th March, 1878—Mr. Strickland was next tenant of No. 90—the prisoner told me he had two lots of veneer and requested me to let him put it in 88—he said that he received it from Mr. Bryant, of Montague Street—I do not know of any other goods being brought there.
Cross-examined. The prisoner did not show me any receipts for taxes at No. 90.
WALTER WATSON . I live at Sill Street, Bethnal Green, and am employed by Mr. Barralet—I remember the prisoner bringing some veneer from No. 90 to No. 88, Curtain Road, one day after Mr. Strickland's death—I only noticed him do so once, but I saw that the quantity of veneer there increased—one bundle was put in the cellar—I afterwards helped to move 10 bundles into the cellar in order to clear one side of the shop—I afterwards went into the cellar and saw a still greater quantity there.
Cross-examined. It was in the morning when I saw the prisoner moving the veneer while I was at work.
RICHARD BARR . I live at Hoxton, and was employed by the late Mr. Strickland at 90, Curtain Road, and by the prisoner for about three weeks afterwards—I helped the prisoner to move some bundles of veneer from No. 90 to No. 88, about a week after Mr. Strickland's death—I also did so on two or three days subsequently—they were taken upstairs at No. 90, and across the leads, and taken in at a door on the leads at No. 88, and afterwards they were put in the cellar—the first day I was employed two or three hours—I made eight or nine journeys—this went on for two or three weeks, about two or three days in a week—I recollect Mr. Morris, of Queen Street, Worship Street, coming to the prisoner at No. 88—he said he was short of veneer and would like a bundle—the prisoner said he had not settled the price, but would see Mr. Morris in two or three days—I next saw Mr. Morris at his place in Queen Street, and took from No. 90 some veneers on a barrow—I afterwards took some veneers to Messrs. Steward and Marshall's, in the Broadway, but not on a barrow—I did not see any money paid on either occasion.
JOSEPH MORRIS . I carry on business in Worship Street—I saw the prisoner about some veneers about 10th, 11th, or 12th March, and afterwards some were left at my house, but I do not think they were the same as I saw at No. 88—the value was 3l. 3s. 9d.
Cross-examined. That was a fair value—I paid him 1l. on account—I knew the prisoner as a respectable man.
WILLIAM MARSHALL . I am a cabinet-maker, of 19, New Inn, Broadway—on 23rd March I went to 90, Curtain Road, and saw the prisoner near the shop—I bought 14s. 4d. worth of veneer—he had called at my place to know if I wanted anything—I had dealt with him many times, once on 16th March, to the extent of 38s.—he took me to No. 90, and unlocked the door on both occasions—it was about four o'clock.
Cross-examined. I took them away openly—I did not know anything was wrong—I have known him six or seven months and looked upon him as a respectable mun—I paid a fair price.
WILLIAM NORMAN . I am a cabinet-maker, of 55, Maria Street, Kingsland Road—I bought some veneers of the prisoner some time after Mr. Strickland's death, but not on 2nd March—I remember the boy Barr bringing me five bundles on a barrow on Saturday, 2nd March—on the following Wednesday I saw the prisoner—I asked him to take the veneers away, as they were in my way—I had given the prisoner permission to leave them from Saturday to Monday—he said he was going to open a shop at No. 88, and if I would let them remain a few days longer he would take them away—they were afterwards taken away by the police—I went on the Wednesday to No. 88—the
police were there—they asked the prisoner whether he could account for the veneers being there—he said I had sold them to him—that was not true—I never sold him any veneer.
Cross-examined. I never valued the veneers left with me—they are worth about 6d. a leaf, judging from the top one—there are 50 leaves in a bundle.
WALTER SALOMON . I live at 14, Bateman Road, Shoreditch—I was present on 25th March, when the prisoner made a statement about some veneers—he came to my premises on 8th March and asked me if I had some oak veneers—I said "Yes" and took him up into the veneer rooms and showed him my stock—he said that would do if we could arrange about the price, and it was arranged that I should send a quantity of oak veneers amounting to 5l. 11s. 7d.—I never sold any other veneers to him.
JAMES HALL . I am manager to a firm of veneer manufacturers in Burton Street—I am acquainted with the value of veneer—I was shown at Old Street police-station about 8,000 "burr" veneers, that is, the roots of walnut-trees cut up into veneer—they were worth about 80l.—I also saw some maple veneer worth about 20l. or 25l., but I am not so well acquainted with the price of maple—I had sold the burr veneers to Mr. Strickland for 80l.
Cross-examined. Mr. Strickland is heavily in my debt—I do not know the amount.
BENJAMIN NEWSTEAD (Re-examined). The prisoner has not accounted for the 38s. received from Mr. Marshall, nor the 3l. 3s. 9d.—(Referring to a book) I see no entry of it—I cannot say in whose possession the books were on 16th March—the prisoner never applied to me for leave to deposit veneers with any one.
Cross-examined. Mr. Strickland's estate is in Chancery—the prisoner is a creditor—I do not know the amount.
Re-examined. This prosecution is authorised by the Court of Chancery.
GEORGE ARTHUR ROOKS . I am Mrs. Strickland's solicitor—I saw the prisoner on Friday, 22nd March—he had left me a letter a day or two previously and called in pursuance of it—he told me he was the landlord of 90, Curtain Road, which he had let to Mr. Strickland for a term which had not expired, and that he was desirous of having possession at quarter day, but there were three quarters' rent due—I told him it would be paid in due course—the amount was about 15l.—I said that the stock would be removed, and there would be an arrangement for him to come into early possession—the prisoner said he had been asked to give up the keys to the widow, and he had done so almost immediately after Mr. Strickland's death—he did not say he had another key and was in the habit of going on the premises, nor did he make any demand for moneys paid for taxes—I gave him no authority to go on the premises—no reference was made to it—he only referred to rent.
Cross-examined. I have not ascertained that he did pay money for taxes—it was mentioned at the police-court—I do not recollect any receipts being taken from his pocket.
ALFTED BUNTING (Policeman G 3). I took the prisoner for stealing a quantity of veneer from 90, Curtain Road—he said he did not know anything about it—I saw some veneer in the shop at No. 88, and asked him to account for the possession of it—he said he got it from Mr. Norman,
who was present, and said he did not deal in veneers—I pointed to some birch veneer, and asked him where he got that from—he said, "From Mr. Salomon's"—I went in the cellars on the Monday, and found 20 parcels of walnut burrs and a quantity of black wood, satin, and mahogany veneers—on the Tuesday I again searched the house, and in the coalcellar found 53 packets of walnut veneers, 10 of maple, and 2 of chestnut—and from inquiries I made I went to Mr. Norman's, and found five bundles—altogether there were 192 parcels, of from 40 to 50 leaves, found and removed to the police-station—at the station the prisoner said, "I have taken the veneer; it was only to pay myself for rates which I had paid, amounting to 7l. 8s. 9d."—he produced receipts dated 4th January and 8th March, 1878, for 5l. 5s. and 2l. 3s. 9d—this key fits both Nos. 88 and 90—I found this account-book, which shows the sales for the amounts given in evidence; also this pass-book, which shows the amounts paid to his account during March, 13l. 12s. 7d.—from 1876 to April, 1878, there is nothing paid to his account—I took the book to the bank to be made up.
GEORGE RHODES . I witnessed the prisoner's signature to this agreement. (This was for letting No. 90, Curtain Road, by the prisoner to Mr. Strickland, and provided that Mr. Strickland should pay one-third of all rates and taxes, the landlord paying the rest.) I went to Mrs. Strickland's on 11th March to examine the books—the prisoner gave them to me, and I took them to her.
ALBERT PARROTT (Policeman G 204). For three weeks before I was examined at the police-court I was on duty in Curtain Road—I saw the prisoner several times enter No. 90, and take some bundles of veneer into No. 88—the premises were not open for business—I knew him as having been employed by Mr. Strickland—I did not know but what it was all right.
Cross-examined. This occurred at all hours in the daytime—I was in uniform.
The Prisoner received a good character. GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment .
NEW COURT.—Thursday, April 11th, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH
JOHN BRIDGE ASPINALL , Q. C. I am Recorder of Liverpool, and live at 64, Queen's Gardens, Bayswater—on the evening of 7th March I received this letter—I had given the prisoner 5l. a fortnight before, on account of Lord Howard of Glossop—I have been acting as a friend of Lord Howard in the matter—I first saw the prisoner on Easter Sunday, 1877, or else the Saturday before, at a monastic establishment called Mount St. Bernard, in Leicestershire—he was working there as a gardener, but not living there—I told him that Lord Howard had asked me to come and see him, and that I had been informed by Lord and
Lady Howard of numbers of things which he had done, and that if I had had the entire guidance of the matter I would not have done anything for him, but I found that Lady Howard had some time before made an arrangement with him, under which he had been working there, his wages being paid by Lord Howard—he said that he did not know that before but that he suspected it, that he was tired of being there and would stay there no longer, that Lord Howard had unjustly dismissed him a number of years before from his situation as gardener, when he expected to be made head gardener, and that he had been given in custody on a charge of cutting some vines, and had lost eight years of his life, and had been brooding over it ever since, and that Lord Howard was bound to get him head gardener to the Duke of Norfolk, or Lord Bute, or Mr. De Lisle, or to pay him 1,000l.—I said, "You know that you confessed to Lady Howard some time ago that you have for some time been writing or causing to be written anonymous letters to Lord Howard, his agent, and neighbours; "(I think I mentioned the name of Canon Tasker)" and that you have done a number of acts against Lord Howard's property for which you might have been criminally proceeded against, but Lady Howard and her family take a considerable interest in you and your family, and they think you must have taken some extraordinary notions into your head about your treatment; Lord Howard is in a very low state of health, and Lady Howard does not wish him to be annoyed any more, and they are willing to continue the payment which you have been hitherto receiving, giving you permission, instead of remaining at Mount St. Bernard, to go wherever you like, provided only that they are kept informed as to where you are and what you are doing"—he declined to make any arrangement, except on the conditions that he was made head gardener to some nobleman or gentleman, or had 1, 000l. given him—I said "You will be much better off with 25s. a week and your own time and labour free, than you will be in any situation, even if you keep it," and I pointed out to him that he would probably lose it almost immediately he got it, on account of his temper; and that it was truly impossible Lord Howard could recommend him to any gentleman without telling him the whole story, in which case nobody would take him; and I think I said that the Duke of Norfolk knew the story already and certainly would not take him—the interview then terminated—he came again to me next day to the Monastery and said that he was willing to make an arrangement—he still asserted that he had a right to be made head gardener to somebody or have 1, 000l.—I believe he signed this paper in my presence, but the gentleman who wrote it says that he did not, but that he signed it and gave it to me afterwards—I did not see him for some time afterwards, when he spoke not of this paper but of another—I had drawn up a duplicate of the second, and sent it to the Rev. Mr. Sisk, of Manchester, by post, and by return of post received the duplicate back signed by the prisoner—[ spoke to him about it, and discussed it very fully a year afterwards at Liverpool—the signatures are both in the same writing—he had agreed to enter into an arrangement, which was shortly discussed and embodied in this document, to the effect that he should have 25s. a week on condition of his good behaviour, and invariably receiving it through some person known to Lord Howard, either a banker or solicitor, at any place where he might choose to reside; and I stipulated that he should not attempt to live on it, but should save it and support himself by getting a situation—I saw him again one Sunday
last February at Birkenhead, during the Liverpool Assizes, and asked him why he had not drawn any money under the arrangement, and why he had left Mount St. Bernard leaving a considerable sum of money in the hands of Mr. Sisk—he said that the arrangement was a paltry one, and he would not condescend to accept anything under it, and asked to have 1,000l. or be made head gardener to the Duke of Norfolk—I told him he would be much better off with 25s. a week, with his time and labour free—he was very violent in his demeanour rather than his language, and went away saying that he would not accept anything—I told him that he would be sure to come back in a week, and in a week he did come back—I found him waiting at the door of my Court—he followed me to the hotel, and said that he had made up his mind to take the 25s. a week and live on it—I told him he would be very foolish if he lived on it, I thought he had much better work and save the money—he said he thought he would go to America, where he had been before—I said I thought that would be much the best thing; and if he did that I would advise Lord Howard to make him an advance on the 25s. a week to maintain himself when he got there—I asked him how much he wanted—he said he thought 5l.—I said he might have anything he liked, for, although he had not fulfilled the conditions of the agreement, Lord Howard would not take advantage of that; and I gave him 5l., and wrote down my address in London—he almost recited the terms of the arrangement on paper "C," and he was to write to me—I received a letter from him on 27th or 28th February—I believe it to be in the same writing as his signature—I did not answer it, and received a second, dated 5th March—I then wrote to him—I have no coppy of my letter. (Notice to produce this letter was here proved as being served on the prisoner by Andrew Lansdown on 5th April.) I said in my letter, "Sir, I did not answer your first letter because I had so often answered in conversation with you the questions you put to me; Lord Howard does not intend to get you a situation for the reasons I have so often given you before. He is, however, desirous of assisting you to the utmost of his power within the terms of the arrangement which was made with you about a year ago, and which we have discussed several times. I can't help again pointing out to you that you would be much better off with the 25s. a week which was arranged for, and your time and labour at your own disposal, than you could possibly be in any situation." That was the substance of the letter—the next letter, the subject of this indictment, was delivered by post at my house, and I handed it to Lord Howard.
Cross-examined. He complained that he had been dismissed from Lord Howard's service and had been improperly charged with doing malicious damage to Lord Howard's property—I asked him whether Lord Howard was personally responsible for that, he said "No"—he was not disrespectful or violent to me but he was emotionally violent—when I spoke to him at Liverpool, he came in consequence of a message from me—I sent for him, as Lord Howard had informed me that he had left the convent using very violent language, and it was reported that he had used very violent language at Birkenhead—Lord Howard was in a delicate state of health at that time and under medical treatment—I had told the prisoner that Lord Howard was ill, but it was a year afterwards that he wrote "It will be the happiest day of my life when I hear of Howard's death."
THOMAS SISK . I am a member of the community of St. Bernard Abbey, Leicestershire—I wrote these documents of 15th and 17th April—I drew up the first for Mr. Aspinall to consider, and I got the prisoner to sign the second, and attested his signature—the prisoner was employed at the Monastery in February and March, 1876, and continued there till the end of April, 1877, as a working gardener—he was not a member of the community—he was employed at Lady Howard's request—this letter of 7th March is in the prisoner's writing in my judgment.
Cross-examined. He left in April last year soon after Mr. Aspinall was at the Monastery.
LADY HOWARD . The prisoner's father and mother were tenants of my father's—they were originally in very poor circumstances, and in great distress, and he established them in a cottage and they lived on his estate to the end of their lives—they were thoroughly respectable, well-behaved people—they had three children, the prisoner and two daughters—I was a child at the time, and used to teach them in the Sunday school—I lost sight of them when I went away for my education—in February, 1876, I had heard of a letter written by the prisoner to Canon Tasker—I spoke to the prisoner about it and he said that he had not written it—we then talked about his general proceedings from the time he left Glossop—I explained to him that a great many of his grievances were fancied ones—he explained them with great volubility and was very much excited in manner and voice—he said that his principal grievance was the trial for the vine-cutting at Glossop, and he had been dragged from his home when the mill people were about the streets and disgraced, and had been handcuffed, although he promised to go quietly; and he said why was not Scott also treated in the same way, as there was the same presumption against him—Scott was the head gardener; he accused Scott and Scott accused the prisoner—I explained to him that we knew nothing about the unnecessary harshness with which he had been treated, and if there was any grievance it was not against Lord Howard but against the police—I said "Well, after all, although, perhaps, you have been treated harshly I am sure you deserved it because you did cut the vines"—he said "Well, and if I did, there is no more evidence against me than there is against Scott, and why was I treated so much more harshly than he was"—his manner was very excited and violent; he looked very much like a man out of his mind—the next thing he said was that Lord Howard had not answered a letter he had written to him after the trial, asking for an interview, of which no notice had been taken, although he had remained in the neighbourhood of Glossop in the hope of being sent for—I said that Lord Howard had never received the letter—after that he said he went to Birkenhead and from thence to America to the diggings at California, and remained there some time and got with a very wild set of people, and his one fault was drinking day and night, and that he was all day meditating upon his wrongs and how he should be revenged, and the people round him said they were sure he had something on his mind and he told them, and they said that there was nothing easier than to be revenged; he would get dynamite or gunpowder, or he could shoot, and if he did not like to do it himself he could get somebody else to do it for half-a-crown, and that he afterwards arranged a plot in his mind and came to England to put it in execution, and he landed at Birkenhead and proceeded to look about to see if he could find some one
for a sum of money who would undertake to do it, and at last he found a man who had been in Kirkdale Gaol some time, who consented for a good sum of money to do the thing, and he was very flush of money, having been betting at the races, that he gave it to the man, and they went down together to the neighbourhood of Glossop to see how they could put their plan in execution, and it was a very fine plot, and he was to cut the vines and the other man was to shoot Lord Howard, and they concealed themselves behind the bushes and watched for him to come out; that the man was armed with a gun, but Lord Howard did not appear; that they saw two young ladies coming on the terrace and concluded that Lord Howard was not there, and the dinner hour of the gardener was near, and the man thought it was not fair for him to do nothing, so he went and cut the vines, and he would have cut them all if he had not been afraid of the gardeners coming—there was a second cutting of the vines in August, 1875—I asked him who did the vine-cutting about the 1st—he said that he had done it—I said "Did you do it yourself?"—he said "Yes, I did," and then he drew himself up, and said "No, the other man did it"—I am speaking now of the more recent cutting—he then told me a long rambling story about having joined the American army, and that he had deserted and was obliged to be in hiding for fear of being shot as a deserter, and had suffered an immense deal from starvation and fell ill with brain fever, and there was a change in him, he got weak in his head and his hair turned grey, and all that was Lord Howard's doing—he got very much excited.
Cross-examined. He showed violence towards Lord Howard, but he was perfectly respectful to me—he admitted that Lord Howard and I had been very kind to him and his family—this long conversation took place at Garrington Park—I went there on purpose to have the interview—I thought that having known him in his childhood and my family having done so much for his parents I might have some influence—before the end of the interview he became calmed down and, to some extent, repentant—he did not say that he did not mean any harm to Lord Howard—he said that he had in the past meant harm to him—he promised amendment for the future—I have known him from a child—I was a child myself at that time—he was perfectly well-conducted as long as he was at Garrington and was in my father's employment—he came to Glossop as gardener I think in 1867, and remained two or three years—the head gardener who was there when he came was an old man, and he retired on a pension about three months after Shehan came—I forget whether Scott immediately took his place, perhaps Bradley came first, I know there were two head gardeners—I am of opinion that the police treated him with a good deal of harshness by handcuffing him, and I am sorry for him—he was at St. Bernard just a year—I was abroad when he left but I heard of it shortly afterwards.
LORD HOWARD. Glossop Hall is one of my seats, and I occasionally live there—in August, 1867, I engaged the prisoner as gardener—I had heard that he had previously worked on Lady Howard's estate, and he was recommended to me from there—my head gardener was about to retire—to the best of my recollection I held out a hope to the prisoner of being head gardener on a reduced establishment—I engaged him for one or two months at 19s. a week to see whether it pleased him and he pleased me—I subsequently found he was not up to the business, and in
about two months I engaged another head gardener with the object of training the profession in the profession of gardening and ultimately of finding him another place—he left my service in 1870, and at that time considerable mischief had been done to my vines—three or four vines died the first time; the second time I was not there.
ANDREW LANSDOWNE (Policeman). I took the prisoner in custody at Hoxton, near Birkenhead, and found on him a key which he said belonged to his bag, in which I found a Post Office Savings Bank book and several memoranda, the envelope marked D, and a memorandum book—he signed this receipt (produced) for the property which I gave back to him.
CHARLES CHABOT . I have seen the receipt given by the prisoner, the receipt in the savings bank book, and the signature to the two agreements, and have not the slightest doubt that the letters the subject of the indictment are the prisoner's writing—they are not in a disguised hand—this letter to Canon Tasker is in the same writing, but the envelope is in a disguised hand.
THE REV. CHARLES TASKER . I live at Glossop—in August, 1875, I received this letter G—August 12th is the post-mark—on 11th August I saw the vines at Lord Howard's, they had been cut on the 9th—I went away on the 12th and found this letter awaiting my return on the 14th. (On the Solicitor-General proposing to read the letter of August, 1875, MR. W. SLEIGH submitted that it was not relevant to the present charge, and could only prejudice the prisoner, and that the letter of 1878 must be judged of alone and stand or fall by itself, the letter of 1875 being a distinct act and a separate offence, for which the prisoner might yet be indicted. The COURT could see no difference between what the prisoner said and what he wrote, and as what he said in 1875 had been admitted in evidence the letter could not be excluded.) The letter was in pencil as follows:—Sir,—Just a few lines to tell Lord Howard to put a watch on the Hall, it will be blown up with gunpowder on Saturday night next. He would have been sot on monday had he been at home about 12 o'clock at noon. Shean has paid a man to do it, they will arrived at dinting about 8.48 p.m., and walked to Glossop. The man stood behind the shrubs at the end of the long walk on monday at noon when tow young ladies walked up, expecting every moment his Lordship would accompany them. I remain, yours, A Catholic. The whole of the green houses would have been cut down only the man lost time in waiting for Lord Howard to come out; his orders from Shean was to put a bulet trough his Lordship. the man that is going to do it has been to Kirkdale prision in Liverpool seven times. Shean is determined to have a revenge, and when it is done he will go to Queenstown, and from there to New York by the White Star Line."
Cross-examined. The prisoner was a member of my congregation and was a well-conducted, peacable man until the disturbance with Scott—I never heard anything against him. Letter A read:—"This will be the last note between you and me on the subject. Had I known as much then as I do now I would not accept of that paltry 5l. from you. It will be the happiest day of my life when I hear of Howard's death. I will go on the spree for a month; not only that, but when he is dead I hope the divel will take him at the back of the neck and dip him in a tar baral and keep him there till the day of judgment; but you will see who is master. I will watch him till I get a chance at him and then you will
see whether it is deeds or words. Most likely you will think I am boasting about the matter, time will tell, I will either blow that infernal Hall from the foundation or else put a bulet trough that ruffian, and you are not much better. What is 25s. per week for a man who wasted his time and spent his money for the last eight years? &c." GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude .
445. THOMAS FRANCIS WRIGHT (40), GEORGE LEWIS (60), and GEORGE PITMAN (68) , Unlawfully obtaining from Charles Henry Grove a black silk skirt and 9l. 13s. 6d. in money by false pretences. Other Counts for conspiring to defraud Charles Gask and others.
MESSRS. GRAIN and HORACE AVORY conducted the Prosecution; MR. GLYN appeared for Wright, MR. PURCELL for Lewis, and MESSRS. BESLEY and TICKELL for Pitman.
CHARLES HENRY GROVE . I am assistant to Grant and Gask, of Oxford Street—on 5th February Wright came there and wanted to look at a skirt which a lady had seen a few days previously—we had not got it then, and I showed him some others—he selected a black silk costume at six and a half guineas, and asked for it to be sent as he had not sufficient to pay for it—he gave his address "George Lewis, solicitor, 4, Camden Avenue, Peckham," and then said "If you can change a cheque I will pay you for it now," producing this cheque: (Read: "Feb. 4, 1878. Birkbeck Bank. Pay Mr. Smith or bearer 16l. 10s. Thos. Pitman. "Endorsed "Wm. Smith, Geo. Lewis.") I took it to the manager and came back and said that we would change it—he turned it over, pointed to "Geo. Lewis," and said "That is my name"—I took the six and a half guineas out of it and gave him 9l. 13s. 6d. in cash and this receipted invoice—he said that he would call for the dress in half an hour—a boy was with him who came back in about half an hour, and I gave it to him—I parted with the dress and the cash, believing him to be George Lewis and a solicitor—I thought the cheque would be honoured.
Cross-examined by MR. GLYN. I went to Wright's house on another day and detained him till we got a warrant—he and I had dinner together at Grant and Gask's—I found him in Southwark Bridge Road and waited till he came out—our firm found out a few days afterwards that his name was not Lewis—he said that a lady had seen a dress trimmed with white, which we never had, and then he said "Let me see some dresses."
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. The dress was afterwards pawned; I do not know in what name.
BENJAMIN THOMAS . I am managing clerk to Gask and Gask—I received this cheque from a clerk; it was paid to our bankers and returned—on 10th February I went to Lewis at 74A, Southwark Bridge Road, saw him, showed him the cheque, and said "Is this your signature?" pointing to the endorsement "Geo. Lewis"—he said "No; but I think I know whose signature it is"—I asked him to tell me, he said "I can't tell you," or "I prefer not telling you"—I said "Who is Smith?"—he said "I do not know"—I said "Where does Pitman live?"—he said "Stamford Street"—I said "Gask and Gask sold a costume and this cheque was paid for it"—he seemed surprised, and said "I do not know anything about it"—I said "Did you buy it?"—he said "No"—I left and went again three or four weeks afterwards, and asked Lewis who purchased the goods, he said "A man named Wright"—I said "Had he any authority to use
your name?"—he said "No"—I said "Can you give me the amount of this 16l. cheque?" which I had in my hand—he said "No; Mr. Pitman will do so in a few days, as he has a sister who is in good circumstances and will pay the amount"—I went back and communicated with my principals and the matter was placed in the hands of a solicitor—offers have since been made to me to pay the cheque and have been refused.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. He could not give me Smith's address, but he gave me Pitman's address—on my second visit Lewis said "If you will wait a few days the cheque will be paid with any little expenses you may have incurred"—that may have been said on both visits—I do not remember asking him where the goods were, I asked him if he had purchased them—he said "No"—I went again on 11th March and said "How is it we have not received the money as promised?"—he said "Mr. Pitman has been unwell, and if you will wait a few days I have no doubt his sister will pay the amount and the expenses"—that must have been on the first occasion.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I did not see the cheque before the goods were parted with, not till it came back from the bank—I noticed that the date had been altered—Mr. Bowen May is our solicitor—we instructed him to write a letter saying that he was instructed to apply for the amount of the cheque; that was after I had received Pittman's address at Lavender Hill—I did not see Pitman, but I saw his son—I gave his address and instructed Mr. May to write for the amount—Mr. May asked whether we would allow a few days' time, and we allowed the matter to be open till 25th February, and said that unless it was paid on the 26th the action would proceed—I have seen Mrs. Pitman at Gask and Gask's twice since the commitment, but not before—I cannot say whether it was before the committal for trial—I was not present when she tendered the money, but Gask and Gask's banking account was swollen by the payment of 16l. 10s.—early in March the case fell out of the hands of Mr. May and got into the hands of Humphreys and Morgan; it is now a prosecution by the Society of Linendrapers.
Re-examined. My firm are members of that association, which placed it in Mr. Humphreys' hands—this letter (produced) was written by my instructions and under my eye—I took it from Mr. May's private office—I gave no authority to receive the 16l. 10s., it was paid in by some one to our bank on April 1st, after three remands at the police-court, and after our refusal to accept it.
FERRIS CLAY . I am assistant to John Altham, a pawnbroker, of Lupus Street, Pimlico—I produce a silk skirt and a piece of silk, pawned by a person I could not recognise, on February 6th for 3l.—this is the ticket and this the counterpart.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. The ticket is not made out in the name of Lewis, nor did the person give that name.
with him and said that he would pay for it in a few days—he gave me this card (T. Wright, Journalist, Asylum Road) and said that he was well known to Mr. Metzler, having reviewed many of his works—he took the concertina away, and on 2nd February a youth brought me this cheque for 12l. 14s., and I gave him 9l. change—the cheque was in an envelope with "Pitman, solicitor" on it, and it was drawn by Mr. Pitman on the Birkbeck Bank—I should not have cashed it if it had not been a solicitor's cheque—I paid it in to our bank and it was returned marked "N. S."—I called on Wright the same evening at 53, Asylum Road, and told him the cheque he had paid had been dishonoured—he expressed himself as very much surprised, and promised to call the following Monday and arrange matters—he called twice, but I did not see him—I parted with the concertina because he represented himself as a journalist and well acquainted with Mr. Metzler.
Cross-examined by MR. GLYN. I relied upon his appearance a great deal—he appeared very much astonished that the cheque was not met.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. The same writing is on the envelope as on the cheque—the cheque was paid a fortnight ago last Tuesday.
Re-examined. That was not after the committal—I was waiting at the Court to give evidence, but Mr. Metzler was not there.
By MR. BESLEY. It is not the fact that Mr. Metzler declined to go on with the prosecution after the cheque was paid—he was not prosecuting—he has taken no steps in the matter at all.
ROBERT BEATY . I am assistant to Samuel Brothers, of Ludgate Hill, clothiers—on 1st February Wright called and selected a coat value 2l. 15s.—he tendered a cheque similar to this, drawn by the same party on the same bank for the same amount, 16l. 10s.—I did not notice any endorsement—he said that it was Mr. Pitman, a solicitor's, cheque—I refused to cash it—he said "I will get it cashed in half an hour and return and pay for the coat, but should I not call in half an hour send it to me, Mr. Smith, 74, Southwark Bridge Road"—he left and did not return—I sent it next morning and the porter brought it back—it was for a boy with him who he said was his son.
Cross-examined by MR. GLYN. We lost no money. Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. It was presented to me on the day it was drawn.
JANE DOIDGE . I am assistant to Peter Robinson and Co., of Regent Street—on 5th February, Wright came and selected a dress and asked me to put it away for a lady to see when she called—I made him out an invoice for it, 4l. 14s. 6d., and he tendered a cheque for the same amount as this, and I think drawn by the same person—he did not ask for the balance—I communicated with my superiors, and went back to him and refused to change it, but said that the dress would be sent in the morning to be paid for on delivery—he gave the name of Mrs. Lewis, 4, Camden Avenue, Peckham—I sent it there and it was brought back without the money.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. It was taken to Mrs. Lewis, who said that she knew nothing about it and refused to take it in.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I did not notice that the date of the cheque had been altered, and that there was no initialling by the drawer.
FREDERICK MORLEY HILL . I am accountant at the Birkbeck Bank—Pitman opened an account there in 1872—on 23rd August, 1877, 9d. only stood to his credit—this cheque for 16l. 10s. was presented and returned on 7th February—this cheque for 12l. 14s. was also presented and dishonoured—this is the return draft book, it contains a list of dishonoured cheques—it is kept by a dozen different clerks—I know of my own knowledge that several other cheques were presented and dishonoured since November—this is the ledger; I see it every day—on 28th August Pitman's balance was 9d.; on 19th November 10l. was paid in, and on 22nd November 57., that was the last payment—he drew out both those sums in November, and 9d. was left again—a draft for 92l. was paid in in August, before the 23rd, it is debited to him subsequently; that means that it was not paid.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. It is known that the Birkbeck Bank refer to a customer's name to see that he has the money, before we part with it—it has the largest number of customers in London, over 40,000—Mr. Pitman has at times had over 200l. balance, and we never knew anything against him till August—he has paid several thousand pounds to his account—we put cheques to the credit before they are realised, but sometimes they come back—many of the accounts are drawn pretty close—we allow money on deposit at 3 1/2 per cent., and we allow interest on the minimum balance.
Re-examined. On 9th August we made a communication to Pitman in writing as to the state of his account.
EDWARD FISHER (Detective E). On 18th March, about 9 p.m., I went to 4, Cambrian Avenue, Queen's Road, Peckham, and saw Lewis, for whom I held a warrant, which I read to him, and he said, "This is all Pitman's fault, if it had not been for him I should not have got in this trouble"—his wife was present—I took him to Eland Road, Wandsworth, and asked for Pitman, for whom I also had a warrant—Lewis was with me—a young woman said something and Pitman came down afterwards—I read the warrant, he made no reply—I did not hear Lewis say anything—I took them to the station, searched Lewis, and found these four documents (Messrs. Gask's invoice, a cheque for l., a letter from Wright in the House of Detention, and a letter from Pitman)—Wright was then under remand—they wore committed on April 2nd—I only found a bunch of keys on Pitman.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I think my solicitor received the 12l. 14s.—I take no part in the prosecution.
Cross-examined by MR. GLYN. I never remember seeing Wright in my life—I am not an author, I am a publisher—I did not see a review about 8th August, and if I did, reviews are always anonymous—I did not personally give Wright seven or eight pieces of music the year before last for the purpose of reviewing.
MR. BESLEY submitted that there was no proof of any conspiracy, that the evidence pointed to an entire absence of concert, and that Pitman was no party
to the false pretences. MR. PURCELL also submitted that the evidence failed as against Lewis, the only goods which came to his possession being returned by his wife. MR. GRAIN contended that there was ample evidence of conspiracy against both, and likened it to the case of three partners, one of whom could not say that the other had no authority. The COURT overruled the objections; the case was the same as that of three persons arranging to commit a robbery; it could not be said that because they did not know at the time who they were going to rob, that they were therefore not co-conspirators. NOT GUILTY .
FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, April 11th, 1878.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MESSRS. POLAND, STRAIGHT, and FULTON conducted the Prosecution; and
MR. A. B. KELLY the Defence.
WALTER LEYTON WILSON . I am an artist, living at 19, Fouden Road, Stoke Newington—in May, 1877, I inserted an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph to obtain a loan of 800l.—I received this letter in reply. (Dated 24, Park Road, Dalston, May 21, 1877, asking the witness to call at that address.) On receiving the letter I called to see the prisoner at 24, Park Road—there was a plate on the door, "Mrs. Dobson, Governess, patronised by Royalty," or something like that—I did not see the prisoner then—I afterwards received this letter. (This was from the same address, dated 1st June, 1877, and made an appointment to call on the witness at 9 p.m.; signed "E. A. Dobson.") The prisoner called on me soon afterwards, and said that he represented Mr. Dobson—he asked me how much I wanted, for what purposes, and what security I could give—I asked him what interest would be necessary, and I told him I could give him the deeds of an intended partnership—he proposed that I should give him a life policy of 500l.—I told him f would do so—he said that was satisfactory, and I should hear from him again—I subsequently received this letter. (This was dated 8th June, signed "E. A. Dobson" and said "My representative will wait on you and settle matters to-night at 7 p.m.") The prisoner again called on me—he told me he had called on a friend of mine whom I had mentioned to him, but had not suggested that he should call, that he found everything was satisfactory, and he should be able to give me the loan I required upon the security of the deed of partnership and the life policy—I saw him again, and he said I should have the money at 5 per cent.—he asked me to give him a bill of sale—I refused—he said that he was satisfied, and produced a receipt for 2 guineas, saying that it was necessary to settle that first—I paid it to him—that was to pay for the documents—he went away, and I did not see him again—I wrote seven or eight letters, and I called at 24, Park Road two or three times—a woman opened the door—I was told he was never to be seen—I subsequently received this letter. (This was from the same address, and was dated 18 th June, 1877, and signed "E. A. Dobson," and said, "I am waiting to hear from Mr. Gray in answer to my note some days since.") This letter was also sent to my intended partner, and was handed to me—there is no date to it: "Re Loan. Private. Sir,—Yours to hand. Bill of sale on your furniture will be prepared. Please to say when you can be
waited on for the inventory to be taken. Yours faithfully, Edward A. Dobson." It was addressed to Mr. Gray—it is the prisoner's writing—I also received this letter, dated 10th July, 1877, in the prisoner's writing. (This stated that, as the witness could not give the bill of sale, two responsible persons would be required to join him, and on his doing so the matter would be proceeded with; signed, "Edward A. Dobson.") Also this one, dated August 4, 1877. (This was from Edward A. Dobson, and expressed some surprise that the witness should demand a return of the 2 guineas, as the prisoner had taken so much trouble in the matter as an agent, and that his solicitor would defend any proceedings the witness might take.) This document was written by the prisoner in my presence: "Hawthorn Villa, 24, Park Road, Dalston. Advance 800l., terms (blank) 5 1/2 percent. interest per annum; valuation 2 guineas; no other costs; bill of sale unregistered." I advanced the 2 guineas because I believed the prisoner's statement that he was a financial agent carrying on a bonâ fide business—the words "financial agent" are on all his letters—I believed him when he stated that he represented Edward Dobson—I never got back the 2 guineas.
Cross-examined. I never deposited the deed of partnership nor the policy of insurance, nor executed the bill of sale—the document I saw the prisoner write was not drawn when I paid him the 2 guineas, but on the first or second interview before I paid it—I referred to Mr. Hinton, a printer and stationer in Shoreditch, and the prisoner called on him—I was in business with Mr. Gray some years ago, and intended to take him as a partner—that is what I wanted the loan for—I did not put the prisoner in communication with him, but I mentioned him as my intended partner—the receipt was similar to this form: "Received of (blank) the sum of 2 guineas, the whole cost of attending negotiation of loan, the sum being returned if business declined by us." I have lost the receipt—I said I would not give the bill of sale before I gave the prisoner the 2 guineas—the prisoner led me to suppose Dobson would lend the money.
CHARLES FREDERICK ADAMS . I am a printer, living at 59, Saffron Hill, St. Andrew's, Holborn—in August, 1877, I advertised in the Daily Telegraph for the loan of 100l.—I received a letter in reply, and went to 24, Park Road, Dalston, and saw the prisoner—he said I had better have 200l., as I could not increase it after arranging—I agreed to take 150l. to be secured on the copyright of my newspaper, and to be repaid in three years—he wanted two guineas for getting the loan, and I gave him a cheque when he called at my office—he said he acted with his brother and was connected with a large capitalist in the City, but this was a small matter, and he would look after it himself—I saw a brass plate on his door with "Mrs. Dobson, Scholastic Agent, patronised by the Princess of Wales," on it, and on the window were the words "Mr. Dobson, Auctioneer," and on the railings another brass plate with "Estate Agent" on it, and I think "Financial Agent" as well—I signed a paper—the receipt for my two guineas said that the money was to be returned if the business was not done—this is the cheque. (This was dated 11th August, 1877, upon the Alliance Bank, for two guineas, signed "Chas. F. Adams," payable to and endorsed "E. A. Dobson.") I did not get the money and began to look the matter up, but I could not find the prisoner—I saw him once, when he wanted security on the plant, which I gave him—I then received this letter of 4th September, 1877. (This was signed "Edward A. Dobson," asking for the name of the person affording additional
security.) I wrote in reply and told him I never dreamt of giving personal security, and asked him for the money back—I never got it—I believed the prisoner's statements or I should not have advanced the money. Cross-examined. I would not have sold my copyright for 500l.—I never told him that the circulation of my paper was equal to the Police Gazetts—I did say we looked to the advertisements to pay us—he expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the security of the paper—he did not ask for a bill of sale on it—I told him I had a small charge on the plant of about 60l., and he could have security on the plant—he did not mention the London and Westminster Loan Company—I never knew of his wanting personal security till I got his letter.
Re-examined. I only wanted 100l., and so far from being dissatisfied with the security the prisoner wanted to advance 200l.
JOHN PRICE REECE . I am a cabinet-maker, of 236, Old Street, St. Luke's—in September last I advertised in the Daily Telegraph for a partner with 500l.—in reply I received a letter, which I have mislaid, purporting A to come from Mr. Dobson, of Park Road, Dalston, and which said that Mr. Dobson had a client who lent money at 5 1/2 per cent.—I saw the brass plate of Mrs. Dobson—I did not notice his own plate or the window—when I called and showed him the letter he said, "You don't want brains, you want money"—I said that I had an opportunity of buying a business, but I preferred having brains—he said a gentleman in the City would advance money—I offered my stock as security—he said, "Very well, you had better give me a guinea,"he said it would be returned if business was not transacted—I told him to come and see if my security was satisfactory and then I would give him the guinea—he came in the evening, said he was satisfied, and I paid him the guinea—he asked me if I had seen a brougham at the door—I said, "No," I had been out all day and I asked my son if he had, he said "No"—the prisoner said, "My client would not bring the brougham to the door, but he had a glance at the premises"—he asked me to have 1,000l.—I said I only wanted 500l.—then he said, "Have 750l. for the sake of paying my commission"—I consented to take 750l., and he asked for another guinea, which I paid him, and he said the two guineas would be returned if he declined business—I saw him again on 8th September, when he said matters were getting on all right, and he would be down on the following Tuesday—he did not come—I afterwards received these letters. (These were headed 24, Park Road, Dalston, and signed E. A. Dobson.) "10th September, 1877. Dear Sir,—Re 750l. My brother's report is quite satisfactory. Be good enough to hand the bearer 25s., the cost of agreement. This is the only cost in your matter. No further expenses." I handed him the 25s. "13th September. Dear Sir,—I find that it will be Monday next before I can give you a final answer to your matter. On that day shall write or call on you." "23rd September, 1877. Dear Sir,—I should have written you sooner but did not get my client's reply until this afternoon. It seems they would much prefer your giving a responsible person as guarantee that your stock will be kept up to the value as security for the capital advanced. If you will, therefore, be good enough to let me have the name and address at once of some responsible person I will hasten the negotiation all I can as your agent in this matter. I assure you that I have left no stone unturned to get the loan done, but, from inquiries I have made, they seem to consider a guarantee
requisite to the perfection of the security deeds. If you get it at once it will save further delay. "That was the first I heard of increased security—I called half a dozen times at his place but could never find him—I saw him only once after the receipt of the letter of 23rd September, when he promised to return me 3l. 7s.—he did not do so—I never agreed to get a responsible person as security—I paid him the money believing his representations.
Cross-examined. The prisoner told me that he was trying to manage the matter with the London and Westminster Discount Company after I threatened proceedings—he never told me he had the money himself.
JOSEPH WISE . I am a confectioner, of 89, Islington Green—in October last I advertised in the Daily Telegraph for a partner—I received this letter:—"24, Park Road, Dalston. 18th October, 1877. Sir—Should you prefer borrowing capital for a term of years at 5 1/2 per cent. I should be happy to see you here at once on the subject. Yours truly, E. A. Dobson." I went to the address and saw the prisoner—I asked if he was Dobson—he said "Yes"—I saw a plate with "Mr. Dobson's Office" on it and one on the door, "Mrs. Dobson," and on the window were the words "Auctioneer and Estate Agent"—the prisoner asked me if I wanted money or a partner—I said "I want a partner"—he said "I can obtain it for you"—I said "I have no security to give you"—he said "Have you a lease?"—I said "I have a lease of my premises"—he said "That is something; I see no difficulty in obtaining money for you"—I suggested 1, 000l.—he said 1,500l. could be advanced, and there would be four guineas to pay for taking the inventory and preparing the agreement and the full negotiation—I said "Why do you want the money first?"—he said "It was simply to make it binding"—I said "I have an inventory taken"—he said "Then we shall not want to take another, that will save you a guinea"—I aid "Why do you want three guineas?"—he said "Sometimes people come to me and ask for money, and after I have been to the trouble of endeavouring to get it for them they say owing to some circumstances they do not want it and I have my trouble for nothing, therefore I must have three guineas, which will be returned if you do not get your money"—I asked him or a memorandum, which he gave me—I said I would consider the matter—he said he knew gentlemen who instructed him to find safe investments for their money, and he considered my business was a safe and good investment, and that I could afford to give him 6 per cent. and he would pay five, so that would pay him one per cent. for his trouble—I had several other letters, and I made an appointment for Monday evening, 22nd October, when I went to his house, and on the advice of my friend I parted with my three guineas, and on the Tuesday he called on me and I handed him the inventory—he gave me a receipt which stated that the three guineas would be returned "if business declined by us"—I saw the prisoner again the same evening after receiving this letter. Read: "My brother has reported the matter of his visit as to 1,500l. This can be carried out at once. My brother will be with you between five and six o'clock this evening." These letters passed between us after paying the three guineas, which I paid believing his statements: "27th October, 1877. Dear Sir,—It would be quite Thursday next before I can get an answer from my client. I shall then call on you or write to you." He did not call."30th October. Dear Sir,—My clients
require some further security in some shape or form. Be good enough to let me know if you can get this." I called to see him but could not. "13th November. I am much surprised at your conduct on Saturday evening"—that refers to my calling with a friend and threatening proceedings—I could not see him, but I left word. (The letter went on to state the large business the prisoner was doing with the London and Westminster Loan Company, and asked for another person to join the witness as security.) I again advertised, when I received another letter from the prisoner dated 7th December, stating that if I preferred borrowing capital to taking a partner he would see me privately—through the advice of a friend I did not do so.
Cross-examined. My landlord, Mr. Elliott, told me the prisoner had been to him about me—I should not think he told the prisoner I was borrowing too much money already—the prisoner was tipsy at the time—I had four interviews with him—he never told me he required personal security—he said he was not connected with any loan society.
URSULA MORDAN . I am single and live at 81, Grove Road, Holloway—in November last I wanted to raise a loan of 450l., and advertised for two persons to become security for me—I received a letter in reply which I have mislaid, and in consequence I went to 24, Park Road, Dalston, and asked the prisoner if he was the person who wrote the letter—he said "Yes"—I told him I wanted two securities for raising 450l., and I was willing to pay them 50l. each for the risk—he said he had a client who would advance the money, but there would be four guineas to be paid on account of charges—I objected to that, and he said the reason he wanted the money was because people sometimes after he had gone to the expense of drawing up the deeds said they did not want the money—I had not the money, and he agreed to call on me on the Saturday—he did so, and I paid him three guineas then and subsequently another guinea—he gave me a receipt which stated that my money would be returned if the loan was not negotiated—I afterwards received these letters from 24, Park Road, signed "Edward A. Dobson." "27th November, 1877. Dear Madam,—As we have not heard from you to-day as promised, I write to know if you wish me to proceed with the 200l. on your note of hand and furniture or not. Awaiting your reply. "—"30th November, 1877. Dear Madam,—Your application for an advance has been transferred to one of my clients, the London and Westminster Discount Company, St. Martin's Lane, Charing Cross. I have requested their secretary to lose no time in letting you know when the advance will be made. "I never received the loan—I kept on writing, and he said he could not find the guarantee—I called frequently but could not see him—a person called on me when I was ill, and 21s. was paid then for costs—I paid the money believing the prisoner's statements—I never got it back.
Cross-examined. I was a sleeping partner in a firm—I declined to tell the prisoner what firm—it was afterwards arranged that I was to have 250l.—I used to hire a brougham to go about in—he offered to get me 200l. on my furniture, but I was in furnished apartments—I know something of financial matters, but mine is not a financial firm—I believed Dobson could get the money—I never supposed he had it himself—when I heard he could get me 200l. on my promissory note, I said I did not think he could, because I only had a piano, a pier glass, some ornaments,
and pictures—I never said I had 6l. a week—I did say if I could join a lady I should have 3l. a week.
WILLIAM HENRY THOMAS . I am a watchmaker of 131, Goswell Road, St. Luke's—in January, 1878, I wanted a partner with 500l., and advertised in the Daily Telegraph—I received a reply and saw the prisoner—there was a plate on the railings, "Mr. Dobson's office"—I told the prisoner I wanted 500l.—he said he had a friend who would advance it on good security—I told him I had my stock, furniture, and book debts amounting to 200l.—he came and looked at it and said "You want t man to conduct your business, not exactly the money; but the money is very handy at six per cent."—he asked for two guineas for the stamp and other charges—I gave it to him, and he handed me a receipt which contained a statement that if the loan was not advanced my money would be returned—I parted with the money believing the prisoner could do the business—I never got the 500l. nor the two guineas—some correspondence took place, in which the prisoner wanted increased security, which I declined to give, and demanded my money back—I called several times and could not find him—he was generally in the country.
Cross-examined. He wrote wanting some one to guarantee that none of the stock should be removed—I did not see him after that till I saw him at Clerkenwell police-court.
CHARLES HILL . I am secretary to the Westminster Loan and Discount Company, 62, St. Martin's Lane—I have known the prisoner 18 months—he was never authorised to advance money on account of our office—we have no agent.
Cross-examined. Any person may bring business—I have been in the firm five years—Mr. Hart was secretary till December last for eight years.
Re-examined. We refused to entertain Dobson's introductions.
JOHN GEORGE LITTLECHILD (Detective Officer). I apprehended the prisoner on 3rd March, 1878, at 24, Park Road, Dalston, on Mrs. Mordan's charge—a summons was taken out and a warrant was issued afterwards—I told him the charge—he said "I do not see how you can make a case of fraud of it."
Witness for the Defence.
ROBERT PATRICK HART . Up to December last I was secretary to the Westminster Loan and Advance Company, St. Martin's Lane, for six years—I was 12 years in their service—I was fully acquainted with the course of business, and all transactions for loans would come under my observation—I knew the prisoner very well as introducing applications for the last eight or 10 years for hundreds of pounds.
Cross-examined. I do not recollect seeing him between March, 1876, and March, 1877—I have seen his forms of receipt—I do not know whether I knew him in 1870—he had offices in Carey Street—I do not remember being instructed by the society to write to Dobson declining a loan—I cannot give you an instance of the society advancing money on the prisoner's introduction during the eight or ten years, nor the names of any persons receiving money on his introduction—I remember an application from Hackney for a loan on some printing plant—it was not granted—this letter (produced) does not refresh my memory as to whether a communication A was made to Dobson with regard to advancing money.
GUILTY *— Five Years' Penal Servitude .
447. CHARLES COOK (43) PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling 2l. 17s., 35l. 9s. 6d., and 7l. 12s. 6d., the moneys of Charles Alfred Warren and others, his masters, who recommended him to mercy.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment
OLD COURT.—Friday, April 12th, 1878.
Before Baron Huddleston.
MR. GRUBBE conducted the Prosecution.
PATIENCE LAVINIA DAWES . I am the prisoner's wife and live in Great Camden Street, St. Pancras—on Wednesday night, 13th March, about 8 o'clock, I and my husband went out—we returned about 11 o'clock; we went upstairs and sat down by the side of the fire, the children were lying on a couch in the room; we have two rooms, one leading into the other—my husband passed into the back room for a minute, he then returned, looked round, and took hold of the back of the chair I was sitting on and tilted me into the fire, but instead of falling into the fire I fell on the back of the fender—I said "Oh, William, don't do that"—he said "Now you b—b—, there is no witness here now, you b—, I will do for you;" no sooner the words he turned round and instantly took up the tongs, with which he began hammering into my head and all over my body; I was bruised from head to foot, my eyes were blacked and my nose cut—after receiving about four or five blows I fell and do not remember anything afterwards; when I came to myself I was sitting in a chair with the doctors and police round me—all the six children were in the room, but only one was awake—my husband and I had not had any words that evening, we were quite comfortable, for a wonder.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not throw a belt on the floor that you had made me a present of—I was not the worse for drink, I had only had part of a pint of stout between three of us the whole of the day, and that you had the biggest share of; my mother did not give me any gin—I did not threaten to murder you, and pull you by the hair of your head—you did not persuade me to come home instead of drinking with my father and mother.
HARRIET DAWES . I am 14 years old, and am the daughter of the last witness—on this night I was lying on the couch with the dear little baby when my father and mother came home—they sat down very quietly, father went into the back room, came out and said "Now you b—b—I will do for you, there is no b—b—witness now, mind"—no quicker than the words were said he took hold of the back of the chair and tilted her on to the fender, and broke it, instead of her going on to the bars—she got up and said "Oh, pray, William, don't do that, for what will become of my poor dear children?"—no quicker than the words were said he took up the tongs and gave her four or five blows over the head with them, and she fell on the floor senseless—when I saw her fall down I threw up the window and cried out "Murder"—he then said to me
"Harriet, I shan't be a minute, I am going to fetch a doctor," and he went downstairs—a policeman coming by stopped him and brought him back—mother was then lying senseless on the floor bleeding—my father said to the policeman "My wife has attempted to murder me with a knife"—she had not attempted to do anything to him—mother came in as happy as anything, and said "William, would you like a bit of bread and cheese for your supper," and she said to me "You are a good girl to keep up a little bit of cindery fire for us"—I had jumped out of bed and poked it as they came upstairs.
Cross-examined. You did not bathe mother's head—the policeman got the water and helped me wipe the blood off.
HENRY CHARLES ANDREWS , M. D. I am surgeon to the police—I was sent for to the prosecutrix—my assistant saw her first—I found a severe lacerated wound of the scalp over the left parietal bone, about an inch and a quarter in length, and several contusions round the spot—she complained of pains about the shoulders, eyes, and nose, but there was nothing particularly visible there, except over the nose, where my assistant had placed a small piece of plaster—she was low and exhausted from the shock and loss of blood—she did not appear to be under the influence of drink—the wound itself was not dangerous, it was a nasty ugly wound, very severe, and in a dangerous place if erysipelas had set in.
DANIEL SMALL (Policeman Y 271). I was on duty and heard cries of "Police! Murder!"—I met the prisoner at his door and took him upstairs—I asked what was the matter; he said "My wife has threatened to murder me with a knife, and I have left the house for protection"—I found the prosecutrix lying back in a chair bleeding very much from the head—she said her husband had struck her on the head several times with a pair of fire tongs—he denied having done so—she had no appearance of having been drinking.
Cross-examined. You wished to get water to bathe your wife's forehead, but I would not let you go near her—I believe you got some water—you had a scratch on your arm, as if you had fallen against something and knocked the skin off; it was not bleeding, it had dried up, it looked as if it had been done during the day.
The Prisoner in his defence alleged that his wife was given to intemperance, and that the money he gave her to provide for herself and children was spent in drink, and his property pledged; that when he married her she was in the family way by her own uncle, that they had repeated quarrels, in which she often threatened to murder him, and that what he did was in the heat of aggravation and passion.
PATIENCE L. DAWES (Re-examined). We have been married nearly 14 years—my husband was a fancy cabinet-maker before our marriage, since then he has been a pianoforte maker—I have had seven children, six living—my first child was born a week after our marriage, but he know all about that—I am sorry to say that child was by my uncle; I was drugged for the purpose—my husband continued keeping company with my uncle the whole time—I tried to break off our courtship, but he would not allow me—I have not taken to drink, I don't know what it is for days and weeks to have half a pint of porter—sometimes he does not allow me a halfpenny for two or three weeks—I do not do anything myself for my living—I have been subject to rheumatic gout over three years—on the night of this occurrence I had been with my sister, and
my husband met her, and we three went and had a pint of stout and mild—she paid for it—my husband gave me a belt, I am wearing it now—my life has been in danger from him for years, and I have had to go to the Female Protection Society—on the bank holiday he deserted me and the children, and returned with a complaint he had no business with—the scratch on his arm he got by moving pianos—I have not pawned his things—he has often done so—I lost my purse with 2s. in it one night when he and I were together—he can earn good wages if he likes—some weeks I have had 15s., 18s., and a sovereign, and sometimes none—I have been to Bethnal Green Workhouse several times to complain of him, and the officer said he would give me a letter at any time to prove that he has fetched him from the bagatelle board when I have been starving—he has worked for his present master off and on 12 years—he has been away twice for striking me, he cut open my side some years ago—he never attends any place of worship—I have three brothers—one has been in trouble—I don't know what for—one brother has served 21 years as a soldier, and another is now called out to go to the war.
GUILTY on Second Count. — Ten Years' Penal Servitude .
MR. BRINDLEY conducted the Prosecution; MR. NICOLL appeared for Henson, and MR. LYON for King.
JESSE COTTERIDGE . I am a carpenter, living at Pleasant Cottage, King's Road, Tottenham—on 21st March, about 5.30 o'clock, I was walking along the High Road, Tottenham—I heard a noise behind me, looked round and saw two empty waggons with two horses to each, going from eight to ten miles an hour—Henson was driving the first van—I could not swear to the other—I saw the deceased in the road, stooping, collecting manure—I heard a deal of shouting from the drivers of both vehicles as they passed me, they were standing up and throwing their arms about—it appeared to me that they were urging their horses on—I then saw the old man down in the road and the two off wheels of the first van went over him—the driver pulled up afterwards as quickly as he could—I went to the deceased's assistance and carried him into Mr. Hall's surgery.
Cross-examined by MR. NICOLL. I was about 100 yards from the waggons when I first observed them, going in the same direction—it was quite light—there was a great clattering of the wheels—they were large, heavy, high waggons—it was the noise they made as well as the voices that caused me to look round—the deceased was 50 or 60 yards from me when the waggons passed me—the road seemed very clear for that time of day—there are usually a great number of vehicles going home from market—the motion in the men's arms might be in attempting to pull up the horses—if I had been in the position of the deceased it is quite likely I could have got out of the way—he was deaf.
Cross-examined by MR. LYON. I have no idea how far apart the vans were when they passed me—I believe one was behind the other.
ROBERT LYNCH . I am a painter, of St. Thomas's Road, Bow—I was walking along this road and saw the two vans coming towards me at eight or ten miles an hour—both the drivers were shouting and halloing—what they said I could not say, there was a good deal of noise—I
turned and saw the deceased stumble and the two off wheels of the van went over the lower part of his body—I assisted in carrying him into the surgery.
Cross-examined by MR. NICOLL. I did not notice the vans after I saw the deceased on the ground—I believe the drivers were shouting to some people to get out of the way.
WILLIAM HENRY VAUGHAN . I am a printer, of Wilton Cottages, Tottenham—on 21st March I was walking on the High Road, and saw the two vans coming towards me, racing—they were urging their horses on—I saw the deceased in the road gathering manure—the hinder van was trying to pass the other—I heard Henson call out—I saw the old man knocked down—when I first saw the vans they were about 40 yards from me, and about 20 yards from the deceased—I can't say how far from him the van pulled after he was knocked down—the driver tried hard to pull up before the deceased was knocked down—he was shouting out "Hie! hie!" for him to get out of the way—I never saw vans go so fast before.
Cross-examined by MR. NICOLL. They were driving fast; that is why I say they were racing—it seemed to me that they were trying to see who could go the fastest—if I had been the deceased I could have got out of the way.
AUGUSTUS JACKSON . I am a meat salesman, of 49, Central Meat Market—I was walking in the High Road, near Bruce Grove, and saw the waggons—Henson was in the first waggon, standing up and urging the horses along by thrashing them and shouting out to them—the waggoner behind was also doing the same, trying to pass the first waggon—I went into the middle of the road, held up my umbrella, and said, "Steady, steady, you stupid fellows!"—they were going about 10 miles an hour, as I judged, going very fast for a short distance—they passed me—they continued shouting and driving fast as before—I saw some persons trying to stop them—there was a general excitement on the path—I saw the old man knocked down, and the two off wheels of the waggon pass over the middle of his body—I was about 10 or 15 yards from them—I should think Henson's waggon was pulled up within 20 feet beyond him—there was a separation of about 10 feet between the two waggons—when they stopped, the body of the deceased was between the two waggons—the hind one pulled up before it came to him—I spoke to both the drivers afterwards, and they were quite sobers—when I raised my umbrella I think the man in the second waggon did tighten his reins—I don't know whether the first driver noticed me—he did not pull up until he had run over the man.
Cross-examined by MR. NICOLL. I was from 70 to 100 yards from the first waggon when I first saw them going in the same direction—they overtook A me—they were then 60 or 70 yards from the deceased—I do not think Henson saw me, he was too excited watching the waggon behind—Henson was undoubtedly exciting his horses when he passed me—I can't say whether the shouting was to the old man or his horses.
Cross-examined by MR. LYON. The horses in the first van were a tandem, in the other they were abreast—I continued running by the side of them—when I first saw them King was sitting down in the waggon and some other man was driving, who was with him—I then saw King take the reins and the whip from the other, and then he continued driving—he tried to pull up and did pull up.
Re-examined. They did not attempt to pull up until after they passed me—they were then very close on the old man—the second driver pulled up sooner than the first—there was some space between them—it is a broad country road.
WILLIAM TYLEE (Detective). I was passing and saw a large crowd outside Mr. Hall's surgery—I saw the deceased there—in consequence of what was said I detained Henson and took him to the station—he said he was very sorry, but he tried to stop his horses but could not stop them in time.
WILLIAM HENRY NORTON . I live at Warner Terrace, Tottenham—the deceased, Charles Norton, was my father—he was 84 years of age—he was deaf, more so lately than he used to be—his general health was good.
WILLIAM HENRY PLAISTED . I am a surgeon in partnership with Dr. Hall, at Tottenham—the deceased was brought into the surgery—he was in a dying state and he died in an hour afterwards from the shock to the nervous system, a heavy substance having crushed him across the groin.
The Prisoners received good characters. NOT GUILTY .
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
451. ARTHUR GEORGE NEWTON (24) and GEORGE HIRAM NEWTON (54) , Unlawfully obtaining 10 guineas from John How, by false pretences. Other Counts charging the obtaining other sums from other persons. (See page 613.)
MESSRS. POLAND, STRAIGHT, and MEAD conducted the Prosecution; MR. PURCELL appeared for Arthur George Newton; and MESSRS. BESLEY and J. P. GRAIN for George Hiram Newton.
DUNCAN COBHAM RAMSAY . I was formerly a clerk to Messrs. Barnett and Buckler, shorthand writers, of 89, Chancery Lane—in August or September, 1876, I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph for a clerk, in consequence of which I went to 1, Victoria Street, where I saw the prisoner Arthur George Newton, who told me he was the managing director of the company, that he only wanted a boy, but that there was a vacancy for an assistant-architect, which would be advertised in the Builder on the following Saturday, and he offered the vacancy to me—I was to pay 100l. to the company—I saw the advertisement—this is it. (This stated that applications would be received at 1, Victoria Street for the appointment of an assistant-architect to the Metropolitan Land, Building, and Advance Association, at a salary of 150l. per annum and travelling expenses.) I wrote letters to Arthur George Newton and received these five letters in reply—I know his writing—they are all signed by him—I also received this prospectus. (This stated that the capital was 20,000l. in shares of 5l. each, and that the object of the society was to assist in building houses to be owned by the working and middle classes.) Arthur George Newton said the company was incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies' Acts, that there were directors, and 1, Victoria Street was where the company's offices were—in consequence of my belief in his statements I executed the agreement of 22nd September, 1876—I also paid him 60l., and on the following Monday the balance, making 100l.—I received a letter of allotment in December—the day after I executed the agreement I went wtih Arthur George Newton to Tottenham to see some buildings there—I remained at Victoria Street about two months—I saw no business done—
several cheques were returned—a Mr. Watts and a Mr. Steel called—after two months I demanded the return of my 100l.—he refused and asked me whether I took him for a gentleman—I said by his actions I should not—I had received no salary—I consulted my solicitor—I did not go to the Joint Stock Company's Office, but I told Newton I found the company was not registered—he did not reply—I never received any portion of my 100l. back—I saw George Hiram Newton at Victoria Street several times—he used to come to see his son and write letters.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. Arthur George Newton did not say that the company was going to be registered, or words to that effect—I heard of building operations at Harrow—I did not go there—my solicitor wrote to the company after I left.
JOHN BURROWS . I am house-porter at 1, Victoria Street, Westminster—on 27th July, 1876, the younger prisoner took offices there—he brought an order from the agents and I gave him the key, but I objected to let him have the three rooms at first because he had no order from the owner—he said he had nothing to do with the owner, he took the offices from the late occupier—he only brought a table—the rent was 80l. a year—there was some furniture belonging to the landlord—he put up "The Metropolitan Land, Building, and Advance Association," also "A. G. Newton" at the top of it as well as on the office doors and the side doors—he was there about five months, going away on 21st December—he paid something for cleaning six weeks after he had been there—I recollect Mr. Ramsay coming—I saw no business—people came to ask if the company was genuine—a Mr. Watts came—I do not remember seeing the elder prisoner there.
JAMES THORN . I am a printer, of Helmet Court, 338, Strand—the prisoner Arthur came to me on 9th May, 1876—he wanted me to print the Skating Rink News and Theatrical Times every week—this is a copy—the office was at 105, Strand—we agreed upon terms, which were 8l. 10s. a week, to be paid on the printing and delivery of the paper—he wanted the papers in a hurry, and I told him I should have to get extra assistance—on the Saturday I found he was not at 105, Strand, but at 171, Victoria Street—he came to my place for the paper—I received two letters by post first, and then he called and gave me a cheque for 6l.—on going to the Hampshire Bank on Monday morning I found it was crossed—then I remembered that it was given to me wrong side up after writing his name—I delivered 250 copies of the paper on the Saturday—the remainder were to be delivered on the Monday—I did not deliver them—I got the cheque cashed by a friend, but it was returned marked "No effects"—I received this letter dated 14th May. (Mr. Ramsay identified this as A. G. Newton's writing.) "Skating News, &c, Office, 105, Strand. To Mr. Thorn, Helmet Court, Strand. Call here. Important matter. I have given orders to manager to see you. Get out paper as early as possible. Shall be in London Monday night as early as possible.—Arthur George Newton." When the cheque was dishonoured I had partially set up the type of the second number—I did not complete it—I applied to A. G. Newton for the money, and followed him about from one address to another—I never got it—the amount in my ledger against him, including composition, machining, and 150 contents bills, is 11l. 6s.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. A. G. Newton waited at my office for the paper—he did not tell me he had paid in an account to the Hamp.
shire Bank upon which the cheque was drawn—he did not complain of the paper being badly printed, nor that it was full of errors, and say that if I had any claim I must sue him. Re-examined. He asked me to publish a second number.
HENRY GEORGE HOARE . I am a ledger-keeper in the Hampshire Banking Company—this is one of our cheques—on 13th May, 1876, Arthur Newton opened an account—he described himself as the proprietor of the Skating Rink and Theatrical News, Queen Victoria Street—I saw him come from the manager's room—he paid in a cheque for 15l., saying that he would pay in more on Monday—he asked for a cheque-book and I gave him one of 35 cheques—on 16th I received these two cheques, one for 2l. and one for 2l. 15s. 6d.—I paid them believing Newton's cheque was good—it was dishonoured the next day—I then went to the address given by the prisoner in Tufnell Park Road—I left a strong message with a girl—the next day the prisoner came and asked how I could leave such a message—I said it was a swindling transaction and he had better go and see the manager—he paid no more money in—he subsequently brought a cheque to be cashed when I was away, and he paid 2l. towards the 2l. 15s.—eight cheques were presented altogether, amounting to about 20l.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. A. G. Newton was recognised when he came and paid the 2l.
HENRY WALKLEY . I am an india-rubber manufacturer, of 105, Strand—in April, 1876, the younger prisoner came for an office in my house—he gave me a reference, a Mr. Steel—I agreed to let him one room at 55l. per annum—he brought no furniture—he put a placard in the window "A. G. Newton, Rink and Theatrical Times newspaper"—he asked my cashier to cash a cheque for him for 1l. 10s.—he did so—the cheque was returned by the Imperial Bank—I afterwards saw Newton—he said he would bring the money and it would be all right—he did not bring the money—I saw the elder prisoner once or twice, and then some one told me he was the younger prisoner's father, but who I do not know—I told him I was surprised at his son's proceeding with reference to the cheque—many people called to know who Mr. Newton was, and said they had cheques returned but could not understand it—the offices were locked up four months and then I retook possession—I found some papers relating to companies and other things.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. The younger prisoner also gave a second reference, a Mr. Horace Morrison, of Great Russell Street—there were two or three issues of the paper at these offices.
WALTER BONWICK . I am cashier at the Imperial Bank, Westminster—the prisoner, A. G. Newton, opened an account there on 27th, March, 1876, by the payment in of 45l.—he called himself the proprietor of the Artisans' News, No. 5, Strand—he left a card like this—on 14th April his account was overdrawn by 3l. 17s. 1d.—a clerk was sent to give him notice of it in ordinary course—on May 25th he paid in a cheque on the Lombard Bank which was returned unpaid—we placed the matter in a solicitor's hands—the prisoner could not be found—11 cheques were presented and returned unpaid by us—we had issued 25—14 were paid—he has never paid us the 3l. 17s. 1d. overdraft—he brought a bill purporting to be accepted by Morrison and Co., of Hart Street, Bloomsbury, on 15th April—we declined to discount it—we retained the bill and applied to Morrison and Co., but did not get them to pay it.
JOHN HARDY . I am a carpenter and builder, of Lewisham—last year I did some work for the elder prisoner at Salterly Road, Sidcup—I left a card with another builder to give to the elder prisoner—I mentioned to the elder prisoner that I banked at the London and County Bank, Deptford Broadway, in July last—I never authorised him to use my name as an introduction—A. G. Newton asked me to cash a cheque for him or where he could get it cashed—I received a letter from the bank manager—I have not got it—I saw the elder prisoner about it and asked him who authorised him to use my name—he said he had not done so—I had not heard then that he had overdrawn his account.
HENRY WALLER . I am a coal merchant, of 21, Helena Road, Dalston—in July last the elder prisoner asked me to cash this cheque for him for 4l. 7s. 6d. on the Deptford Branch of the London and County Bank—he was going to Sidcup—I gave him what money I had (2l.), and arranged to meet him at 6 p.m.—he said he wanted the cheque to pay wages, and it was his son's cheque—I went to meet him in the evening, but he did not come—I paid the cheque into Barclay's Bank the same day—it was returned the following Monday with a written notice pinned to it, "Orders have been given to close this account"—I saw the younger prisoner a week afterwards at Crosby House, and told him I believed it was a swindle, and that I knew his father, and should ask him to pay the cheque at once—he appointed to meet me next day at 3 p.m. at the Red Lion—I have not seen him since—previous to that the elder prisoner had offered me some share warrants on the London and Provincial Land Building Co. for two-thirds or three-fourths of their full value—I lent him 10s. on them—I made inquiries, and found they were of no value—a day or two after I saw the son about it—I received this letter from the father. (This was dated 25th August, 1877, 18, Queen Victoria Street, London, expressing surprise that the witness had not returned the warrants, requesting their return, together with the cheque, when he would hand back the 2l.) I never received anything back.
JOHN HOW . I keep the Sir Paul Pindar, at 156, Bishopsgate Street Without—the younger prisoner was introduced to me by a customer—on 19th December last he wrote this cheque out in my bar parlour for 10l. 10s.—I advanced him a 5l. note and the remainder in gold for it, believing it would be paid when presented—I paid it into the London and County Bank—it was returned marked "Fraudulent cheque, account closed, 30th September"—I have never been paid—I tried to find A. G. Newton, but could not, and ultimately put the matter into the hands of the police—he was apprehended on 11th January.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. He was introduced to me as the probable purchaser of my house early in December—the house might have to be pulled down to enlarge the hospital—I do not know it—I wanted a deposit—he did not ask me to hold the cheque over till 12th January—I was not aware that he was to receive 200l. from a Mr. Ogden on that day—I do not know Mr. Ogden—he did not say he would give me the cheque as a sort of acknowledgment to show the transaction—we drank together.
GEORGE EDWARD TRAVERS . I keep the George public-house, Brook Street, Epping—I knew the younger prisoner about three months—on 28th December he asked me to cash this cheque for three guineas—I asked him if it was all right—he smiled and said "Oh yes!"—I gave
him three guineas, and paid the cheque into my bank—it was returned, and I have not been paid—I have not seen the prisoner since till he was in custody.
Cross-examined. He did not ask me to keep it back a few days—he said he should see me again in a day or two, but he did not.
WILLIAM EDWARD HARRISON . I am a victualler, at Brentford—in December the younger prisoner came in a coach—he left a horse, saying he had had an accident, and asked me to keep it a few days—he came again in about a fortnight and gave me a cheque for 6l. 16s., out of which I deducted 2l. in payment and gave him the change, believing there were funds at the bank to meet it, and thinking I had the horse as security, as it was still left with me—the cheque was returned marked "Account closed; caution"—I never saw the prisoner again till he was in custody—an action was brought against me by a Mr. Parker for the recovery of the horse. Cross-examined. Mr. Parker paid me for its keep, and took it away.
WILLIAM DAWSON . I am manager of the Deptford branch of the London and County Bank—the younger prisoner opened an account, presenting Mr. Hardy's card as an introduction—I told him it was not sufficient unless Mr. Hardy wrote his name on the back, and asked if he received the card from Mr. Hardy as an introduction—he said he had—he gave his address as 4, Thavies Inn, Holborn, and Sidcup, contractor—he said that he opened the account at Deptford because of his contract at Sidcup—he paid in a cheque on the Aldershot Bank for 100l. and 70l. in gold—the cheque was dishonoured—of the cheques presented to our bank eight were paid and twenty-two dishonoured. (Mr. Fitzpatrick proved the service of a notice on the prisoners to produce certain documents.) This is Mr. Miller's writing: "August 13th. Sir,—I am informed by Mr. John Hardy that you had no authority to give his name. I have to request you to withdraw the balance. I have instructed our cashier to receive no more money on your account. H. M. Miller. "I also produce one dated August 16th: "To Mr. A. G. Newton. Sir,—Notwithstanding my letter to you of the 13th inst., in which you were requested to close your account, you have thought fit to issue sundry cheques, one for 20l., when you knew that your balance, after a cheque for 1l. 15s. was paid, would only leave you 10s. I must request an immediate closing of the account. If any more cheques are presented they will be dealt with as they deserve. "I also produce a letter dated "Marlborough House, John Street, Bedford Row, August 17th," and signed "Arthur George Newton:" "Sir,—I am in receipt of yours of August 16th. I beg to say that I never received your letter of the 13th, and ask for a favour of a copy of the same, and where it was addressed."Nothing more was paid in—I repeated my letter of the 13th—the account was closed on 28th September, the 10s. 4d. having been credited to commission.
JOSEPH SHARP . I live at Iron Lodge, Talfourd Road, Camberwell—I granted the elder prisoner an agreement to build on some land at Sidcup, in January, 1877—I was to make advances—I advanced from time to time 300l. to 400l., taking the building as security—I took possession of the property in October or November, 1877—I never granted a lease to the younger prisoner—I had a conversation with him in August, in which he said that he was going to finish the buildings for his father and asked me to be lenient with him—I told him if he
finished them it would be on his own responsibility—I never said anything which could lead him to believe his father had a leasehold interest—these leases are signed by the prisoners.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. The lease would have been for ninety-nine years—I gave the elder prisoner notice on 29th January, 1877, as the houses were not covered in and not gone on with—the value of the buildings was 430l.—my claim was 370l.
FREDERICK NORRIS . I am a solicitor, of Bishopsgate Street—in June or July the younger prisoner came there and asked me to lend him 200l. on a building agreement—he said his father was the freeholder—the agreement was between the father and the son—I advanced him 200l. on behalf of my client, Mr. Seward, less 10l. retained as interest—these are the cheques dated 25th and 26th July—he subsequently came for a further advance, and left a lease and a mortgage of that lease, also made between the father and son—I afterwards discovered that the elder prisoner held under Mr. Sharp—Mr. Seward has now purchased the freehold—I had a certificate as to the value from a surveyor introduced by the younger prisoner before I advanced the money.
THOMAS PALISTON YOUNG . I am a solicitor, of Mark Lane—the younger prisoner called on me on 25th September, and asked me to make an advance on some property at Sidcup—he produced an agreement between the two prisoners representing the father as the freeholder—I advanced 100l.—I also took a promissory note—the younger prisoner also executed this memorandum of deposit and this declaration that he had never been a bankrupt, nor compounded, nor encumbered the property.
JOSEFH SHARP (Re-examined). This letter is in the elder prisoner's writing. (This was dated 24th November. 1877, to E. Hallett, Esq., stating that, in answer to his inquiries, he would be perfectly safe in advancing 150l. to Mr. A. G. Newton; signed" G. H. Newton."
CHARLES BOOTHAM . I am a builder, and formerly lived at Santlin Road, Croydon—on 24th October I entered into a building agreement with Mr. Martin relating to some property at Mitcham—I wanted some money to finish it—I was introduced to the elder prisoner at the Bedford Hotel—he introduced me to his son, who he said was a financier and builder at Sidcup, 172, Strand, and 300, Regent Street—I produced the building agreement, and the son said he would advance 50l. the next day—the father was present—the son gave me this receipt: "Received Building Agreement. I undertake to make an advance of 50l. on Saturday next, less 5l. to be allowed for interest, and to return to you the same on Saturday.—A. G. Newton. "The appointment was for 11 a.m.—I met him, after waiting all day, at 7 p.m.—he asked me to execute a mortgage for 250l., and, to show that he was a business man, he gave me a deposit of 5l., and arranged to meet me on the Tuesday—I met him on the Tuesday at the Mitre, in Fleet Street, with a person named Russell—I executed the mortgage, and he appointed to meet me next morning at 11 and advance 50l.—I expected to get the money on the execution of the mortgage—he offered me some bills—I said I did not want bills—he said he had arranged with his bankers to cash them if necessary—I said, "It is unusual for bankers to discount a customer's bill"—he said, "It is often done; I can assure you as a gentleman I won't deceive you"—he left after appointing to meet me next day at the Radnor, Chancery Lane—I went there and waited all day—he did not come—I saw
him the next day walking arm in arm with his father—I said, "Mr. Newton, what sort of business do you call this?"—he said, "I am sorry, but I could not arrange it without going to my solicitor, and I will meet you to-morrow"—the father said, "I will see it all right"—I said, "I will leave it to you," and an appointment was made to meet him next day at the Mitre at 2 o'clock—I went and waited till the house closed—I received a letter from Mr. Dean, of Bishopsgate Street, and I went there—an offer was made me by Mr. Dean and the prisoner of 10l., which I refused—the prisoner went away in a brougham—I followed to Broad Street station, and gave the prisoner in custody—he was released—I never got my agreement or mortgage back.
EDWARD ELWES . I am a solicitor, of Furnival's Inn—on 10th November the younger prisoner came to my office and deposited this building agreement and mortgage, upon which I advanced 100l., less some charges, the actual amount being 96l. 10s. 9d.—the loan was for 21 days—he did not pay—I issued a writ—I believed it was good security—he said he wanted the money to buy building materials.
ARTHUR RICHARD LEWIS WISH . I am manager of the National Provincial Banking Company, Lincoln's Inn—the younger prisoner opened a banking account on 28th August, his references being Mr. Chambers, of Slough, and Mr. Ody, a solicitor—I opened the account without referring to them—on 8th September the account was overdrawn 3l. 17s. 6d.—between 50 and 60 cheques were presented and dishonoured.
JAMES BRANTON DAY . I am a clerk in the Hammersmith branch of the London and County Bank—in May, 1877, A. G. Newton opened an account by the payment in of 50l.—it was closed on 29th June, when 9s. 11d. remained, which was credited to commission—28 cheques were presented and returned unpaid—he was introduced.
EDWIN JOHN CRUST . I am manager of the London and County Bank at Slough—in October, 1876, A. G. Newton opened an account by a cheque for 100l. on the Knightsbridge branch of the City Bank—the account was closed on the 25th of the same month—several cheques came which were dishonoured—he was introduced.
RICHARD WHITFIELD GIBLET . I am a surveyor, of 172, Strand—on 24th October last the younger prisoner took an office there, giving his address 300, Regent Street, which he said was the office of the Metropolitan and Provincial Land and Building Association—he wanted the office for his own private use and to see contractors for the purpose of advancing money—the rent was 34l. a year—he held the office from November to January—he seldom came—no business was done—several people called, one with a returned cheque.
HENRY JOHNS . I am manager to Messrs. Freeman Brothers, 300, Regent Street—on 25th December I let the younger prisoner an office there at 50l. a year—he said that he wanted it for the Metropolitan Building Association—he never paid any rent—he remained till he was taken in custody—he came about three times a week—it was furnished with new furniture.
office boy and coachman—he took me from the street and promised to pay me 7s. a week and my grub—I never got my wages regularly—I used to drive him about in a Stanhope phaeton—when in the office I had to put all the messages and names of people who called in a book, but I was never to know where he was even if I did know—he told me to find out all their business—we were at Marlborough House about a month—I took his letters to him at a public-house—he seldom came to the office himself—he sent me telegrams where to take his letters, &c.—we moved from Marlborough House to 300, Regent Street—he had other offices—I used to cash cheques for him—I was sent with one on the National Bank to a public-house—he gave me 2d. to get a glass of ale—I took the cheque to the bank and was told to refer to the drawer—I brought it back and was blamed for it—I was told on two or three occasions to give the proceeds to the father—I have waited in Mr. Dean's office, at Bishopsgate Street, for the younger prisoner.
WILLIAM WRIGHT (City Detective). I apprehended the younger prisoner on 11th January, at 17, art Street, Bloomsbury—a prospectus was put on the door of the Telephone Private Wires Construction Company, and his name—I asked him and he said he was not Arthur George Newton—I told him I should apprehend him for uttering a cheque for 10 guineas—he said, "What a stupid fellow you must have been, I have not left Newton a minute. Didn't you see me speaking to a gentleman at the corner?"—I said, "Yes, come with me and find him"—he began to hurry on—I said, "I can't go so fast, I am too old, I think I have got Mr. Newton"—he asked me if I had a warrant—I said, "No"—we got into a cab to go to the station—on the way he said, "Will How press the charge?"—I said, "That is a matter for How, not for me"—he said that he had securities for 400l. or 500l. in his pocket and he would give Mr. How those if he would not press the charge—he produced an agreement between a Mr. Greenwood Atkins and himself and another, from G. H. to A. G. Newton—at the offices in 17, Hart Street, I found memoranda and papers relating to various companies, and a set of books with no entries in them—I found on him a notice of an appeal from an adjudication in bankruptcy of 18th December, and several writs—I also received from Mrs. Lewis seven cheque books on seven different banks and a pass-book of G. H. Newton on the Imperial Bank—I took the elder prisoner on 28th February, in the Marylebone Road—I asked him if his name was Newton, he said "No"—I said, "I happen to know you, and I have a warrant for your arrest"—I read the warrant, charging him with obtaining 2l. and 10s. from Mr. Waller—he said, "I do not mind that; I expected something much worse than that"—his wife was with him—he passed her some papers—I tried to prevent him, a struggle ensued, and the papers were torn—I collected what I could, but nothing could be made of them
GUILTY .— Ten Years each in Penal Servitude, on the ninth and fifteenth counts .
NEW COURT, Friday, April 12th, 1878.
For cases tried this day, see Surrey Cases.
FOURTH COURT.—Friday, April 12th, 1878.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MESSRS. BESLEY and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. J. P. GRAIN the Defence.
GEORGE CASTLE . I am a solicitor of the High Court, and a commissioner to administer oaths—this is my signature to this declaration, which was made before me on 16th February, 1876, by the defendant to the best of my belief—the jurat is written by my clerk—the body of the document was filled up when brought to me—this other declaration of 3rd August, 1876, was declared in the same way; I believe by the prisoner. (These declarations stated that the whole of the household goods, &c., of James Graham, of 2, John Street, Bedford Row, were not in my way charged or encumbered.)
JAMES BEST . I am a solicitor of 9, Bridge Street, Blackfriars—I act for Mr. Chambers, of Newport, Monmouthshire, who lent the prisoner 300l. in January, 1876, less 3l. interest—this is the deed of sale, and this is the receipt signed by the prisoner—the money was not handed over to him till 22nd February, as the securities were not perfected—I made the trustees parties because I heard of settlement—this is my cheque endorsed by the prisoner—certain securities were realised, and part of the money repaid—we commenced to realise in June, 1877—to that time the loan remained unpaid.
Cross-examined. I received other securities for the 300l., including a lease of 7, Poultry, a policy on the lives of himself and wife for 300l. in the Liverpool, London, and Globe; for 400l. in the Great Britain office; a promissory note, and a policy for 500l. and bonuses 44l. 4s. 7d. on the life of Mr. Leary, a former partner of the prisoner—I realised 160l.—I still hold some of the securities, but it will depend upon how they turn out as to whether I shall be paid—the life policies may not be worth surrender value, and then there are premiums and law costs.
Re-examined. I saw the prisoner from time to time between February and June, 1877—I claimed on his behalf—I claim everything.
WILLIAM BAKER . I live at Romford and am the manager of the Imperial Discount Company—our Company advanced 60l. to the prisoner on his furniture at 2, John Street, Bedford Row, on 19th April, 1876—9l. was deducted—it was to be repaid in instalments of 20l., on 19th May, 19th June, and 19th July—the next advance was made on 14th August, 1876, of 50l., to be repaid 16l. on 14th of September, and 17l. on 14th October, and 17l. on 14th November—7l. 10s. was deducted—the first bill of sale was unsatisfied on 3rd August by 20l.—the next advance was on 16th December, 1876, of 50l.—7l. 10s. was deducted.
Cross-examined. The prisoner still owed 17l. on 13th December—he paid us shortly afterwards—I make no complaint—I was subpœnaed by Mr. Brown—the prisoner paid up his instalments fairly.
Re-examined. I put a person in possession with regard to the first or second bill of sale.
upon Mr. Graham's furniture, of John Street, Bedford Row, and 7, Poultry, on advancing him 100l., to be repaid in eight monthly instalments—75l. only was actually paid—the prisoner paid me all except 25l.—I took possession about 25th or 26th May, 1877—Mr. Brown paid me out—he was in possession first, but I had a prior security.
JOSEPH BROWN . I am a dyer—I lend money occasionally—the prisoner came to me to borrow 100l. in February 1876—I required him to make a statutory declaration—he offered me as security the furniture at 2, John Street, Bedford Row—I saw the furniture, and he supplied me with an inventory, and made the declaration, the form of which I supplied—he sent it me by post—I knew nothing then of the claim of the Trustees of Settlement, nor of any transaction with Mr. Stevenson or Mr. Chambers; he also made another declaration on the 3rd August—these are the bill of sale, inventory, and declarations—the inventory is in Graham's writing—he asked me not to register the bill of sale, as it would ruin him—it was renewed at 21 days, and made continuous—he asked me to allow him to remove the furniture to Kelsall Lodge, and I consented—I first heard of a previous charge on 26th May, 1877, when Mr. Stevenson came into possession—I paid 78l. including charges.
Cross-examined. I did not take proceedings on 26th May because Graham was in Holloway Prison, and Mr. Maynard told me if I brought a charge against him it would be said I did it for the purpose of closing the prisoner's mouth—I sold out the furniture at Kelsall Lodge—that person (Mrs. Clark) was there as a servant—I did not leave his wife in an almost dying condition, with nothing to lie on—most of the furniture had been cleared out before by the landlord and for rates and taxes—I did not leave Mrs. Graham and four or five children without clothes, blankets, or bed—the beds and blankets had been taken away—I sold what was left—I did not tell my men to smash up a dozen seltzer-water bottles—I have received altogether from the prisoner 259l. 6s. down to the sale—he paid the first loan of 100l. before I advanced money on 13th November, 1876—he also paid another bill of sale for 200l., also 59l.—I realised 50l. by the sale at Kelsall Lodge, and 113l. on his furniture in Poultry—the furniture was taken to Hollingsworth's after 6 in the evening, because we are not allowed to take it away in the day-time—it was not taken in the middle of the night—I saw the men there at 6 o'clock—I have still some securities, including some deeds which are valueless—Mr. Maynard holds them—these are the deeds (produced)—I also realised 60l. on a bill of exchange—I have another bill for 78l., also the lease of Kelsall Lodge and several dishonoured cheques—I have not sued on them—they are post dated—I took them knowing they were post dated—I know nothing of the advertisement of "Money lent without security to male or female at 111, Newington Causeway," nor the branch office, 117, Caledonian Road—I never paid a Mr. Cox any commission—I now claim 234l. 16s. 6d.—I claimed 780l. against Mr. Appleby's estate, who was tried at this Court for a bankruptcy fraud—my claim was not reduced to 114l., but to 250l., in addition to a bill of sale, which was allowed—I cannot give you particulars, I have not the papers—I appealed to the Lords Justices, who upheld Mr. Spring Rice in his decision against me—I was tried at this Court for conspiring with Appleby, and acquitted—I deducted 10l. for interest out of the first loan of 100l.—there were other loans—I bought the prisoner's furniture for 150l., and let it
back to him on hire in November, 1876, when he only owed me 33l. 6s. 8d.—I had a bill of sale for 150l.—a solicitor had nothing to do with it—I paid the 150l. in bank notes, not by a cheque—I never said it was a cheque—I produced a cheque to show I drew out 150l., which was the alleged consideration for the bill—I have had the numbers of the notes marked since—I know nothing of an affidavit being filed to compel me to produce the cheque—I did not send any one to the Bank of England to get the numbers—I sent the cheque there to have the numbers put on—I met the prisoner at some wine stores—this (produced) is the bill and catalogue of the sale at Kelsall Lodge—I do not know that Mrs. Graham pawned her jewels to pay the instalments due to me.
Re-examined. I produce the letter which the prisoner sent me with the lease on 12th July, 1876, also one of 7th November, 1876, which he sent with the schedule of furniture—I got no advantage by paying the prisoner's rent—he received from me 518l., and I have been paid back 283l. 3s. 6d., leaving a balance of 234l. 16s. 6d. still due to me—I did not know the prisoner had a charge on his furniture, or I should not have advanced the money—he never complained to me of my conduct—he sought me to lend him money, I did not seek him. (The affidavit of James Graham complaining of Mr. Brown's conduct, and dating his willingness to pay, and that 100l. was repaid to Mr. Brown in Mr. Maynard's office, sworn 2nd March, 1877, also the agreement, dated 26th March, between Joseph Brown and the prisoner, with reference to the repayment of 365l. to Mr. Brown, were here read.) It was the prisoner's proposal to give up the Chancery proceedings and pay my costs—he said he did it to gain time—Mr. Maynard was not a party to that—we went to his office, but he was not there.
WILLIAM MAYNARD . The statutory declarations came into my possession in June, 1877—I had previously acted for Mr. Brown, but not with reference to the declarations—it is true that Mr. Brown was advised not to take criminal proceedings, lest it should prevent the civil proceedings being tried—it is not true that 100l. was handed back to Mr. Brown in my presence—I handed the prisoner 150l. myself, and he paid me 2 guineas for preparing the agreement.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
NOT GUILTY .
455. HARRIET TOMLIN (41) , Wilful and corrupt perjury at the Ilford Petty Session. The Prisoner having stated in the hearing of the Jury that she swore falselyi, they returned a verdict of GUILTY. Judgment Respited. (See Half-Yearly Index.)
MR. LLOYD conducted the Prosecution. EMMAALDOUS. I am barmaid at the Volunteer beerhouse, Barking—on 21st February the prisoner gave me a bad florin for a glass of stout. The indictment charging it as a shilling, the COURT directed a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Recorder.
458. WILLIAM THOMPSON (22) and WALTER ADAMS (19) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Earnshaw Baillie, and stealing therein two cruet stands and other goods, Thompson having been convicted of felony in December, 1876.
THOMPSON**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude . ADAMS— Four Months' Imprisonment .
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
459. WILLIAM KILROW (19) and ALBERT STONE (18) PLEADED GUILTY to burglariously breaking and entering the shop of George William Tripp and others, and stealing 1l. 2s. 11 1/2d. their moneys.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment .
461. RICHARD HAMPTON** (35) to burglariously breaking and entering the shop of Robert James Warren, and stealing therein one watch, his property, having been before convicted at Maidstone.—** Ten Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
462. JAMES CLARK (32) , Breaking and entering the warehouse of Wyldman, Cattley, and others, and stealing 6 cwt. 1 qr. 19 lb. of isinglass, his goods, and two coats, 6l., and other articles, the goods of George Fishwick.
MR. HUMPHREYS conducted the Prosecution.
GEORGE JOHN FISHWICK . I am warehouseman to Messrs. Cattley and Co., hop merchants—I left the place on 8th March—the next morning I found the place broken into and five boxes of isinglass taken away, two desks were broken into, and 6l. taken out—I also missed two coats, a razor, a pair of scissors, and this cashbox—this is some of the isinglass—these coats are mine.
JAMES WILSON (Policeman 4 K). From information I received, I went on the morning of 9th March with Sergeant Gibson to 20, Little Collingwood Street—the prisoner put his head out at the window and asked me the time—I said "Half-past five"—it was not half-past five, but I had a reason for telling him so—I asked if his name was Clark—he said
"No, my name is Smith"—I said "Smith come down and open the door"—he came down after about five minutes and asked me what I wanted—I said I wanted to come in—I went in and found five large bags piled up against the wall, and I asked him what was there—he said he did not know—Sergeant Gibson and I went in and shut the door and undid the string, and found the first bag to contain isinglass similar to this—I told him I should take him in custody for stealing it, and asked him where he got it—he said a man named Thompson met him at the corner of North Street the night before and asked him to warehouse it for him and he would give him half a sovereign and call next day at one o'clock—I asked him where Thompson was and where he worked—he said he did not know—I left a constable in charge of the place and another outside and took the prisoner to the station—I afterwards went and took the isinglass away—I went upstairs and found two coats on the bed—a woman was there.
JAMES SMITH (Policeman 206 M). About 10.30 p.m. on 8th March I was on duty in Weston Street, about 40 or 50 yards from this warehouse—I noticed a wicket door open—I went inside the yard and found the warehouse door open—I could see it had been forced, and shone my lamp for assistance—Police-constable 95 came—we searched the warehouse and found the office desk broken open.
— GIBSON (Policeman 21 M). I found this cashbox in the yard in Weston Street on 9th March.
Prisoner's Defence. On 9th March I was smoking from 6 to 10.30 when a man named Thompson came along and asked me to warehouse these things. He said they were bones. I had seen him before. He promised to come next morning, but the policeman came and I told him they were bones. I gave him a description of Thompson and of his horse and cart. I was delayed in coming down in looking for matches and a candle. I am innocent.
GUILTY . He was further charged with a conviction of felony in April, 1867, at this Court, to which he PLEADED GUILTY*— Ten Years' Penal Servitude .
MR. LLOYD conducted the Prosecution.
MILDRED EDWARDS . I am barmaid at the Surrey Arms, St. John's Road, Battersea—on 18th March I served the prisoner with half-a-pint of ale—he tendered a shilling—I gave him 11d. change and he left—I afterwards found the shilling was bad and gave it to Mr. Sutherland—I had not mixed it with other money.
JOHN SUTHERLAND . I keep the Surrey Arms—the last witness gave me this bad shilling (produced), and I followed the prisoner to Mr. Emery's, waited outside till he was served, and then went in and spoke to Mr. Emery, who looked at a shilling and gave the prisoner in custody—I gave the shilling to the constable.
CHARLES ARTHUR EMERY . I am a tobacconist, of New Wandsworth—on 18th March, about 11.30 p.m., I served the prisoner with half an ounce of tobacco—he gave me a shilling, which I afterwards discovered was bad—Mr. Sutherland came in while I had it in my hand—I marked it and gave the prisoner in custody, with the shilling.
ARTHUR GOOLD (Policeman 106 V). I was called to Mr. Emery's and took the prisoner—I received these two bad shillings, one from Edwards and the other from Emery—I searched him in the shop and found a good shilling and a farthing—he refused to give his name and address.
The Prisoner produced a written defence, stating that he was playing at dominoes, and having to pay 4d. got the coins in change for a half-crown. GUILTY . H e was further charged with a previous conviction of a like offence in August, 1876, to which he PLEADED GUILTY, upon which the Jury added to their verdict GUILTY of Felony.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WILLIAMS the Defence. THOMAS RADLEY. I have been a trustee of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society for nine years—there are 85,000 members—I produce a copy of the rules—the prisoner has been a member all the time I have been a trustee—this prosecution is directed by the trustees according to Act of Parliament.
Cross-examined. He is entitled to relief in sickness and in his wife's lying-in and at his own or her death—Mr. Evan Evans was secretary, but previous to my time.
JOHN STRATTON . I am chief clerk of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, 17, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square—William Clark has been a member since 17th July, 1862—his number was 9207 of the 9th division—I received this letter A in this envelope C enclosing this certificate B. (This stated: "Sir,—I beg to forward the following certificate.—W. Clark, 9207, 9th division."—B was: "This is to certify that I delivered Mrs. Clark, of 5, William Terrace, Peckham, of a living female child.—Thos. D. King, Surgeon.") I subsequently received this letter: "April 12, 1877. Sir,—Will you please forward my lying-in money to-morrow to me, made payable at the Peckham P. O.—W. Clark, 9207. "On 13th April I obtained this Post-office order (produced) and posted it to the address given, believing that the prisoner's lawful wife had been confined and that the certificate referred to her.
Cross-examined. I have been in the society since February, 1869—I do not remember the time when Mr. Evan Evans was secretary; he ceased to be so in 1863 or 1864.
JOSEPH WALFORD . The signature "William Clark" to this post-office order is in the prisoner's writing—Mary West, who is described as a widow in this certificate, was my sister. (This certified the marriage of William Clark and Mary West, widow, at Poplar, on 17th October, 1852.) She lived with him up to 1859, and, as far as I know, has not cohabited with him since—she was living at Haggerston in 1877, and I saw her
frequently—she was not confined of a child—her age is fifty-one—she attended at the police-court and was pointed out to the doctor—this letter (produced) is written by her—I heard Dr. King give evidence that she was not the person he attended.
THOMAS WILLIAM KING , M. D. I live at 3, The Terrace, Camberwell—on 1st April I attended a female in her confinement, at 1, Talfourd Terrace, Peckham—this certificate refers to her—the prisoner was living with her—I had attended her three years, off and on, but not for other confinements, and I believed her to be the prisoner's wife—the woman I saw at the police-court was not the woman I attended—I believe the address at Peckham is not far from Evelina Road, Nunhead.
Cross-examined. The woman was living with the prisoner to all appearances as his wife.
Witnesses for the Defence.
GEORGE EDWARD HILL . I live at Mitcham—I met the prisoner with a Mr. Hopkins in 1863 at the Elephant and Castle, and we went to the Bird in Hand, Long Acre, where the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society was held—we went into a room where several persons were sitting round a table—it looked like a committee room, and the secretary was introduced as Mr. Evan Evans, who told the prisoner to say what he had to say, to the committee—the prisoner told them that the person he was living with was not his wife, and he wanted to know whether he might receive the lying-in money; that he had heard that his wife was dead, but was not sure, and he could not marry her—the secretary told us to go away, and we went and had something to drink, and then Mr. Evans told him that the committee had come to the conclusion that he might receive the money.
Cross-examined. I was not a member of the society—I think this was at the beginning of July, 1863—I was not present when the books of the society were searched—no lying-in money was due at the time, but I believe the woman he was living with was about to become a mother—it was the same woman who was confined in April, 1871—I do not know that she was not confined till the end of 1866—I do not say that she was confined.
GEORGE HOPKINS . I live at 137, Blue Anchor Road, Bermondsey—in 1863 I met Hill and the prisoner and we went to the Bird in Hand, Long Acre, where the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society was held—the person I thought to be be the secretary, told the prisoner that the committee had assembled, and asked him to go upstairs—he went up and asked me and Mr. Hill up—Mr. Hill was asked into the room, and asked whether his two friends could be admitted—the secretary said "Yes," and we stepped in, and after that we were asked to withdraw for a few minutes—we were afterwards called in again, and Mr. Clark told the committee the position he was in with the person he was living with; that she was about to become a mother, and asked whether he was justified in receiving the money—the secretary said "Yes," but if his wife turned up they should not consider any claim that he made.
Cross-examined. No memorandum was required to be made—I was in the prisoner's employ in 1863. Q. Don't you know that the person he was living with was not confined at all? A. I think he was under the impression that it was about to take place, and he felt very anxious to have the committee's advice before he received it.
Witnesses in Reply.
THOMAS MARSHALL . I have been secretary of the Hearts of Oak about 13 years—the books are in my possession, but I cannot say that I have an entire set from 1863—I have examined the minute-book for July, 1863, but do not find any notice of Clark having attended—he continued paying his subscriptions when I became secretary—Stratton is the person to tell you when Clark's first demand for lying-in allowance was made.
Cross-examined. I have not got the books of 1863 and 1864 here.
The Prisoner received a good character.— NOT GUILTY .
MR. PURCELL conducted the Prosecution; and MR. H. AVORY the Defence.
ELIZA DUNCAN . I live at 58, Alderminster Road, Bermondsey—the deceased was my husband—the prisoner lodged in the same house—on 1st March, about 8 or 8.30 a.m., the prisoner came to our room—my husband heard his name mentioned and went out and said "Pay me what you owe me"—the prisoner said "Pay me and I will pay you. If I hear my name mentioned again I will come up again," but he did not come up—my husband afterwards went into the street—the prisoner works in the kitchen close to the window—as he went out he said "Pay me what you owe me"—I did not hear any more—between 12 and 1 o'clock I saw my husband talking to a policeman and thought he was coming up to get his dinner—he came back several times but did not come upstairs—I went downstairs and saw him lying on the pavement and the prisoner was there.
Cross-examined. The prisoner is a shoemaker and had been mending some boots for my husband—there was a dispute about the account owing between them—when my husband came back in the morning I suppose it was to insult the prisoner—I heard him calling out several times to the prisoner, but did not hear what he said—I heard him making a great deal of noise—he came back three or four times, and the last time he stood outside the area railing some time, abusing the prisoner—they were very good friends before.
EMMA HARROD . I live at 50, Alderminster Road—on 1st March I was sitting at my window, which is about 30 yards from the prisoner's place—I heard some one speaking in a loud voice between 11.30 and 12 o'clock—I opened the window and saw Mr. Duncan looking down the area—he said "Get out of this neighbourhood"—he then went into the house, waited five minutes, and then went across the road and spoke to two policemen—he then re-crossed the road and Steel went up and struck him—Steel was then at the bottom of the steps leading to the door—the prisoner then struck Steel in face with his left fist—he struck him three times, and at the second blow Duncan was holding the railings—after the third blow he fell heavily to the pavement—before giving him the second blow the prisoner said "Stand up like a man."
Cross-examined. I was leaning out at my window—Duncan said "Get out of the neighbourhood," in an abusive way—the prisoner's fist was clenched when he struck him; I could see quite plain—Duncan put up
both his hands and rubbed his face after the second blow, his fists may have been clenched.
WILLIAM THORNE . I live at 62, Alderminster Road—on 1st March, about noon, I saw Duncan standing on the opposite side of the way talking to two policemen—he then crossed the road to his dinner—I was going up my steps and heard some words, turned round, and saw the prisoner strike Duncan with his fist two or three times—I did not see whether Duncan put his hands up—Duncan fell and I went over and picked his hat up.
Cross-examined. I cannot say whether it was a blow or a push the third time.
JOHN NORFOLK (Policeman M R 32). On 1st March, about 9.30 a.m., I was on duty, and Duncan crossed over to me and said "I will stand my ground"—the prisoner then came up and asked him what was the matter—he said "I will lock this man up"—I said "What for?"—he said "For making use of filthy language and annoying me"—I said that I could not lock him up, he must apply to a Magistrate for a summons—Duncan said "He is a liar and a thief, he has had a lot of money of me and won't pay me back"—they both appeared sober, but they were very excited.
JOHN TREMANE GARDNER . I am house-surgeon at Guy's Hospital—on 1st March Duncan was brought there with a contused and lacerated wound on the back of his head on the right side, another similar wound more towards the top, his left eye was swollen, and he had symptoms of fractured base of the skull—he died on the 17th—I made a post-mortem and found an extensive fracture of the base of the skull and injury to the brain that might be caused by a fall on the pavement—he smelt of drink, but whether his condition was due to the injury or not I cannot say.
Cross-examined. I was with my father about 9.30 when the row was going on between him and the prisoner, who wanted to give him in custody for annoying him—my father was annoying and abusing him—my father then went to the Conquering Hero—I saw him come back to the house several times, and he went round to the Havelock—he came back several times and abused the prisoner down the area—before he was knocked down he had been abusing the prisoner ten minutes, using very bad language to him—that was just before the prisoner came out and struck him—I did not see my father with a stone in his hand.
Re-examined. My father was not sober.
JOHN WELLS (Policeman). I took the prisoner on 7th March, read the warrant to him, told him the charge, and cautioned him—he said "Well, you say I need not say anything unless I like; I will tell the truth, I did strike him and knock him down, but he aggravated me to such a pitch I could not help it. I did not think it was coming to this."Cross-examined. I find that the prisoner is much respected in the neighbourhood.
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the provocation. He received a good character.— One Week's Imprisonment and to enter into recognizances .
WILLIAM SPENCE . I am a commission agent, of 74, Kellett Road, Brixton—I formed the prisoner's acquaintance eighteen months ago, she was a domestic servant in the same road—I was in the habit for some time of going out with her, and there was a close intimacy between us which ceased in April, 1877—I was at home on 24th March, 1878, about 9.30, and there was a knock at the door—my servant opened it and I went out and saw the prisoner in the passage—I said "What do you want?"—she said "I want to speak to you"—I said "You had better get out"—she made a rush at me—I took hold of her by both arms and put her completely outside the door—I let go of her to shut the door and she put her knee in and I could not shut it—I opened it to give her a push and saw the gleam of something in her right hand and felt my throat touched—I took hold of her arm, turned it up, and saw that it was a razor, open—there was blood on it, and then I knew that I was cut—I took it from her, and said "You will have to go to the police-station"—I took her there myself—on the way she said "What have I done? Let me go and I will never trouble you again"—a constable overtook us and I gave her into his charge, with the razor—when we got to the station I put my hand to my chin and found I was bleeding—a doctor was sent for who dressed my wound—she has called at my house on several occasions and asked to see me, and I have shut the door and told her to go away.
Cross-examined. The wound is perceptible now—I have known her about two years very intimately—I was not on good terms with her as late as February this year, not at all after April—I cannot positively swear whether I went to Thames Ditton with her in June—she has been trying to frighten me because I formed the acquaintance of another lady—I pushed her out on to the flags in front of the house, and we eventually struggled in the road—I lost a great quantity of blood—I had hold of her going to the station—I believe there were men lodgers in the house where she was.
HECTOR HELSHAM , M.R.C.S. I am divisional surgeon to the police at Brixton—I was sent for to the station and found the prosecutor suffering from an incised wound in the upper part of his neck, about 3 inches long, passing from the centre downwards—it was a superficial wound, one likely to bleed a great deal, but not dangerous except from its situation—it went within three-quarters of an inch of the carotid artery—the under tissues were slightly divided—it was a clean incised wound by a sharp instrument—the bleeding had partially stopped when I arrived.
Cross-examined. Any wound dividing the skin would bleed freely—he was quite well in three days—it healed very rapidly.
ALFRED WICKHAM (Policeman 80 W). On 28th March, at 9.40, I overtook the prosecutor and prisoner in the Canterbury Road, Brixton—he had hold of her right arm with his left hand and had a razor in his right hand open, which he gave up to me—this razor appears to be new—he gave her into my charge for wounding him—she made no answer—she was quite sober.
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor. — Four Months' Imprisonment .
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, MAY 6TH,1878.