CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OWDEN, MAYOR. EIGHTH 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, May 27th, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. J. P. GRAIN conducted the Prosecution; and MR. FRITH defended Lewis.
MR. GRAIN offered no evidence against Davis, as to whom a verdict of NOT GUILTY was taken.
THOMAS DAVIS . I was convicted at the last sessions—I have known the prisoner about twenty years, she is no relation—I know her husband; he lives at 47, Carlton Street, Kentish Town, and is a cabinetmaker—I had no such property there on 14th August as is included in this inventory—the prisoner asked me if I would do her husband a favour, that he was in difficulties; he had got plenty of work in, and he wanted a few pounds to go on with the business and if I would take his name it would be a great benefit to him; that he wanted horsehair, wool, gimp, and things to go on with; it would be the making of him—she said "Say you are my husband, go to Mr. Okey to sign as Mr. Lewis, and get the money for him"—I did go—I did not say that the furniture was mine—these signatures to these documents are mine—when I received the money I gave it to the prisoner—I did not have any of it—I had a few shillings of her now and then—I am a jobbing turner.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "My husband knew nothing about it. Mr. Davis knows that my husband knew nothing about it. I done it quite as much to oblige Mr. Davis as it was to oblige me. He has had about 7l. 15s. to purchase ivory. He is an ivory-turner. He had not the money all at a time; he had some on each loan. He asked me if I would let him have some money a fortnight or three weeks ago.
I told him I had no money unless I parted with the things. He said, 'Try and get Mr. Okey to lend us another loan.' I said, ' Very well; I will go and ask him.' Mr. Okey said, if I paid him 5l. down, which I did, I was to have the loan renewed again. However, Mr. Ogle took the 5l, for which there is a stamped receipt in the book. Mr. Ogle said he would ask the gentleman next day whether I could have it. I went the next morning, and he declined to let me have it until the loan was paid. He asked me if I had any more loans. I said, 'No, never; that was the first transaction I had of such a thing.' I should never have done it had it not been for Mr. Davis."
GUILTY.Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury, believing she intended to repay the money. — Nine Months' Imprisonment . DAVIS— Six Months' Imprisonment .
MR. F. H. LEWIS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH the Defence.
WILLIAM COPPOCK BEAUMONT . I am a solicitor, at 23, Lincoln's Inn Fields—I am also clerk to the Cutlers' Company—I had a clerk in my employment named Clement Allen; he has since absconded—in June last the Cutlers' Company were indebted to Mr. Sawyer, the contractor, 206l. 15s. 2d.—a cheque for that amount was drawn in his favour, signed by the Master and Warden of the Company, and countersigned by myself—that cheque was given to Allen to hand over to Mr. Sawyer in the ordinary course of business—the Company was also indebted on 20th February to Messrs. Ring and Brymer 260l. 4s. 6d.—a cheque was drawn in the same way, signed by the Master and Wardens, countersigned by myself, and handed to Allen for the purpose of payment—the cheques were payable to bearer, not crossed—on 16th January, 1878, the Company was indebted to Messrs. Thomas and Sons 37l. 19s. 6d.—a cheque for that was also drawn and signed in the same way, and given to Allen for payment—he had no authority to deal with those cheques otherwise than according to the instructions on the face of them—I had great confidence in Allen—neither of those three cheques have been paid according to the directions.
Cross-examined. Allen had been in my service four or five years—he managed the details of the Company under me, and I had confidence in him—the morning before the prisoner was arrested Swanson, the detective, came to my office with the prisoner—there was no warrant out against him at that time; he was not in Swanson's custody—I had not a long conversation with him—I did not say a word to him; he sat out in the clerk's office; he did not come into my room—Swanson told me that he had called on the prisoner that morning—at that time I had not made up my mind whether or no I would charge the prisoner—I think Swanson told me that he had been watching for the prisoner, and trying to find him—he said he had a long conversation with the prisoner at his house at 9 o'clock that morning; he repeated to me the substance of the conversation—he did not tell me that the prisoner had told him that he believed Allen was in a good position, and that there was nothing wrong in the cheques—he told me that the prisoner said that latterly he knew there was something wrong about the cheques, that he had had an anonymous letter warning him to go out of the country—I told Swanson that he had
better take the prisoner round with me to Mr. George Lewis, which he did—there was hardly a word said between Mr. Lewis and the prisoner—he went into Mr. Lewis's room with me and Swanson—that was for Mr. Lewis to make up his mind whether or not the prisoner should be charged—Mr. Lewis said to him that if he gave an explanation of the matter which was satisfactory he should not be prosecuted—he commenced by telling him that anything he said might be used against him, but that I had not at that time made up my mind whether to charge him or not, that the course I should take would depend very much upon the explanation he gave—he was given into custody there, either in the outer office or in Mr. Lewis's room—Swanson did not tell me that the prisoner said he had not changed any cheques for Allen lately because he had quarrelled with him about a partnership account between them in reference to an invention called "the wheel of beauty;" I think he said that the prisoner told him he had not been intimate with Allen lately because they had had some quarrel—I believe the prisoner lives somewhere at Camber well—I don't know that Allen lived next door to him four years ago.
FREDERICK JOHN SAWYER . I manage Mr. Sawyer's business—I did not receive the cheque made out to Mr. F. Sawyer—Mr. Sawyer was ultimately paid by two 100l. notes and gold in September, 1877—it was paid by another clerk of Mr. Beaumont's, not Allen.
MR. BEAUMONT (Re-examined). These amounts have been since paid by my own cheque.
DAVID SAMUELS . I live at 159, Alders gate Street—on 11th March I received this note, No. 39033, from the prisoner; it was in payment of money that he owed me—on 27th February he brought me this cheque for 37l. odd—at that time he owed me 8l.—he asked me to change the cheque and take the money that he owed me out of it—I did so, and gave him 30l. in a cheque made payable to himself.
Cross-examined. The account between us was nominally in Wang's name alone—it was for the manufacture of a toy called "the wheel of beauty"—I do not know Allen—I knew that the prisoner was associated with some man in "the wheel of beauty," but I did not knew the name—I have known the prisoner since he came back from sea four years ago—he has borne the character of an honourable, upright man.
FREDERICK ORCHARD . I live at Kilburn, and am clerk to Messrs. Hewitt and Co., shippers—some time in September, 1877, the prisoner brought me this cheque for 206l. 15s. 2d., dated June, 1877—he asked me to change it—he said he was doing it for a friend who had got a commission out of the transaction—I keep an account at the Alliance Bank—I paid the cheque in to my account there, and I gave him an open cheque for the amount—I also changed this other cheque for him, dated February, 1878, a day or two before the date of my cheque which I gave him in exchange, which is 6th March—I paid that cheque in to my account, and gave him an open cheque for it.
Cross-examined. I have known the prisoner about two years—I knew his father for ten years before he died—the prisoner has always borne the character of an honest, upright man—he was introduced to me by Mr. Burgess—he left the cheques with me on each occasion for me find out whether they were right at the bank before I gave him the money.
Re-examined. I knew that they were drawn by the Master and Wardens of the Cutlers' Company—I did not go to Messrs. Ring and Brymer to see whether they were right.
DONALD SWANSON . I am a detective of Scotland Yard—I went to the prisoner's house on 1st April; about 9 A.m.—I told him I was a police constable, and that I had called in reference to certain cheques that I had traced as being cashed through his hands, which had originally been stolen by a man named Allen—I had a somewhat lengthy consultation with him as to his dealings with Allen, and what he knew about Allen—he said that he had had dealings with Allen, that Allen had lent him money, and held a bill of sale over his premises—I asked why he had made himself the medium of cashing these cheques—he said” I have frequently cashed cheques for Allen, at first I did not think I was doing wrong, but latterly I Knew they were wrong—I asked him if he would give that explanation to Mr. Beaumont, Allen's master, for whom I was making the inquiry—he said he would, and he willingly came with me to Mr. Beaumont's—I left him in the clerk's room there, and made a communication to Mr. Beaumont, and eventually, as he is not a criminal solicitor, we went with the prisoner to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis to see whether any steps would be taken against him—after having detailed the whole matter, and the prisoner giving his version of the story, he was given in charge.
Cross-examined. He told me that Allen was associated with him in the production of an elegant little article called the wheel of beauty, and he showed it me as one of his dealings with Allen—he did not say that Allen had refused to pay him 20l. which he owed him—he said they had had a quarrel, but he did not mention whether it was about money matters, or otherwise, and he had not seen him since—he gave me these explanations frankly, and without the slightest hesitation.
MR. BEAUMONT (Re-examined). I did not know the prisoner before this transaction—I did not know that in 1876 an agreement was prepared in my office between himself and a Mr. Reinholt—I have found it since—Allen was the person who received the money—I know nothing about it myself.
The Prisoner received an excellent character. NOT GUILTY .
547. WALTER LODGE alias WALTER CHARLES ASHTON (18) to forging and uttering a receipt for the payment of money, and to fraudulently issuing divers money orders for the payment of 10s., the property of the Postmaster General, being in the service of the Post Office.
He received a good character,— Five Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
548. FREDERICK LAWRENCE THORPE (22) to stealing while employed in the Post Office a letter containing 120 stamps, the property of the Postmaster General.— Five Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
549. BARTER PEARCE (17) to stealing a post letter containing a sovereign and a shilling, the pro perty of the Postmaster General. He received a good character.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
MESSRS. METCALFE, Q. C., and BAGGALLAY conducted the Prosecution; and
MR. J. P. GRAIN the Defence.
CHARLES JAMES STEPHENS . I am a travelling clerk attached to the missing letter branch of the General Post Office—in consequence of instructions I received I made up a letter on 22nd May addressed, " Miss Maria Laing, 10, New Bond Street, London"—I put 120 penny postage stamps in it, having previously marked them with similar marks—I posted the letter about 11.45 the same morning at the chief office—I called Inspector Clegg's attention to it before doing so—later in the day I received information in consequence of which I saw the prisoner the same afternoon, about 3.30, in a private room at the General Post Office—I said "My name is Stephens; I am attached to the missing letter branch—I posted a letter this morning addressed to Miss Maria Laing, 10, New Bond Street, containing 120 stamps—it was afterwards sorted to tour walk—I have ascertained that it is missing—do you know anything about it?"—he replied "No"—Butler searched him in my presence, and a number of postage stamps wrapped up in a piece of paper were found in his pocket—I said "Where did you get the stamps from?"—he replied "I bought them about a fortnight ago in the Strand; I was going to send them to my brother at Plumpton"—I examined the stamps, and found 120 bore my private mark—these are the stamps—I said "These bear my private marks, and are the same as I enclosed in the letter to Miss Laing"—he made no reply.
Cross-examined. This is the half sheet in which the stamps were enclosed or similar—it bears the same stamp "ivory"—I said "They were in my possession this morning; would you like to see the date?" and I showed him the date—the marks are brought out by a chemical process.
JOHN CLEGG . I am an inspector of letter carriers for the Eastern Central district—I knew this was a test letter, and I remember its coming to the office about 11.50—I stamped it and sorted it to the prisoner's walk, New Broad Street—the letter being addressed to New Bond Street ought to have been treated as a mis-sorted letter—I directed Newman to search to see if the letter was amongst the mis-sort, and in consequence of what he said the prisoner was called in.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was present when the letters were sorted, and I saw him take this letter to his seat—he would have eighty or ninety letters in his delivery, which would include Finsbury Circus—I did not mark the stamps similar to these.
stamps in a similar way, but not with the same date—we never mark two sheets of stamps alike.
WILLIAM NEWMAN . I am overseer in the Eastern Central district of the Post Office—on 22nd May I received instructions to search amongst the mis-sorts—I searched, but found no letter addressed to Miss Maria Laing, 10, New Bond Street.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I am not guilty of stealing a post-letter, but I am guilty of having 120 stamps in my possession." GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude .
NEW COURT.—Monday, May 27th, 1878.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
553. JOSEPH MAHONEY (17) to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Hills and stealing therein 12 spoons and other articles his property.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
SARAH ALICIA LANE . I am barmaid at the London Stone public-house, 109, Cannon Street—on 7th May, about 9 P.m., the prisoner came in for half a pint of ale and one ounce of tobacco—he gave me a half-crown—I tried it; it did not bend, and I gave him 2s. 4d. change—while he was drinking I weighed the coin and found it was light—I said "Wait," but he ran out—I handed the coin to the landlord.
GEORGE SMITH . I keep the London Stone public-house—the last witness gave me this coin—I kept it till next morning and then gave it to Inspector Davis—it was marked by the barmaid—this is it (produced).
SARAH SOPHIA STANTON . My father keeps the Peacock, Lower Whitecross Street—on 7th May, about 9.39 P.m., I served the prisoner with half a pint of beer and a pennyworth of tobacco—he gave me a half-crown—I weighed it, found it bad, and returned it to him—he said that he had it given to him for carrying a parcel from London Bridge to Moorgate Street, and gave me 1d.—I took the tobacco back.
MARY ANN TROWELL . I am barmaid to Mr. Curl, who keeps the Cripplegate Tavern—on 7th May, about 9.45 P.m. I served the prisoner with half a pint of beer and a pennyworth of tobacco—he gave me a bad half-crown—I tested it and showed it to Mr. Curl, who went round the counter and asked the prisoner where he got it—he said that a gentleman gave it him for carrying a parcel from London Bridge to Moorgate Street—he was given in custody with the coin.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I bounced the coin, but did not put it into the till—I took it to my master.
bad, and said to the prisoner "I must trouble you to wait for a moment while I get change"—he made no reply—I saw Webb in plain clothes in the bar, charged the prisoner, and asked him where he got the half-crown—he said from a gentleman for carrying a parcel from London Bridge station to Moorgate Street—I gave it to Webb—it was not dropped into the till—I heard the barmaid ring it, and she brought it direct to me.
WILLIAM WEBB (City Policeman 109). I was in Mr. Curl's house in plain clothes when the prisoner came in—I have heard what he says, it is correct—he gave the prisoner into my charge with the coin—I found 1d. on him.
Prisoner's Defence. A gentleman gave me one coin for carrying a portmanteau; I know nothing about the other.
GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment .
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and HORACE AVORY conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY NEVILLE . I keep the Colleen Bawn beer shop, Thames Street, White chapel—on 29th April between 10 and 10.30 I served the prisoner with half an ounce of tobacco—it came to 2d.—he gave me a half-crown—I put it down by my side, not into the till, and gave him 2s. 4d. change—after serving a customer, I tested it and found it was bad—he went out and I followed him, and saw him in the street walking fast; but having no one in the bar I could not follow him—I put the coin by itself, and next morning he came again about 11 or 12 o'clock for half an ounce of tobacco—I recognised him, but only as having been there before—he put a florin in front of him on the counter—I took it up and found it was bad—he said that he had just received his payment for what he had done in Billingsgate, I think—I then recognised him and said "You have tried it on again this morning" and gave him in charge with the coins.
Cross-examined. I am certain you are the man who came the day before.
GEORGE PALMER (Policeman K 63). On 30th. April, about 10.30, I was called and took the prisoner—I charged him with uttering the florin which I received in the bar—he said that he got it from a man he worked for in Billingsgate, whose name he did not know—he next said that he got it from a man for drawing a barrow from Billingsgate market to White chapel Road—Mr. Neville gave me this half-crown in the bar, saying, "He passed this one yesterday morning"—he said "I was never in your house before, sir; you have made a mistake"—he first gave his name Edward Smith, and when charged Henry Rose—the inspector had spoken to him in the meantime—he said that he lived at 10, Cross Street, City Road—I went there, and found that he did not live there.
Prisoner's Defence. On the day I was arrested the prosecutor said that he was not sure it was me.
GUILTY of uttering the florin only. — Nine Months' Imprisonment .
MR. COOK Conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM SULLIVAN . I live at Park Terrace, Regent's Park—on 11th May, about 6.30 p.m., I purchased some fish in Billingsgate and a party in a white smock came up to me—I left my fish in a public-house, and when I came out I left the man in the smock in Pudding Lane—the prisoner then came behind me, threw his left arm round my neck, and another man threw his right arm round my neck, and a third man took me up by the legs, lifted me about two yards into King's Head Court, and threw me on the ground—the man on my left ripped my left trousers leg up and said "Keys," and then the prisoner ripped my right trousers leg up and tore my coat—the prisoner and the other man threw me on my back violently and fell on top of me, and the prisoner ripped my pocket right out, which had about 14s. in it, passed it to his confederates, and they went away, but the prisoner did not get an inch from me—a policeman came up and I gave him in charge—I did not suffer much at the time but I have since felt great pain in my neck, and I have a great swelling on my hip—my wrist is also injured; I expect it was done against a brick wall, I still have a poultice on it.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You are a perfect stranger to me—I did not meet you and ask you if you saw a man strike me—I did not say "I will give you a sovereign if you will come as a witness."
JAMES NEWMAN . I am assistant to a brush maker and live at King's Head Court, Fish Street Hill—on Saturday, 11th May, about 6.30, I saw Sullivan at the entrance to King's Head Court, surrounded by three men—the prisoner was one—I saw them throw him down—I did not see what they did to his trousers but I saw the prisoner hand the pocket to his companion, who gave it to a friend of his, one of the three—I afterwards saw the prisoner pick up what appeared to be some coppers—I ran after the two others, but saw the prisoner again within five minutes—I met a policeman and told him, and the prisoner, who was at the bottom of Pudding Lane, ran off when he saw us, but the policeman took him.
JAMES MOUNTJOY (City Policeman 708). Newman spoke to me and I went into Pudding Lane and saw the prisoner going towards Thames Street—I followed him and said "Wait a minute, you are wanted" I—Newman came up and said "You are one of the three who robbed I that man in King's Head Court"—Sullivan came up and the prisoner I said "I never saw that man before," and immediately after he said, "You had better be careful what you say, you have made a mistake"—he appeared sober, but when I got him to the station he appeared suddenly to come over drunk—he said to Sullivan "I saw you. running up and down Thames Street like a madman"—I found 1s. 1¼d. on him—he gave his address at Beehive Lodge, which is a common lodging house, but his name was not known there.
Prisoner's Defence. I was standing at the corner of Fish Street Hill and Sullivan came up and asked me if I had seen a man at Billings-gate. I said "No." He said "If you see him and he will come up as a witness for me I will give you a sovereign." He gave his name as Patrick Sullivan, and asked us into a public-house to have some drink. There were three young chaps there half drunk and he interfered with them. He said that he was knocked down with a punch from a man.
I walked out thinking there would be a row and saw no more of them.
GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude .
ALFRED BROWN (Detective E). On 2nd May, about 8.30, I was in Saville Street, and saw the prisoner; carrying a bag on his back, containing something heavy—I followed him to a marine store shop, 27, Saville Street—he went in, and put the bag and its contents in a scale (I did not know then that he was in Messrs. Dodson's employ)—I went in with Wheatley, and asked him what was in the bag—he said that he did not bring a bag in—the marine store dealer, John Chalton, was attending to him, but he did not say a word—I opened the bag; it contained 361b. of new pipe lead, and some old sheet lead, 64lb. altogether—I ordered Wheatly to take him in custody—he said, in the passage leading to the police-court, "The pipe lead belongs to my master, and the other belongs to me," and gave his master's name Mr. Dodson, 29, Fetter Lane.
Cross-examined. That was the correct address where he worked—he made the same statement in the dock—the pipe lead was cut in lengths of 9 inches or a foot—I said nothing on my first examination about the prisoner's statement—Wheatley was present then, but was not called, so that there was no evidence of that statement, except what the prisoner said to the Magistrate.
Re-examined. The Magistrate did not fully examine me—he remanded the case in order that the master might be brought up—the prisoner's statement was identical with what he said to me.
GEORGE WHEATLEY (Policeman E). On 2nd May I was with Brown, and saw the prisoner in Saville Street with a bag—he went to a marine store shop, 27, Saville Street, and placed the bag in the scale—we went in, and Brown asked him what he had in the bag—he said that he did not bring it in—he was close to the scale, which was on the counter—Brown examined the bag, and found it contained lead—I took him in custody—one day he said in the passage of the police-court "Part of the lead is mine, the lead pipe is my master's," and that his master's address was 29, Fetter Lane.
Cross-examined. He volunteered that statement without anything being said by either of us—that was in the passage from the gaoler's room, where he was waiting for his turn to be brought up—I had not asked him anything about the lead—I did not suggest that he ought to plead guilty, nor did I hear Brown do so—I never made such a suggestion.
JOHN CHALTON . I am a marine store keeper, of Saville Street—on, I think, May 2nd I was in my shop when the prisoner came in, and I saw him put a bag into the scale—I saw the constable open it and take a piece of lead out.
plumber—we carry on a large business, and missed no lead, but this pipe lead is similar to what we use, and other plumbers also.
Cross-examined. Pipe lead is like other pipe lead, and I cannot say that this belongs to us—we have not missed any—we had a two or three years' character with the prisoner, and as far as I know he maintained that character. (The prisoner received a good character.) NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, May 28th, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution.
ALGERNON BERTRAM MITFORD . I am secretary to the Office of Works—the Right Hon. Gerard James Noel is the First Commissioner of Works—in the ordinary course I constantly open the letters that come addressed to him—he has been First Commissioner nearly two years—he succeeded Lord Henry Lennox—I produce a letter dated 12th May, 1877, signed "George Edward Pearson;" it is addressed to the Right Hon. G. J. Noel M. P. HENRY MASON. I am secretary to Sir John Kelk—I am very well acquainted with the prisoner's handwriting—this letter is his writing. (This was dated from Bury St. Edmunds, and was a respectful application for an appointment under the Commissioner of Works, setting forth his qualifications and practical experience.)
MR. MITFORD (continued). I also produce a letter of 5th April last addressed to Mr. Noel, and received at the Office of Works. (Mr. Mason proved this and the subsequent letters to be in the prisoner's writing.) This letter renewed the application for employment, and concluded "Should you not appoint me to a surveyor's or clerk of the work's place, I shall split on Sir Henry Hunt and others as to the Foreign Office contracts and other jobs. The Foreign Office was Mr. Kelk's job, and Mr. Hunt, the surveyor, was bribed, I can prove it." I also produce this letter of 8th April, with the envelope, addressed to myself; it has the Bury St. Edmund's post-mark—I received it and opened it. (The enclosure, a letter to Sir Henry Hunt, referred to the writer's disappointment in not having been engaged by the Office of Works, and contained the following words:—"I consider that I have not been fairly treated by Sir Henry Hunt in this matter, and as I hold the secrets as to the Foreign Office contracts and other matters implicating Sir Henry Hunt and others, if I am not appointed to an assistant surveyor's place, or as a clerk of works, I shall split, as it is no interest to me to hold my tongue and to be humbugged by Sir Henry as well.") I produce a letter of 12th April, which came to the Office of Works. (This was addressed to Sir Henry Hunt, and contained a similar threat to split if he was not appointed to some post, such as clerk of the works at Kensington Palace.) I produce a letter of 13th April; the envelope is addressed to Lord John Manners at the House of Common!—it was forwarded by his Lordship's private secretary to the Office of Works, and opened by me—inside it is addressed to the Right Hon. Gerard Noel, M. P. (This alleged that the tenders for Sir Gilbert Scott's Gothic design for the Foreign Office had been illegally opened by Mr. Hunt, and stated that, unless he got an appointment, he would split on the jobbing for same
years past.) I produce a letter of 23rd August, addressed to the Right Hon. Gerard Noel, but it is a letter to myself. (Read: "Sir,—I charge Joseph Taylor, of Gloucester Gardens, Bayswater, late foreman to Mr. John Kelk, the builder, and I also charge Sir Henry Hunt, the consulting surveyor to H. M. Office of Works, the former with tendering a bribe of 500l., and the latter with accepting the said bribe of 500l., on the occasion of the delivery of the builders' tenders for Gilbert Scott's Gothic plans for the proposed Foreign Offices, with intent to conspiracy.") I produce a letter of April 26th, and envelope, addressed to Mr. Noel. (Read: "Right Hon. Sir,—I have received a summons to attend at Bow Street police-court on Tuesday next as to an alleged libel on Sir Henry Hunt. I certainly fail to see any libel. I shall subpoena witnesses who can prove I am correct. There were, I think, only seven builders tendered for the original Gothic design of Mr. Gilbert Scott, and I saw Mr. Joseph Taylor, Mr. John Kelk's foreman, give a cheque for 500l. to Mr. Henry Hunt in Hunt's office in Parliament Street. I was present at the conversation about it in my private office at Mr. Kelk's, at South Street, between Mr. John Kelk and Mr. Joseph Taylor. I saw Mr. George Kelk, the cashier, hand Mr. Taylor the cheque. Mr. Taylor was sent by Mr. Kelk to Mr. Hunt's office with it and the tender, and I saw Mr. Taylor give it to Mr. Hunt, and I had a glass of sherry with them in Mr. Hunt's office. Mr. Kelk, Mr. Taylor, and myself made out Mr. Kelk's estimate. I shall stand my ground; at the same time my letters are private to the Office of Works among yourselves.")
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. It was not in Mr. Hunt's power to get candidates Government appointments, not directly—some of these letters are marked private—it is legal to hold a Government appointment and do private business as well—there is nothing illegal in applying for a Government appointment—as regards the Civil Service competition we should know nothing whatever of anybody but the one successful candidate.
MR. MASON (Re-examined). I knew the prisoner some years ago when he was in the service of Sir John Kelk, then Mr. Kelk, from 1856 to 1861—he had not to my knowledge the qualifications which he speaks of in his letters—he was not a clerk of works, only a junior clerk—Mr. Taylor is dead.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I am a practical office man—I do not know anything of the practical part of the business—I speak of your abilities from what I saw of you when with Mr. Kelk—you only assisted with the estimates very terrifyingly—Mr. Taylor made the estimates—I never knew of your doing so—you moneyed them out, anybody could do that—you might sometimes make, the plans—I don't consider that you assisted generally in the business—you were there to attend to visitors, to introduce them to Mr. Kelk or whoever they may have come to see—I have seen you make a plan or two, but nothing to speak of.
SIR HENRY ARTHUR HUNT . I have been a surveyor for nearly 50 years—in 1856 I was engaged as consulting surveyor to the Government—I was entitled to attend to my own private practice as well—I had to attend at the office about once a week to give my opinion upon any matters in which the First Commissioner or other Government officials required assistance—I have seen the prisoner once only, that was in 1866—he was then applying for an appointment in the public service—he was not
employed—there is not one word of truth in the letters that have been read so far as the imputations upon me are concerned—I was never bribed directly or indirectly by Sir John Kelk or by anybody else with reference to the Foreign Office contracts, or any other public matters—Sir Gilbert Scott prepared designs for the Foreign Office contracts, and Mr. Kelk's firm tendered in 1859—Mr. Kelk's tender was the lowest, but I do not think it was accepted—the plan was never carried out, Lord Palmerston would not have it—fresh plans were prepared, because the Gothic design was not approved of—the concrete foundations were put in by Mr. Kelk by the recommendation of Sir Gilbert Scott, who was the architect—he recommended that course should be adopted, and the First Commissioner by my advice consented to have it done—it was done at a price that was satisfactory to Sir Gilbert Scott—the new designs were tendered for, and Messrs. Smith and Taylor, who succeeded Mr. Kelk, were the lowest tenderers—that was in August, 1863, and they carried out the work—as far as I was concerned, everything that was done with respect to the Foreign Office was done in the ordinary course of business—I have known Sir John Kelk for a great many years, and have been engaged by him as a surveyor very largely—in 1858 I was engaged to buy the land and to build the large station and make the great works at the Victoria Station, Pimlico; that was a work that required the outlay of some hundreds of thousands of pounds—I was engaged by him to buy the land, value it, and assist in that matter, and I was paid in the ordinary way by him for those services—if anybody desires to inquire into it I can give the particulars.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Smith and Taylor's contract for the Foreign Office was by a lump-sum contract, by tender—10 or 12 builders were invited to tender, Smith and Taylor amongst them—Mr. Kelk tendered for Sir Gilbert Scott's Gothic design—I believe Mr. Taylor was I Mr. Kelk's foreman—he did not deliver Mr. Kelk's tender to me—the I tenders to the Office of Works are sent in before a certain hour in the I day, and they are deposited in a box by the messenger, which is locked, and after the time has expired they are taken out of the box and delivered to the secretary—they were opened by him in my presence—I don't know who delivered Mr. Kelk's tender—Mr. Taylor did not on the occasion of delivering it give me a cheque for 500l. in my office in Parliament Street in your presence, saying, "Here is a little piece of plum pudding for you"—I did not say"500l.," nor did Taylor say "Yes, he might as well have made it 1,000l. while he was about it"—I never saw you in my office, and I do not think Mr. Taylor was ever in my office—I did not say to Taylor "2,000 would not be much in a job of this magnitude"—I did not open the tenders—Mr. Austin did not complain to me about the tenders being opened by somebody—Lord John Manners did not open them—Mr. Austin did, I saw him open them—they had not been previously opened by me—I hold a public appointment to the Office of Works, and do private business as well—I am not a lawyer, but if such a thing is illegal I have been 22 years breaking the law—I do not know what the regulations are with reference to others; all I know is that I hold my office with the understanding that I should carry on private business—I am paid a settled salary of 1, 200l. a year, which appeared in the estimates and is voted every session—since my appointment I have not been paid for any works—Mr. Kelk never gave me a 1,000l. cheque himself—
he gave me two cheques of 500l. each on account of my charges for the Victoria Station—they came in the ordinary course of business, and are entered in my diary—I have got the letters enclosing them—I have had several 1,000l. cheques from him—once he gave me a 2,000l. cheque—I never had anything to do with the drains at Marlborough House—I do not remember receiving any letter from you alluding to Marlborough House end stating that it was not my fault but Mr. Pennethorne's—I have been pestered with letters from you ever since 1866—I was never a builder's clerk in the York Road, Lambeth—one of the tenders for the Foreign Office was not lower than Mr. Kelk's original tender—Mr. Taylor did not alter the tender in my office—he did not put his pen through and underline it—he did not take 7,000l. off to make it lower than the others—some of these letters are marked "Private"—Mr. Kelk did not get the contract for Sir Gilbert Scott's Gothic design or any equivalent to it—it was never done—if the Government had determined to erect the Gothic design, no doubt Mr. Kelk's tender would have been accepted—I do not know whether the plain building that was erected exceeded in price the Gothic design—Smith and Taylor did not pay me any money on account of the Foreign office job—I did not cash the 500l. cheque at Scott's bank—it was drawn on Scott's—I paid it through my bankers in the usual way.
Re-examined. The 500l. cheque was received by me in a letter from Mr. Kelk on 8th October, 1858—I have the letter here, and here is the entry of the receipt in my diary, made at the time—the second 500l. cheque of 4th January, 1859, came in this letter in the ordinary way, and was paid in to my banking account—that was on account of the Pimlico works at the Victoria Station—Mr. Kelk was not interested in paying me more than my services were worth—Mr. Austin was the secretary to the First Commissioner of Works at the time the tenders were sent in—he has been superannuated many years—the tenders were opened by him in the ordinary way—they never came into my hands at all.
SIR JOHN KELK . I live at 3, Grosvenor Square—I was formerly in business as a contractor and builder in an extensive way—I had in my employ in a responsible capacity a gentleman named Taylor—he succeeded me when I retired, in partnership with Mr. Smith, who is since dead—I sent in a tender for the original Gothic design for the Foreign Office—mine was the lowest tender; it was never carried out—ultimately an arrangement was made by which the concrete foundations were put in, not by me, by Smith and Taylor—there was an undertaking to make the Victoria Station, its approaches, and the bridge, I had to buy the land, and I employed Sir Henry Hunt to make a valuation of it, and it came to 200,000l. or 300,000l., the lands alone—in October, 1858, and January, 1859, I forwarded him two cheques for 500l., on account of his services rendered in respect of that work—there is not the slightest foundation for saying that at any time I gave him 500l. as a bribe to induce him to get my tender accepted.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I believe Kelk is my right name—at the time I tendered for the proposed Gothic Foreign Office I was a master builder at Westminster—I do not think I delivered the estimate myself—I don't know who went with it—I did not have any conversation with Mr. Taylor about bribing Sir Henry Hunt with 500l.—nor did I say "Let Pearson go with it"—there is not the slightest shadow of foundation
for it—I did not send a cheque for 500l. to Sir Henry Hunt with my tender, on that or any other occasion—I have paid him two cheques for 500l., as has been stated; one in 1858, and the other in 1859, on account of the Pimlico Railway—I don't think I ever gave him a cheque on account—he may have received a cheque for 1,000l.—no doubt I have given him a cheque for 1,000l.—I don't think I took it myself—I can't say whether you assisted in making out the estimate for the Foreign Office job—it would be very small assistance—I can't say who used to write out my tenders—there were a good many clerks in the office—you were in my office at the time as a clerk—I should not think you would be likely to know Mr. Hunt at that time; you may have heard his name in the office—he was employed by me as a surveyor on private business at the time he was surveyor for the Office of Works—I think he was employed by me to take out the quantities for the Grosvenor Hotel—I do not remember sending you after Mr. Taylor on the occasion of his taking the tender for the Foreign Office—I do not recollect who took the estimate to Mr. Hunt—I imagine it did not go to him at all—I imagine it went to the Office of Works—I don't know that I ever knew you tell a lie, or accept a bribe—I transferred my business to Smith and Taylor—I never paid Mr. Hunt a bribe—I did not get Mr. George Kelk, my cashier, to get my banking book from Scott's to see whether Mr. Hunt had got the 500l. cheque cashed, nor did I say, on seeing it,"He cashed it the same day"—here is the banking book, which shows that no such cheque was given, cashed, or drawn—I had not two banking accounts, or two pass-books—I only had one account—I had no separate private account—I can't say whether the tenders for the Foreign Office were delivered before 12 o'clock in the day—I do not remember Taylor coming back to South Street at about 11.15, and telling me that mine was the lowest up to that time—I think Sir Henry Hunt said that the estimates were opened by Mr. Austin, the secretary—I am given to understand there were 13 tenders—I did some work at Marlborough House some years ago—I do not know that the drains were very bad in 1862—Smith and Taylor did not do that part of the work—I can't say whether Sir Henry Hunt had anything to do with it—I had nothing to do with the estimate for the Foreign Office building that was erected; I was out of business then—it was Smith and Taylor's estimate.
MR. MITFORD (Re-examined). In July, 1859, Mr. Fitzroy was First Commissioner, and at the time of the second tender Mr. Cowper Temple was First Commissioner.
The Prisoner, in a long defence, repeated in substance the allegations made in his letters, and in the cross-examination of the witnesses, and that he considered he was doing a public service. GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment .
MR. J. P. GRAIN conducted the Prosecution; MR. DOUGLAS METCALFE with MR. MONTEFIORE appeared for Hampton, MR. THORNE COLE for Moore, and MR. PURCELL for Campbell.
ALFRED WHITES . I keep the Duke of Wellington, 31, Manchester Street, King's Cross. I went to bed about two o'clock in the morning of 1st May—I made the place all secure, doors and windows in the lower
part of the house—the skylight at the back over the bar parlour was safe and sound—I left 30l. in copper money in a cupboard in the bar parlour, in a number of brown paper packets, also a pocket-book or diary with a card in it—about five o'clock the police woke me up—I then found the skylight broken, and missed the copper money from the cupboard, and the pocket-book, also about 5l. worth of silver which I had left in the bar ready for change next day—this (produced) is part of my diary and this is the card that was in the pocket—there was brown paper of this sort in the cupboard for the purpose of tying up the coppers—I found a lantern on the table in the bar-parlour which was not there before—the door leading from the bar-parlour to the bar was broken open.
Cross-examined by MR. COLE. The whole of the copper money was taken and two bowls with it, also a glass bowl in which the silver was—I lost no clothing.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. There is no mark on the brown paper—I cannot identify it—it is similar in size and shape to mine.
WILLIAM DEMAID (Police Inspector E). I went to the prosecutor's house on the morning in question—I found the skylight raised and a pane of glass broken in an inner window—an entry had been made by that means—about seven the next morning, the 2nd, I went to 15, North Terrace, where Hampton lives—I found him with Alice Day—he opened the door to me—he was undressed—218 E went in with me and said "This is one of them"—we told him to dress and come with us—I afterwards found these remains of a pocket-book among the ashes in the grate and this card—I saw the name of Whites in the pocket-book and said "Is your name Whites?"—he said "No"—I said "How did you get this?"—he said "I don't know anything about it"—I saw this piece of brown paper found by the side of the fireplace among the rubbish—Hampton's lodging is close by the prosecutor's—it is only across a narrow passage—a long wall runs along it—I told him he would be charged with two other men with committing a burglary at the Wellington—he said he did not know anything about it.
SELINA BAKER . I am the wife of Thomas Baker, of 10, North Terrace, Brighton Street, close by the Wellington—about 4.15 on the morning of let May I was looking out of my window—it was light then—I saw Hampton on the top of the wall of Mr. Whites' premises—Moore was sitting on a barrow-board close against Mr. Whites' premises, near the wall—Campbell was standing up by the side of the barrow-board—I only knew them by living in the neighbourhood—I could swear to them among 20—I heard footsteps coming and heard Hampton say "Drop the bunk," and then the money was dropped by the side of the barrowboard and he got over the wall and escaped into No. 15, North Terrace—the other two ran up the left-hand side of Wood Street—there was another one there named Butcher—he escaped over against the church.
Cross-examined by MR. COLE. I have no occupation, my husband keeps me—we have two houses and let furnished apartments to respectable people, not to anybody that comes—a widow fives on the first-floor front, a man and his wife downstairs, and a girl supposed to be cohabiting with Moore—I have never been in a Court of Justice before—I was never concerned in a watch robbery and never received six months or
been punished for anything—my houses are not bad houses—my lodgers are permanent lodgers.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. There is a street between No. 15 and No. 10—you can see from one to the other—Hampton said to Moore "Drop the bunk," and Moore dropped it as the policeman was coming through the court—the police came to met the next night, and Moore was in the back making a row with the girl he was cohabiting with, and I mentioned to the police what I had seen—Moore has not had any quarrel with my husband that I know of.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I generally sit up at the window at night—I am suffering under an ability attack and cannot sleep—I was at the first-floor window.
Re-examined. That looks on to the Duke of Wellington—I can see on to the leads and right into the bar-parlour.
ALICE LEE . I live at 27, Manchester Street, about four doors from the Wellington—on the morning of 1st May, about 4.30, I was in bed—I heard a noise in my garden—I got up and pulled the blind on one side and saw Hampton and Campbell getting over my wall from Mr. Whites' house with several parcels—one of them was done up in a kind of flannel—I threw up my window and my husband shouted out, and they ran across the garden to a ladder they had got there, and as they both rushed to it the ladder broke in halves—they were over the wall in a moment and I saw no more of them—my husband went out afterwards and came back with some packets of copper money.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I can't tell how much copper there was—one bag was so heavy I could not lift it—the police took them away—I said at the police-court "I believed Hampton and Campbell to be the men"—I don't think about it, I know it.
CHARLES CLARK (Policeman 218 E). On the morning of 2nd May, about 2.15, from information I had received I apprehended Moore—he was in the front parlour of 11, North Terrace, Mrs. Baker's house—I told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of being concerned with others in a burglary at the Wellington—he said "That is a fine thing to bring against any one, I will not go"—I got assistance and took him to the station, searched him, and found fourpence and this box—these two money bowls were found on the leads—they are Mr. Whites' property.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I apprehended Campbell on 2nd May, at 10.45, at the Boot public-house—I told him the charge—he said, "All right, I will go"—he was talking to Moore's sister at the time.
GEORGE ENGLAND (Policeman 29 ER). I know Campbell and Moore—on the night of 30th April I saw them together in Cromer Street, standing outside the Boot public-house, between 10 and 10.15, about 120 or 130 yards from the Wellington—I know them as companions—I had seen them together before many times—I never knew them do any work.
The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Moore says: "I am innocent. I was in bed at the time. I had come home with my sister, drunk, at 9.30, and did not leave the room till 10 o'clock next morning."
Hampton: "These two men are quite innocent. They know nothing of it. Neither do I myself. The diary was chucked down the area, and I took it up and lighted my candle with it, and threw it into the fireplace. These two have nothing to do with it. I know the three men that did."
Campbell: "I was with Moore and went to the theatre that night. I went home to bed at twelve, and I have my father to prove it."
Witnesses for the Defence.
HENRY CAMPBELL . I am the father of the prisoner, and live at 87, Cromer Street—my son has slept at home regularly since Christmas—on Tuesday night, 30th April, he was at home at 12—he told me he had been to the Alhambra—Mr. Bartlett is my landlord—he is not here—I had a conversation with my son when he came home—he slept in the same room—I made him up a bed at the side of mine—he did not go out during the night—I should have known if he had—I am an old baker, and I am very wakeful—I don't sleep above an hour or two at a time—he went out at 10 next morning to see a friend at Camden Town.
Cross-examined. My son is a barman and potman—he has been a baker as well—after leaving him in bed at night I next saw him at breakfast in the morning—I saw him in bed about 4 o'clock—he snores very loud—I heard the clock strike 4—I was examined at the police-court.
Cross-examined. I am an unfortunate—I was never charged with any offence.
ANN MOORE . I live at 9, Brighton Street—my stepfather lives in the same house—on Tuesday night, 30th April, my brother came home about 9.30, drunk—there had been a disturbance with my stepfather that day, in consequence of which my brother slept on the floor in my room—he got up and left about 9 in the morning—he was in my room all the night.
Cross-examined. I could not say that I was awake all night, I did not sleep soundly, I was too much upset—if Campbell has said he was with my brother at the Alhambra, it is incorrect—if the constable says he saw my brother and Campbell together near the Wellington that night, it is false—the Wellington is in the same street, a few yards off—I have known Campbell about a fortnight, I never saw him in company with my brother—I never saw Hampton till I saw him at Bow Street.
GUILTY . CAMPBELL further PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction on 11th September, 1871. MOORE** and HAMPTON*— Seven Years' Penal Servitude . CAMPBELL— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment .
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, May 28th, 1878
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution.
HENRY JENKINS (Policeman C 52). On Saturday, 20th April, about 3 p.m., I was on duty in Grafton Street, Soho, and saw the prisoner intoxicated and incapable of taking charge of herself—she was carrying a child wrapped in a shawl, which was nearly dropping out of her arms—I gave the child to a woman, and took the prisoner to the station—two women held her up, or she would have fallen—she was charged with being drunk and incapable—I gave the child to Bugden to take to the workhouse—the prisoner is married, but was separated from her husband seven or eight months before this child was born—I find that he is a very respectable man.
JAMES BUGDEN (Policeman CR 17). On 20th April the prisoner was brought to the station in a state of intoxication—I took the child to the Westminster Union, and gave to Mary Dunston, the nurse, about 4 p.m.
MARY DUNSTON . I am the receiving nurse at the Westminster Union—I recollect the child Sarah Marsden being brought there—I afterwards recognised it as having been there in October, 1876, when it was five weeks old—it was then sent into the sick ward under Dr. Rogers's care, and was only under my care for a day or two—it has been in the workhouse several times since that—I cannot give you the dates, but it had been there five times since November—it looked worse every time—it was there twice with its mother, and twice when the mother was locked up for being drunk—it seemed to be getting smaller and thinner every time—it was not clean the last time, there were vermin in its clothes and it was very wet—I remember giving it clothes on one occasion, and on the last occasion its clothes were washed, but it had no clothes given to it—I did not receive it when it was sent in the night, it was given to Mrs. Gunn—it was then remarkably thin and its backbone was almost protruding through the skin—its clothes were very wet and there were vermin in them—it was not raining at the time—I kept it till Monday and then Mrs. Gunn had the care of it—it took its food very ravenously at first, and then it fell away and seemed to be exhausted.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. The baby was very wet, but that may have been through natural causes; I do not say that it was through the rain—its upper part was dry and the lower part wet, which would be the case if it had not been changed for some hours.
PHŒBE GUNN . I am head nurse at the Westminster Union—I cannot recollect dates, but it is nearly nine months since I first saw this child—I was not at the Union in 1876—she was a nice child, but she was in a very dirty condition—there were vermin on her—I saw her two months later; she was then very filthy—the vermin, were falling about while I was untying the strings in undressing her—she had not improved, she was decreasing—I attribute that to having a drunken mother and not having proper food—she was ravenous—I saw her again about six weeks later—she was brought there when her mother was in prison—she had not improved, and the shirt which I had put on the second occasion was literally swarming—I do not think it had ever been washed in the six weeks she had been away; that applies to the other clothing also—she was still decreasing; she was always in a filthy condition—I had to burn the shirt on one occasion—on the last occasion when I took
her from Mrs. Dunston she was clean, but dreadfully emaciated; the lower backbone was protruding—I gave her food, she was very ravenous indeed—Dr. Rogers attended her—the mother has not been in the house since I have been there.
JOSEPH ROGERS . I am medical officer to the Westminster Union—on the 22nd April I attended Sarah Marsden—I cannot recollect whether I had seen her before that—she was extremely emaciated, and I came to the conclusion that it was due to neglect—I weighed her on 30th April, and she only weighed 10 lb.—she had then been in the Union more than a week—I weighed her again on 6th May, and she weighed 12 lb. 15 oz.—the average weight of a child of that age is about 20 lb.—my attention was not drawn to her back—she improved for some weeks, and in a week afterwards increased another half a pound, but she contracted measles and sunk, and is now in a dying state—she had not power enough to throw off the poison—all the other children recovered; very few children die of measles—I have seen her this morning—the child's health was unquestionably in danger through the exposure in the street when the mother was lying about drunk—I gave directions that food was to be given very frequently, but in extremely small quantities, in consequence of the ravenous way in which it took its food.
HENRY MILLER ROWE . I am master of the Fulham Union—on Saturday, 13th April, the prisoner was admitted with her child as a casual pauper—a report was made to me next day about the child, and I went to see it—I found it in a frightfully emaciated condition and crying—I cannot speak as to its cleanliness—the prisoner stayed till Saturday morning, the 20th, when she left between 9 and 10 A.m.—the child was in the infirmary all the week, and on 14th April, seeing the state it was in, I offered to take the prisoner into the house, but she objected, and said she would take the child to some mission place in London, a ticket for which she showed me, and said she had obtained it some days previously—I told her I had no power to compel her to remain, but should the child die, and it came to my ears, I should certainly give evidence against her—she then came into the house, and the child was placed under treatment—she said that she was married, and the rest of her children were with her husband—I understood that she was not living with him—I did not communicate with him—had she remained with us we should have made further inquiries to send her to her husband's parish.
By the JURY. The prisoner had a meal before she left, and the child was fed and had clean clothes—I cannot account for it being in a dirty condition three or four hours afterwards.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "Three different times I had it in the St. Pancras workhouse. I have had it under a doctor in Shoreham every week. I was at St. Pancras and I know the child was not dirty. I have had many a bottle of medicine for the child."
Prisoner's Defence. I have had the child under the doctor, and I have given up my work. It got so ill that nobody would mind it. It was not dirty.
GUILTY on the Second Count. — Six Months' Imprisonment without hard labour .
MR. DOUGLAS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. DAVIS the Defence.
EMMA GLIDDON . I am single, and live at Hornsey Lane, Islington—on Monday afternoon, 13th May, I was going along Hornsey Road; it rained very hard and I had an umbrella up—I saw a man sheltering in the houses, and perhaps two minutes afterwards I heard footsteps behind me and felt a hand over my nose and some mud came into my mouth—I put my hand up to my neck and found that my locket and chain were gone—I had seen the reflection of them in the glass when I posted a letter five minutes before—I screamed "Stop thief" and turned round and saw the same man who I saw sheltering in the houses—it was the prisoner I am quite certain—a man came and ran after him; I lost sight of him, but he was brought back to me and I sent for a policeman—my locket and chain were worth about 4l.—I have not seen them since.
Cross-examined. I could see the prisoner when he was under a doorway and he could see me—the locket hung round my neck—it was gold and had a very solid snap—in playing with it it would come off with a very hard pull, and this was a very hard pull, it pulled my jacket to pieces—I saw the prisoner's face when I turned round; he was not trying to kiss me—I had never seen him before—I do not think he was drunk—I was somewhat confused—I looked down at my feet—I did not run after him, I shouted "Stop thief"—the ground was muddy—I looked down, but the locket and chain were not there—I did not make a strict search—no building materials were about—it was an ordinary road, muddy after rain—when the prisoner was brought back he never spoke to me, he just looked at me and then fell down on the ground—this was at Hornsey Rise, opposite the brickfield.
GEORGE RICHARDS . I am a bricklayer, of 32, Naylor Street, Caledonian Road—on 13th May, between 4 and 5 p.m., I was near Hornsey Road, taking shelter under a bush; I heard a scream, went round the bush, and saw the lady standing, but no one by her—she had her handkerchief up to her face and a little dirt on her face—I saw a man running across a field and ran after him, about 400 yards; he fell into some water and I had to assist him to get out—I gave him in custody—I believe the prisoner is the man, but I cannot swear to him—I did not tell him why I caught him—he said nothing—I believe I said before the Magistrate that he said "Oh, don't; pray don't"—there were half a dozen men in the field—the prisoner was through the hedge when I first saw him—he ran as much like a half-drunken man as I ever saw—when I got him out of the water he could not walk.
By the JURY. This was in the brickfield—there was no chance of his getting away if he had not fallen into the pond, as there was a large bank to get up.
THOMAS BELLAMY . I am a bricklayer, of Westfield Road, Hornsey—on 13th May I was in some unfinished houses and heard cries of "Stop thief," about 50 yards off—I saw a man running across the brickfield and ran after him about 400 yards; he fell into some water, and I helped to pull him out—he had not strength to do anything, and did not try to get away—I did not say before the Magistrate that he tried to get away after he got into the water; I said that he was trying to get up the bank and slipped into the water.
Cross-examined. I cannot say whether he was drunk, he did not appear sober—he gave me no answer.
Re-examined. He ran nearly as fast as I could, and I was not drunk.
JOHN BULLIMORE (Policeman Y 359). I received the prisoner from George Richards in Hornsey Road—the prosecutrix was there—there was a mark of mud as if an arm had been round her neck, and mud on her mouth—I told the prisoner he was charged with stealing a locket and neck let—he said that he knew nothing about it—I searched him at the station and found two duplicates and 2s.—he was intoxicated, but I think it was excitement as well as drink—we call him " The Doctor "—he smelt of beer.
Cross-examined. I have been a long time in the force, and have taken up a great many drunken men; some get excited, others roll about, and others get muddled—the prisoner was excited—I should say he knew what he was about—I have been to his lodgings; he has a good character, and his mother is a highly-respectable Woman—the pawn-tickets are for a saw and a jack plane, each pledged for 2s.—he is a carpenter—I did not know him before.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I left off work at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, and had been drinking. I remember nothing more till I found myself in the police-station this morning."
The Prisoner received a good character. NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, May 28th, 1878.
MR. WOLFE Conducted the Prosecution; and MR. M. WILLIAMS the Defence.
BUCHAN SANDS . I know the prisoner—I employed him to do some drainage in January or February last—I received this letter signed Henry Carvalho. (Read: "130, Lower Kennington Lane, 22nd March, 1878. Mr. Buchan Sands. Sir,—I have no wish to injure any person in your employ, or say anything that may be deemed done out of spite, but I consider it my duty to inform you, the foreman, the witness in whom you placed so much confidence, was the very man to come to me and ask me to purchase some size, which he said (to use his own words) could easily be managed unbeknown to you, for he should be glad to make a few shillings, as he did not get much. I have a witness to prove what I say, and I think I am entitled to ask what dependence can be placed in a man who thus makes such a suggestion behind his master's back. It certainly is rather a singular way of studying an employer's interest.—Yours respectfully, Henry Carvalho.") I know Mr. Foster, who is employed by the prisoner—I have not seen him nor the prisoner write—Francis Ball had been in my employ 12 months in January last—I had confidence in him—on receiving the letter I wrote to Mr. Carvalho, and in a few days received this post-card. (Read: 29th March, 1878. Dear Sir,—In reply to yours of 26th inst., I beg to say that what I stated in my letter can be proved if necessary.—Yours, &c., Henry Carvalho. ")
Cross-examined. I have not given evidence before—I was not present at an interview between the prisoner and Ball about some cement and size.
FRANCIS BALL . I am working foreman of Buchan Sands, Cardigan Mills, Cardigan Street, Kennington Cross, ink and dye manufacturers—I have been employed by him 12 or 14 months—the prisoner cleared some drains for Mr. Sands in January—there was some currey size in the yard—it is used for dressing black leather—the prisoner picked some up and said "I think I can make some use of this," referring to some which was thrown aside as dregs—I said "Can you? there it is, it is thrown away for a time"—he took a lot away, but not at that interview—he invited me over to his premises at Kennington—he said it could be used in the building and painting business for producing a blue tint in whitewashing, and could be made a business of by a traveller knowing the building trade—I made no suggestion to him whatever about the purchase of it—I did not give him leave to take any away, nor say it was my perquisite—I was a witness for my employer in a County Court action against the prisoner—the prisoner when we came out of Court said "You are a d—sneak;" and turning to a bricklayer, "Jack, he has given you a good lift up"—that was before the 22nd March—my employer made a communication to me, in consequence of which I instituted these proceedings.
Cross-examined. I did not know the stuff had been taken away till the prisoner showed me some afterwards—I did not mention it to my master—I know Henry George—he was not present at this conversation—I heard his evidence at the police-court—I did not ask the prisoner to buy it in George's presence—he did not say "What does your employer want a ton for it? you had better go and ask him"—I did not say "It does not matter about seeing the governor about it, I can settle all that."
Re-examined. About 4 cwt. or 5 cwt. was lying about—it is worth 3s. 6d. a load.
THOMAS PRIEST . I was employed by Mr. Sands at his stable—I know the prisoner and one of his men who was doing the drains—I saw him take away some bad size—on Saturday when Mr. Ball was away the prisoner came and asked me what it was used for—I told him it was used for shoemaker's size—he asked me what we did with the waste—I told him we threw the waste away—he took half a copperful away openly.
Cross-examined. I told Ball to take away what was over what the tubs would hold, to prevent any accumulation—if any had been bought I should have expected to receive the money.
Witness for the Defence.
HENRY GEORGE WILLIAMS , I am a bricklayer, of 39, Gray Street, Blackfriars Road—I was present when Ball came into the prisoner's shop at Kennington Lane, and asked if the prisoner was going to buy the size—the prisoner said "I do not do business in that way, you had better see
your employer"—I was called at the police-court, and gave the same evidence.
Cross-examined. I first heard of this at the police-court where I was on the governor's business—the prisoner told me the case was coming on—I have been employed by him nine or ten months—he is a plumber and glazier—I was working in a back room close to the workshop when the conversation occurred—my master was standing in the workshop 4 yards or 5 yards from me—a cask of the stuff was in the shop, which Ball had given master, and that I brought home—the cask contained about 12 or 131b.—it was given to the prisoner as a sample when I was working on the premises.
NOT GUILTY .
JULIA DURHAM . I am Mr. Parkman's servant, of 21, Hansen Road, Tufnell Park—on 6th May I locked up the house before going to bed at 11 P.m.—I came down about 6 o'clock the next morning, and went into the pantry about 7 o'clock—the perforated zinc of the window was all broken away, and the window open—I missed part of a boiled ham, some eggs, and half a pound of butter—they were there the night before, also this uncooked ham.
WILLIAM CROSTON (Policeman 304 Y). I met the prisoner on 7th May, about 5 A.m., in the Camden Road, about half a mile from Hansen Road—he had this ham, a part of a cooked ham, some butter, and six eggs—I stopped him—he was carrying this ham on his shoulder—I asked him where he got the things from—he said he picked them up in a urinal—I said I did not believe him—he said I could do as I liked, he should give no other account—he resisted being taken at first, but afterwards went.
The Prisoner. "I have no defence, only I did not commit the burglary." GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment .
JAMES WEBB . I am deputy at a lodging-house at 46, Great Peter Street, Westminster—on 5th April I was drinking in the Adam and Eve public-house in the afternoon—I saw the prisoner there—I afterwards saw him in the Albert public-house in the evening—I left there between 9 and 10 o'clock—he followed me with another man not in custody, who knocked me down, and held me while the prisoner rifled my pocket of a 2s. piece, 1s., some coppers, and three keys—they went away—I gave information at the police-station—I next saw the prisoner on 30th April in the Queen's Head—I fetched a constable and gave him into custody—I had not taken 10s. from anybody in the Albert—no money had been passing.
Cross-examined. I drew 10s. from the landlord of the Adam and Eve on 5th April, between 8 and 9 o'clock—the remaining 7s. was spent in pots of four half—I had not been in another public-house—I was coming through Old Pye Street, a narrow street with small lodging-houses—I believe there are lamps.
JAMES NICHOLLS (Policeman B 147). I was called to the Queen's Head by the last witness, who gave the prisoner into custody—I told him the charge was knocking Webb down and robbing him on 5th April—he said the prosecutor had made a mistake—I said I should want him to go to the station with me—he said "All right"—I have endeavoured to trace the other man, and not succeeded.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. FRERE conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM ROBERT GULLIVER . I am in the service of Mr. Prew, who keeps a beerhouse—on 27th May I fastened up my house—about 7 o'clock the next morning I found the skylight open, and a door leading to the entrance behind broken down—I missed some cigar boxes, 4lb. of tobacco, 3l. 10s., some copper, also a bagatelle board—I found a knife, a match box, and a small jemmy.
HARRIET CHANS . On 27th April I saw the prisoners—I said "I heard of Prew's robbery"—they both said "Yes, we done it"—I said "What made you do it? what have you done with the bagatelle board?"—they said they would like to get rid of it—Millings showed me the board.
Millings: "I never done it; I was not there." NOT GUILTY .
NELSON also PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in May, 1873, at Clerkenwell.— Two Years' Imprisonment .
MR. STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COOK defended Smith,
MARY PARKER . I live with Mrs. Wilson, a widow, of 4, Gilston Road, South Kensington—on 20th April I heard a noise in the breakfast-room—I went to the passage, and saw a man at the plate-basket—he got out of the window—I ran and told my mistress—I saw Smith in the garden—I saw him again on Friday week, and picked him out from other men.
Cross-examined by MR. COOK. I was in the kitchen, and the thieves came in at the dining-room—I saw Smith's face only for a minute.
Cross-examined by Brown. I did not see you.
getting in at the back—it was a light cart and a dark colour—they drove away quickly—I missed my plate-basket—I had seen it safe an hour before on the sideboard—it contained a great many spoons and forks to the value of 50l.—I sent for the police.
ROBERT SAGE (Detective N). I saw Smith on Thursday, 25th April, in the Hackney Road—I took him into custody, and told him it was for being concerned with others in committing various larcenies with a horse and cart—he said he knew nothing about it, and should not go—he struggled very hard.
CHARLES PETERS . I carry on business at 375, Hackney Road—Brown hired a horse and cart on the 20th April, about 8 or 9 A.m.—he returned about 7 or 8 P.m.—Smith came with him—Brown asked me to drink—he said he had had a very good day—he pulled out a handful of money and paid me 10s. in gold—he said he was a dealer—he had hired the horse and cart ten or a dozen times before—he would sometimes come home about 11 P.m.—the name he gave me was "W. Brown."
Cross-examined by Brown. You said you had sold a pony of your own and wanted to hire for two or three weeks till you bought one—I have often had a glass with you—I did not see Smith in your cart—I never saw you with so much money before—Smith was standing at the corner of the street.
Re-examined. Smith joined us in the public-house, and drank with me and Brown.
ELIZA PORCAS . I am a servant at 5, Upper Cheynpay hime Road, Chelsea—on 20th April I was in Cheyne Row—I saw South between 2 and 3 o'clock—he was standing still in the middle of our breakfast-room—I went at once and told my mistress—I went to the gate and asked what he wanted—he asked me if I had any old bottles—I said, "How dare you get in our breakfast-room?"—he said, "You are dreaming"—a horse and cart stood at the other side of the road—Smith stood about ten minutes and then went across—the man who was in the cart had a brown overcoat on—it was a light-made two-wheeled cart of a dark green colour—the horse was dark brown.
Cross-examined by MR. COOK. I did see Smith come in—he had a whip in his hand—I was about eight yards from the cart.
JOHN O'CALLAGHAN (Inspector N). On 2nd May I went to No. 2, Peter's Yard about 4 o'clock—I saw Brown get into a trap and drive off in an opposite direction—he said to Peters that he would be back at 8 o'clock—I came back and waited from 8 till 9.30—I told Brown I should take him into custody for being concerned with one Smith in breakings into 4, Gilston Road, Kensington—he said, "I don't know Smith"—I said, "Perhaps you know him as Pennington"—he said, "No, I do not know him at all"—I asked for Smith's address—he refused—I went to an address and found Brown's overcoat—I showed it to Brown—he said it was his—the next morning he was identified—I asked him if it was his coat—he said "No," and it would take six policemen to put it on him, that he was drunk when he said it was his, and that he had been moving furniture—I said it was a light cart for moving furniture, and he laughed.
Cross-examined by Brown. I did not refuse to tell you the charge—I charged you—I saw you do nothing wrong.
five keys and this knife were found on him—they are common door-keys, and this is an open knife and has been used for prizing.
Brown's Defence: "All they can say against me is that I drank with Smith. I am not responsible for what he does. No witness can say I was in the house or in the neighbourhood."
BROWN— NOT GUILTY .SMITH— GUILTY .**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, May 29th, 1878.
Before Mr. Justice Mellor.
GUILTY .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude .
MR. LILLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WARNER SLEIGH the Defence.
MARY DONKIN . I am the wife of Edward Donkin—on the evening of 13th April, about 10 o'clock, I went to the deceased's house, and remained there for about an hour and a half—the deceased, my mother-in-law, Mrs. Stevens, and myself were in the room—I believe he was about to be married to my mother-in-law—the table was set for supper—the deceased was a teetotaller, but I should say he was a very passionate man—he was sober for all I know—a knock came to the door, and the prisoner came in—I had never seen him before—he and the deceased had some conversation—I could not hear what it was; it was rather quarrelsome—a daughter of the deceased came in, and directly he saw her, without a word being said, he took up a glass of ale that was on the table and threw it over her—he then took a knife up to his son; he took it away from him; I got in between them, because the father seemed very spiteful to his son—I said to the deceased, "Do be quiet," and to the prisoner, "Don't strike the old gentleman"—he began to strike his father, and I took the lamp off the table, fearing it would go over—the prisoner punched his father on the side of the head, and he fell on the fender insensible—the prisoner then took the tongs and struck his father on the side—I should say it was a blow enough to do anybody a great deal of injury—his sister said, "Come away, you have done enough"—I was frightened and left—the deceased was then on the ground, on the fender—the sister had been standing at the door, half way in the room and half way on the landing—I went out and met a policeman—I saw the deceased again on the Sunday in bed, and he seemed very ill.
Cross-examined. I saw Mr. Walker standing on the landing; he was not in the room—I can't say whether he saw what was going on; Mrs. Walker did—it commenced with the father throwing the ale in Mrs. Walker's face—I don't think the son would have struck him but for that—I did not see him put up his hands and threaten to fight his son—I did not hear the prisoner tell his father to sit down, as he did not want to have any row—I did not see the father take a brass candlestick and throw it at Mr. Walker, or take up a poker and say he would knock the
prisoner's brains out, and strike him across the hat and knock it off; he had no hat on—I did not see the prisoner then wrench the poker from his father—they scuffled, and the father fell across the fender—I don't know whether he got up and rushed at his son to attack him again, for I ran out of the room—Mrs. Stevens had been living with the deceased; I can't say how long—I had never seen the deceased before that night—he had been drinking spruce all the evening—me and Mrs. Stevens had ale—he was not furiously drunk, that I swear—I should think he was a violent man from the way he went on—I had been in a public-house with him before that, drinking—there was some unpleasantness there with a man.
Re-examined. He did not drink anything there, we came out, so that there should be no unpleasantness—it was the blow that made him fall on the fender—the prisoner did punch him savagely—he did not get up again while I was there—he did not seem able to get up.
ELIZABETH STEVENS . At the time in question I was living at 58, London Street, Fitzroy Square—I had been living with the deceased about five weeks—I was in the lodging 120, Whitfield Street, with him and Mrs. Donkin on the night of 13th April, between 10 and 11—I was to be married to the deceased the next morning—a knock came to the door—I opened it. and the prisoner walked in with a cigar in his mouth—he said to me "Who are you?"—I said "You know who I am; I am about to be your father's wife very shortly"—he gave me a very forbidding look, and hearing his father say what a forbidding man he was, I went out to look for a policeman—I returned in about a quarter of an hour and met the prisoner coming down the stairs—I took hold of him by the neck cloth and attempted to give him into custody—a policeman was with me, but he said he could not take the charge as he had not seen the blow struck—I said "I expect there is murder"—I did not see any mark on the prisoner's face—I went into the room, and Mrs. Taylor was in the act of placing the dear old man against the mantel-shelf—he said "Lizzie, I am a murdered man"—he complained of his side—I wanted him to go to the hospital; he would not—a doctor was sent for after five days—he was very bad during that time; but he was a very healthy, strong man, and he fancied he could do without a doctor, and he went out and came in—on Good Friday I fetched Dr. Harding, who came and bandaged him up—he died on the Friday following, the 17th.
WILLIAM HARDING . I am a surgeon, in Percy Street, Tottenham Court Road—I saw the deceased on Good Friday—he was lying on his back in bed, complaining of a good deal of pain about his ribs—I put my hand under his back and felt a fracture—he had been spitting a little blood—I put up the fracture in the usual way—I examined him—he talked to me for some time—I did not see the fracture; it was behind—I felt it with my hand—the two ends of the bone must have separated a little during the week when he was not attended to—the difficulty of breathing was caused by the fracture—a little inflammation of the lungs had set in, which increased very much—I continued to attend him—inflammation crept on the lungs in consequence of the fracture, and he died ultimately from the inflammation of the lungs on the 27th.
Cross-examined. If he had fallen in the struggle over the fender across the ribs, that would have been sufficient to break the ribs—I heard that he went to work the day after he received the injury—I saw no sign of
drink about him—he was suffering from pleurisy, the result of the fracture.
By the COURT. I am more inclined to think the fall would have caused the fracture than a blow on the side with the tongs.
THOMAS MURPHY . Iam a surgeon, of Brunswick Square—I made a post-mortem examination of the deceased four days after death—I found three ribs broken on the right side, the 8th, 10th, and 11th, a few inches from the spine—there was a large amount of recent pleurisy of the right side—the ragged ends of the ribs projected into the pleura, irritating the covering of the lungs and setting up inflammation, which caused death—the organs were tolerably healthy for a man of his age—there was extensive extravasation of blood under the scalp on the left side; that was due to a blow—a fall across the fender would produce the fracture of the ribs, or a blow with tongs, might cause it.
SARAH ANN TAYLOR . I live at 52, London Street, Fitzroy Square—on Saturday night, 13th April, between 10 and 11 o'clock, I was in Great Portland Street—I met the prisoner on the doorstep of 120, and asked if he wanted to go in—he said "If you please," and I let him in, and he went upstairs—I went to the baker's, and returned in about ten minutes—I heard "Murder" called—I passed a policeman on the stairs, and Mrs. Stevens holding the prisoner by the collar—Mrs. Donkin was outside the room, shouting "For God's sake; they have murdered the old man"—I went into the room and saw the deceased lying in the comer, with his neck just on the edge of the fender—I placed him on a chair, and asked if I should fetch him some brandy—he said "Thank you, ma'am; I have never drank beer or spirits for a week or a fortnight"—I asked what was the matter—he said his son had knocked him down into the fender, and struck him with the tongs on his right side.
EDWARD FISHER (Detective E). On 29th April I took the prisoner into custody for causing the death of his father—he said that he had heard that there was somebody coming, and he came to meet them—the charge was read over to him at the station, and he made no reply.
Witnesses for the Defence.
SARAH WALKER . I am sister to the prisoner and live at 51, London Street—on the evening of the 13th April I met him—I did not go with him to my father—I went upstairs afterwards and saw the prisoner and my father and Mrs. Donkin there—as I entered the room my father threw a glass of ale over me—I had not spoken before that—the prisoner told him not to throw anything over me again—my father told him, to mind his own business and he struck my brother in the throat and then went round the table—my brother caught him by the two shoulders and struck him and placed him in an arm-chair—my father got up and told him to loose him and took a black-handled knife in his hand, making use of very bad expressions to my brother, and said he would stab him—he held a knife close to my brother's chest—I was frightened and left the room and my husband came in—I saw the policeman on the staircase—he was brought up by Mrs. Stevens and I saw my father with a brass candlestick in his hand following my brother—he said "I will pay you for this," and he struck my brother on the forehead on the landing.
Cross-examined. I met my brother, who said he was going to see his father as he had not seen him since the day of my mother's funeral—I
did not hear my father tell him to leave the room—he did say "Clear out" when my brother wrenched the knife from his hand—he pushed him on one side and he fell—he did not fall on the fender, he fell down by the window.
EDWARD WALKER . I am the husband of the last witness—I went into the deceased's room and saw him, the prisoner, and Mrs. Donkin there—the deceased was standing sparring up to the prisoner offering to fight him—the prisoner told him to sit down, that he did not want any row at all with him—the deceased then went to the fender and took up a poker and said he would knock his son's brains out if he did not clear out, and he struck him across the hat—the prisoner wrenched the poker away from him and threw it down, and when he was doing that he fell on the fender on his right side—he did not strike him—he got up again and scuffled again with his son—I am quite sure the prisoner did not strike him with the tongs—he pushed his father away from him and he fell across the table—the prisoner then went out on the landing and his father followed him with a brass candlestick in his hand and said he would "pay him" and struck him on the forehead with it—he has got the graze now.
Cross-examined. The fire irons were in the fireplace—the prisoner had his hat on when he was struck with the poker; it did not knock the hat off, it made a dent across it—in the scuffle the prisoner threw his father down on the fender—the table was not thrown over; the knives and forks were on the floor when I went in—the deceased only told his son once to clear out; he told me also to clear out—Mary Donkin was there when the deceased was thrown on the fender; I was standing by the room door; the fireplace is at the other end of the room—the deceased was 65 years of age.
JEMIMA TAYLOR . I live at 84, Stanhope Street, Euston Road—I am single—I was on the landing of this house and saw the quarrel—the deceased threw a glass of ale in his daughter's face—the prisoner asked what he did it for; the father said he would serve him the same, and he punched him in the throat and took up a knife and said he would stab him—the son wrenched the knife from his father's hand, then the father took up the poker from the fender and hit the son on the top of his hat; then the son wrenched the poker from his father, and then they fell against the table—the son did not strike him—he then came out of the room, and the father followed him with a brass candlestick and hit his son in the forehead.
Cross-examined. I was by the room door all the time—I did not see the father fall against the fender; he only fell once, and that was against the table—the prisoner and I came out together—he did not go back, he went out into the street—I went home with him—I am living with him—I went with him to see his father—he went into the room and I remained on the landing.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. STRAIGHT and CHARLES MATHEWS Conducted the Prosecution.
which runs over the Great Northern lines—on Sunday afternoon 12th May, at 5.15, I was driving an engine attached to a passenger train running from Winchmore Hill to Enfield—about 400 yards out of Winchmore Hill station there is an incline on a steep embankment—as we were going down that incline I saw a number of boys; through watching them I lost sight of my road for a moment, and when my sight came back to the road I saw this large sprag or piece of wood lying across the rail; the life-guard caught it and threw it down the embankment—I then proceeded on to Enfield and reported the matter—about 15 minutes afterwards we returned on the up line, and on approaching the Same spot I saw the same sprig again lying across the line fixed against the sleeper in such a way that I do not think the life-guard would have removed it—I applied the steam break and the guard's continuous break, and stopped the train before we came to it, or it would have thrown the train off the line—I still saw the boys in the field, standing looking at me—I recognise Pritlove and Jordan as two of them, and Hollingsworth was swinging on the gate of the coal yard a little farther on—there were nine or ten boys—I sent the fireman to pick up the obstacle, and seeing a Great Northern servant coming along I sent him after the boys—there were a great many passengers in each train.
THOMAS SEARS . I am a fireman—I was with Haydon—I noticed the piece of wood on the railway in going from Winchmore Hill to Enfield, and saw some boys in the neighbouring field, they were standing looking at us—I believe Pritlove and Jordan to be two of them—the life-guard knocked the piece of wood away, and coming back on the up-line I saw the same bit of wood with one end stuck against the sleeper inside, and the other on the railway—we pulled up as quickly as possible—I got off the engine and went and picked it up—I do not think the life-guard could have knocked it away—I saw the same two boys on that occasion—I should say that there were a dozen or more altogether—we halloed to them, and shook our fists at them—they said it was not them, and ran away—I saw a man lying in the road asleep, or pretending to be asleep, on both occasions, some distance from the boys.
JAMES PETTITT . I am a signalman at Winchmore Hill—about 5.15 on this day I was in my garden at the side of the railway, and saw some boys looking over the edge at the back—they were on the Company's premises—I recognised Jordan and Pritlove—in consequence of instructions from one of the last witnesses I went towards where the boys were, they ran away, there were five of them—I saw the sprag picked up on the up-line—the boys were still on the Company's premises then, looking towards the train.
JOSEPH BAILEY . I am the son of John Bailey, a points man on the Great Northern Railway—I am 13 years old—I know the prisoners—Jordan is a companion and friend of mine—I was out with them and some other boys on this Sunday afternoon, and with William Banks, James and Charles Downs, George Chaplin, and Robert Spooner—I saw the train going towards Enfield—I did not see this "sprag" on the line—I saw Pritlove pulling the points, that was before the train came, it was at the entrance of the goods yard of Winchmore Hill station—I said to him, "Leave them alone, you will get my father into a row"—I saw a piece of wood like this, but not so long, in Hollingsworth's possession—about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour before the train came he
picked it up—I did not see what he did with it—I saw him pulling the points before the train passed the second time, but not the first—when it came back towards London Jordan and two or three more boys were with me down the bank—Hollingsworth was sitting on the gate by the coal-wharf, Pritlove was standing behind the hedge, I was lying down looking to see the train pass—I did not know the "sprag" was there—we were on the Company's premises, we had no right were—I did not notice what the other boys were doing—I don't know what Hollingsworth did with the sprag—I did not say before the Magistrate that I saw it in his possession at the spot where the train afterwards stopped—I saw him going towards the spot—he did not say it would be fine fun—I have told you all I know—we ran away from the coal-wharf because the signalman was coming down the line—I saw the driver shake his fist at us—we ran away because we were on the Company's premises—I am quite sure I did not put the "sprag" on the line on either occasion—I saw Jordan throw a piece of wood over the bridge—it was a piece of a deeper—that was all I saw him do.
JAMES DOWNS . I am 13 years old and live at Southgate—I was out on this Sunday afternoon with the other boys walking along the railway—Hollingsworth picked up a small piece of wood, not like this "sprag"—he threw it over the bridge into Dog Kennel Lane—I saw a part of a sleeper lying between the metals—I do not know what was done with it, none of us put it there—I did not pick it up or tell anybody of it—I did not pull the points about—Hollingsworth and Pritlove did—we had no right there.
JAMES KNIGHT (Policeman 348 Y). "I took the prisoners into custody—Pritlove said "I had nothing to do with it"—I said "With what?"—he said "Playing with the wood and shifting the points"—he said "It was Jordan and the butcher's boy at Lang's," meaning Hollingsworth—he said "They had the wood in their hands and were playing with the points—Jordan said it wasn't him that done it, it was the butcher's boy and Pritlove"—Hollingsworth said "I have not been there at all," but a few minutes afterwards he said "I have been on the line; I had a sprag in my hand and I threw it over the bridge"—that would be into Dog Kennel Lane.
HENRY HAYDON (Re-examined). These sprags are used to put between the spokes of the truck wheels to prevent their moving—this piece was about 120 yards from the coal yard—it must have been carried that distance and about 20 feet farther on there were two more lying in the four-foot way.
NOT GUILTY .
EMMA POTTER . I am the prisoner's wife, and live at 10, Croydon. Street—on 14th May I returned home about 10 o'clock at night; my husband was lying on the bed asleep in his clothes—I laid down on the bed with some of my clothes on—he woke up between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning and abused me; I begged him to take off his clothes and get into bed quietly; he then went to the table and took up something, I could not tell what, and struck me on the arm; I had no light; the blood began to flow, and I ran upstairs to the second floor, and one of the
lodgers went for a policeman—he was very drunk, and when he is in drink he is perfectly insane, and does not know what he says or does—he had sunstroke in India—I do not think he understood what I said to him—I was taken to the hospital—this (produced) is one of my knives which I had in the house.
WILLIAM WAVER (Policeman D 80). I was called to this house—I saw the prisoner in the passage—I told him he would be charged with stabbing his wife; he made no reply; he did not appear to understand what I said to him—I found this knife in the kitchen; there were blood stains on it, also on the table and on the bed.
GEORGE HETHERINGTON . I am house surgeon at St. Mary's Hospital—the prosecutrix was brought there; she had an incised wound in the left arm, two inches long, and penetrating and injuring the bone—it must have been given with considerable force—a knife like this would have done it.
Prisoner. I think my wife has been able to go to her work this last week.
Witness. I have been attending her daily; if she has been to work it is against my orders.
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. — Ten Months' Imprisonment .
MR. A. METCALFE conducted the Prosecution.
CATHERINE SNACKE . I live at the Sugar Loaf public-house in Bell Street, which is kept by my father—on 29th April, between 9 and 10 o'clock in the evening, I was serving in the bar; the prisoner came in with two other men; he asked for a pot of ale; I refused to serve him because on the Saturday night previous he had created a disturbance there—they went out on my refusing to serve them—one of his companions afterwards came in and asked for a pot of ale; I served him with it, and he went out with the pot and glass; about two or three minutes afterwards I went out to see where he had taken the pot and glass to, and saw the prisoner and his companions outside; the prisoner had the pot and glass in his hand; the pot was empty—I asked mem for it, and he threw it on the ground; I picked it up, and then went to take the glass out of his hand, as I thought he was going to smash it—he attempted to strike me; my father came to the door to prevent him, and he lifted up his right foot and kicked my father violently in the lower part of the stomach—my father put his hands down to the place and told me to fetch the police, which I did—my father went to bed directly he came from the hospital—he complained of very great pain, and died the next day.
CHARLES SNACKE . I am the son of the deceased—I was in the house on the 29th April; I did not see my sister go out, but I saw her come running in and the prisoner trying to follow her—my father held his hands in front of him to stop him, and he up with his foot and kicked my father in the lower part of the stomach—I went with him to the hospital—he died the next day.
SAMUEL DODD CHIPPINGDALE . I am house surgeon at the London Hospital—the deceased was brought there on the night of the 29th April; he complained of pain in the lower part of his stomach, and told me he had been kicked—I examined him; there were no external marks of violence; he was kicked through his clothes—I did not see him alive
again—I made a post-mortem examination—I hare heard the evidence, and in my opinion such a kick as that described would account for the injury which caused his death.
JULIAN SINGER (Police Sergeant H 13). The prisoner was brought to the station on the morning of the 30th, and charged with violently assaulting the deceased, who at that time was still living—he said, "I had some words with the girl, and she put me out, and I made a kick at her and the old man came between and got it instead. The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "The daughter chucked ale in my face. I ran to her and kicked at her, and it caught the father." GUILTY .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude .
THIRD COURT—Wednesday, May 29th, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. J. P. GRAIN conducted the Prosecution.
THOMAS HAYWARD . I am a licensed victualler, of the Rose and Crown, London House Yard, City—I have known the prisoner about two years by the name of Danby—he was an occasional customer—he was waiting for me on 18th of April when I came in—he asked me to change this cheque—at my request he signed it on the back—I asked him if it was all right—he said he believed it was—I gave him six sovereigns and 3d.—I paid the cheque into the City branch of my bank, at Ludgate Hill, on Saturday, 20th April—it was returned marked "No account"—I cashed the cheque believing the prisoner when he said it was genuine.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not see you since the presentation of the cheque till you were in custody.
ALPHEUS THOMPSON . I am a clerk at the London and County Bank, Islington branch—I have been there five years—we have had no customers during that time named Owen, Williams, and Co., nor Danby—I do not know the prisoner—this cheque was issued in a book to Mr. Alfred Waller.
ALFRED WALLER . I keep the Lord Palmerston, in the Holloway Road—I have known the prisoner as a customer, not by name—he came on 18th April and asked me to lend him a cheque—I said I could not as they were numbered to my name—he laughed and said "Possibly you think I might use it against your name; I will make it out at your bar for you to sign, or in my own name"—I lent him the cheque—he filled it up except the amount, saying his little bill was at home, and he could not say what it was—he took it away—he showed me a card, but I did not notice it.
Cross-examined. You said you wanted to pay insurance—you wrote "A. Danby" on the cheque, as it is now.
GEORGE OSBORNE . I keep the Market House beershop, Hackney—I have known a Mr. John Smith about four years—on about 7th April Smith introduced the prisoner to me as a gentleman connected with a gentleman he dealt with—he gave no name—Smith said "Will you change this cheque?"—the prisoner then came in and laid the cheque down with this card, "Alfred Danby"—he said it was all right and I
changed it—I gave him 5l. 5s.—the cheque was endorsed—I took it to the bank four days after—they marked it No account," and said that he never had one—I believed the prisoner and therefore changed the cheque.
Cross-examined. This occurred on a Saturday, about 9 P.m., after banking hours.
WILLIAM JAMES READ . I am chief clerk at the Hackney branch of the London and County Bank—I have looked through the books from the commencement of the bank and I find no customer named "A. Danby"—this cheque for 5l. 5s. was issued in a book of 50 cheques to a Mr. William Bristowe, our customer—any suggestion to open an account in the absence of the manager would come to me—I received no suggestion to open an account in the name of A. Danby.
WILLIAM BRISTO . I keep the Nag's Head, Mare Street, Hackney—I have known the prisoner as a customer, named Danby, some months—on 6th April he said he wanted to send a man some money who was very much pushed, and asked if I banked at the London and County Bank—I said I did—he asked for the loan of a cheque—I told him I had no objection provided the amount was filled in in my presence, and I asked him the amount and he said five guineas—he filled up the cheque and took it away.
Cross-examined. There appeared to be no secrecy—I understood you were going to send it to Scotland.
WILLIAM MATTHEWSON . I am a licensed victualler, at 96, New North Road, Hoxton—I knew the prisoner as a customer named Owen—on February 7th he asked me to change a cheque—I said I had not enough gold in the house and gave him 6l. on account—I looked at the signature, Daun and Valentine, and thought it was right—I sent it to my bank—it was returned marked "No account."
Cross-examined. I have not been repaid the 6l.—no Mr. Valentine has called on me.
GRIMBLE VALLENTIN . I sign cheques for the firm of Daun and Valentine, distillers—the firm do not bank at the London and County Bank at Brighton—we have only one account and that is at Williams Deacon, in Birchin Lane—this cheque is not signed by me nor any one having authority to sign for our firm—I do not know the prisoner.
Cross-examined. Neither of the Mr. Valentines reside at Cliftonville or Brighton—the other Mr. Vallentin would be the only other person having power to sign cheques—he is aged 62 years—we have no Mr. Valentine aged about 45.
HENRY PENNY MILLS . I am a retired publican, living at 2, Park Villas, Leyton—in March, 1876, I was landlord of the Mitre public-house, in Upper Street, Islington—I knew the prisoner as Albert Smith—he represented another gentleman to be his father—on 18th March the prisoner asked me to cash this cheque—he said it was his father's cheque payable to himself—it is signed "Albert John Smith"—he endorsed it and I gave him 9l. 6s. 6d.—he also borrowed 10s. and purchased a bottle of whisky—I sent the cheque to my bankers—it was returned marked "No account"—I did my best to find the prisoner, but was unsuccessful—I believed the cheque was genuine.
Cross-examined. I only knew you a short time—I was at the Mitre a short time—I do not know a public-house broker named Bennett—he did
not introduce you—you gave me no card—you did not tell me you were in business in Doctors' Commons, nor that you lived at 39, Horton Road, Canonbury—you lived at one time at Cross Street, Islington—you first asked for 10s. and ordered a bottle of whisky—I heard of a public-house broker in New North Road named Smith—a woman was with you whom you said was your wife.
THOMAS JENNINGS . I keep the Earl Grey public-house, 44, Mile End Road—I knew the prisoner—in March, 1876, I banked at the Central Bank—on a Saturday, early in 1876, the prisoner asked me for a blank cheque—he said he had an account at the Central Bank and wanted to send some money in the country and the bank was closed—I lent him the cheque.
Cross-examined. I know a Mr. Harris, a Mr. Linguard—I only knew you by the name of Smith—I do not remember a conversation about buying the Prince Albert at Islington—it may have taken place—I do not remember Harris asking for a cheque—you took the cheque away—I am almost positive no one else was present—I think it was about 3 P.m.—it may have been later—I have no recollection of recognising you at the Brighton Races or at the Imperial Hotel—I was at Brighton Races—I do not recollect meeting you at Brighton—I have seen Harris in company, but have not spoken to him—I did not know you worked for him—I have not tried to find you.
HENRY DAVIDSON . I am a beer retailer, of 424, Old Ford Road—early in September I saw an advertisement for the sale of a public-house—I went to the address named, in Westmoreland Road, Walworth Road, with my wife—outside we saw the prisoner—my wife said, "Is your name Albert Smith?"—that was the name given in the advertisement—the prisoner said, "Yes, it is"—she then said to me, "This is the party," and we proceeded at once to his residence, which was about two or three yards from where we were standings—it was a private house, but the room was fitted like an office—we said we came with reference to the advertisement, and the prisoner said, "I will go with you and show you," and we went and looked at several houses in the neighbourhood—the prisoner said that he was a public-house broker, and that his father had done the business for the whole of the neighbourhood, but as his forefather was dead he had done the business more out of friendship than anything else, that it was not done with a view of gain—we went to the Brighton beerhouse, and looked over the house, and I was satisfied with it—I told the prisoner what money I had, and he said, "That rests entirely with me"—I was to pay 450l.—the prisoner asked me for a deposit, and I paid him 25l., and he gave me this receipt, signed "Albert Smith"—I afterwards received this letter, appointing to meet the prisoner at a house opposite Truman's brewery—I met him—he said he would slip over to the brewery and arrange the loan—he returned and said they could not meet the requirements of the case, and said he would see me shortly, as there were plenty who would grant the loan—I did not see him, but received this letter of 29th September (This stated that A, Smith could not get loan on the Brighton, but he would see the witness
on Saturday or Monday)—that was the last I heard of the prisoner—I never got the house nor the 25l. returned.
Cross-examined. I signed no agreement to take the Brighton—I made no inquiries at Hanbury's—I do not know that they refused to lend the money, only from what you said.
RICHARD BURDEN . I am landlord of the Rose of Denmark beerhouse, Lambeth Walk—in September, 1875, I was landlord of the Brighton, in the Old Kent Road—I recollect the prisoner and Davidson coming in September, 1875—previously to that the prisoner came several times, and asked me if I would sell—I said no at first, and that I had only been there six weeks, but ultimately I said I would take 500l,—I never authorised the prisoner to sell for 450l.—I have not received 25l. from the prisoner on account of the Brighton—he came once after I saw him with Davidson—I have not seen him since till I saw him at Worship Street.
Cross-examined. I gave 370l. or 380l. for the Brighton—I did not say you might sell it at a reasonable profit—I sold it for less than 450l., but not till I had had 16 months' work out of it.
FREDERICK FINBOW . I am a licensed victualler, of the Coopers' Arms, Golden Lane—in September, 1876, I was looking for a public-house—I saw an advertisement, "apply to Alfred Harvey, 53, Dorset Street," in consequence of which I went to that address—the name was in the window, "Alfred Harvey and Co., Auctioneers and Trade Valuers"—I saw a clerk—on the 27th September I saw the prisoner—I told him I had come about the advertisement of a house to sell—he said yes, he had a good thing for me, and he sent me to the Shepherd and Shepherdess public-house, in Old Gravel Lane—he named 500l. as the price—I went and inspected it, and came back and agreed to purchase it—my brother paid the prisoner a deposit of 10l. on my behalf—this is the receipt—we were to meet at Reid's brewery to complete—I kept the appointment, when I was told there was no promise made to sell the house, though a man named Mason had been there bothering about it—I told the prisoner—he said, "Oh, I can work that all right for you, he has made a mistake"—I received a number of letters from the prisoner, but I never got the house nor the money returned—I paid my money believing the prisoner would get me the loans and carry out the purchase.
Cross-examined. You represented yourself as Mr. Harvey—you introduced me to the manager of the house—I did not know that you paid 10l. to Mr. Carter—you said you were not Mr. Carter's agent—you introduced me to Mr. Carter as the owner of the property—Carter wrote to me afterwards to say you were a swindler—I have not the letter—I went to him because you ran away—I authorised you to get the loans for me—I do not know whether you tried—I gave you references—I tried to meet you at several places, but you always ran away—I paid cabs—I was going to pay you for your trouble after completing.
By the Prisoner. You got a deposit of 25l. from me in the name of Albert Owen—I saw an advertisement in the Weekly Dispatch of A. Owen, public-house broker and accountant, 15, Marlborough Road, High Street, Peckham, to sell the Anglers, and, in consequence of that, I went to that address and saw you—in result I went to the Anglers, and am doing
business there now, but I had to employ another broker—this is the receipt, which I saw you sign "A. Owen"—I have paid 12l. 10s. of the 25l. over again to Mr. Bates, the owner—Mr. Bates is dead—it was through you I got the house—you did not carry it out—I sent for you, and you came puffing and blowing as if you had come from Brighton—my representative fetched you.
HENRY HOARE . I live at 27, White Lion Street, Islington—on March 8th, 1878, I advertised for a clerk's situation—the prisoner called and saw my wife—when I saw him the next morning he told me he wanted a clerk and collector—he said "I have bought the business of Owen, Williams, and Co., and made arrangements to use their name as a public-house broker and valuer at 30, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars"—this card was given to me at the printer's in Ludgate Circus in the presence of the prisoner—he said his name was Richardson—the address he gave was 63, Shrublands Road, Dalston, where I first saw him—he said he was about to take offices and that he should want me to pay a deposit as security to himself for moneys that I should receive for transfers, &c.—I gave him three sovereigns, which was all I possessed, and my I O U for 2l.—he afterwards called on me—I was to give him 10l.—I went into his service for a week—inquiries were made as to public-houses—most of the business was done in the street—on the Friday he left me—I did not see him again—I received letters making excuses—I never received my money back.
Cross-examined. I went to Blackfriars with you about some offices—I was to receive 30s. a week—I went with you to Basinghall Street—your name was not up there to my knowledge—you have not given me the chance to apply for the 5l. back again—I do not know that you had agreed to take offices—you said they would not allow you to have the offices unless you paid a year's rent in advance—I know nothing of your private transactions—I did not see Mr. Brinsley.
GEORGE BRINSLEY . I am the landlord of 30 and 31, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars—in March last the prisoner came for offices in the same of Bullock, giving as references Richardson, of Shrublands Road, Dalston, and another which I do not recollect—I declined to let.
Cross-examined. I knew very little of you before that—I knew you as Bullock—the references you brought were not such as I could submit to the Corporation, and therefore I required a year's rent in advance, not twelve months—you never took the room.
By the COURT. I did not ask him his business.
GEORGE CHAPMAN (Detective Officer N). Shortly before April 20th I received a warrant for the apprehension of the prisoner in the name of Albert Danby—I went on 20th April to a number of places and at last tracked the prisoner to Maiden Street—I read the warrant to him—he said "My name is not Danby, my name is Bullock," and he gave me a card "Albert Bullock"—I said "That is the name on the warrant and I shall apprehend you in that name; I know you have got a quantity"—I looked round the room and took these papers, amongst which are a number of cards of "Albert Danby, 16, London Place;" "Owen and Williams, 30, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars;" "Mr. Richardson;" "Mr. A. Owen," and some whore the number in Bridge Street had been altered to 38—I took him into custody—he said he could settle it.
Witnesses for the Defence.
CHARLES EDWARD BALDWIN . I am a clerk out of employment—I have known you two years—you appointed me your trustee, eighteen months ago, of your marriage settlement—you are entitled to 30l. 9s. 0d. amount of dividends not drawn of three per cent. consols—you hare a life interest since your wife's death—the October, 1877, and April, 1878 dividends are unpaid, because you have not authorised me to draw them, and there is a distringas on them by the Union Assurance Company, who lent you 250l.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have been out of employment some months—I was employed by C. G. Phillips and Co. between 20 and 30 years—Mr. Bailes is my co-trustee—he is a compositor at Messrs. Harrison's, printers—the fund is 1,000l.—the prisoner has a life interest and then it goes to the children—I do not know that the children are wards in Chancery—I have not gathered my knowledge from the prisoner—I can tell you the solicitor's name—I cannot say that I have seen the deed.
Re-examined. I signed the deed—I believe this is your handwriting but I cannot swear to it (On the cheque produced to Mills for 10l. drawn by John Smith and endorsed Albert Smith).
KATE OXLEY . I am a single woman and live at Little Chapel Street, Hoxton—I was present when you produced the cheque to Mr. Mills—you asked him to change it for Mr. Smith, whose father was a broker in the New North Road, that it was given to you by the son for the father—I did not notice the exact words—you had some whisky—I remember being at Brighton with you in December or January—you introduced me to Mr. Vallentin at the Aquarium—we went to several places with him—he said he was buying houses in London and Brighton and that he lived at Cliftonville, and I think that he was manager of the Millbank Distillery—he borrowed 5l. of you—I was present on the Saturday when you asked him for the repayment in the market—he asked you for a cheque and you volunteered to get one at Hartley's, of the Sussex Hotel—he said he would meet you in the evening—I next remember seeing him on the following Monday—he was going to London by the special train—he promised to take us over the distillery—I saw him in the refreshment room at London Bridge—you pressed him to sign a cheque which you produced—he signed it—I think this is the one—I know it had large writing, because the ink was thick—I held Mr. Bullock's ink-bottle (This was the cheque on Daun and Vallentin for 13l. 17s. 0d. endorsed A. Owen)—he said you could get it changed at any public-house where he was known—I have not seen him since—I should know him—he had gingery black whiskers, carroty.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I was Kate Harvey, Bullock, Danby, Owen, or whatever name the prisoner took—I wrote these letters which bear the names the prisoner assumed at the time.
Re-examined. I do not think it is your signature on the torn cheque.
The Prisoner in his defence stated that he was a public-house broker, and that the transactions in question were conducted by him as such in a bondfide manner.
GUILTY .*(Detective Kerley stated that he he'd a warrant to apprehend the prisoner and that there were many other similar cases against him.)— Five Years' Penal Servitude .
FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, May 29th, 1878.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution.
CHARLES LUCAS . I am a seaman, of Raleigh Terrace, St. John's Wood—on 12th May I was in Devonshire Place, and saw the prisoner kicking up a noise with some person—I told him he would get into trouble, and advised him to go home, and he came up and pushed me about—I asked him what he meant by it—he went away, and I went towards home—I met him about five minutes after with his mother—she said he was her son, and I said, "If it is your son I will speak to you;" with that the prisoner struck me three blows in the chest—I did not see what with—about a second after I felt blood run down my leg into my boot—he immediately ran indoors—I was taken to the dispensary, and a policeman took the prisoner—I felt rather queer the Sunday and Monday after, but not ill—I did not strike the prisoner.
WILLIAM MCCULLUM (Policeman D 271). About 1 o'clock on 12th May Lucas gave the prisoner into my custody, and charged him with stabbing him in the left breast—the prisoner said he had not done it—he was crying when I took him.
ROBERT TIDBURY . I am resident medical officer at the Western General Dispensary—Lucas was brought there on 12th May, suffering from a short vertical incised wound over the inner end of the left collar bone, which bled a great deal—I should say it struck the collar-bone—it might have been inflicted by a sharp instrument—it was not actually dangerous, though in a dangerous part—he appeared very excited—he is quite well now.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I am very sorry. I was intoxicated."
Witness for the Defence.
Prisoner's Defence. "I was drunk, and have no recollection of having a knife. I had no intention of injuring the prisoner."
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. — Twelve Months' Imprisonment .
578. JOSEPH HARRIS (26), FRANK JACOBS (23), HENRY JACKSON (21), and WILLIAM SYKES (22), Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Edward Carl Schwartz, and stealing therein 189 purses, 300 pieces of sealskin, and 2 bags, his property.
EDWARD CARL SCHWARTZ . I am a sealskin purse maker, of 40, St. John Street Road, Clerkenwell—on Sunday, 28th April, I left the premises at 3 P.m., having locked them up, and my brother put up the iron bar to the back door—I got home at 11 P.m., and found a cart before the door, which was open, and a policeman was writing—I went in and saw some scratches at the side of the door where the lock was, and the iron bar had been removed from the back door—I went upstairs to my workroom, and purses were scattered about from the passage up to the room—
I missed 189 purses and a quantity of sealskins cut in shapes ready for purses, and a white and a black shiny bag—the value of the property is about 22l.—these pursed(produced)are mine.
CHARLES BRADLEY (Policeman 53G). I was on duty in St. John Street Road about 10.35 on this night, and saw the door of No. 40 open—I turned on my light and saw several purses and other articles strewed about the passage—some other constables came up a little boy came up to me, and in consequence of a communication he made to me I went to a coffee-shop, No. 66, St. John Street Road, where I saw the servant and Jackson, who tried to get past me into the street—I told him to wait a bit, as I wanted to speak to him—Sykes then came down and wanted to get past me—I told him to wait—he said to Jackson "Oh, Christ, we are copped now"—I understood that—another constable came in, and I saw Jacobs brought forward—Harris then came in from the back or downstairs—we searched the place, and in the dusthole I found a large black shiny bag containing a lot of sealskin cuttings, like these produced—the Magistrate ordered the bags to be given up to the prosecutor—I then went upstairs, and in one of the rooms I found this bag containing a number of other pieces—I have heard that Jacobs and Jackson live there—the prisoners, when charged, all said they knew nothing about it.
Cross-examined by Sykes. I swear you used the words that I said—you did not ask me what I wanted, and I did not say "You will see presently"—you did not try to pass me with any force.
JOHN SUDBURY (Policeman 125G). I was called to the coffee-house and saw a girl behind the bar—I saw Sykes and Jackson coming away from the stairs—53 G had stopped them, and the girl said there were four in the house—I saw Jacobs coming downstairs, who had a large white cloth bag, a sort of pillow-case—I stopped him, and found in the bag purses, tobacco-pouches, and other things—he said "You b—, I will put a b—knife through you"—I seized him and we went down on the ground, and while we were struggling Harris came down with a black shiny bag and went into the back yard—I overpowered Jacobs and brought him in front of the bar—Harris then came in from the back door and I seized him, and with the assistance of the other constables we kept them there—I afterwards went into the yard with 53 G, and we found some tobacco-pouches in the dusthole, which the prosecutor identified.
Cross-examined by Sykes. You tried to get past me with force.
WILLIAM GRINHAM . I am 10 years old and live at 3, Taylor's Row, St. John Street, Clerkenwell, with my stepfather—about 10.30 on the night in question I was hopping across the road, when I saw the prisoners at 40, St. John Street Road lighting some matches on the doorstep—they went in after about half an hour, and I waited till they came out—I did not see them do anything to the door—I stood on the other side of the way, in the dark—they came out in about a quarter of an hour—I don't know who came out first—Jacobs came out with a shiny bag—I knew him—he went into a pudding-shop—I didn't notice anything in the hands of the others—they all went into a cook's shop—I went to tell the policeman who was standing at the door of No. 40—I watched the coffee-shop while speaking to the policeman, and no one came out—I went and fetched some more policeman.
Cross-examined by Sykes. I said when you were sent for trial that you all came out with parcels—you asked me if you were one of them, and I
said I didn't know—I am sure you are now—nobody has talked to me as to what I should say—I said you were one of them because I saw four of you together—I can tell you now by your overcoat—I cannot tell why I did not know you at the police-court by your overcoat.
Re-examined. I am quite certain that there were four men there, and that the four men who went into the house came out again and went into the cook's-shop.
JANE BREADEN . I am single, and am servant to John Weir, a cook, of 66, St. John Street Road, Clerkenwell—we let lodgings—Jackson and Jacobs came in March and occupied one room until they were taken in custody—the other prisoners came and visited them—Harris came the afternoon of the Sunday they were taken—I did not see Sykes—I was present when the arrest took place—I had plenty of time to see Sykes so as to recognise him again—the Jacobs are furriers—on the evening of the arrest the four prisoners came in a little before 11 o'clock, with a lot of luggage—I said to them "What a lot of luggage you have got"—they said "Yes, we have been going to meet our country cousins, and they are going to sleep here to-night"—Jacobs has a brother who is not in custody—they all went towards the kitchen—I said something to his brother, and he went out—I went to shut the door and was stopped by a policeman, and the four were taken in custody.
Cross-examined by Sykes. I cannot say whether you had a parcel, but the others had—you all came in together—Harris had the shiny bag and Jacobs the white one—I don't know who had the red bag.
Sykes's Statement before the Magistrate. We didn't break into the house—it wasn't a burglary at all.
Sykes's Defence. I said "they"—not "we;" that is a mistake. The little boy has made a lot of mistakes. I think he is bought. Breaden says that Harris had the shiny bag, and the boy says Jacobs. I am innocent. I wish to call the other prisoners.
Joseph Harris. You were not with me on the Sunday evening.
Cross-examined. I did not see Sykes that Sunday evening till he came into the coffee-shop—I was the last one that came downstairs and Sykes was in the shop then—only three of us went into the house—Jacobs carried the shiny bag.
Frank Jacobs. I was not with you till you came to the coffee-shop.
Cross-examined. It was about 10 P.m. when we went to the house—I didn't get home till 4 that afternoon, and then I sat in the kitchen and had my dinner—Harris brought a clean shirt for me in the afternoon—Sykes did not come in till about 10.40, when we had got in with the things—we did not strike matches at the door of No. 40—we pushed the door open—it was not shut—I worked for Sykes a year ago—he may have called on me before at the coffee-shop, but I have not seen him—I didn't say anything to Harris when I came down and the police were there—I don't remember saying anything to the policeman about sticking a knife into him—he caught his foot in a piece of carpet and we slipped down stairs—Sykes was standing with the other policeman in the shop—I did not hear Sykes say anything—I did not tell Sykes what things we had—he asked me and I said "You will see on Monday, come down quick."
Henry Jackson. I don't recollect whether you were with us.
Cross-examined. I don't recollect how many of us there were.
HARRIS, JACOBS, and JACKSON— GUILTY .— Fifteen Months' Imprisonment each . SYKES— NOT GUILTY.
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, May 30th, 1878.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WARNER SLEIGH the Defence.
FRANCIS HENBREY . I am a dairyman of 98, Portland Road Notting Hill—the prisoner had been a customer of mine for two or three years up to July, 1877—he resided at 50, Addison Road North—in July he owed me 1l. 14s. 9d. for milk—I applied to him from July to March several times for payment, when I met him in the street—I went to the house and found he had gone away and left an address where letters were to be forwarded—I made inquires but could never get a fixed place of residence where I could apply for the money—when I asked him for payment he would say "I cannot spare it now, you shall have your money"—on the 26th March I saw him outside my shop, and I asked him if he could oblige me with my account, as I was very short of money, or could he give me half a sovereign—he said "No, I can't I am short, of money, but I have a cheque at home, how long will you be before you go out again?"—I answered "About two hours"—he did not come that day, but next day he came about 1 o'clock—he said "I have got a cheque of my own, I thought it would be best"—I said "I hope it is all right," and he said "Yes, you needn't fear about that, my boy," and put his hand on my shoulder; he then wrote out this cheque for 4l. 14s. 9d., on the London and County Bank. Hammersmith branch, dated 30th March; he asked me to hold it over till then—he said "I am going to receive a large sum of money, and I am going to pay away money"—I said "I don't mind; I am not going to pay no money away till the 30th; I have 30l. to pay away then; I shan't want the money before, I hope it will be there then"—he said "Yes"—he said "I have a small balance at the bank, more than enough to meet that cheques"—I then gave him four sovereigns—he said he couldn't spare more and he would have 1l. owing—he then left—on Saturday, 30th March, he came up in a hansom cab about the middle of the day, and asked me not to pay the cheque—I grumbled and said "I have not got no more money to pay away, I thought it would be there to-day or I shouldn't have parted with my 4l., I have got a bill to meet this afternoon"—he said "You needn't fear, the money will be all right," and he drove away—I shortly afterwards on the same day paid the cheque away to Mr. Cook, Mr. Wright's servant, for milk I had that week—on Monday I received this post-card from the prisoner. (Read: "I will pay into bank to-morrow about 1 o'clock, so don't pay in till 2 o'clock, shall call as I pass to-morrow, about 9 o'clock.") I did not see him that morning but he called about 4 in the afternoon and said "I have been disappointed of some money, will you hold the cheque over for a few days longer?"—I said "I cannot, I have paid it away to Mr. Wright, 91, Euston Road"—I wrote the address down for him, and he left, saying he would go and take it up—on the following morning I received this note. (Read: "146, Ladbroke Grove Road, Notting Hill. Dear Sir, I was unable to take up
my cheque yesterday as the money promised to me was not forthcoming, you must therefore hold it over a few days longer. As you will see, my address is not in Addison Road, as I have been compelled to dispose of it, so please write to above address if you wish to communicate with me. Yours truly, T. Mason.") I have not got the envelope—I did not think it would be wanted—I afterwards received the cheque from Mr. Wright, endorsed "Account closed."
Cross-examined. I swear the prisoner said when he wrote out the cheque "I have a balance at the bank more than enough to meet that cheque"—I stated that to Mr. Bridge—the prisoner did not say the first day that he was going to a friend to ask him to cash a cheque and hold it over for a few days—he said he had a cheque at home—the second day, when I cashed the cheque, I did not say I would hold it over if he would pay me a part of my account—he did not ask me how much I could spare before he wrote the cheque—the 4l. was mentioned the day previous—I asked him the amount of the cheque and he told me between 3l. and 4l.—he didn't bring that cheque to me the next day, but a blank one on the London and County Bank, and filled it up in my presence—he said, "When shall I date it?" not those exact words—I calculated when I should want the money—it was at his own request that it was dated the 30th, to make the money more sure—he was going to date it the 29th—when he came on Monday he did not tell me he was going to, Hammersmith to pay money into the bank, or that he was going to the bank, or that if I liked he could pay me the cheque without my paying it away—I told him it was paid away—he was annoyed and said I had promised to keep it over till Monday, and I said "It could not have been paid in before to-day"—I wrote to him after the cheque came back—he did not complain on Monday of receiving an insulting letter from me—his letter to me did not come by post but by a carman of Mr. Nevill's who delivers bread for me—it was given into my wife's hands and I opened it—I did not see it given—the carman is not here—he was a casual passer-by—the prisoner lived at 50, Addison Road North, a shop that is in the same postal district as "Addison Road"—I was in the police-court when the prisoner made a statement to Mr. Bridge.
Re-examined. The prisoner, when he called on Monday, did not say he was going to the bank—he asked that the cheque should be so dated—I laid an information at the police-court about a fortnight afterwards—I could not find out no place of residence—I received the cheque back about the 3rd or 4th April—the Wednesday or Thursday—I have never received payment of the 4l.
By MR. SLEIGH. I was told he had never lived at 146, Ladbroke Grove Road, but only had his letters addressed there—I wrote to him there two or three days after the cheque came back, and also on the 24th April—he had dealt with me for between two and three years.
DAVID NOEL . I am a clerk in the London and County Bank, Hammersmith branch. (The prisoner's pass-book, showing that he commenced his account on 22nd November, 1875, was handed in.) The last cheque came in on 3rd May, 1877, for 3l., at which date there was a balance of 3l. 15s. 8d., thus reducing the balance to 15s. 8d.—that balance was further reduced by 4s. 2d. for a cheque book omitted to be charged, which was given out on 23rd April, 1877—on the 9th May the manager wrote this letter to the prisoner—in the beginning of April this year the cheque for 4l. 14s. 9d.
was presented at the bank, and I endorsed it "Account closed" or "No account," and returned it to the bank which presented it—I saw the prisoner in the bank about midday on Monday, 1st April, I believe it was—I had no interview with him—one of the cashiers had—he is not here.
Cross-examined. That is a copy of a letter written by Mr. Lewis, the manager—he is not here—there is no copy in the letter-book of the envelope on which the address was written—I believe Mr. Stevenson addressed the letter—the prisoner's account, which was carried on up till April or May of last year, was no fictitious or dummy account, but a substantial fair account for a man of moderate means, and I believe up to the time that letter was written we never had any fault to find as to the regularity and propriety of the account. (MR. SLEIGH read entries in the pass-hook, showing balances of some hundreds in the prisoner's favour.) The pass-book was brought to us by the police after the cheque was returned—I see 10s. 6d. commission was charged at the end of the March quarter, 1877—two guineas per annum is the usual charge.
By the COURT. There is an extra charge of 11s. 6d. made at the end of the June quarter on account of the transactions being small—the amount varies according to the amount of the turn-over.
By MR. MEAD. If there is more work we charge more—the last two quarters, December, 1876, and March, 1877, were charged at only 10s. 6d., as prior to that the balance was sufficient—the charge was made in order to close the account—for the current quarter, from the end of March till June, nothing but the 11s. 6d. was charged.
WILLIAM HENRY STEVENSON . This time last year I was a clerk at the Hammersmith branch of the London and County Bank, but am now at the head office—it was my duty to post letters—this is a copy of a letter written to the prisoner on the 9th May, 1877—I have a record in this book (produced) of the letters I posted on that day—it is kept by me—I find an entry "Thomas Mason, Addison Road North"—that letter never came back as a dead letter to my knowledge.
Cross-examined. The greater part of that address-book is in my writing—the date is 9th May last year.
Re-examined. We do not put the full address in this book unless we have nothing else to do particularly—the book is not a record of the exact addresses sent away.
MR. SLEIGH submitted that the letter could not he used to show that the prisoner knew the account was closed, and asked leave to produce the "London Directory," it having been intimated to him that there was another Mr. Mason living in the Addison Road to whom the letter may have miscarried. The COURT ruled that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to read the letter.
WILLIAM HENRY STEVENSON (Re-examined). It is my usual practice to get the address from the ledger, in which it is the usual practice to put the number of the road when known—the ledger is here (referring)—the address given here is 50, Addison Road North—I will undertake to swear that I never by any chance whatever missed the number of a road when it was in the ledger. (Letter read: "9th May. Mr. Thomas Mason. Sir,—Your account has been so irregular lately that I must beg that you will from this time forward consider it as closed.—Yours faithfully,
—Lewis.") (Portions of the postscript were illegible, which MR. MEAD read from his fair copy as follows: "If you will be good enough to return any unused cheques we will allow for them.")
GEORGE BROWN (Re-examined). On the 26th April I saw the prisoner at Notting Hill station, Ladbroke Grove Road, between 8 and 9 o'clock—I was in uniform, and went up to him and said, "Is your name Mr. Mason?"—he said, "No, my name is Mr. Malcolm"—I then said to the prosecutor, who was with me, "Is his name Mason or Malcolm?" and I asked the prisoner if he would go to the police-station with the prosecutor—he walked there, when the warrant was read to him—he made no reply—on the 27th April evidence was given before the Magistrate, and he was remanded to Saturday, 4th May, being admitted to bail—he did not appear on the 4th, and another warrant was granted, and I apprehended him that night at Hammersmith—I said, "You will have to go to the Notting Dale police-station with me,"and he said, "Don't be too hard on me; this job will ruin me"—I told him I could not help that; he would have to go with me—he said, "I have 4l. in my pocket; I will give you that if you will let me go; you are in plain clothes; no one will know anything about it"—I told him he ought to be ashamed of himself to attempt to bribe a constable while in the execution of his duty—he pressed me all the way to the station to take the 4l.—I got to the station, and told the station sergeant about it—the prisoner made no reply—he was searched, and 4l. 7s. 6d. was found on him, as also the pass-book which has been produced.
Cross-examined. I do not know whether the Magistrates at Hammersmith preside also at Wandsworth police-court—I hare been about five months on the beat—I know the Magistrates go away in the afternoon, but I don't know which Court they go to—I left the Court on the 4th May at 2.30, when the Magistrates had not left—I never see him go—I don't know whether the Court rose at 2.30—I know 4l. was the sum the prisoner owed the prosecutor—I did not say at the police-court that the prisoner said, "I have got no money"—the prisoner did say to me," I did not appear at the Court this morning because I couldn't get no money in time"—I don't know that be did go to the police-court after the Magistrate had left—I have heard at tike police-court he did—he never said so in my presence—he did not tell me he had the money in his pocket for Mr. Henbrey, and he would give it to me and I need not take him into custody—he wanted me to take it for myself and let him go—I met Mr. Henbrey on the first occasion close by the Notting Hill station, and we met the prisoner coming down the stairs of the station—on the 4th May I met the prisoner in the Mall Road, Hammersmith.
Re-examined. On the 4th May, when the case was called on, a gentleman made an application to the Magistrate, giving a reason why the prisoner did not appear—then it was called on again at 1.30, and at 2.30, when I left, the prisoner had not come.
By MR. SLEIGH. I heard the application made that the prisoner was in a fit—when his name was called out another application was made to the effect that he was still ill, and, in fact, if he were brought there, he would have to be brought on a stretcher—I received information outside and knew it was not so, and got another warrant—I don't know that the prisoner is subject to fits—I have not heard it—I don't know that he is paralysed—he walks lame.
CHARLES HAGGY (Policeman X39). I was acting inspector at Notting Dale station when the prisoner was brought in on 4th MayBrown stated in his presence that on the way to the station he offered him 4l. if he would let him go, as he was in plain clothes and nobody would know anything about it—the prisoner said nothing.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I wish to say I was under the impression my account was still open. I had received no letter from the bank. I kept a small balance there for the purpose of keeping it open. On Monday or Tuesday, the day the cheque was to go in, I called on the prosecutor and said I was waiting to pay in to meet his cheque, and he told me he had paid it away on Saturday; he had promised to keep it. I had money at home, and I said I would give it him if he would give me the cheque, but he could not do so as he had given it away. He gave me the address of the party he gave it to. I had no intention to defraud." GUILTY.— Judgment Respited.
MR. FRERE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. KEITH FRITH defended Wise.
MARGARET PILKINGTON . I am the wife of Captain Pilkington (retired 85th), of 2, Upper Woburn Street, Euston Square—on Tuesday, 21st May, about 10.45 P.m., I was in the Euston Road with my husband, brother, and his wife, and my little child—while I was saying "Good night" to my brother's wife my husband was crossing the Euston Road, and I heard him cry out "Maggie, I am murdered"—I left my baby and rushed across the road to my husband and saw him on one knee, and Cheesewright had his hand in my husband's breast pocket, pulling out his handkerchief—Wise was standing by—I put my hand down to take Cheesewright's hand from my husband's pocket, and Wise took my thumb and finger, and bit them—Cheesewright took up my husband's hat and ran away—I did not see Burns do anything—Wise ran away as the police were coming across the road, and I missed my cloak and my pocket-handkerchief, in which was 3l. 5s. 3d.—I remained with my husband, and Cheesewright was brought back by a policeman about 1 1/2 minutes afterwards—we then went to the station, and shortly after Wise was brought in by a policeman.
Cross-examined. I am the wife of Captain Pilkington, and have been married to him about nine years—I can write—I made my mark at the police-court—my finger was stiff—I was excited and didn't want my husband to prosecute—I am sure it was 10.45 when I left my brother's house—I heard Police-constable Taylor give evidence at the police-court—I heard him say it was 12.30, instead of 10.45—I would say he was right—I had a little baby one year and seven months old, and my husband was blind, and we passed the time over—I saw Wise for a minute while my finger was in his mouth, and he was biting it—my hand was on my husband's shoulder—I was not so excited that I did not know him. I didn't want to prosecute, because our business was important, and it was the cause of a great loss of money to us to stop in London—I don't remember saying "The prisoner Wise, who was by, rushed at me and bit the thumb and forefinger of my right hand"—Wise was brought in between two policeman, and I said "Here is the boy who bit my finger"
—my husband is not here—he had important businesses to attend to, and his solicitor, Mr. Hemming, of Blackburn, my father-in-law's agent, took on himself to take him away.
Re-examined. While Wise was biting my finger I had full opportunity of observing his face, and I am certain he is the boy—there was a gaslamp near—he nearly broke my finger in two—I have not got the use of it—I have not recovered my cloak, money, or handkerchief.
Cross-examined by Cheesewright. I did not knock my husband's hat off, and you did not pick it up and give it into my hand.
WILLIAM TAYLOR (Police Serjeant Y21). At 12.30 A.m. on the 22nd May I was on duty in the Euston Road, and saw Captain Pilkington kneeling in the centre of the road, about 30 yards from me, surrounded by the prisoners and about seven others—the captain was in the act of getting up from the ground, and I saw Cheesewright snatch his hat from his head and run—I ran after him for about fifty yards, and I caught him with the hat in his hand—I never lost sight of him—Wise and Burns ran down Duke Street, and I directed a constable to follow them—Burns had been pushing between Captain and Mrs. Pilkington, trying to separate them—I took Cheesewright to the station—on the way he said Mrs. pilkington had knocked her husband's hat off and he picked it up and intended to give it to the captain, but I distinctly saw him take the hat off—we all went to the station together, which is about 10 minutes' walk from the spot where this occurred—in about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes Wise was brought in and identitied by Mrs. Pilkington.
Cross-examined. He was in the custody of two constables—it was not necessary in this case to place him amongst others to be picked out—Mrs. Pilkington was greatly excited at the police-station.
Re-examined. I saw a little blood on her thumb and finger, where she stated she had been bitten by Wise.
Cross-examined by Cheesewright. Captain Pilkington did not pull out a bottle of brandy and give it me.
By the COURT. The captain and his wife were not drunk—they were excited—I did not see Burns strike anybody—this is the hat I found in Cheesewright's hand (produced).
Cross-examined by Burns. I saw you go in between them—you and Wise ran away together.
HENRY BLAKE (Policeman Y 540). I was with Serjeant Taylor in the Euston Road, and I saw Wise holding Mrs. Pilhington's hands, and Burns was in a bustling way dose to her, moving about—I saw the captain kneeling—I ran for Cheesewright, but seeing the serjeant run for him he instructed me to see to the lady, and when I returned Wise and Burns ran away—I never lost sight of Wise from the time I saw him holding the lady's hands till I captured him, which I did after a run of five or seven minutes—he ran into a house in Draper's Place, and slammed the door, and put the light out—I knocked, and the door was opened by a man, who said there was no man there—I went in and found Wise on the stairs—he said, "It's not me you want, it's the man that's gone down stairs"—no one had gone down—Reeves came up and I handed Wise over to him, and went down stairs and searched—I took him to the police-station.
Cross-examined. He stood still on the stairs—I never lost sight of him
—he was chased down several streets—I ran after Wise and Burns only—I said at the police-court " I saw the prisoners closing round them, and also several others "—I did not pursue the others—I lost sight of Wise when he closed the door—there were only two in the house, as far as I know—Captain Pilkington was at the police-station—he was not excited—he may have been drinking—the lady may have had a glass—she seemed very much upset—Cheesewright ran about 50 yards.
Re-examined. I saw Cheesewright running away because Wise had hold of the lady's hands, and when I turned he had not let go of her—they ran away in different directions—when I took Wise he was the only person dressed in the house—I was 30 yards behind him when he ran into the house.
EDWIN REEVES (Policeman 12ER). When I saw Blake running up Draper's Place, and knock at a door and go in, I waited about for an hour, and I saw him apprehend Wise from the house—I stood at the door and Blake handed him over to me, and while I was holding him he said, "It was not me, it was Burns; you know where he lives"—I knew Burns, and he came down to Draper's Place about 1.30 and said, "You had better take me to the station, but I have done nothing"—I asked him if his name was Burns, and he said it was, and he said he ran away from the Euston Road because he was frightened—I took him to the station, and on the way he said the lady knocked the gentleman's hat off as he and his mate were coming from a coffee-stall (I don't know who he meant by his mate), and his mate picked it up and offered it to the lady, and the gentleman offered them some money to take it away from the lady and give it back to him, and as soon as his mate laid hold of the hat the sergeant and constable got hold of his mate, and he (Burns) ran away.
Cheesewright's Statement before the Magistrate."I saw the prosecutor's wife knock his hat off into the road. I picked it up and gave it to her, and the gentleman offered me half-a-crown to take the hat from her and give it to him—I took the hat away from her and gave it to him, and then the constable came up. I never ran away at all."
Witnesses for Wise.
JAMES WISE . I am the prisoner's father, and am a horse-keeper, of 15, Mary Place, Hampstead Road—on Tuesday evening my son was helping me to move from West Street, which is about a quarter of an hour's walk from where we live, and he was with me till 11.50, when he went to his brother's. No. 7, Draper's Place, where he was to sleep—he has never been in any trouble whatever—he was in the employ of the Shoeblack Brigade before his last employ, and I have a written character here from the Secretary of the Society—I have never had occasion to complain of his keeping bad company—he left the brigade on 29th September, 1877—I do not know the other prisoners—I could not give evidence at the police-court, because I didn't hear of it until after he was committed.
Cross-examined. I parted with him at 11.50—whether he went to Draper's Place I don't know—you would cross the Euston Road to get to Draper's Place—it is very nearly opposite.
ANN WISE . I am the wife of the last witness—we commenced to move from West Street on the evening in question at about 9 o'clock, and my boy was with me—we went backwards and forwards and never left the boy till about 11.50, when he went to his brother's at 7, Draper's
Place—he was always a good lad and helped my little family—I have never seen him in company with the other prisoners.
Cross-examined. He left me at 11.50 at the gate where they go up Draper's Place—I went across with him.
MARY ANN BOYD . I sell flowers in the streets—I live at 8, Draper's Place—I saw a boy run down the court at about 12.15, and Wise went in the passage opposite for a light and the boy ran in and shut the door and blew the match out of Wise's hand, who was waiting to go up to his brother's room—I don't know anything of the boys—I heard the boy who blew out the light run down a pair of stairs as if he was going to run into the kitchen—I heard him say "The police are after us, "and Wise said, "Police after who?"—he didn't reply, but went down the stairs, and the police went down after him—I had Wise under my notice for a quarter of an hour that evening—he walked up the court with a young girl—he didn't appear to have been running—he said his mother had been "shooting the moon, "and he had been helping her, and he was not going to do any more that night, but was going to his brother's to sleep—I had not known anything of the Wises before—I am a perfect stranger to everybody in Court—I spoke to the night-policeman last night who calls my husband, and he said "If I were you and you know anything of it, I should certainly go down and speak the truth"—I have not been paid for coming here, and I have no desire but to speak the truth.
Cross-examined. I saw three constables in the court on the night in question—I don't know their names—Blake is the constable who took Wise—there were two others with him.
Cheesewright, in his defence, repeated in substance his statement before the Magistrate.
GUILTY . WISE and BURNS recommended to mercy by the Jury.
CHEESEWRIGHT— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment .
WISE and BURNS— Twelve Months' Imprisonment .
NEW COURT.—Thursday and Friday, 30th and 31st May, 1878.
Before Mr. Recorder.
580. LOUIS JOSEPH STONARD ( ), Unlawfully conspiring with George Pomeroy Dodge, by false pretences to steal and embezzle the goods, moneys, and securities belonging to a copartner ship of the said Dodge and George Lewis. Other Counts varying the mode of charge.
MESSRS. GRANTHAM, Q. C., and J. P. GRAIN, conducted the Prosecution; and MR. METCALFE, Q.C., and MR. BESLEY, the Defence.
GEORGE LEWIS . I am still carrying on business as an indiarubber merchant, at 79, Upper Thames Street, City—in April, 1876, I saw an advertisement from a person requiring a partner, in consequence of which I communicated with George Pomeroy Dodge, 79, Upper Thames Street—I afterwards had a conversation with him—I received this letter of 18th April, 1876—in the result a partnership deed was drawn up—before signings the deed, Dodge showed me this letter: "Bermondsey Rubber Works, 79, Upper Thames Street, June 27th, 1876. Dear Mr. Dodge,—If you pay me interest by half-yearly payments on the money in your hands I engage not to apply for principal during the next 10 years unless I should in the meantime leave your employ. I write this letter
in order to enable you to conclude your arrangements for a partnership with George Lewis. Yours, &c., L. J. Stonard."The deed was signed a few days after June 26th—the bankers were to be Smith, Payne, and Smith—Dodge said Stonard had been in his and his father's employment 20 years, and he continued in the firm as confidential clerk and bookkeeper—he kept the cash-book and the ledger, a rough cash-book, and the travellers' commission book—he had to post from the journal and clean cash-book to the ledger and check the bankers' pass-book—I produce a counterpart he kept of the pass-book—upon receiving orders they were entered on one side of this book and posted to the journal—a Mr. Daniels did that—there is also a bought invoice book kept in the same way—this was kept by Stonard—upon entering the partnership Dodge gave me a balancesheet and statement of affairs of Dodge in June, 1876—this is the letter in which it was enclosed—it is written by a clerk and signed by Dodge—the statement shows creditors 1, 610l. 10s., then there is interest at 85l. per annum, making total indebtedness 2, 936l. 12s. 2d., good debtors 1, 186l., lease and other assets 2, 936l., stock in trade 650l., fixtures 1,700l., bad debts 50l., the balance in favour of Dodge being 1, 220l.—I received this detailed list of debtors in Oram, a clerk's, writing—in it there is 188l. due from the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company—I sat at a desk with Dodge and did the correspondence mostly—I knew nothing of the detail of the business before; I found the money—Dodge was to conduct the active part of buying, &c.—on 6th July, 1876, in pursuance of the deed of partnership, I gave Dodge a cheque for 1,000l.—before that I had given him 200l. to realise a charge on the lease—that was to be taken as part of my capital—on 13th September, 1876, I paid into Smith, Payne, and Co. 250l., on 30th September, 200l., 10th October, 125l., let November, 300l., 24th November, 150l., 27th November, 150l., 10th January, 1877, 75l., 17th January, 250l., and 1st April, 100l., in all 2, 800l.—I ordered new books, "G. P. Dodge and Co." to be printed on them—the printers left out "and Co."—one incorrect book was used by adding "and Co."in ink—two fresh books, were ordered—"and Co." was also left out of a considerable number of invoices, and others were ordered—these are some of the old ones—two are made out by Dodge and one by Oram, of goods sent to the Vauxhall Water Company—I find no trace of them in my invoice book, nor in the bought book, nor journal—I had no knowledge that such goods had been sold until December, 1877—there is no entry of it in the ledger—there is no record at all of the goods being sold, nor from whom they were purchased—I did not know this cheque for 100l. 5s. had been discharged, until the termination of the partnership—there is no record of it in any of the books (This cheque was made payable to G. P. Dodge or order, endorsed G.P. Dodge and Co., and was paid to Stonard's account at the London and Westminster Bank)—I did not know of the payment of the other cheque by the Vauxhall Company for 188l. 6s. until some time after 7th July, 1876—it is Dodge's writing on the receipt for 100l. 5s., and in the total on the invoice—this is an order from our order-book—it is in Dodge's writing—the red ink number corresponds with a blank counterfoil at the end of the book—about 100 orders have been taken out of the end of the book leaving the counterfoils blank—I did not know of this till I discovered other matters (The order was for nine lengths of indiarubber from the India Rubber Company.) This is one of our old invoices—it is in Oram's
writing, and made out to Messrs. Samuel and Co.—the receipt is in Dodge's writing. (The amount was 15l. 7s. 4d., less discount—it was dated 26th May, 1877.) I find no record of it in our books—there is no entry of this cheque 14l. 11s. 11d., which is made payable to G.P. Dodge or order, and endorsed G.P. Dodge—the transaction ought to have appeared in the ledger, most likely under "Sundries," and the amount of cheque in the cash-book, and the details should have been given in the journal—we supplied our travellers with books, and the enclosed orders to us, keeping the counterfoil of each order—this is a sample of such book, and this is an order from Messrs. Samuels to our traveller Oakshott—it is Oakshott's writing—it was Stonard's duty to enter it into the commission-book, and finally pay it—there is no entry of it—the account was kept by Stonard—this is a similar order, dated 16th July, 1877, of goods from Pellatt and Co., there is no entry of that—I had no knowledge of such order until I received a writ alter the termination of the partnership, in November—under advice I satisfied the writ—the amount is 73l. 8s.—there is no entry of any sum of money received from Messrs. Negri and Co., of Liverpool, and I knew nothing of it till these matters came about. (MR. GRAIN here referred to the case of Reg. v. Blake in support of the production of two affidavits by Dodge in an action brought against him by Pellatt. MR. METCALFE contended that they were mere declarations, and differed from any acts of Dodge. The COURT held that the charge being one of conspiracy against Stonard and Dodge, and the affidavits being the explanation of Dodge, they could not be excluded. The affidavits were dated 27th September, asking leave to defend the action, and 29th September, stating that the goods were of bad quality.) This is one of our invoices, and is in Stonard's writing—the heading is altered to 130, Queen Victoria Street. (This was to T. and C. Lett, and dated October 8th, 1877, for goods.) There is no entry of it in any book—these orders of October 2nd and 3rd to Messrs. Ingrams are taken from the order-book, and are in Dodge's writing—Ingrams supplied the goods subsequently sent to Letts—there is no entry of invoice, and the counterfoils are blank—I find an entry in the cash-book, folio 120, on 7th October, Ingram and Son, 9l. 12s. 8d."—that is paid—that is the sale record—these three letters are in Stonard's writing. (These were dated 4th, 6th, and 17th December, 1877, and addressed to T. and C. Lett, and signed "Dodge and Co.") The words "Please note the above account is due to us at the above address and oblige" in this statement of account is Stonard's writing. (This showed 45l. 1s. 10d. due to Dodge and Co.) The heading is "130, Queen Victoria Street"—a claim has been made upon me by the Liverpool Rubber Company, and I have satisfied their claim—I do not recollect the amount—the red ink crossing, "Brooks and Co.," on this cheque is Stonard's writing—the cheque is from the East London Waterworks upon Fuller, Hanbury, and Co. for 45l. 1s. 10d., and dated 29th November, 1877—this order of 9th October is Stonard's writing—part of this entry for sales to the East London Waterworks Company is in Dodge's and part in Stonard's writing—Stonard's commission is underneath and others follow—the book was found in Stonard's presence at 130, Queen Victoria Street, under a search warrant granted by the Lord Mayor, also one of the misprinted order-books, which corresponds in every detail with this book—a number of orders are torn out—I find an entry of goods sold to Messrs. T. and C. Lett in this day-book—the com
mission on East London Waterworks Company's order is receipted in Stonard's writing—the letter acknowledging the receipt of the 45l. cheque is Stonard's writing—the cheque was collected after the dissolution of the partnership—by the terms of the dissolution all debts due to the firm to 9th October were assigned to me—the deed of dissolution is dated 9th October, 1877—this is it—I received this list of debts from Turquand's—I have compared it with the ledger—it is signed by Dodge and myself—I find no entry either of Lett's debt of 10l. nor of the East London Waterworks Company's for 45l. in the list—the liabilities of the firm were to be taken by me up to 8th September—I had not found out on 9th October that all the money I paid into the firm had gone, nor did I know of the other discrepancies—in my mind that list is part of the fraud—about three days before 9th October Mr. Dodge took our legitimate journal and turned it over, and said, "These are all our transactions; you see the business is going away from us"—that was at 79, Upper Thames Street—Mr. Stonard performed his usual duties till about 6 P.m. on 13th October—Dodge and myself attended—we went to Queen Victoria Street between 9th and 13th October—I gave no permission for the order-book to be taken there—shortly subsequent to 9th October a cheque-book was missing, the one we commenced with—I mentioned it to Mr. Dodge, and a second cheque-book was commenced—I first asked Stonard whether he had had it—he said he had given it to Mr. Dodge—I went to Mr. Dodge and said Stonard said he had given it to him—Mr. Dodge was angry, and said he hadn't got it—I suggested that we should advertise, and said I was willing to offer 5l. reward—Dodge's solicitor said he had written to the Times telling them not to insert it—the chequebook was never found—at page 603 of the journal there is an entry of 1, 184 francs 5 centimes carried out in another column to 48l. 2s. 1d. against Messrs. Mouliers fils—this was one of the debts assigned to me—the entry was made by Mr. Meyer, a clerk—I know of no other record of the transaction—Stonard used to come to Thames Street after the 13th October—he frequently referred to this journal—this invoice is in Stonard's writing—79, Upper Thames Street is crossed out and 130, Queen Victoria Street put on it—I have compared that invoice item by item with the entry in the journal at page 603; they are the same—this document without date is our claim against them—I received this letter from abroad; it is in Stonard's writing—I believe at that time it was correct and in accordance with the book—it refers to the first balancesheet of 26th December, 1876, and the balance-sheet of 26th June, 1877, which are both in Stonard's writing and signed by Dodge—I believed they were correct—I have since examined them and found them otherwise.
Cross-examined. Before coming into this business I had been trading in China and Japan, And two years prior to entering into this partnership I was a man at large, with no occupation—I employed Mr. John Trurin, an accountant, of Ironmonger Lane, to investigate the accounts before going into the business—also examined it myself—I attended daily, except Saturdays—in five or six cases I wrote orders from the order-book, and filled up the counterfoil—the first one is dated 25th November in this book. but there is an earlier book, and probably I gave some from that—these orders wore also written by me, 21st and 22nd February, and 10th August, 1877—some orders were improperly taken out of this book
I believe before August, 1877—I didn't notice they were gone—I knew of two cases in which orders were taken out to supply some spoiled earlier in the book—I often had the book—the first time I noticed the orders were out was when one was brought by a dealer in October or November, 1877—I instructed Turquand's in September, 1877—I sat at the same table as Mr. Dodge—the table is 3 feet by 2 1/2; feet—Stonard sat behind me at a desk—I opened letters and answered them—so did Dodge—we advised together as to answers, and consulted the books—I believe Dodge is a very clever man—Daniels was the clerk who entered from the counterfoil into the journal—Mr. Hunter attested the deed, which was made in duplicate—I didn't ascertain whether the debts were paid or not till November, 1876—I made inquiries—I won't swear I asked Stonard about them—I consulted the books—I have traced the Vauxhall Water Company's cheque to Stonard's account, but no further—I have not tried—I didn't know of it till after the dissolution of partnership—I didn't at that time—448l. was placed to Dodge's credit—the 3,715l. was placed to my account, instead of 3,200l.—I took it for granted it was right—if there was any discrepancy I know it now for the first time—I cannot say that I noticed that the creditors had diminished from 1,700l. to 367l.—I had perfect faith in Dodge and Stonard at those times—I noticed that by the June 1876 balance-sheet the firm owed me 4,574l—I have not discovered any error—I noticed Dodge had nothing to his credit by the June 1877 balance-sheet till August, and then I had an accountant in—we condoned the fact when we discovered Dodge did not bring in the 188l. due from the Vauxhall Water Company—Mr. Dodge said to my solicitor "I am sorry about these debts, but the Midsummer balance-sheet will tell a different tale," and my solicitor was satisfied with the remark—I knew that amounts were being paid to Dodge's private account, instead of to Smith Payne's, the bankers of the firm—the amounts in this book were entered by my instructions—it is in Stonard's writing—if it did not go to the partnership I do not know where it went—finding the debts did not come in three or four months after I entered the partnership I inquired and found some were paid—I said to Stonard "I must have these particulars," and he gave me a list—I said after that "I will have it in the book"—some pages were left blank for entering debts collected without my knowledge prior to November, 1876—Mr. Oram dealt with the ready-money transactions—the prisoner was given into custody on 29th March—I applied for a warrant at the Mansion House in November—an injunction was obtained against Dodge to prevent his opening letters—I opened letters in his presence, and he got an order to look at the books—I gave the prisoner a copy of what we call the secret journal, the one 20s. reward is offered in if lost—the instructions from one brother to the other he never applied for—the prisoner's writing is in every page of this book—this is his writing, "Query: Wm. Scotchman had got this"—I think Dodge has defrauded me of over 5,000l.
Re-examined. On rare occasions I opened letters—the cheque for 188l. went to Stonard's account at the London and Westminster Bank.
with the firm, and generally saw Stonard—this statement of account of 7th July, 1876, was brought to me from the engineer's department, and a cheque was drawn for 188l. 6s. and was paid through our bankers—the cheques were usually given to Stonard, and I believe this one was and also the one for 100l. 5s.—I received this receipt signed "G. P. Dodge"—the invoice would go to the engineer's department.
Cross-examined. I signed the cheque—I believe I paid it myself—may have handed it to a clerk—we have no special day for payments.
JOHN WILLIAM MARSHALL . I am one of the receiving cashiers at the head office of the London and County Bank at Lothbury—Stonard had an account there for some years—he had it in 1876-7—this cheque for 100l. 5s. was paid in to his account, and paid over to the clearing house by me—this one for 188l. has also been through our bank—it has our stamp.
Cross-examined. A cheque of Mr. Dodge's for 200l. was paid in at the same time—I cannot say what was drawn out—that is not my department.
STEPHEN HILL LOAM . I live on the premises of the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company at Hampton—I am engineer in charge—I have known Stonard eight or nine years—I have seen him at 79, Upper Thames Street more than once—I ordered goods, but do not remember the particulars—I can swear to these two invoices—I went to 79, Upper Thames Street for special orders—I saw Stonard.
Cross-examined. I gave orders to Stonard sometimes personally and sometimes by letter—special orders would be given personally—these orders were given personally—these orders were given personally, I believe—I cannot bring my memory to bear on it.
JOHN SAMPSON . I am an engineer to the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, at Battersea—when I order goods I initial the invoice—I have been to Thames Street for goods, and I saw Stonard—I have no recollection of these particular goods.
ARTHUR CHARLES OKESHOTT . In May, 1877, I travelled for Messrs. G. P. Dodge and Co., amongst other firms—I took an order for indiarubber from Mr. Joseph Samuels, of Islington—I entered it in an orderbook like this, kept the counterfoil, and sent the order to Thames Street—I was then entitled to commission—I received 7s. 2d. from Dodge as commission—I wrote and told him it was only half the amount—I went for it a few days after, and Stonard gave it me wrapped up in paper, saying it was Samuels' commission—subsequently, on looking over the commission accounts, I noticed Samuels' item was omitted—I said, "There is no item for Samuels' commission"—Stonard said, "There is no occasion, you have received it all, have you not?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "Well, there is no occasion to make a trouble about it now."
Cross-examined. I had no opportunity of saying all this at the police-court—I have had all my commission—I cannot say whether I mentioned that Stonard said it was Samuels' commission—I called many times—this was about a month after—I had a right to check the commission account—I had no intention, but seeing the item it occurred to me to make the remark—the account was not made up.
Re-examined. There is an account in the travellers' ledger of commissions due to A. C. Okeshott, which I initial, like this amount for 10s., "A.C.O." in this book—that is a receipt—I have no interest in this prosecution.
GEORGE BURNHAM . I am a carman—in May, 1877, I occasionally went to Dodge and Co.—on 26th May I took some goods from 79, Upper Thames Street to Messrs. Samuels, in Islington—I had orders to bring back a cheque—I received it from Mr. Dodge—I delivered the goods to Mr. Stonard—I generally had a receipt for goods when I took them—on this occasion I did not, and Oram said in Stonard's hearing that I had not signed before I went away—Stonard said it did not matter—I brought a cheque back for the amount.
JAMES WILLIAM ORAM . I was clerk to Messrs. Dodge and Co. when Mr. Lewis joined the firm—I remained till the dissolution—I then went to 130, Queen Victoria Street—I occasionally posted the order-book to the journal—Mr. Daniels usually did it—my duties were to answer inquiries, and to see to goods going out and coming in—this is my writing on this invoice to Messrs. Samuels—I made it out by Mr. Dodge's instructions, not from any book, it was called out to me verbally—when the carman came back I asked him if he had brought back the receipt for the goods—Stonard said, "All right"—these two invoices to the Vauxhall Water Company are my writing—Mr. Dodge gave me verbal directions—Stonard was present—I have made other invoices out upon Dodge's verbal instructions between 26th June and 9th October.
Cross-examined. In a ready-money transaction I should make an entry in the book marked "R. M.," and take the money to Dodge—there was no till—Stonard would do the same—I am not aware of any account for ready money—I did not suspect anything wrong—I merely obeyed Dodge's and Stonard's orders—Stonard never told me not to show papers—I believe he was in the firm about 20 years—I had no reason to doubt his honesty—he bore a high character.
Re-examined. The firm went to Queen Victoria Street in October—I remained in Thames Street a week after.
FREDERICK WILLIAM PELLATT . I am one of the firm of Messrs. Stephens, Pellatt, and Co., machine band manufacturers, 56, King William Street, City—in July, 1877, I received an order for goods from G. P. Dodge and Co.—I received instructions by letter to forward them to Liverpool—I was to receive cash on delivery of the goods—I called and sent several times, but could not get the money—I sued Stonard and Dodge, and subsequently Mr. Lewis paid the amount and my costs.
Cross-examined. I received the letter of the 3rd August for the goods—I cannot say it is Stonard's writing.
JAMES BOURNE . I am accountant to the East London Waterworks Company, at 15, St. Helens Place, City—I received a statement of account with Dodge and Co. on the 1st November—a cheque was sent, and I received this receipt—the cheque has passed through our bank.
GEORGE JOHN GASELTINE . I reside at Kingsland, and am one of the clerks of the works of the East London Waterworks at Old Ford—on 3rd October I sent an order for indiarubber valves to Dodge and Co., referred to in these two invoices—I received the goods and these two invoices—some of the goods were not to order—I returned them to 79, Upper Thames Street—they were signed for by Oram.
Thames Street—the directions were cash—the carman brought back the cash, 9l. 12s. 8d.
Cross-examined. I am quite sure Oram did not receive the goods—no one signed, because I took cash.
GEORGE LEWIS (Re-examined). This letter is in Stonard's writing down to the signature, which is Dodge's (This was a request to honour Stonard's proxy on Messrs, Dodge's cheques)—this letter was acted on in one instance, a cheque for 20l. on 8th December, 1877, for wages—this cheque of 29th November, 1877, for 45l. 1s. 10d., on Fuller, Banbury, and Nix, is crossed Brooks and Co.—it went to the account of George Pomeroy Dodge—Samuels' cheque for 14l. 11s. 11d. went through my account on 28th May, 1877.
WILLIAM JOHN FLUISTER (Detective Officer). On 29th December I received from the Mansion House Justice Room a warrant to search 130, Queen Victoria Street, and went there with Mr. Lewis and saw Stonard—I searched and found these memorandum books and a little book (M)—Stonard sent for his solicitor and was present—on 18th March Stonard was given into my custody—Mr. Lewis was present—I found on Stonard this book, one of five, and some letters, as well as other papers not connected with the charge—I told Stonard that I apprehended him on a charge of conspiracy with George Pomeroy Dodge, not in custody, to defraud Mr. Lewis, and also abetting Dodge in committing a felony—Stonard said, "It is very wrong of you, Mr. Lewis, to charge me"—I hold a warrant for Dodge which I have not been able to execute.
Cross-examined. The search warrant is dated 29th December—we got a good deal of information from the books—Mr. Oram was present—I did not search the stock.
Cross-examined. An account was kept of moneys paid to Dodge which would be debited against him at the end of the half-year—on one occasion Stonard lent the firm 200l.—I refunded the money a few days later—I believe Stonard borrowed it to lend it to us—I believe it was in the spring of 1877—the books will tell you.
Re-examined. Before any cheques went to a private account they ought to have been entered in the books of the firm and have passed through Smith Payne's bank—Dodge had no right to appropriate Samuels' cheque—if he wanted money he should have drawn upon Smith Payne, and that would have been posted to his debit in the private ledger, which is an account between the individual partners and the firm—none of these amounts appear in the private ledger.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy on account of his previous good character. The prosecutor joined in this recommendation.—Judgment Respited.
THIRD COURT.—Friday, May 31st, 1878.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. H. AVORY conducted the Prosecution.
GEORGE NEWBURY . I belong to the Army Reserve—on 5th February was drinking in the Green Gate public-house, City Road, with some men—from there I went to the Red Lion, in Bath Street, and saw the prisoner there and four others, two of whom were Hart and Sweeney—from there we all went to the Greyhound at the comer of James Street—I had had a drop of beer but I was not drunk—I pulled out a little paper bag containing 22l. 10s. from a pocket inside my tunic and took out half a sovereign to pay for a pot of ale—they could see the other money in my bag—they all drank of the ale, and Hart, who I knew before, said "Will you have a drop of rum?"—I Said "Yes," and I had no sooner drank it than I felt dizzy and sat down and fell off the chair—Hart and Sweeney picked me up—I cannot say whether the prisoner helped, as I did not know what was being done—I was taken outside and knocked down and kicked on my side, and my face was grazed, and I lost my money—I did not see anybody do anything to me or feel anybody—I do not know who took my money—it was Sweeny, but I did not see him do it—all I know is that I found the money was gone, and when I came to, I was lying on the side of the kerb in James Street—I saw Hart and Sweeney next morning, 6th February, at the police-station and identified them as two of the men who had been with me—I afterwards gave evidence against them, and they were convicted at this Court—the prisoner was one of those who came out of the public-house—he followed behind—I did not see him outside the public-house as they mixed me all up—I afterwards saw him on 10th February, I think, at the police-station, and picked him out of a number of others as one of the men who had been with me.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Hart and I were alone at the Red Lion at first—I do not remember seeing you at the Green Gate—I do not remember taking my coat off to fight a man in Bath Street—I was not with any woman at the Green Gate—I saw you in the Red Lion—you followed out one by one, and two of you caught hold of my arms—I picked you out by your features, but at Worship Street I said I knew you by your wearing a white smock—I caught your features sideways, as I was talking—my brother-in-law went to the station to pick you out first—I was in the library and could not see my brother-in-law pick you out through the crack of the door—the door was not open for me to look through the crack—it was fastened, and the constable was in the library with me—I was then taken out of the library and picked you out.
Re-examined. Maidment is my brother-in-law—I met Hart coming out of the Green Gate—he and I went together to the Red Lion. and that is the first place I remember seeing the prisoner—I have known Hart nearly ten years—he hawks things—I think it was a white smock the Prisoner wore; it was something white—when I picked him out at the police-court he was dressed as he is now, and I picked him out by his
features—he was one of those who drank the ale—there were six of us, including me, and it was handed all round.
MARY ANN SMITH . I am barmaid at the Greyhound, Old Street—I saw Newbury there on 5th February, about 5.30 P.m., with the prisoner and five or six others—Hart and Sweeney were both there—Newbury called for a pot of ale and paid for it with a half-sovereign, which he took out of a little brown-paper bag which he took from his jacket pocket before all the other men, and I heard the rattle of money—the beer was passed round, and after that Hart called for a half-quartern of rum—I gave it to him, but did not see what he did with it, as he turned his back to me—I saw Newbury drink the rum; he was sitting when it was given to him—Hart filled the glass twice and gave it to him twice, and then he slipped off the form on the floor—Hart and another one picked him up—they caught hold of each arm and sat him on the form again for a short time—I cannot say whether the prisoner was one of those—Newbury sat there a few minutes—my uncle came in and I went in to tea, but I had hardly got in before my uncle called me out again, and they all went out directly after, two of them holding Newbury by his arms—I can't say whether the prisoner was one of those; but they all went out together—I had made a communication to my uncle after the rum was given to Newbury and before tea—my uncle went out at another door—I saw Hart and Sweeney next day at the police-station—I afterwards saw the prisoner at the station and identified him; he was placed with others.
Cross-examined. I did not stand in the passage when I was fetched to pick you out—I had never seen you in the house before—I know Marshall's timber-yard and know some of the men there, but don't know you—I was at the station perhaps ten minutes before I picked you out—you held your hat over your tie a little—I believe the constable said to the other men with you "Put your hats on"or "Take them off, "I don't know which—you were the only one who had your hat over your tie—he afterwards said "All of you put your hats on," and then you put yours on—I recognised you while your hat was over your tie, and told one of the constables so—I think the constable said to you "You can put your hat on; it is not wanted there"—I thought if I did not recognise you I should not have to come here; but I did recognise you before you took your hat from your tie—the constable said "If you recognise him, say so," and I said "That is him"—he said "If you know him, go and pick him out," and I did so—we do not keep a barman, and we did not have a new one in March.
Re-examined. I do not remember whether the prisoner was wearing a tie like the one he has now (a blue one), but before he removed his hat from it I told the constable privately that I recognised him—I identified him as soon as I entered the room, but it was only on the constable telling me to pick him out that I went up to him.
JOHN HOOPER . I am the uncle of the last witness, and keep the Greyhound, Old Street—on 6th February I saw Newbury come in with the prisoner and Hart, Sweeney, and one or two more all at the same time—I drew the ale and my niece took the money—I did not see the rum served, but I saw the measure standing on the counter when I came back—while I was having my tea my niece made a communication to me, and when I went into the bar the prosecutor was sitting in front of the bar and the other men standing and sitting all round him—they all
left together about five minutes afterwards—I had before this sent for a policeman, but my man could not find one—I went out for one at another door and saw them going down James Street—I found a policeman, brought him back, and found Newbury lying on the kerb on his back with his dress ruffled—he was stupefied—he seemed a great deal more drunk than he was when I came back from my tea—he was picked up and taken to the station—I went there and identified the prisoner.
By the COURT. Some people were round Neville when the policeman and I went up, but those who were in the public-house with him were all gone.
Cross-examined. You are not dressed the same now—you had on a grey check coat, something like the waistcoat you are wearing—you all came in together and you sat with the rest—there were two on your seat, one on each side of you—four came in besides you and the prosecutor, he made six—you all went out together—I did not see Neville fall on the floor—I did not recognise you as one of Marshall's men—I picked you out at the station directly—I said "That is the man," not "I think that is the one."
JOHN MAIDMENT . I am a fishmonger, of 23, Buttesland Street—on 5th February, about 4.45 P.m., I saw Neville, who is my brother-in-law, the prisoner, Hart, Sweeney, and two others going towards Old Street, towards the Greyhound—the prisoner was at the back of the lot.
Cross-examined. You were about a yard and a half behind them in Bath Street—I said "Good afternoon"to you and you said so to me—I did not see yon speak to them—Hart and Sweeney had hold of Neville's arm—he was not drunk, but he-had had a drop to drink—you wore a kind of check coat like that waistcoat—I did not know my brother-in-law had money, nor did I think you would rob him—I did not see you in Chiswell Street on 15th April or I should have given you in custody—I found the other two men and they were given in charge.
ALFRED HART . I am a prisoner in Cold bath Fields—I was convicted at the March Session of this Court of being concerned in robbing the prosecutor—I met Neville, who I knew, on this afternoon at the Green Gate public-house—seven of us went to the Red Lion—the prisoner was one and Sweeney and four others—from there we went to another public-house, the Greyhound, I believe—the prisoner took one of Neville's arms and a man who is not arrested took his other arm—I had his arm in Bath Street—we went into the Greyhound together, and Neville called for a pot of ale and took a paper bag out of his breast pocket, took a half-sovereign from it, and placed the bag in the same pocket again—I did not see what was in the bag, but I heard money jingle—we all had a drink, and Neville held the change for the half-sovereign in his hand and said "I will spend that with you, and then I am going to leave yon".—more beer was then called for and some cigars and tobacco—some of he men not in custody called for half a quartern of rum, which was given to Neville—he had the whole of it, I believe—the man poured out two glasses and gave to him—the glass was filled twice, and I believe he had all of it—I did not see anything put into the rum—Neville sat on the form for a little while—I did not see him slip off—the four men who are not in custody left the house, and in a few minutes Sweeney, who was tried with me, and the prisoner, took Neville's arm while he was sitting on the form and took him outside—I waited in the house, and about a
couple of minutes afterwards I went to look where they had gone—I thought they had gone to the rear, but when I got outside the door I saw Sweeney and the prisoner and four others round the prosecutor in James Street—they had all been in the Greyhound—I did not go up—I stood against a public-house door and saw them all hustling him three or four yards from me—some of them were holding him, and I saw the prisoner put his hand in Neville's breast pocket and take the bag out, and Neville, who was then standing, got hold of him by the coat, but he slipped his coat and pushed Neville, who fell down, and they all six ran down James Street—I said "What are you doing of?" and they threatened to settle me if I did not go away—I walked away and did not give any information—I did not see the landlord come back with a policeman, I had gone—I was taken in custody the same night in a public-house in Shoreditch—Neville's brother-in-law, who had seen me with him, gave me in custody—Neville was pushed down after his bag was taken away—I did not see anybody kick him when he was down—I went home to Shore ditch down Old Street.
Cross-examined. I recognise you again—I got your name and the other names from Sweeney—I knew your face when I saw you at the police-court—the whole six had hold of Newbury—it was daylight—I did not say before the Magistrate that I went away and came back and found the soldier was robbed—you lost your jacket, and the jacket and hat that were produced belonged to you—I did not say that I only knew you by your trousers and waistcoat—I told your solicitor that your coat was Something similar to your trousers and waistcoat—you were in conversation with the other prisoners—you walked up Bath Street a yard or two behind me—the others were some behind and some in front—you went into the Green Gate with me—I know it was your coat that Neville got hold of, because you slipped it off after you robbed him, and ran off in your shirt-sleeves—I did not mention your name before the Magistrate because I was not asked—I was only asked whether I knew you—I did not know your name before I was committed for trial—I do not want to put it all on your shoulders to let your pals get their liberty—it was a pal of yours who got me convicted—I had no bad character or I should have got as much as Sweeney got—I only know the others by their nick-names—there were five in your company, and you went in to have a share of a pot of beer, which West paid for—Newbury was the worse for drink, and I don't believe he knew who robbed him—some females, who I do not know, were in his company—I am trying to get the guilty convicted, if I can—I am no scholar, and cannot tell whether this was on the 21st or 31st—no doubt the other prisoner who is convicted deserves it, and that is why he does not give evidence against you—if you were placed among 100 men I should know you.
Re-examined. The coat was produced at the police-court. and it was produced against me here on my trial—it was similar to the waistcoat and trousers the prisoner is wearing.
HENRY JENMAN (Policeman N). On Tuesday evening, 9th April, I took the prisoner in Edward Street, Hoxton, in consequence of information received after the trial of Hart and Sweeney—I charged him with being concerned with two other men in robbing a soldier in Old Street, on 5 th February—he said that I should not take him, as he was not guilty—we had a tussle for a moment, and then he went quietly to Kingsland
Road station—Maidment and Newbury arrived there together—the prisoner was placed with five or six other men, and they identified him.
Cross-examined. I saw you walking in Old Street with another man, but did not take you then, knowing his character; I let you get away from him first—I was very glad to see him go—I know the address he gives, but he does not live there—I have been looking for you ever since the other men were convicted—you ran away from Saint and I when you saw us one Sunday morning, and I did not run after you because I thought it would make you keep out of the way—you gave me your address.
The Prisoner in his defence stated that he worked at a timber merchant's, and had not been out of the way, and was innocent, but that Hart was trying to put it all upon his shoulders to save his companions from being convicted, and that he had not lost the coat belonging to the waistcoat and trousers he was then wearing, but that it was in Court.
GUILTY of robbery without violence. He was further charged with having been convicted at Worship Street in March, 1878, to which he PLEADED GUILTY**.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .
MR. COOK conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH the Defence.
ELIZABETH WOODHAM . I am female searcher at West Ham policestation—on 13th May, about 5.30, the prisoner was brought to the station—I searched her and found one table napkin, a purse in her dress pocket, 8s. in silver, and 3d. bronze—when I unfolded the table napkin, she said "I took it out of the drawer, it belongs to my master, don't let any one see it, it will go harder against me"—she also said she took the shawl because she thought it belonged to the other servant, and the might as well have it.
Cross-examined. I did not say the prisoner said "I took the shawl from my bedroom, and put it in my box; I thought it belonged to another servant that left before I came." (This was in the Deposition.)
THOMAS CHARLES PRICE . I live at Northumberland House, Forest Gate—the prisoner was our general servant four months—I lent her a silver watch to hang in the kitchen—I missed it on Saturday, May 11th—she left the house unprotected—an the Monday, in consequence of what I heard, I dismissed her—previously she wanted to buy a box—I gave her an empty one—she packed it and put a cord on it—there was a lock but no key—she asked leave to let it stop till the morning—I gave her leave—I went with my stepdaughter and opened the box—I found these things: a shawl, a curtain, a pair of cuffs and three books—they are mine—I gave information to the police—I met a constable near Forest Gate station, and another talking to him—the prisoner came up and said "Have you found the watch?"—I said "No, but I found things in the box that do not belong to you"—she did not reply—I said "You had
better come back to the house along with me," and she came back with the constable—I brought the things down—she said she did not know the curtain was in her box—the curtain was rolled in paper—I also showed her a Church service, telling her I found it in her box—she said she did not know it was there—only my stepdaughter and a little girl live with me—no other person.
Cross-examined. I have independent means—I did not dismiss the prisoner because she stole my watch, but for being absent when I was not at home—I did not accuse her of stealing it—I paid her a month's wages in advance when I dismissed her—I know she is defended by the charity of her neighbours—I gave her some curtains to make up for one of the rooms—she did it properly—this is the remainder—she said I did not find it in her box, because it was wrapped up in paper—I lent her a drawer with no key—the former servant had the same drawer—I did say at the police-court "She might have taken the shawl out by mistake and put it in her box"—two others had access to the box between 10 A.m. and 5 P.m.—I was ignorant of the law when I opened it.
Re-examined. The two girls who were in the house with me are here—I know the shawl was in the house after the prisoner came—it was not in the drawer when I gave it her.
EMILY SARAH HASTY . I am stepdaughter of the last witness—on Monday, 13th May, I went with him to the servants' bedroom—I saw the box with a cord on it, which my stepfather had given the servant—he opened the box in my presence—I had been in the house all day—no one had interfered with it—I saw the shawl taken out of the box—it had been lent to me by a friend—I had had it three months—I put it in a clothes basket—I never gave the prisoner leave to take it—I saw if in the basket about two months before—my stepfather also found this Church service which I used to keep in the breakfast parlour—I never gave it to the prisoner, nor authorised her to take it—he also found this pair of cuffs—they are my sister's—she is aged 8—the name "Comfortable" is on them—I was present when the constable came.
Cross-examined. My mother married the prosecutor, and I have lived there since—my mother is dead—a groom was in the service at the time the watch was stolen—he was there not more than a week, perhaps three days—I was told he is a married man—he was there the day before the prisoner was given into custody—there was no suspicion till I missed the watch—when my stepfather went out he did not tell me he was going to prosecute—he said he should speak to a policeman—I do not think he intended to prosecute—I never missed the piece of curtain—after the curtains were made they lay on the breakfast parlour table—I am 16 years of age—there are four bedrooms in the house—my little sister sleeps in a top room—I sleep on the second floor—Mr. Price also sleeps on the second floor—I lent the prisoner two books, "Routledge's Christmas Annual," and the "Haunted River"—she used to go to church—I did not lend her my Church service—I did not know she took it—I missed it—I never asked her for it—I asked my sister—I went to church, but not on the day I missed it—my sister's name is Jessie.
JOHN MCCARDLE (Policeman R 663). About 10 minutes to 5 on Monday, 13th May, I was on duty near Forest Hill station, when Mr. Price came to me—while he was in conversation with me the prisoner came up and said to Mr. Price "Have you heard anything more about
the watch "—Mr. Price said "No, I have found other things that do not belong to you in your box, you had better come back to the house," and (speaking to me) "You come with us"—I went—Mr. Price went upstairs, brought some things down and laid them on the table—he produced a shawl and said "I found this in her box"—she made no answer—he afterwards produced a piece of curtain and said "This I also found"—she said "Mr. Price, you never found that in my box like that, it was wrapped up in paper"—these other things were produced—I took her to the station, she was charged with stealing these things.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. FRERE conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN TAAFE (Policeman K 317). I apprehended the prisoner on Saturday, 4th May, in High Street, Stratford—George Clark charged her with bigamy—she said her husband left her five years ago, and she thought he was dead—the certificate of the marriage of George Clark and Elizabeth Wisby is dated November 12, 1862—the certificate of the marriage of Elizabeth Clark and Thomas Lawrence at Stepney is dated May 13th, 1874.
ITHIEL PRICE . I am parish clerk at Stepney—I was so in 1862—I was present on 12th September, 1862, when George Clark married Elizabeth Wisby—I was a witness—I was also present on 13th May, 1874, when Thomas Lawrence and Elizabeth Clark were married at the same church—I attested the certificate—I cannot identify the prisoner as the person who was married in 1874.
CHARLOTTE POOLE . I am the wife of John Poole, of Harrow Bridge, Stratford—I remember my nephew George Clark marrying the prisoner in 1862—I was not present—they lived as man and wife over twelve years—the husband left her to go to sea five years ago—she said he did not leave her the half-pay—the husband has been away four times during the last five years—I have met him and spoken to him at his mother's house—he had not been away five years before May, 1874.
Witness for the Defence.
ELIZA FRENCH . I live at 102, Johnson Street, Camden Town—I have known the prisoner since 11th April last—she occupied a room with me in the name of Clark—she told me her husband was at sea—she did not mention having heard of his death—no one lived with her.
Prisoner's Defence."My husband went away five years ago. On 15th March last he went to New York. He deserted his ship. I heard the report of his death. I have frequently seen my husband, and he has given me money."
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy on account of her ignorance. — Three Month's Imprisonment .
Before Mr. Justice Mellor.
THOMAS BOVINGTON . I am a butcher, and live at 48, Milk wood Road, Brixton—on Monday morning, between 1 and 2 o'clock, I laid down to rest on a couch, in the shop parlour—my wife (the prisoner) was upstairs in the bedroom—I was awoke between 3 and 4 o'clock by a blow on the head, and found myself covered with blood and my wife standing beside me—I did not see anything in her hand—I sent for a doctor, who came and attended to me—my wife remained in the parlour—she did not appear to be conscious of what she had done—she had been drinking freely for the last three weeks—seven or eight days before this she had given me a slight hit on the head with a ginger-beer bottle—after she had done this she said, "What is the matter, Tom? what have they been doing to you?"—she was very strange for some time past—we lost a child a few years ago, which I think preyed on her mind.
Cross-examined. The child died in 1871—that has preyed on her mind on different occasions, or else a better wife could not be; she has never shown the least ill-feeling towards me—this arose from excitement through drinking spirits—she would never have done it if she had been in her right senses—she is very penitent, and says she will never touch a drop of spirits again—I earnestly appeal on her behalf.
GUILTY of Unlawfully Wounding. — Four Months' Imprisonment .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
586. THOMAS ROBERTS (28) PLEADED GUILTY to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Fanny Holborn with intent to steal; also to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Evans with intent to steal.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment . And
587. FREDERICK BIRKENSHAW (47) to feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 1l. with intent to defraud (There were three similar indictments against him).— Five Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.
JOHN SEXTON . I am a baker, of 167, Camberwell New Road—on 12th April, between 3 and 4 P.m., I served the prisoner with two pennyworth of cake—he gave me a half-crown; I saw that it was bad as it laid on the counter, and asked him where he got it—he said he did not know; he thought he took it on Saturday night for his week's wages, but was not sure—I sent for a constable, and gave him in custody with the half-crown—he was remanded till the 16th and discharged.
WILLIAM MARSHALL (Policeman P 305). I was called to Mr. Sexton's shop and received this half-crown—I asked the prisoner where he got it; he said he could not account for it in any way, and that he was at work the day before at Mr. Austin's, a tobacco manufacturer in the Borough—I ascertained that he was an apprentice there, but had not been there for a fortnight—I found nothing on him—he gave his name "Arthur Anderson"—he was taken before a Magistrate, remanded till the 17th, and discharged.
HENRY GODDARD NICHOLSON . I live at 77, Newington Butts, and am assistant to a hosier—on 27th April I sold the prisoner a collar for 6d.—he gave me a florin—I suspected it, but gave him the change, and he left—I did not put it in the till; I fried it with a tester and found it
was bad—I went out and saw the prisoner coming out of a street opposite—I said, "This is a bad two-shilling piece you have given me; give me another"—he said, "I have no more"—I said, "Then come along with me"—he immediately ran away, but was caught and given in custody—I gave the florin to the constable.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You did not see me put it in the till, for I did not do so—I kept it in my hand.
EDWIN JOSEPH COPPENDALE . I am a warder at Newington Prison—on the afternoon of 27th April I saw the prisoner and Nicholson together opposite the shop where Nicholson serves—I saw the prosecutor showing something to the prisoner, and saw the prisoner break away—I pursued him—I was in uniform—he ran about half a mile into a mews which is no thoroughfare, and I gave him into custody—I had seen him in the gaol on the 13th and knew him by sight.
JOHN BEALE (303 P). I saw Coppendale running after the prisoner, who gave him into my custody—I asked him what he was running for—he said "I am accused of stealing something from a shop in Newington Butts, but I have not done so"—I found on him 1s. 6d. and 4 1/2d. in bronze, and a collar—I received this florin from Mr. Nicholson.
Prisoner's Defence. I received them of a mate of mine who owed me some money.
GUILTY .— Twelve Month's Imprisonment .
MR. A. B. KELLY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. DAVIS appeared for Withers.
HENRY WATERFIELD . I am Secretary of the Statistical Department, East India Office, and live at East Sheen—on the 15th April I was dining out—a message was brought to me and I went home at 10 o'clock and found the police in possession of my house—I missed from the diningroom a marble clock and a musical box, and from my bedroom a portmanteau with clothes and other things in it which I had left open in the morning—this is a list of them—I also missed a dark grey overcoat which I think was in the bedroom—I value the whole at about 30l.—a very old rough tweed coat was, about a week afterwards, brought to me by the police—on the 7th May I went to Worship Street police-court and saw Darcy there wearing the very coat which had been hanging in my dressing-room—I believe this is it (produced)—I have not the slightest doubt it was mine—this other coat was brought to me by the police.
Cross-examined. I have not been in Portsmouth for many years—I do not go to marine stores there and did not meet Withers there—the policeman brought the coat to my house—I am quite certain about it—I have no other coat like it—it was made for me by a tailor named Wyatt—I had not worn it for about a year before the robbery—before the Magistrate I said that I was not quite sure about the wrist buttons, but when I got home I asked my wife how the sleeves were made—when I was examined on the 10th May I said "The coat produced I believe is mine"—that was the tweed coat, and on the 15th I was quite certain.
Cross-examined by Darcy. I recognise the dark coat by the general make, the manner in which it has been worn, the way it fitted me, and the colour and the arrangements of the pockets—there are four pockets and
one is rather smaller than the others—I never had any doubt as to the coat you were wearing—I said "I am as certain as it is possible to be that that coat is mine," not "as near as possible."
Re-examined. It has the peculiarity of fitting me, and I have no doubt whatever about it.
JAMES MINCHINTON . I am a pensioner from the Metropolitan Police, and live at East Sheen—on 15th April I was working in Richmond Park about 6 P.m. and saw three men with a horse and cart standing opposite Mr. Waterfield's house—Darcy is one of them—I heard of the robbery about 7 o'clock and gave information to the police.
Cross-examined by Darcy. I saw you at Worship Street before you were at Richmond, that was on 27th April—you were with seven others and I identified you—I saw you again at Richmond on 8th May with seven or eight men, and had not the least doubt of you—I am sure of you now.
Cross-examined by MR. DAVIS. I identified nobody but Darcy at Richmond.
HENRY WALL . I live with my mother, who was keeping the prosecutor's house—I was living in a cottage, but went to see her on this day about 5.10 as I came from school, and as I passed the front gate two men came round by the pillar box—Darcy is one of them—another man had the gate half open—Darcy had gone about two yards farther on and was looking about to see if anybody was coming—there was no horse and cart there—I said to the man who was opening the gate "Nobody is at home, sir"—I believe he came out, and Darcy turned to his companion and said "Come on, we will come back again"—they walked on about four yards before me to the Plough, and I went in at Mr. Waterfield's back gate, knocked at the door, and my mother opened it—I looked at the clock as soon as I got in, and it was exactly 12 minutes past 5—I wondered what time I should have to play at cricket and came out at 18 minutes to 6—I met some schoolfellows and then went back and saw a cart in front of Mr. Waterfield's, with one man in it with the reins and whip in his hand ready for driving, and two men by the cart—one man jumped up by the steps and got into the cart, and the other jumped up behind, and they were off like lightning—Darcy is the man who got into the cart—I then went and played at cricket.
Cross-examined by Darcy. I did not pick you out at Worship Street, but when I got outside I spoke to the policeman—when I saw you at Richmond you were placed with several other men and I said that you looked very much like the man—I was certain you were the man directly I saw you, and I am certain now—I was not certain of you at Worship Street—I believe you are the one who got on the steps—I have not stated that you were the one that got in at the back of the cart—I did not see your face but I saw your figure—I did not see what coloured clothes you were wearing.
Re-examined. Darcy is one of the two men I first saw at the gate, and it is by his face that I know him now—he was outside when the other had the gate half open and he jumped into the cart.
WILLIAM SEELEY (Detective V). On 7th May I went to Worship Street with Mr. Waterfield—we saw Darcy there and told him to take off his coat—he did so, and Mr. Waterfield examined it and said "I am certain it is mine"—Darcy said "I can prove where I got the coat
from"—I took him to Richmond and next morning I told him the charge—he made no answer.
ROBERT SAGE (Detective N). On 9th May I saw Withers at the Portsmouth police-court and told him I should take him in custody for receiving a coat that was stolen from Richmond—he said "Three men came to my place and left the coat and I pledged it and a pair of boots with it for 9s."—I went to the pawnbrokers and this grey tweed coat was taken from them by Bidgood and shown to Withers, who said "That is the coat the man left and the coat I pledged."
Cross-examined by MR. DAVIS. I only saw Withers's shop once—I believe it is a marine-store shop—Bidgood took him in custody for another offence and I took him for this offence—he did not say what he gave for the coat—I have seen a great many coats like it.
CHARLES BIDGOOD (Detective Officer, Portsmouth). On 1st May I went with the chief constable to Withers's house, 10, White's Row, Portsea—I took the pawn-ticket in my hand and he handed it to Withers—next morning I took it to Mr. Baker's shop, late Howell's, and presented it—he produced a grey tweed coat pledged with a pair of boots for 9s. on 29th April in the name of George Withers, 10, White's Row.
Cross-examined by MR. DAVIS. I know Withers's shop—he does not deal much in coats, except old soldiers' coats—he buys of the Government—he is a general marine-store dealer.
ANN FOGWELL . I live with my husband at 48, White's Row, Portsmouth, opposite Withers's house—on Easter Monday I was sitting on my door step at needlework and saw three men come down and speak to Withers, who was at his door sorting rags—they stood speaking to him a few minutes and then went inside and Withers followed them—Darcy is one of them—I have no doubt of him at all.
Darcy. I most undoubtedly acknowledge being there.
Cross-examined by MR. DAVIS. It is the nature of Withers's business to buy old clothes—I think one man had a coat on his arm—they went right through the shop into the back room—I have no animosity against Withers.
Re-examined. He sells old clothes as well as buys them, and hangs them out at his door—I identified the other two men at Portsmouth on another charge, so that I have identified all three.
MR. DAVIS submitted that there was no case against Withers; he was charged with stealing and receiving the property in the place where the robbery was committed, which was not borne out by the evidence, as he might have received it at Portsmouth, out of the jurisdiction of this Court. MR. A. B. KELLY relied upon the statement in Arch bold, "A receiver may be tried in the county in which the principal is," and contended that he was not bound to show where the property got into Withers's possession. The COURT considered that as the principal may be tried within the jurisdiction of the COURT, so may the receiver be, and that MR. DAVIS must address himself to the receiving only.
JOHN O'CALLAGHAN (Police Inspector N). I was present when Darcy's lodgings were searched, and this bag was found locked—it was forced open in my presence, and a change of linen and this skeleton key found in it—the bag was shown to Darcy, and he said that it was his.
Cross-examined by Darcy. That was produced at Richmond and it Worship Street—you were discharged at Worship Street in order that you might be charged with this; but you were not acquitted—I applied to the Magistrate to hare you discharged, as an officer was waiting to apprehend you on a stronger charge.
Darcy in his defence complained that the bag and key had been brought forward to prejudice the minds of the Jury, as they did not relate to this case. He contended that there was nothing by which the coat could be identified, and stated that Waterfield and Minchinton failed to identify him at Worship Street, but only said that he was like the man, and that the witnesses who identified him at Richmond had previously seen him at Worship Street; that Wall did not profess to have seen his face, and did not know what clothes he wore; that although he went to Portsmouth on an excursion on Easter Monday, and was seen to go into Withers's shop, the witness could not see what he did inside, and contended that a driver having something the matter with hie wheels might have to pull up outside a house, not knowing that a robbery had been committed there.
DARCY— GUILTY . He was further charged with a previous conviction at Newington in September, 1871, to which he PLEADED GUILTY**.— Ten Year's Penal Servitude . WITHERS— GUILTY of receiving. He was further charged with a previous conviction at this Court in July, 1868, to which he PLEADED GUILTY. He received a good character.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .
590. ANN LOUISA NEIL (35), JOHANNA FOX (18), CHARLES FOX (28), and GEORGE FREDERICK POYNTON (35), Stealing a will, copy of a will, and other articles, of the value of 40l., the goods of Benjamin Stephen Bovill. Other Counts for receiving.
BENJAMIN STEPHEN BOVILL . I reside at Froyle Park, Alton, Hants—on Thursday, 11th April, I went to bed about 12, and left the house perfectly safe—the next morning my servant came to me, and I examined the house and found it had been entered by the drawing-room window—the drawers of my library table had been forced, and the copy of a will and (p tome of a will, had been taken out (produced)—I also identify this umbrella, which was in the hall (produced), and also this pipe and coat of my son's (produced), which were taken during the night—they also turned out two boxes of cigars similar to these produced.
WILLIAM HULLOCK . I am butler to Mr. Bovill—the house was secured on the night in question, and at 7.30 the next morning I found the drawing-room window had been forced open and a cabinet in the drawing room had been broken open, from which nothing was missed—I saw a dozen billiard-balls on a chair which were in the billiard-room the night before—I then missed two umbrellas, of which I see one here, and four overcoats, of which this is one—I found a broken chisel and a knife in the conservatory, which opens out from the dining-room.
MATTHEW FOX (Inspector Metropolitan Police). On Sunday, the 14th April, at 1 A.m., I went to 17, Harriet Street, Lower Marsh, basement room front, where I saw the five men, Neil, Fox, and Poynton being
amongst them—they were singing, smoking, and drinking—I was accompanied by Chamberlain and Jupe—I laid hold of Poynton and said I would apprehend him with Fox and Neil for having committed several burglaries—he made no reply—Chamberlain and Jupe apprehended Fox and Neil, and the other two men were also taken to the station, but ultimately discharged—I remained to search the place with Chamberlain and Jupe—I said to Poynton "Whose place is this?" and he said "It is mine, and these are my wife and children," pointing to four small children who were also in the room—in a cupboard in the room I found the papers which have been produced, and in a chest of drawers I found this pipe and these cigars—I saw Jupe find this duplicate in a vase on the mantelpiece along with others, and I also found this umbrella.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I don't know Mrs. Neil.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I found Poynton's rent-book and several letters addressed to him at 17, Harriet Street—I found nothing showing money to be due to him—I didn't carefully examine one paper I found—I only looked for property that had been stolen—I have heard Poynton has been to America—I had never been to this house before—I know that a man named Ivera was charged with receiving a coat belonging to Poynton—it was proved that he had bought it from Poynton and he was discharged—it was also proved that it was a stolen coat—I had not a warrant with me when I went to Harriet Street—it is not usual with such characters as the prisoners.
Re-examined. The coat was stolen from a Mr. Turner, of Wimbledon Park, where there was a burglary.
THOMAS GOMM . I am assistant to H. and T. F. Davidson, 145, Waterloo Road, pawnbrokers—this coat was pawned with us on the morning of the 13th April in the name of George Brennan for 8s. 6d.—this is the duplicate (produced)—I do not identify the person.
HENRY MCCRORY (Inspector V Division). On 12th April, about 5 A.m., I went to 19, Points Road, Battersea, and saw the two female prisoners in the passage—before I said anything Mrs. Neil said "They are not here, sir"—I said "Who?"—she said "My husband; he has been out all night and has not returned; you can search the house"—she occupied the bottom part of the house, the front and back parlours and Kitchen—Mrs. Fox said she and her husband occupied the top front room—I took them into custody and charged them with unlawful possession of a large quantity of property—I searched their rooms in their presence—I have a list of what I found in each room, kept separate—they have all been identified (A quantity of articles were produced)—I found all these articles, with the exception of the musical box, which has been handed over to me by another man after they were taken into custody.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I found Mrs. Neil up—I have heard that Police-constable Walters had called there at two or three o'clock—I don't know that he saw Mrs. Neil partially undressed—she was married about five months ago—she has been at that house more than three or four months—the landlord is here—a man named Waters has been employing her and he gave her a good character.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. Mrs. Fox had been married only a short
time before she was taken—she has never before had any charge made against her—she lived with her mother before marriage—I have heard nothing against the mother.
Re-examined. After marriage she lived with her husband in the room upstairs at Points Road.
WILLIAM BANKS HUDSON . I live at Westfield House, Thornton Road, Clapham Park—during the night of 21st December my house was broken into and a number of articles were taken to the value of about 20l, these two tablecloths amongst other things (produced).
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. Mrs. Fox was admitted to bail.
EDWARD THOMAS BIGGS . I am a pawnbroker and jeweller, of Maidenhead, Berks—on the night of the 11th January last my shop was broken into and 500l. worth of property taken—these ear-rings and chain are a portion of the property, and both these rings, which latter have my private mark scratched on them inside.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. There is no private mark on the ear-rings.
Re-examined. I have no doubt they are mine.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I mean by Mrs. Neil's room the room occupied by the prisoner Neil and the man who escaped.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. Mrs. Fox was let out on her own recognisances last night.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. The cupboard was not locked.
GEORGE TARLING . I am in the employ of Mr. Colleck, pawnbroker, of High Street, Battersea—I produce these two rings, one is pawned for 13s. on the 15th March in the name of Ann Neil—I did not take them in—the second ring was pawned on 1st April for 9s. in the name of Ann Fox—I know the female prisoners as customers—these duplicates relate to the rings (produced).
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I have known Mrs. Neil as a customer for three months—the ring she pawned was in her own name.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I didn't take the things in.
By the COURT. I have known Mrs. Fox for about three months.
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. They were not wrapped up.
Re-examined. There were nine or ten there.
DAVID HILLIER . I am a jeweller, of Caterham—on the night of 7th March my shop was broken into and about 200l. worth of property stolen—this is one of the scarf-pins, also this drum-clock, &c. (A large number of trinkets were produced and identified by the witness,)
Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. You won't see any pins hardly made like that—they are generally simply put into the top without that ring at the bottom.
(HENRT MCCRORY identified the articles as having found them at 19, Points Road, in the female prisoners' rooms, and which were not under lock and key.)
GEORGE TASLING (Re-examined)These four pawn-tickets relate to property pawned with me (produced)—I took in the ring pledged for 5s. in the name of Johanna Fox, and ear-rings 3s. 6d. pawned by Ann Neil.
JOHN JACKSON . I am a contractor, of Castle Wood, Shooter's Hill, Kent—on the night of the 4th April, or the morning of the 5th, my house was broken into and things to the value of about 15l. were taken—this great-coat I missed the next morning, and these two cigarholders, meerschaum pipe, two tobacco pouches, and a knife (produced).
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I found them on 12th April.
CHARLES EDWARD HOCKING . I live at the "Limes," Truro Road, Wood Green, Middlesex, and am a surgeon—on the night of 10th April my house was broken into and a knife and fork, two pipes, one brandy bottle, one table napkin, three volumes of Scott's novels, five dinner and four breakfast knives were stolen—the bottle had been full of brandy—the value of the property is about 40l.
EMILY LLOYD . I am the wife of Charles Lloyd and am housekeeper to Mr. Baum, of Lime Lodge, Upper Richmond Road, Putney—the house was broken into on the night of the 11th April—I identify these two coats, two dresses, and hand-bag, as my master's, which articles were taken that evening.
JOHN WALTERS (Policeman 160 V). On 12th April at 3.45 A.m. I was on duty in Leach mere Road, Battersea, near the railway, which is bounded by a fence—I saw two men getting over, one of whom was Fox—I had seen him before—I believe the other was Neil, the husband of the female prisoner—I should think the fence is about 100 yards from Points Road—I ran after them and they went to No. 19 and knocked at
the door—I asked Fox, who was carrying a bag, what he had got there—the moment I asked that, Neil struck me on the head with some instrument, which rendered me insensible at the time—Fox had stood the bag down by the door and they both ran away towards the railway again—I followed, but was too weak to pursue them farther—I went back to the house and found the bag at the side of the door—it contained the property which has been identified by Emily Lloyd—Neil dropped this hat (produced) close to the house—I believe Fox owned it as his at the police court—I gave information to Inspector Crory.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I went to 19, Points Road at about 5 A.m. with an inspector—I believe he knocked at the door.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. Fox was about as he is now, clean shaved—I didn't notice whether he had been drinking—I am sure Fox spoke of the hat at the police-court—I saw them both together running towards home.
(MR. PURCELL submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury in respect of the woman Neil, and MR. KEITH FRITH made a similar intimation in respect of the woman Fox. MR. STRAIGHT thought it safer to centre the case on the men, and the COURT ruled accordingly.)
CHARLES FOX** and GEORGE FREDERICK POYNTON*—
GUILTY of Receiving. There were seven other indictments against the Prisoners, on which the Prosecution did not propose to proceed. FOX— Ten Years' Penal Servitude .
POYNTON— Seven Years' Penal Servitude . (An order was made for the restitution of the property to the respective owners.)
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution.
REVEREND THOMAS JOSEPH GASTER . I am a clergyman living at Parsonage House, Rye Lane, Peckham—on Monday, 13 th May, I went to bed about 11 P.m.—the house was all safe—I heard a noise about 1 o'clock—I roused my wife and family—my son and I went down and found the nursery window open and the shutter down—a carpet, five chairs, and three Bibles were missing—the prisoner was outside—I asked him to give me a hand in with the chairs—he did so—I afterwards saw this jacket at the police-court—it is my property—I asked the prisoner what business he had there—he gave several confused and broken answers.
THOMAS FRANK GASTER . I went down stairs before my father and saw the window broken and the sash reversed—I went on to the slope—I saw the prisoner, and the chairs, a carpet, and three Bibles—I said "Whatever are you here for?"—he said "Oh, I was told to take charge of these chairs"—the things were all in the house the previous night—I said to the prisoner "Will you help me in with these, please"—he said "I will, most willingly," and he did so—I kept him in conversation till a policeman came, and gave him into custody.
window sill and talking to the prosecutor—the prosecutor said his house had been entered and a quantity of chairs, a carpet, and three Bibles taken away—I asked the prisoner what he had done and how he came there—he said he had been called in Rye Lane by a man who asked him to look after the chairs—I took him to the police-station and searched him—I found this putty-knife and this jacket on him—I tried the knife with the marks on the window and they correspond—I found the window open and the shutter down.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I do not know anything about the things at the gentleman's house at all. A chap asked me to go down there, and as soon as I got there the constable took me."
The Prisoner's Defence. I went to a beershop in Rye Lane to fetch my apron and putty-knife, which I had left there a day or two before, and on going home at 12 o'clock at night I met a chap who said."Give us a hand with one or two things down here." I had had a drop too much and I went with him. He says "Here's the things."I stood by the things a little while, when the policeman came up and took me. The gentleman asked me if I would hand the things in, and I helped him in directly. That is all I know about it. NOT GUILTY .
WILLIAM GOLDING . I am a jobmaster, of 36, South Street, Walworth—on 3rd May White came to my place about 9.30 A.m.—he said he wanted to hire a horse and cart for a few hours—I agreed to let them for the day for 14s., which he paid me—he took them away—it was a black mare, a green cart, and a silver-plated set of harness—the address he gave was 9, Liverpool Street, Walworth—the horse and cart did not come back, in consequence of which I sent my man to that address—he did not get the horse and cart—I gave information to the police the next morning—on the following Monday I saw my horse and cart in the green yard at Dartford—White and Bennett were then in custody—I charged them with stealing it—they said they were drunk when they disposed of it, they had changed it away for another one—White said "I had the horse and cart of you"—I do not think he was drunk.
JAMES EASTWOOD . I am a hawker, of East Lane, Dartford—on Saturday, 4th May, I was driving through Dartford about 10 A.m.—I saw the prisoners standing at the door of a public-house—they called me—I pulled up—Bennett asked whether there was a fair or market on—I said "No, there is only a fish market on"—he said "Because I have a horse and cart to sell"—I said "Where is it?"—he said "The horse is in the yard and the cart in the stable," and I might buy it—I went and looked at it—I said "How much for the horse, cart, and harness?"—he said "I have been asking 22l., I will take 20l. for it now; I would as lief change it as sell it—I said "How much shall I give you to change my horse and cart?"—he said "6l."—I said "I will give you 3l."—at last I gave him 4l.—I got a young gentleman in the public-house to write out a receipt like this one, and he guided my hand to make an X—both prisoners were present—I asked
Bennett how long he had had the horse and cart—he said "A good while"—there was no name on the cart—I showed it to my brother and in consequence of what he said I told the police, afterwards I went after the men—I caught them about a mile and a half on the London Road—Bennett said "You have had the best deal"—I said "Have I?"—he said I will give you half-a-crown to chop again"—I said "I know a gentleman who will buy it if you will come back again"—t'other one says "Let's go back"—we got a little way along and he would hare a pot of ale—they came back to the public-house at Dartford, where I told them to wait while I fetched the man—I fetched a policeman, who took Bennett into custody, and I brought back the other man.
Cross-examined by Bennett. We had a pot of ale after the deal, not before—you didn't seem drunk—the young gentleman had brandy—you didn't say on the London Road "Will you let me have it back? it is quite wrong, we want it back" nor "You won't get rid of it, for it ain't ours"—you said "I shall take your horse and cart home," and went off on the London road.
CHARLES FRIED . I am superintendent of the Dartford Constabulary—the last witness made a communication to me on the 4th May and I sent him for the two men—an hour afterwards they were brought to the station by a constable and the last witness—the horse and cart were also brought—I said "How do you account for these, are these your own property?"—Bennett said they were, and produced a receipt with "W. Bennett, New Gross Gate" on it—I asked if that was his name—he said it was, that he was a dealer—I said "There is something wrong about this transaction"—Bennett said they were his own—he afterwards said he had bought them the day before at Deptford, and he appealed to White as to how long he had known him—White said he had only seen him two or three times, but ultimately said he had known him 12 months—both had been drinking, but knew the questions put to them—I found on Bennett 5l. 10s. 10d., some keys, and a chisel; on White a latch or skeleton key, a hammer, knife, rule, and 5s. 11d.—he first gave an address James Street, Poplar, and ultimately in Wandsworth, which I believe is correct—I made inquiries and afterwards told them they would be charged with stealing the horse and cart—Bennett said it was done in a drunken spree—White made no reply.
White's Defence. "I was in drink at the time I had it and I am sorry for what I have done."
Bennett's Defence. "A greengrocer called out 'You have made a poor deal. I will give you 3l. for the lot.'"
GUILTY . WHITE, who also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction for felony in December, 1874, at St. Mary's, Newington, in the name of John Brown— Two Years' Imprisonment . BENNETT— One Year's Imprisonment .
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, May 29th,
~OLD.—COURT Thursday, May 30th, 1878, and eight following days.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
593. THOMAS GARD WOOD (44), JAMES TESSIER NORTHCOTT (36), GEORGE THOMPSON (69), WILLIAM SHAW (37), THOMAS SLINKER (58), GEORGE SHAW (40), and THOMAS SHAW (25),were indicted (with Alfred Shaw, not in custody), for unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from Janet Gray an order for the payment of 6l. 0s. 2d., with intent to defraud. Other Counts for obtaining other sums from other persons, and for conspiracy.
MR. GORST, Q. C., with MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT, conducted the Prosecution; MESSRS. BESLEY and SIMS appeared for Wood; MESSRS. J. P. GRAIN and HORACE AVORY for orthcott; MR. A.B. KELLY for Thompson; MR. M. WILLIAMS for William Shaw; MR. CARR for Slinker; and Mr. W. SLEIGH for Thomas Shaw.
ALFRED ISAAC WRIGHT . I am a shorthand "writer—I was present before Master Kay, one of the Masters of the Common Pleas division of the High Court, on 9th May, 1877, when Northcott was sworn and examined, in an action against the Albion Life Assurance Society—I took down the questions ana answers—this is a correct transcript of the evidence Northcott gave.
WILLIAM HAISH DAVIS . I am one of the firm of Cherer, Bennett, and Davis, shorthand writers—I attended at the request of the Solicitor to the Treasury, in the action of Blake v. The Albion Insurance Society, before Lord Coleridge and a Special Jury, on 31st January, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th February; it was then adjourned to 6th March—I was not present when the verdict was returned—the defendants Thompson and North cott were examined on 5th February as witnesses for the defence, and I took down their evidence, question and answer—I have got my original notes from which I made this transcript (produced), it is a correct statement of their evidence—Mr. Cocks took down the evidence on 6th March.
WILLLAM COCKS . I am a shorthand writer—I attended the trial of Blake v. The Albion Insurance Society on 6th March—before the summing up Thompson was recalled at the request of one of the Jury, and gave further evidence, which I took down, and have made this transcript of it, which is correct—a verdict was then returned for the plaintiff. (The transcripts were here put in and read. Sergeant Little child proved the service of notices on the prisoners to produce certain documents.)
JAMES HORSEY . I live at Sheerness Dockyard—in 1866 I was living there with my sister-in-law, Miss Janet Gray—about April, 1866, she showed me an advertisement in the Standard newspaper, relating to an advance of money, purporting to come from Mr. Wood, of 15, Dover Place, Kent Road—it was similar to this advertisement produced: "Money to lend, in town or country, to gentlemen, farmers, tradesmen, and others, from 50l. and upwards, upon personal security. Interest five per cent. per annum. One to seven years. No commission or charge made. Also sums on mortgage at three and a half per cent. on freehold and leasehold property, for any term not exceeding 21 years. T. Wood, Esq., Solicitor, 15, Dover Place, S. E. Established 1829."—My sister-in-law was in want of a loan of 100l., and I answered the advertisement for her—I received by post a reply, dated April 3rd, 1866, on a letter with a printed heading: "15, Dover Place, and 178, New Kent Road, London, S. E., late 7, Cook's Court, Lincoln's Inn. T. G. Wood." (This stated that the lady wishing to barrow must make application herself and give particulars of amount and term, and would have to insure her life in an office named by him.) I wrote and gave the name of a reference. On the 14th
April I received this letter, addressed to my sister (Enclosing a form of insurance proposal for the Albion, and directing the applicant to go to Dr. Ward, of Sheerness). My sister went to the doctor, filed up the form, and returned it, but I do not know where to. On April 18th I received a letter signed "George Thompson."(This was headed "Albion Life Assurance Society, "and stated that the proposal of insurance for 200l. was accepted, and the premium was 6l. 0s. 2d.) On April 19th, I received a letter signed T.G. Wood. (This stated that if a cheque or post-office order were sent to him he would get the policy.) Upon that I got a post-office order for 6l. 0s. 2d., and sent it to Wood. I afterwards received this receipt, dated 20th April, for 6l. 0s. 2d., less 10s. 6d. The 10s. 6d. was the doctor's fee. I afterwards received this policy (produced), dated 25th April. On 1st May I received a letter from Wood, addressed "Dear Madam."(This asked for the policy and 3l. 10s. to defray the law charges incidental to the loan.) On the receipt of that letter I went with Miss Gray to 15, Dover Place—we saw Mr. Wood—we introduced ourselves to him, and spoke about the advance—we asked him if there would be any difficulty in securing the advance; he said, "None whatever," upon which we paid him the 3l. 10s., for which he gave us this receipt (Dated 2nd May, 1866)—the policy was left with him—I afterwards received this letter (Dated 3rd May, forwarding draft securities for approval)—the drafts were a personal bond, an assignment of the policy, a statutory declaration to be made before a Magistrate, something to be signed by two sureties, and a bill of sale—I recommended my sister not to entertain it for a moment, and wrote to Wood on the subject—I afterwards received this letter, signed "T.G. Wood," dated 5th May. (This stated that all the drafts were in accordance with the written authority, and unless they were complied with the matter could not proceed.) Several other letters were received, and I think we saw Wood a second time—we received this letter, dated May 7th. (This stated that the bill of sale must he registered.) On 9th May we received this letter (Stating that the names of securities had not been sent), and on 11th May this letter (Stating that the securities could not be dispensed with)—Miss Gray is not here; she is ill—this is a copy of a letter written by my wife—all the letters are my dictation, and signed by Miss Gray, who is nearly blind—I wrote the fair copy of this letter; Miss Gray signed it, and I posted it. (This was addressed to Mr. Wood, returning the papers received, stating that Mr. Harris would become her security, and requesting the agent to call on Monday to conclude the business.) We afterwards received this letter. (This was dated May 22nd, signed "T.G. Wood," stating that, having seen his client again, he declined to dispense with two sureties, and therefore returned the life policy.) I then sent this letter to the same address. (This expressed surprise at the return of the policy, and requested arrangements to be made for the agent's visit.) On 28th May I wrote this letter. (This stated that Mr. A, Mayall had consented to become the second security for Miss Gray.) To that we received this answer. (This was dated May 29th, signed "T.G. Wood," stating that it would be necessary for him personally to make a journey to inquire into the proposed securities, and that his expenses would be 2l. 2s. for loss of time and first-class train.) On 1st June I got this letter on the same letter paper (Signed "T. G. Wood," and stating that the return fare to Portsmouth was 28s., that it would, take two days at 2l. 2s. a day, making 4l. 4s., and requesting the witness to send him
5l. more, or give securities who did not live to far away)—I answered that on 2nd June; this is a copy of my answer. (This enclosed a post-office order for 2l. 2s., and stated that this would make the total money paid 15l. 0s. 2d., and that the advertisement distinctly referred to town and country.) On 4th June I received this acknowledgment, addressed to Mr. James Hanley—I think I saw Mr. Wood twice, but this is twelve years ago—on 6th June I received this letter from 15, Dover Place: "Yours received. Mr. Wood will, on his return from Scotland next week, attend to this matter "—on 14th June Miss Gray received this letter: "Dear Madam,—Your proposed security, Mr. Mayall, has refused to become security for you, and I have received an extraordinary letter from Mr. Horsey"—I suppose I had upbraided him for raising the question of sureties—this is a copy of a letter of 15th June written by my wife, but indited by me; the rough was written first, and then I made the fair copy from my wife's writing, and Miss Gray signed it—it was signed unquestionably, but I have no recollection of posting it—I put it into an envelope, and addressed it myself to Wood at 15, Dover Street—I put it in a letter-box in the lobby at my official residence, which is cleared twice a day by a lettercarrier—it is impossible for me to say that Miss Gray never posted a letter or directed the envelope herself. (This stated that the writer had expended nearly 20l., and called upon Wood to complete the loan. Another letter from the same to the same, was put in, stating that Mr. A. Mayall was perfectly willing to become security, and requesting an immediate reply.) I then wrote this letter without date: "I have just received a note from my friend Mr. Mayall, in which he informs me that you have thrown suspicion upon my circumstances. My official salary is equal to 550l."&c. (and threatening to hand over the whole correspondence to Mr. H. Chamberlain, solicitor, of Chancery Lane)—on 3rd July Miss Gray received this letter from Wood, stating that his client would require a bill of sale, so much demur having been occasioned—I refused to give a bill of sale—I do not think I wrote to that effect, but the matter dropped, and the policy was not renewed at the end of the year—this is the printed proposal; it is filled up by Mr. Horsey and signed by Miss Gray—it is my impression that the heading had the name and address written on it when it came—I read the advertisement, and believed the terms stated in it—in 1871 I saw an advertisement in the Standard similar to this: "Money to lend," &c. (as before), apply to R.F. Preston, Esq., 120, Southampton Row, London, W. C.—I was in want of a small loan, and answered it, and received by post this letter, dated 17th June. (MR. WILLIAMS Contended that this was not evidence, as there was no proof of Preston's signature or of who he was. MR. POLAND stated that he should prove that Preston was Alfred Shaw, who had escaped. The COURT considered that, although the letter was not evidence until it was connected with the prisoners, it was admissible as part of the res gestae, the Indictment being against the prisoners and others for conspiracy.) This is the letter. (This was signed" Reginald F. Preston, dated 17th June, 1871, in reply to the witness's application for 100l., offering to lend that sum on deposit of a life policy for 150l. in an office to be selected by him.) I had applied for the loan for three years at 5 per cent., and sent the names of references—I then received a letter signed "R.F. Preston," enclosing form of agreement and consent to borrow—I did not keep copies of them, and am speaking from memory—I wrote to Mr. Preston at the same address on 22nd June, and
sent the documents signed, and on the 23rd I received this letter: "You will have to give your bond, and assign the policy to me, R. F. Preston.") I afterwards received this letter. (This was signed "R.F. Preston, June. 26," and enclosed an insurance proposal, with directions to apply to a medical referee.) This form of the Albion was enclosed, and my impression is that my name and address were upon it when I received it—I filled it up for 360l., dated it "27th June, 1871," and sent it back either to the office or to Mr. Preston—I afterwards paid the premium, 24l. 1s. 7d., at the Albion Office, Chancery Lane. (The receipt was here put in, and a certificate that the witness's life was insured, and that a policy should be prepared.) I got that at the office—I will not be certain whether the policy was sent to me or not—I then received this letter: "18th July. Dear Sir,—What are you doing about the insurance? Yours truly, R.F. Preston"—I called at 120, Southampton Row, which is a private house, and inquired for Mr. Preston—I think there was a lower office; but a clerk handed me upstairs, where I saw William Shaw to the best of my belief—I said who I was, and that I had called about the advance—he said that there would be no difficulty; I should have to insure my life and deposit the policy with him, and the advance would be made: no other conditions were imposed—my impression was that I was addressing Mr. Preston—I do not remember whether the policy was sent to me from the office; but I afterwards received this letter. (Dated 5th August, asking for a post-office order for 5l. 5s. to defray legal and incidental charges.) I then wrote this letter: "5th August. Will you give me a written assurance that nothing in the shape of a bill of sale is intended, and on the receipt of your reply I will at once remit you 5l. 5s. for legal charges"—on 7th June I received the reply from R.F. Preston, stating that a bill of sale would not be required—I then dent a post-office order for 5l. 5s. to Preston, and received this acknowledgment, and on August 10th this letter. (Enclosing five draft securities for perusal and approval.) The securities were precisely the same as I had received from Wood, a statutory declaration, a bill of sale, and documents to be signed by two sureties, a bond, and an assignment of the policy—I think I sent them back, and said that I would have nothing to do with them—I then received this letter of 15th August from Preston. (This stated that his solicitor advised him not to dispense with the securities, and asked for the names of two substantial securities before proceeding further.) I had, I think, called on the previous day at 120, Southampton Row, and saw the fourth prisoner, Mr. Preston (William Shaw)—I do not remember whether I took the documents with me; but I objected to sign them, and he said that they could not be dispensed with, or something of that kind—I then got the letter just read, and on 16th August I wrote a letter, of which this is a copy. (This expressed astonishment at Mr. Preston's letter of yesterday, and called upon him to proceed with the loan.) On the 17th I received this answer: "Dear Sir,—My solicitor states that you must give two sureties if you desire the matter to proceed"—the heading of that letter and the address is printed, but the "Dear Sir" is not—I called two or three times, but could not see him—I then sent this letter to Mr. Preston. (Stating that he had made several attempts to see him at his office, and calling upon him to refund the 5l. 5s. which had been obtained by positive misrepresentation, in default of which the correspondence would be placed in the hands of Mr. Bristow, the solicitor to the Admiralty.) On 9th September I received
this letter: "Sir,—Herewith by this post I return policy of insurance. You had better instruct your solicitor to communicate with me"—I received the policy by book post—I then communicated with Mr. Copeland, a solicitor of Sheerness, and this is a letter sent to him: "September 15. Sir,—What I have done in this matter is in strict accordance with your client's written authority, dated 22nd June"—I produce a letter of 18th October from Preston to Mr. Copeland: "I can only refer you to my last. and am quite prepared to meet any proposal you may advise your client to adopt"—I did not renew my policy; it was only effected for the loan—at the time I paid my premium and sent the 5l. 5s. I believed the statements contained in Preston's advertisement. Some time afterwards I wrote this letter (produced) to the insurance office to Mr. Northcott. (Dated August 3rd, 1872, complaining that he had been defrauded, and asking the directors of the Albion to refund the money or to award him a reasonable surrender value.) I had no knowledge that Mr. Preston, or anybody representing him, had any connection with the Albion, or how the premium was disposed of—about 1874 I saw this advertisement. (This was an advertisement (No,4) from Henry Howard, 11. Euston Square.) When I read that I went to 11, Euston Square—I believe it was a private house—the name of Howard or Holland was on the door—I knocked, and I believe the door was opened by Slinker—I inquired for Mr. Howard—he desired me to wait a few minutes—he went upstairs—I was shown upstairs, and in about 10 minutes Wood came in—I inquired whether there was any difficulty in obtaining an advance of 100l., and asked "Where is Mr. Howard who advertises?" he said "You can't expect to see him, he is engaged in the City, "or words to that effect—nothing more passed, I was not with him more than two or three minutes—I recognised him as the person I had seen at 15, Dover Place, he seemed confused, I thought he recognised me unmistakably—I did not want a loan—I said "Good morning," and left.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I cannot recollect very well whether the name was Holland or Howard, I think it was Howard, it is about four years ago—to the best of my belief Slinker is the man I saw on that occasion—Miss Gray is my sister-in-law—she is in a feeble state of health, and nearly blind—she has been ailing for years—I wrote the letters for her, being more accustomed to official matters—the money that was to be raised on her bond was not to be used to pay off loans I had made to her; there was an account between us—she resided with me as a member of the family for some years—she had a claim against me—she acted as a sort of nursery governess—she came from America about 1860, and has been living with me since—the money was to pay me a claim I had against her—the loan was not exactly for my benefit, I was to have had part of the money—her father, mother and brothers, and a sister were dead—I did not attend before Mr. Ward, the doctor who signed the paper—I think it was a Dr. Jack, of Sheerness—the loan was to be repaid in five years—we should have jointly provided the money for the repayment—Miss Gray has a small Government annuity, and the interest in some houses at Portsmouth; neither of those were to be secured for the repayment of the loan—I may have had small advances before, but whatever I have had I have always repaid—I did not pay anything like 40 or 50 per cent.—the loan of 1866 my sister required for repairing houses principally—I decline to answer whether I went else-
where for the money when I failed to get this loan—I don't see that it has any bearing on the question—I had no loan transactions with other persons before 1866, I may perhaps have had one—I acted for Miss Gray in this matter—if I said that the name of Wood appeared in the Law List, I suppose I had referred to the Law List to see, before commencing the correspondence, I have no recollection, it is 12 years ago—I never commenced any proceedings at law against Wood, I had expended quite enough.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. When I went to 120, Southampton Row, I saw William Shaw, perhaps two or three times—I don't hint he opened the door to me, when I saw him he was in the room upstairs—I don't think I saw anybody else there besides a clerk—I am not aware whether there was any name on the door—I asked for Mr. Preston, I stated what my business was—I did not know of my own knowledge that there was a warrant out for Preston—I believed that the letters I received were signed by him, by the man I saw upstairs.
Re-examined. When I called at Southampton Row, I asked for Preston—Mr. Shaw did not suggest that Preston was not there, I believed him to be Preston—I got no answer to the letter I wrote to Northcott.
JOSEPH SAVILL DEW . I live at Gamlingay, Cambridge shire—in the year 1867 I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph similar to this. (This was the one to apply to T. G. Wood, Esq., 15, Dover Place, S. E.) In consequence of seeing that, I wrote a letter to that address, applying for a loan of 150l., and in reply I received these documents, purporting to come from that address—I believe there are one or two missing—I have looked up all that were in my possession—the loan was to be made on condition that I insured my life in an office named the Albion, for double the amount of the proposal—I offered to insure for 200l., which was agreed to—I ultimately received this form of proposal—I can't say whether there was any writing on it when it first came into my possession—I filled it up and forwarded it, I can't say whether to Wood or to the office; no doubt it was to Wood—I was examined by a medical man in my own locality—I believe his fee was deducted from the premium—I remitted the premium for the half-year to Wood—he wrote back saying it must be paid yearly—I received a letter of 22nd March, asking me to send the policy, and the matter would be completed within four days—I received from him receipts for the two sums I sent—the policy came to me—I afterwards sent it back to the Albion, with a few remarks written on it—I received these five drafts. (These were a personal bond for 300l., an assignment of the policy, a statutory declaration, a bill of sale, and a guarantee of two sureties.) On 1st May I received a letter on the same printed heading "Be good enough to forward the drafts to me with any remarks upon them. Yours truly, T. G. Wood." I think I retained these drafts, I don't think I ever parted with them—on 10th May I received another letter, "You must send me the names of your proposed sureties, they must not be relatives"—when I threw up the negotiation I required the policy to be returned to me, and it was sent to me by him—it appears by this letter of 7th June that I did part with the draft securities, I sent them to him and he returned them to me—at the time I sent the two portions of the premium, and the money for expenses, I believed the statements contained in the letters and in the advertisement—not a word was said in reference to these five securities until after I had paid my money—I did not renew my premiums.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. My proposal on 16th March was signed by me in the presence of Mr. Verley, at the Post-office, Gamlingay—this was my first occasion of endeavouring to raise money by loan, and the last—the loan was to be for three years—I do not recollect this consent paper—to the best of my recollection there was nothing of this sort applied for—I never saw Mr. Wood till I saw him at Bow Street—I threw up the matter voluntarily upon receiving these five draughts—I was not urgently needing the money, I did without it—I did not commence any action.
JOHN SMALES . I live at Carlton House, Finchley, and am a potato merchant—in February, 1870, I saw an advertisement of a Messrs. Girdle stone and Barclay to lend money on freehold property at 3 1/2; per cent, in consequence of which I called at 11, Euston Square—William Shaw opened the door to me—he asked my business—I told him that I had bought a freehold estate of 13,000l., and I wished to borrow 5,000l. upon mortgage at 3 1/2; per cent.—he asked me all particulars and then he asked me to sit down, gave me the newspaper to read, and went up stairs—I waited for about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour—he then invited me up stairs and introduced me to Wood—he did not introduce him by any name, but I understood that he represented Girdle stone and Barclay—he was sitting at a horse-shoe desk covered with books and plans of the estate, part of which I had bought—I made mention of the advertisement and he arranged to lend me the money at 3 1/2; percent.—some time afterwards I received a letter from Girdle stone and Barclay, in consequence of which I sent a cheque for 15 guineas—there was then some further correspondence and I called there on three or four occasions, but never could see Girdlestone or Barclay—I saw William Shaw and asked for Girdle stone and Barclay—he asked me to sit down and then asked me to go upstairs, which I did, and saw Wood—I said "Good morning, Mr. Girdlestone"—he said "Good morning"—I told him I had come to ask him for the 15 guineas back, as I thought he had obtained it fraudulently, as no inspection of the property had ever been made—he did not consent to return it—I sat talking to him some time—a knock at the front door broke off our conversation—I heard a noise and scuffle down stairs and some conversation going on, and my solicitor, Mr. Webster, was asking if a gentleman, his client, was up stairs, and he wished to go up and see him and William Shaw would not allow him—Wood asked me if I knew the gentleman down stairs—I said "Yes"—I looked over the bannisters and saw them scuffling below in the passage, and William Shaw asked "Is this gentleman to come up"—Wood said "Allow him to come up," and he came up and asked for the 15 guineas back, and he asked Wood if he was Mr. Girdlestone—he said "Oh no, I am not Mr. Girdlestone"—I said "Are you Mr. Barclay"—Shaw came up with Mr. Webster, and was in the room at this time—Mr. Webster said they were a park of thieves and scoundrels—I did not get my money back, or any loan—Mr. Webster is dead—they never surveyed the property—it is in Yorkshire—my cheque for 15 guineas was cashed in Oxford Street and was passed through my bank—it was produced before the Magistrate, but cannot now be found.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. The freehold land is at Snaith in Yorkshire—there is 220 acres—I had paid a certain amount of the purchase money and there was an agreement that on the payment of the
full sum the property was to be conveyed to me—I bought it at auction in October, 1869—the purchase was to be completed in the following April—the loan was to be for 20 years, or a long period, at 3 1/2; per cent—I had not applied for a loan elsewhere—I eventually got it at 4 per cent.—I was not at Snaith at the time—my brother was, and is there now.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I saw William Shaw three or four times—he generally opened the door—he treated Wood as his master.
By the COURT. The 15 guineas was for inspection fees; that was asked for in a letter from Girdlestone and Barclay.
GEORGE HEPPER RAY . I live at 39, Camden Square, Ramsgate—in 1871 I was living at Eaton Lodge, Ramsgate—I saw an advertisement in the Standard newspaper of a Mr. Preston, of 120, Southampton Row, London, offering to lend money at five per cent, on personal security—in consequence of that I applied for a loan of 150l.—I received an answer but have mislaid the documents and cannot find them—the correspondence was with Mr. Preston, and an arrangement was made that I should insure my life in the Albion for 200l.—I received this printed form of proposal—the written part is all my writing—I filled it up except the name and address at the top—the doctor I paid the fee to passed me for the Albion—the name of the doctor is not my writing, it is the doctor's—it is dated the 14th November, 1871—I sent the amount of the premium, 8l. 3S. 4d., by post-office order to the Albion Office, deducting the doctor's fee—I received a receipt in due course from the Albion, which I sent to Mr. Preston—I afterwards received a letter from Mr. Preston asking for four or five guineas for legal expenses—I sent that amount by post-office order and got an acknowledgment for it—I afterwards received three or four documents and a bill of sale, a statutory declaration to be made before two Magistrates at Ramsgate, an assignment of the policy, and a draft for securities—I came up to London with these documents in January, 1872, and went to 120, Southampton Row—I think there was a small brass plate there with R. F. Preston on it, but it is a long time since—there was a kind of milliner's shop at the side and an old lady inside—William Shaw opened the door to me—I said "Is Mr. Preston at home?"—he said "Yes"—I said "Did you receive my letter?" I had previously written to say I was coming—I said "I am Mr. Ray, from Ramsgate, I want to see Mr. Preston"—he said "Mr. Preston is upstairs, will you walk up?"—he preceded me and I followed him—he introduced me into a room over the shop and introduced me to Mr. Alfred Shaw, who I then took to be R. F. Preston—I saw the same man at Bow Street, it is the one who escaped—I said "Good morning, Mr. Preston," and he acknowledged himself as such—he then introduced me to William Shaw as his clerk—I asked Mr. Preston if he had received my letters—he said "Yes"—I told him that I had been disappointed, I expected the money—I said "I decline to go before two Magistrates at Ramsgate because I am so well known there"—I could have gone to the bank and borrowed the money—he said "We will dispense with that"—I told him that I was going to Canterbury on Wednesday—I am drillmaster of the school there and have been 22 years in the Army—he said he had an agent there, and that he would dispense with the household securities, and I might go to his agent and there would be no publicity about it, and he would send me the 200l. without any deduction, through
his agent at Canterbury, and he would give me private notice before I started to go there—I asked the name of his agent—he declined to give it—he said he would give me notice by the first post on Wednesday morning—I then returned to Ramsgate—I did not receive any communication from him—I wrote—he replied to the effect that he required two bond holders as security, residing in Ramsgate, or about there—of course I declined that and I wrote to Mr. Preston to try and get my money back and threatened him with legal proceedings—I got no answer and I came up to London again and went to 120, Southampton Row several times—William Shaw opened the door to me—I inquired fur Mr. Preston—he told me he was not at home—sometimes he said he was at Brighton or some other place—he made all sorts of excuses—I dare say I called a dozen times or perhaps more—the last time William Shaw said "Mr. Preston has declined to send the cheque or grant you the loan unless you give the securities," which I had previously declined to accept—I thought it was a swindle—I never got the loan—I wanted the money to build a gymnasium—I would have given the bill of sale in the first instance, having gone so far, and I did not object to signing my own bond, but I did decline to go before two local Magistrates—I received the policy—I haven't got it—I know who has—I did not renew it—I believed the statement I saw in the advertisement and the representations in the letters—I thought there was a Mr. Preston carrying on business at this place and was under the impression that it was a bond fide transaction, EDWARD JOHN MURRAY. I am now living at 17, All Saints Street, Hull—I am a grocer—in March, 1873, I was living at Sunderland; in that month I saw an advertisement in a local paper similar to this (No. 4): "Money to be lent in town or country, &c., apply to Henry Howard, 11, Euston Square"—in consequence of that advertisement I applied for a ban of 100l. by letter to that address, and in reply I received this letter, dated on a printed heading 3rd March, 11, Euston Square, London. (This stated that the loan could be entertained by insuring the life in an office to be named for 200l., signed "H. Howard.") I gave a reference, and received this letter on the 8th March on the same printed heading—at that time I had a policy for 100l. in an office, and I proposed to deposit that and insure for a further 100l.—I received this letter of 10th March: "Dear Sir,—I have received a satisfactory reply to your reference, and enclose a form"—on that I signed this document: "Let me have 100l. for seven years at 5 per cent., payments half-yearly, the principal to be paid in one sum at the end of the term"—on the 12th March I received this letter containing this proposal, my name and address already filled in; the rest I filled in myself and returned it to the Albion—on 17th March I received this letter: "Dear Sir, The insurance company have not received the doctor's report"—I was examined by the doctor, and on the 27th March I received this letter: "If the insurance company have accepted your proposal, send them the amount of premium and get them to complete the policy without delay, so that I may carry out the loan"—I sent 2l. 4s. 5d., the premium, to the Albion office, and got a receipt for it—I also got the policy—on the 29th March I received this letter, asking me to send a post-office order for 3 guineas to defray legal charges—wrote a letter to Howard, and received this of the 1st April, signed "H. Howard": "Dear Sir, The 3 guineas is to pay the incidental and legal expenses"—on the 3rd April I received this: "Dear Sir, The
3 guineas will cover all charges. The 100l. will be paid to you in full. You will have to assign and give a bond"—on the 5th April I received this: "Dear Sir,—I enclose draft bond for your perusal"—a bond came with that—on the 24th April I received by book post these five draft securities, similar to this already spoken of—I perused them and kept them for a time—on the 29th April I received a letter from Howard: "Dear Sir,—Be kind enough to return drafts with any comments"—I did not return them, and on the let May I received this: "Dear Sir,—I shall be pleased to be put in communication with your solicitor, as you appear not to be a business man"—at the time I paid my money for the premium and the legal expenses I believed the statements contained in the advertisement and the letters—I did not obtain any loan or the return of my three guineas—I did not renew my policy in the Albion—about the same time that I was corresponding with Howard I saw an advertisement in the local paper of R.F. Preston, of 120, Southampton Row, in consequence of which I applied to him for an advance of 100l. for three years—he required a reference, and I was to insure for 200l. in an office to be selected by him; I received a form of proposal, which I filled up and returned to the Albion—I received these letters of March 8th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and May 1st—by that time, having had experience of Howard, the thing went off, because I did not believe he would give me the loan.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I sent 3 guineas on 12th April, 1873—I only made two applications for money; I was not in pecuniary distress at the time; I had a thriving business; I only wanted to extend it—I had been in business about three years—I was not on the verge of bankruptcy at the time I applied for this money.
By the COURT. I was not asked by Preston to give the five securities required by Howard—I did not complete the insurance because I found it was to be in the Albion, and I had my suspicious.
SAMUEL SHAW . I am a wiredrawer, of Breadhouse, in Yorkshire—in, I think, May, 1873, I saw this advertisement (No. 4) of Mr. Henry Howard in the Halifax Courier—I applied to him for a loan of 1,000l., and received from him the letter of May 6th. (This acknowledged the application, directing the witness to insure and deposit the policy.) I sent him the name of a referee, and got from him this letter of May 30 (Asking for another reference)—I applied in connection with John Shaw, my father, and Thomas Shaw, my brother—on June 2nd I received this letter (Enclosing a form of consent to he signed)—I returned that—I called in June at 11, Euston Square, and Slinker opened the door—I asked to see Mr. Howard—he said that he was not in, but would be in the afternoon—I went in the afternoon, and Slinker opened the door again; he showed me into a back room, where the prisoner Wood sat at a desk, and intr—duced him as Mr. Howard—Howard said that when I got my policy in the Albion completed he would go on with the matter—I explained the purpose for which I wanted the loan—I afterwards received from him this letter of July 17. [Enclosing a proposal to insure), also this letter of July 19th. (Enclosing insurance forms)—I also, on the 19th, received this letter from Northcott (Requesting the witness to see a doctor)—on July 3rd I received this letter from Northcott (Requesting him to obtain certificates of his sister's and mother's death); also, on July 3rd, this letter from Howard. (Inquiring whether tea office had accepted the witness's proposal)—on 4th July I received this letter hom Northcott: "Sir, Your favour of yesterday,
enclosing cheque, to hand")—I had sent him a cheque for 11l. 0s. 8d.—on July 8th I received this letter from Northcott: "Unless particulars are furnished the proposal cannot proceed"—also this letter from Howard of July 9th: "On receipt of the policy the 1,000l. will be sent in full," also this letter from Northcott (Stating that the witness's further proposal should be submitted to the directors), also this letter of July 19th. (Stating that a policy should be prepared, signed "J. F. Northcott", Manager and Secretary)—I had made a further proposal for 500l., as in the first place it was proposed to insure my father for 500l. and myself for 1,000l.; but the office refused my father's life, and my proposal was then advanced to 1, 500l.—this (produced) is my proposal; it is my writing, all but the heading—I afterwards received these two letters from Howard (Asking for a post-office order for ten guineas for incidental expenses. Other letters were also put in similar to the former ones)—I sent the ten guineas, and on August 5th I received this letter from Northcott (Requesting him to accept two 500l. policies)—I said no, I would have one policy for 1,000l., and on August 14th I received this policy (This was for 1000l., dated 6th August,1873)—on 15th August I received this letter from Howard (Enclosing draft securities and bill of sale as before)—up to that time I had heard nothing of the necessity of signing such documents as these. (Other letters were put in, in which the witness refused to sign the documents, and requested the return of the ten guineas unless the loan was carried out, and threatening legal proceedings,) I never got the loan, or the ten guineas back—at the time I advanced the money I believed the statements made in the advertisement.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I went twice to Euston Square—I am positive that I saw Wood there—when I was before the Magistrate I had not seen Wood for three or four years, and only had an opportunity of inspecting his features for a moment or two, so that I did not feel positive at the moment; but I am positive now—I got more positive as the case went on—I told the Magistrate, that as far as my recollection served me, he was the man.
Cross-examined by MR. H. AVORY. I have renewed my policy in the Albion up to July, 1877—this year's payment is not due yet.
SAMUEL KING BARNES . I live at Norwich—I formerly lived at Bonham in Norfolk—I saw Mr. Henry Howard's advertisement in this newspaper of May 23rd, 1874. (this was the same as the former one)—I answered it by a letter of which this is a copy. (Proposing to borrow from 200l. to 250l.)—I got this answer, dated June 1. (This was signed Henry Howard, asking for references, and a life policy in an office to be selected by the Under)—I replied by a letter of which this is a copy. (This stated that his life was already insured for 300l., and offered to deposit the policy and to insure for a further sum, if necessary)—I got this answer (Dated June10, forwarding a form of application for an insurance in" the Albion)—I signed that and returned it, saying "Let me have 250l., to be returned in one sum at the end of the term"—he replied, saying "I enclose insurance proposal, which fill up and send to the manager at their chief office, and ask who you are to appear before for medical examination"—this is the form, my name and address was on it when it was sent—my life was already insured in the National Provident—I went before a medical man, filled up the form, and returned it on 11th June—on 15th June I wrote to inform Mr. Howard that I had forwarded the proposal to the Manager of the Company—I had gone to Thetford to see the doctor and found he
was dead—I then got this letter of 23rd June from Northcott. (This stated that he had been at the expense of going to Thetford, 7 miles by coach, requesting his expenses to be paid, and asking the witness to call on another medical man.) On the 25th I received this letter from Howard: "I am prepared to carry out the loan on your completing the insurance"—I had some other correspondence with the office—I wrote "You must be surprised at not hearing from me before this, but I can hear nothing from the office"—on 15th July I received a letter from Northcott, telling me that my premium was 18l. 11s. 3d. and 1l. 5s. extra premium for occupation, making 19l. 17s. 3d.—on 16th July I received this letter from Howard: "If the Insurance Company have accepted your proposal request them to get the policy completed without delay so that I may carry out the loan"—I afterwards had this letter: "20th July. Sir,—Yours to hand; it is the practice to charge an extra premium for a person engaged in engineering"—also this letter stating "You can see me in town between 11 and 12"—on 25th July I came to London and wrote this letter (Asking for the loan as soon as possible), but before I wrote it I called at 11, Euston Square—Slinker opened the door—I told him who I was and that I had called respecting a loan which was to be advanced on a life policy, and requested to see Mr. Howard—he said that he was out but his clerk was in the way—I was shown in and saw the prisoner Wood—Slinker mentioned my name and left the room—I said that I came up to London specially about the loan, and was prepared to pay the premium—he said that I could either pay it to him or to the office, and to facilitate matters I paid it there and then, in cash to Wood, who wrote this receipt, signed it, and gave it to me. (This was for 18l. 15s. 3d, signed H. HOWARD, per clerk)—it was 18l. 10s. 3d., and was altered to 18l. 15s. 3d.—I told him he had given me a receipt for the wrong amount and he altered it—I was informed that the loan would be carried out at once, and he was to remit the money to my account at the National Provincial Bank, Norwich—I afterwards received Northcott's receipt from the office, dated 27th July: "This is to certify that Mr. S. K. Barnes, of Norwich, has this day effected an insurance"—on 28th July I received this letter enclosing a receipt for the premium, and on the 29th I wrote this letter. (Requesting to have the matter settled by Friday)—on the same day I received this (Asking for 4l. 4s. for incidental charges, signed H. Howard), and next day this letter from him. (Requesting compliance with his letter of yesterday.)—on the 30th I wrote this: "Not having an opportunity of going to our nearest money-order office, I shall esteem it a favour if you will kindly deduct your charges for cost of the 250l., and remit the balance to the National Provincial Bank, Norwich"—I afterwards received this letter, stating: "As we pay the 250l. in full, you must comply"—I then sent a post-office order for the 4l. 4s. and received this letter: "6th August. Dear Sir,—Your remittance, 4l. 4s., is duly to hand, and your matter will meet with prompt attention"—on 11th August I received this letter (Signed H. Howard, asking for the number and date of the policy)—on 12th August I received a letter saying that by book-post I should receive draft securities to comment upon and return—I received these five documents (as before) and copied three of them—on 14th August I wrote "I cannot understand the bill of sale, &c.; surely the policy must be good security"—on 15th August I received this: "Be kind enough to return me the drafts sent for perusal"—to that I replied on
the 17th, returning the drafts, and saying "With respect to the other three documents, I shall have nothing to do with them, as I do not intend to have anything to do with a bill of sale"—on 19th August I received this: "I cannot dispense with the statutory declaration being made as drawn," and this of 25th June: "The statutory declaration was drawn in accordance with your written undertaking, dated 12th June, which is in my possession"—on 30th August I wrote complaining of the statutory declaration, as I had been led to suppose that the whole affair was of a strictly private nature—I did not get my loan, and there the matter ended—Howard declined to take my policy in the National Provident; it was to be in the Albion—when I paid the premium and the 4l. 4s. I believed that there was a Mr. Howard, and that he was prepared to lend money on the terms of the advertisement—I did not renew the policy.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I cannot call to mind the words of the statutory declaration—I might have had to state that I did not owe more than 50l., and that I had never been a bankrupt—I could not in one sense have truthfully made that statement.
THOMAS LOVELL . I am chamber clerk to Mr. Justice Lindley—I produce an affidavit of the defendant Wood filed on 21st of this month upon an application for bail—there are four affidavits of J. G. Littlechild and others in opposition.
JAMES KNIGHT . I am a nurseryman at Monmouth—in December, 1874, I saw an advertisement in Lloyd's Weekly News like this (No. 2)—This was headed "Money ready for immediate investment upon any description of real or personal security, &c. Apply to Wm. Seymour Esq., Financier, 9, Great Russell Street, London"—I asked for a loan of 150l.—I received an answer which I have unfortunately destroyed—it stated that he was able to advance the money by my insuring my life in an office he should name—I replied to that and received an answer—I was to be examined by a doctor he named in Monmouth—I received this proposal form—the writing at the top is Mr. Wilson's, the doctor who examined me—the heading with my name and address was written there when I received it—I forwarded the proposal to Mr. Seymour and then came to London on 28th December, 1874, and went to Great Russell Street—the door was opened by Alfred Shaw—I told him I had come to London upon a special purpose to obtain this loan—he said "It is all very satisfactory, I have received a good account of you from Wilson, of Monmouth"—I was to have the money as soon as I effected the policy with the Albion—the money was to be paid in to the Gloucestershire Bank in 10l. Bank of England notes—Alfred Shaw said I was to see Mr. Northcott and tell him I came from him, from Mr. Seymour—I went to the Albion Office on 29th December—I saw Northcott and paid him this cheque for 9l. 10s. 4d. for the premium upon my insurance—I got no receipt—I told Northcott that I came from Seymour to see him to effect my life policy in the Albion—he said "It is all right if you come from him"—he said he could not give me the policy then, he wanted three directors to sign it before it would be legal—the policy was to be sent to me, but I stayed in London several days before I could get it—I did get it in London—before returning home I called again in Great Russell Street and again saw Alfred Shaw—he asked if I had effected the policy—I said I had paid the money but had not got the policy—he then asked for
my address—I asked him to pay me the money in London—he said money was scarce, I should have it as soon as I went back to Monmouth—I did not get it, and I wrote to Seymour for it—I then received a letter purporting to come from Seymour, which I destroyed, asking for 2l. 10s. for expenses—I sent this cheque for 2l. 10s., dated 26th January, 1875—I got back a receipt for it with these five documents. (These were identical with those already produced)—when I saw Seymour in London nothing was arranged as to what security I was to give—I had not signed anything—he offered to lend me the money according to the advertisement, by my insuring my life and letting him have the policy, that was all—I say positively that no other security was suggested up to the time when I left London—I came to London again and went to 9, Greet Russell Street and saw Alfred Shaw, and a rather severe altercation took place—I called him William Seymour, of course—I told him it was very unmanly to act towards me as he had, and to put me to such trouble and expense—I told him it was not according to the advertisement—he said he would have the documents filled up before he would advance the money—I then went home—I came to town again and called at Greet Russell Street—I could not see him the first day—I saw a man who opened the door—I have seen that man in London since I have been here—I can't say his name—I ultimately saw Alfred Shaw again—in paying my money for the premium and legal expenses I believed the statements in the advertisement and in the letters I had from Seymour.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I saw Alfred Shaw at Bow Street—he is not like William Shaw—I did not first of all, at the police-court, pick out William Shaw as the man I had seen in Great Russell Street, I picked out Alfred and never made any deviation from that.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I was 51 years of age when I effected this insurance for 200l.—I was not insured in any other office at that time—I have not insured since—I am certain I told Northcott that I came from Seymour.
REVEREND WILLIAM FRANCIS JEX BLAKE . I am a clergyman, of Thurbiton Rectory, Norwich—I was the plaintiff in the action of "Blake v. The Albion Assurance Society"—in November, 1874, I saw the advertisement of Henry Howard (No. 4) offering to lend money—I answered it and applied for a loan of 1, 500l.—it was for the purpose of buying a living—some correspondence passed between Mr. Howard and myself and I came up to London somewhere about 28th November, and during that week I called at 11, Euston Square—Slinker opened the door to me—I asked if Mr. Howard was at home—I believe he asked me whether it was by appointment—I said it was, that I had written—I gave my name and was shown upstairs—there was no one in the room at first, but Wood came in—I asked him if he was Mr. Howard; he said no, he acted for him in his absence; it was a foggy morning and Mr. Howard never came to town in a fog—I said I wished to see Mr. Howard particularly—he said "I will write to him by tonight's post and you can make an appointment later on in the week," which I did for the following Thursday—he said Mr. Howard was somewhere in the country, I think he said in Sussex—he did not give me any address—I went again on the Thursday, the 2nd or 3rd December, and saw Wood alone—I expressed my astonishment at not seeing Mr. Howard—he said he had received letters from Mr. Howard that morning stating that he was detained
by business in the country, and he was authorised to take any instructions from me—previous to this, in answer to my first application, he had written to say that if I insured my life in an office to be named by him (Howard) I could have the money—he did not name the office then, he did on this Thursday, the Albion, in Chancery Lane—I believe before I left he gave me this form of proposal to fill up—the mauve writing on it is mine—the writing at the top is not mine—I can't say whether it was there when he gave me the proposal—it was not filled up by meor anybody else while it was in my possession—I kept it under look and key till I returned it—I believe it was already filled in—I brought the proposal to town with me about 30th December, and took it to 11, Euston Square, where I again saw Wood—Slinker opened the door to me—I asked for Mr. Howard, he said be was at home—I was shown into the office and waited there, and was offered the Times to read—I was then shown upstairs—I supposed I was about to see Mr. Howard, but I found Wood, I think he followed me upstairs—I again expressed my surprise at not seeing Mr. Howard—Wood said that he was authorised to take any instructions I gave him, and that he could manage the matter, it was the same as if I was going through the matter with Howard—I said I had called to-day to have a clear understanding as to what security would be required, that I wanted the money to go towards purchasing a small living; as the one I was holding for a relative I was about to give up in his favour—he said "No further security will be required," most distinctly—he gave me a book of tables of the Albion—I said "Won't you allow me to insure in the Clergy Mutual instead?"—he said "Mr. Howard only does business in the Albion"—before leaving he gave me the address of the Albion, and said "Go to the Albion and see the Secretary"—alter leaving him I went there, and asked for Mr. Northcott; I did not see him, I was told he was engaged all day—I was examined by Dr. Hooper, and finally sent a cheque for 58l. 15s. 3d., for the first year's premium, by post to the Albion, somewhere about 10th or 12th January, after deducting a guinea for the medical fee—I addressed the letter to Mr. Northcott, Secretary and Manager of the Albion, and I received from him this receipt, which I sent by post to Howard—I then received from Howard this letter of 25th January: "By book post you will receive draft securities as prepared by my solicitor for perusal and approval, which please return at your convenience with any comments thereon"—these five documents came with that letter, a bill of sale, a statutory declaration, a bond, two securities, and an assignment of the policy—up to the time I sent the receipt for my premium I had heard nothing about the necessity of signing such documents—I came to town that same afternoon, and wrote making an appointment for the next morning—I then called at Euston Square and saw Slinker—I asked for Mr. Howard, he said he was at home, as usual, and I had an interview with Wood again—I told him I had come to make my comments in person—he opened the bundle which I had brought with me, and said certain things were mere forms—I hardly recollect which paper he alluded to, he alluded to one of them; he made an erasure, and threw one paper on one side and said "Oh, this is mere matter of form"—I said "They appear to me not matter of form, but realities which I do not understand"—I said I would consider the matter, and took away the documents—next day I wrote saying I would have nothing to do with it, and returned the documents—I afterwards put
the matter in the hands of my solicitor; and by his advice brought as action against the Albion—this is the policy—I called and received it on 27th January, 1875.
Cross-examined by MR. RESLEY. At that time I was living at the Rectory house, at Thurbiton—my cousin was patron of the living, and I was holding it for his youngest son—I was the rector—I had been inducted as rector—I had been there nearly 13 years—I was about to resign in the following March, and I wanted to borrow this money to buy a living—my attention was called to the letter of 21st September, 1874, in which I was told that I should have to deposit the policy as a collateral security—I understood that there was to be some security which was to be satisfactory to both parties, and that was satisfactory.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I did not subsequently borrow any money for the purpose of buying a living, the Bishop of Norwich recently gave me my present living—I commenced the action against the Albion about March, 1876—the directors of the Albion defended the action from the beginning to the end—it came on in the Common Pleas—I saw Mr. Northcott go into the box—I have heard that Mr. McIntyre, who appeared for the defendants, has obtained a rule for a new trial on one point—I have never insured my life for any other purpose than from prudential motives—I never saw Mr. Northcott till he was a witness in the Common Pleas—I saw clerks at the Albion when I went there.
FITZGUGH BATHURST HENDERSON . I live at 96, Ledbury Road, Bayswater—in the early part of 1875 I was living near Oswestry—I saw this advertisement in the Standard: "Money to lend in town or country upon personal security, apply to Henry Howard, Esq., C. E., 11, Euston Square, London"—in consequence of seeing that, I applied to know on what terms I could have 200l. for three years, at the same time asking the nature of the personal security—I received a reply of 3rd February, entertaining the application, and stating that I should have to insure my life for 400l. in an office selected by him, and to deposit the policy as a collateral security—shortly afterwards I received this form of consent: "Let me haw 200l. for three years at five per cent., to be repaid in one sum, and I will give the necessary security"—I signed that document on the 9th February—I was examined by Dr. Fuller at Oswestry on behalf of the Company—I received this proposal dated 9th February—I filled it up, except that portion at the top which was written when I received it—I believe it was forwarded by Dr. Fuller to London—after that I wrote to Mr. Howard, intimating that I was coming to London—I received this letter of the, 25th February: "You can see me between 10 and 12 in the day, better call on the Secretary and ask the reason of the delay;" there had been delay—I received this letter of the 4th March: "Dear Sir, I am waiting your completing the insurance to carry out the loan"—I came to London and called at the office—I had previously received this letter of 5th March, informing me that my proposal was accepted on certain conditions, signed James T. Northcott, Manager and Secretary—I called at the office and saw Northcott in reference to these conditions—I told him who I was, and my objections to the terms on the back of the memorandum—he said he would see the medical adviser of the Company, and if he reported my life was good, they would accept me on the usual terms—I went to see Dr. Hoopor, in London, and he passed me as an ordinary life—I had been supposed to be suffering from valvular disease of the heart—on the 9th
March I received this letter from Howard: "Dear Sir, Write to the Insurance Company to reconsider the case"—I afterwards received a printed form from the Albion, accepting my life without the conditions, and on the 10th March I sent to the Albion two post-office orders amounting to 13l. 16s. for the premium, deducting the guinea for the doctor's fee—about the same time I received the letter of the 11th March, and went to 11, Euston Square—there was a plate on the door with "Henry Howard" on it—I do not recollect whether there was "C. E." after it; the front door was open; I walked into the outer office; Slinker was there; I asked if Mr. Howard was in; he said he was out, but I could make an appointment if I liked—after that I received this letter of the 13th March: "Dear Sir,—Be kind enough to send me a post-office order for 4l. 4s. for legal charges. H. Howard"—I wrote inquiring what it was for, and I received the reply of the 15th: "The 4 guineas is to pay legal and incidental expenses. Let me know what bank near yon to send the 200l. to. I make no charge. Yours truly, H. Howard"—I obtained a post-office order for 4 guineas, and forwarded it—on the 17th I received this: "Your remittance of 4 guineas is duly to hand, and the matter will meet with prompt attention"—on the 18th I wrote to know upon what day he would be prepared to pay the 200l. into the London and Westminster Bank—on the 20th March I received this letter: "Send me the number and date of your police. H. Howard"—on 21st I wrote: "I send you the information you require. When will the loan business be finally settled? I must say you are most curt in your replies"—I then received this letter of 25th March with the draft securities (as before)—on 25th March I wrote returning the documents, stating that I was willing to accept the bond and the assignment, but not the others—until I received these five documents not a single word was written or suggested as to my being required to find any such securities—I received no reply to my letter, and on the 31st March I wrote again that I should be glad to know when he intended to let me have the money—on 31st March I received this: "Dear Sir,—My solicitor says I must not dispense with the declaration as drawn"—on the let April I still declined to subseribe to the declaration—I received this letter of the 3rd April: "Dear Sir,—The drafts are drawn up in accordance with your letter"—on the 5th April I wrote again, and then received this letter of the 11th: "Send me the names and addresses of your proposed sureties"—on the 9th of April I wrote stating that if I received no satisfactory explanation I should place the matter in the hands of my solicitor—I received this reply of the 12th April, and then placed the matter in the hands of Messrs. Miller and Game, and there the transaction ended—I never received the 200l.—at the time I parted with my money for the premium and the 4 guineas for expenses I believed the statements in the advertisement and in the letters—my solicitors ultimately brought an action for me against Howard, and judgment went by default—I never got back the money I spent—about July, 1875, I saw an advertisement in the standard, of William Holland, 11, Euston Square—I observed that that was the same address as Howard, and I wrote to Holland under the name of Poole—I received the letter of the 6th July, and in what I did with Holland afterwards in the way of correspondence I had in my mind what had taken place with Howard—I received the letter of the 8th July from Holland, inclosing a form of consent
similar in terms to the one in Howard's case, also these letters of 10th and 14th July, the last one signed "William Holland, late Howard"—on the 16th I wrote approving of the form of bond, and stating that I should be glad to know when I could attend to receive the 200l.—I received this reply of the 17th July: "Dear Sir,—I am waiting for you to return the consent"—I had mislaid it—I received another, which I filled up and forwarded, stating "I will give the necessary security according to the form of bond agreed upon, when can I call and get the money?"—I received this letter of the 27th July: "I never allow borrowers to dictate their own terms, and if you desire me to make this advance you must return me the paper I sent for your signature"—I replied, "According to your wishes I return you consent signed as required"—on the 30th I received this: "Be kind enough to send me post-office order for 4 guineas for legal chargos and other expenses incidental to your loan, on receipt whereof I will at once arrange for completion. The 200l. will be paid to you in full. Yours truly, William Holland"—I wrote suggesting that the four guineas should be deducted from the advance, and I received this letter of the 17th August: "Dear Sir,—As I never make any deductions, but hand over the loan in full, you must remit the 4 guineas"—on 21st August I received this: "Dear Sir,—Do you intend having this money?"—about the end of July I went to 11, Euston Square, and saw the name of Holland on the plate.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. With reference to the transaction of 2nd February, 1875, I understood that the money was offered to me on the personal bond and an assignment of the policy—I really thought I was able to borrow money in that way—I am a civil and mining engineer—I never heard of a Henry Howard or Holland as a civil engineer—I was born in India, and came home when I was about three years of age—I have been practising as a civil engineer—I commenced my career under Mr. Brunei, and was assistant engineer on the Dublin and Wicklow Railway—I have been living in Oswestry six years—there was no County Court judgment against me at the time I was asked to sign the statutory declaration—I objected to give any security on my furniture Simply because I was not inclined to borrow money on those terms—money is often lent on personal bonds; I have done it myself at 5 percent, with out any security beyond a life policy—I decline to answer whether I borrowed money afterwards.
Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. In the last transaction I did not insure my life, I would not carry it out, I looked on the conditions as prohibitory—I felt rather indignant when the Albion declined my insurance, and wrote two letters of remonstrance—it was on these remonstrances that there was subsequently a reference to the gentleman who passed me.
GEORGE HENDERSON . I am a land surveyor, and live at Cheltenham—my relations with Howard and Holland were by correspondence, except my visit to London afterwards—I have in my hand the original letters I received and copies of those I wrote, from 15th January to 4th September—I saw an advertisement, I think in the Standard on 15th January, I applied on behalf of a firm of mining engineers, land surveyors, and valuers, of which I was a member, for 300l. for 18 months on note of hand—I got an answer next day that my application would be entertained and that I should have to insure my life in an office to be selected by Howard for 600l. and deposit tho policy as collateral security—I replied
that my brothers and I were willing to insure for 300l. each—I afterwards raised the application to 400l. on an insurance on my own life—my brother's proposal was dropped, the office would not accept his life—on 19th January I asked for 100l. on account—in answer to that I was told that the 400l. must be paid in one sum—after farther correspondence I sent a poet-office order for 11l. 14s. 8d, on 9th March for the first year's premium, deducting the doctor's fee—on 16th I received from Howard a tatter asking for 4 guineas for legal charges—I sent at first a cheque for 3l. and afterwards 1l. 4s.—on 6th April I received by book-post five draft securities—I sent them back by return of post—I don't remember whether any attorney's name was written on them—on 9th April I wrote and said "I must exclude that part of the declaration about never having been bankrupt, for about 10 years ago I had to claim protection in the Bristol Bankruptcy Court, and I thought the declaration could be as well attested by a Commissioner—on the 10th Howard wrote "You have omitted to send the names of proposed sureties"—on the 13th I wrote, threatening to put the matter in the hands of my solicitor if there was any more delay, and I received an answer on the 15th that Mr. Howard would be pleased to be put in communication with my solicitor—on 4th May I wrote in very strong terms and said the matter must go before the Magistrates, unless the money I had paid was refunded—on the 7th he wrote, that as I had put the matter in a solicitor's hands he declined further communication as it was not usual to correspond with both attorney and client at the same time—I wrote again on 1st June demanding my money back and the cancelling of the policy—he ultimately returned the 4 guineas to my solicitor on 4th May, and here is my solicitor's receipt for it—I got back a portion of the premium—the early part of my correspondence with Mr. Northcott relates entirely to the effecting of the policy on my life; it was at first accepted conditionally and then absolutely—on 12th June I wrote to Northcott: "Before I commence proceedings against Mr. Henry Howard, of 11, Euston Square, I think it is only proper to inform you that he induced me to insure my life in your office. As such has not been carried out I leave you to judge how the publicity of the affair will affect your office. My transactions with him will be public in a short time. I have no wish to injure the Company, but I cannot avert the course of law"—I received an answer from Northcott on the 13th, "The Mr. Howard you name is not connected with this society. I am therefore at a loss to see how this society can be in any way affected by any proceedings you may take against him. Perhaps you will be kind enough to enlighten me on these points"—on 15th June I wrote, explaining the matter, saying if he was willing to cancel the policy and hand me back the first year's premium, 12l. 15s. 8d. the proceedings might be stopped—in that letter I enclosed Howard's first letter—on 20th June I wrote again "As you have not replied to my letter of the 15th please return Mr. Howard's letter, and inform me what amount of money you paid Mr. Howard on my life policy by way of commission or otherwise, so that I may know the exact sum he received from me on the transaction"—to that I received an answer of 22nd June, staging, that the society had nothing whatever to do with the loan matter referred to and that if I wished to dispose of the policy he would be happy to ask the directors to consider the case as a special one—he added Mr. Howard did not receive anything from this
society as commission on your assurance"—on 23rd June I wrote asking again for the return of Howard's letter and the amount of the premium, and got this reply of 25th June, stating "I have already told you Howard is not connected with this society..... I am inclined to think the directors will not object to make an allowance for the surrender of the policy"—on 5th July I wrote again for Howard's letter and gave a full account of the transactions between myself and Howard—on 7th July I got back Howard's letter in an envelope without any remark—on 15th July Northcott wrote "Do you wish me to submit your case to the directors or not?"—I proposed to insert a history of the case in the London and county papers—on the 15th July he wrote, "You had better be careful how you bring this society's name in connection with the matter you deprecate as a swindle. Do you wish me to submit the matter is the directors or not?"—on 16th July I wrote again, asking for the 12l. 15s. 8d. to be refunded—on 17th he said he would submit my case to the directors, and ultimately on 31st August 5l. 16s. 3d. was repaid me, for which I gave a receipt on the policy which I got back on the 2nd—I was in London in February, 1876, and called at 11, Euston Square-the name over the door was Wm. Holland, C. E.—I had noticed little while before a change of name in the advertisements from Howard to Holland—Slinker opened the door—I asked to see Mr. Holland—he said that be was not in, and asked what I wanted—I said I wanted to see Mr. Holland on private business—he said that I had better write to him or something of that kind, as he was down in the county somewhere surveying—I walked straight from there to the Albion Office, Chancery Lane, and asked for Mr. Northcott—I did not see him then but called next day and saw him for the first time—I did not give him my name—I said that I had been to Mr. Holland, 11, Euston Square, about a loan, and asked him if he knew the party, and if they were trustworthy and so on—he said that they had done some business with Mr. Holland which was satisfactory—I cannot remember the exact words—I said What has become of Mr. Howard?"—he said "He is dead, and Holland has taken his business"—he also said that he had had a great many transactions with Howard, and that they were perfectly satisfactory, and that they were money-lenders, I think.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I was to be the borrower, and no other person was to be in it but my brother; he carries on the business in Gloucester, and I live at Cheltenham—he and I are a firm of mining engineers—we have been about 11 years in business—I thought that persons lending money on personal security would require to have the fullest details of the position of the persons borrowing, and I thought they were stupids to lend money without security—I thought the advertisement was stupid—I mean that it is very stupid to lend money upon a life policy alone, and when the draft securities came I could see that it was a swindle—I did not expect that they would lend the money without a full investigation of our circumstances—I said "I have no objection to make a statutory declaration, but you must exclude that part about being bankrupt"—I was not surprised that full inquiries were to be made about my financial condition, and never attempted to keep anything from them—we were not pressed for money, there were no judgments against us, we wanted the money to use in our business—I gave them information and let them know we were in a highly satisfactory position—I had not at
that time a judgment against me in the Cheltenham County Court for 42l. or against my firm—there was a small judgment of 1l. or 2l, against me, not 42l.—I cannot remember whether that was on 25th May, 1875, the very time when this correspondence was going on.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I am a land surveyor—I do not lend money—I filled up a portion of this proposal, the portion in dark-coloured ink—I am strictly temperate, and I think I was in good health at the time—I had been spitting blood—I do not know whether that was within two or three days, but it was from jumping—I think I must have spit blood after that—I know that the Lord Chief Justice called my attention to it on the trial; many a man spits blood—I put myself forward as a healthy man, Dr. Evans passed me as such—I shall answer no personal?question, have you anything against my character—I admit that I was spitting blood, I did not mention it on my proposal because I thought it was a temporary, passing matter—I had been spitting blood half a day; not the whole halt-day—I bad been jumping fences and. strained myself, but had not injured myself to that extent that I could not call myself a healthy man—I was insured in another office at that time—I knew that the premium would depend very much upon the state of my health—I believed that the Albion office was a genuine one—if the spitting of blood had occurred to me when I filled up the proposal it if most probable I should have said so—I did not consider it necessary that the directors should be acquainted with the fact that I had been spitting blood—I had not consulted a medical adviser about it, I had consuited no doctor for 10 years—I was examined on the trial of Mr. Jex Blake for the Plaintiff by, I think, Mr Ashman, the junior Counsel—I mentioned the conversation I had with Northcott—I swear that, and Lord Coleridge made mention of it—I most decidedly say that I mentioned the name of Holland to Northcott.
By the COURT. You may take it that at the trial in the Common Pleas I mentioned the conversation with Northcott which I have mentioned to-day.
Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. A letter has been read in which the society offer me 5l. 16s. 3d. as the surrender value, but previous to 16th July I had a letter from Northcott, in which I was offered 7l. 2s. 11d.—I said in my letter to Northcott, of July 16th, "I shall feel obliged if you will kindly explain the transaction to your directors and ask them to be good enough under such extraordinary circumstances to cancel the policy."
John Lubin. I am a fishmonger, of Bristol—early in 1875 I saw an advertisement of Mr. Seymour, of 9, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, in consequence of which I applied for a loan of 100l. at four per cent. for four years—these (produced) are the documents which passed between us—the one of 17th March states that I must insure my life for 200l. and give the policy and a reference—I gave Mr. Tinewell as my referee and received an intimation from Seymour that he had given a satisfactory account of me—on 30th March I got a letter from Northcott, asking me to call on Dr. Coombe, Jelton House, and pay him 10s. 6d. for the examination—this is the proposal I filled up, I do not think it was written on when I received it, I forwarded it to the office—I received a letter on 8th April, saying that Dr. Coombe had retired from practice, and asking me to call on Dr. Hales, of Bristol; I did so and paid him
10s. 6d.—on 14th April I received a letter which stated "I have the pleasure to inform you that your proposal has been accepted," and one on 21st April, which stated, "The money can be advanced when you have the policy"—on 20th April I forwarded a post-office order for 5l. 13s. 6d. to pay my premium, and received this document. (This was signed by Northcott and stated, "This is to certify that Mr. Lubin has effected an insurance with this Society.") On 3rd May I received a letter saying that I should receive my policy, and on 8th May another letter, which stated: "Dear Sir, I enclose draft securities, which please return to me at you earliest convenience"—I kept that—among the securities was a statutory declaration to be made before a Bristol Magistrate—on 11th May I got another letter, asking me to return the drafts—when I parted with the money to pay my premium I thought it was a bona-fide transaction, and that the statements in the advertisements were true—this is my policy—I never obtained the loan; I entirely lost the money—the loan went of because I did not complete these forms.
CHARLES SUNDT . I am a railway guard, and live at 11, Albion Street, Newport—in March, 1875, I saw an advertisement of W. Seymour, 9, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, similar to this one produced—I wrote to that address saying that I wanted from 200l. to 300l. at four per cent. for five years—I got a reply on 1st April, saying that I could have it at that rate, but should have to insure my life for 400l. in an office to be selected by him, and send the name of a referee; that was signed "W. Seymour," and I received another letter irom him, saying that my reference was satisfactory—about 9th April I received a letter from Seymour, enclosing an insurance proposal, which I filled up myself except the top line—on 21st April I received a letter asking me if I still required an advance, and another on 23rd April, saying that the money was ready to be advanced when the insurance was completed, and another on 3rd May, asking me for the receipt for the premium—I forwarded the premium, 11l. 9s., by post-office order, here is the register of it, I believe that was on 1st May—on 5th May I got a letter from Seymour, saying "Be pleased to forward 4l. 4s. to defray legal expenses"—I produce Northcott's receipt for my premium—I forwarded the 4l. 4s. to Seymour, and on 7th May receive I this acknowledgment: "Yours to hand with remittance"—on 13th May I received a letter enclosing five documents with a request to return them, and any comments I might have to make endorsed upon them—there was a bill of sale, a declaration to be made before a Magistrate, and a paper about sureties that so much money was to be paid back at a certain time—I then wrote: "Dear Sir,—In reply to yours, if you require me to pay you 600l. for the loan of 300l., I beg to state that I will have nothing more to do with it, &c. "—I then received this letter, of 20th May, saying "My solicitor advises me not to dispense with any of the drafts," and on 25th May this letter: "I beg to return your insurance receipts"—I never saw any of the defendants, and never had the loan—when I paid the premium in the Albion I believed the statements in the advertisement, and in the letters—I got my policy back, this is it.
FREDERICK JOHN WOODROW . I live at Presteigne, and am master of the Grammar School—in July, 1875, I saw in the Standard an advertisement of William Holland, of 11, Euston Square, and at the end of August or the beginning of September I applied to him for an advance
of 200l. for three years at 6 per cent., to be repaid at the end of the term—I then received a letter, dated 11th September, from 11, Euston Square, saying that I should have to effect an insurance for 400l. in an office to be selected, and I then received a form of consent to borrow and an insurance proposal, both of which I filled up—I sent the proposal to the office and the consent to Holland—my name was Written on the proposal when I received it, and the words "With profits"—I received a letter dated 6th September, acknowledging the receipt of the consent, and another asking if the insurance company had accepted the insurance—I then wrote and suggested that the premium should be paid out of the money that was to be advanced, and on 10th September I received a letter, saying "I make it an invariable rule to lend the money in full"—on the 13th September I received this: "Dear Sir: I am quite prepared to carry out the loan as soon as the policy is completed," and on the 15th another, stating, "You will have to give a bond consenting to pay the 200l. and assign the policy;" and on the 17th this; "I enclose draft bonds for your perusal, which please return to me at your earliest convenience"—on 20th September I drew this cheque for the premium. (This was for 12l. 8s. on the Radnorshire Bank, and endorsed by Northcott.) On 23rd September I received a letter asking me to send a post-office order for 5l. 5s. for incidental charges—I forwarded this second cheque for 5l. 5s. which is endorsed "William Holland," and stamped by the Birkbeck Bank—I then received a letter, dated 25th September, saying, "Your remittance, 5l. 5s., is duly to hand," also this: "29th September. I have seen the solicitor to-day, and he has promised that no delay shall occur"—I then received this letter; "By this post you will receive drafts, which please return to me with any comments you may have to make. W. Holland."—With that letter came five drafts (as before)—I declined to give the securities, and on 7th October received this letter (Stating that has solicitor could not advise him to dispense with any of the securities)—I still declined, and then received this: "Dear Sir; As you decline to proceed, I will direct my solicitor to make out his bill of charges and forward the same to you. W. Holland."—I then wrote to Holland, complaining of his breach of contract, and received this letter of 13th October, saying, "What I have done in this matter is in strict accordance with your instructions"—I then received this, dated 19th October, from Northcott: "Yours of yesterday's date to hand. By this post I send you your policy. The Mr. Holland you flame is not connected with this society"—the policy was in Northcott's hands because it had not been forwarded to me, and I must have written a letter to him complaining of the transaction, and asking for the policy—when I paid the premium and legal expenses I believed the statements in the advertisements and in the letters.
By the Court. I believed that I should have the advance of the 200l. on the security of the life policy, and that I had made a bargain to get the money, which bargain would be fulfilled—I believed that I should get the money on the security I offered.
THOMAS CLAY . I live at 95, Grosvenor Park, Camberwell—in November, 1875. I saw in the Standard this advertisement of William Holland, Esq., civil engineer and surveyor, 11, Euston Square: "Money to be lent in own or country on personal security," and so on; in consequence of seeing that I called at 11, Euston Square, about the 26th November—
there was a brass plate on the door with "William Holland" on it—I knocked at the door, Slinker opened it—I asked if Mr. Holland was in—he said "No"—I had a general conversation, explaining what I had called about—I told him I wanted to borrow 150l. on the security of a policy for 250l. in the Church of England office—I also told him that I could give security upon some commissions that were due to me—he said he would speak to Mr. Holland about it, and I should hear from him—he asked me at the same time if I would be willing to take out another policy in an insurance office to be named by them—I said I would, but I should like it to be another in the Church of England—he said it must be in an office of their own choosing—that was the substance of what passed; this conversation took place in the first room on the right going in—be took a note on a scrap of paper of what I required—I gave him my card and left—I afterwards received this letter of 27th November, signed "William Holland": "I can entertain your application. You will have to insure your life in an office selected by me for 150l., together with the one for 250l. which you have already effected, as collateral security, the policies to be returned to you on repayment of the loan"—on receiving that letter I called again at 11, Euston Square, on the 29th—Slinker opened the door—I inquired for Mr. Holland—Slinker said he was in the City, he had a great deal of business in the City, and said either then or at one visit that he was surveying some property in Southwark—I told him that I had received the letter of the 27th, and agreed to take the money on the terms named—I said they were extraordinary easy terms, I could not understand hot they managed to do business that way, that it was very low interest for just the security of the policies—he said that was their business, and not any one else's, that they knew best—his words were "That is our business, we know best"—on the following day I received this letter dated 29th November, signed William Holland, enclosing this form of consent, also this insurance proposal—I signed the consent and returned it-my name and address was written on the top of the proposal when it came—I was examined by a medical man—in the meantime I received this letter of 1st December, ackowledging the receipt of the consent, also the letter of 2nd December: "If the Insurance Company have accepted your proposal, send them the premium and request them to get the policy completed"—on 2nd December I went again to 11, Euston Square—Slinker opened the door—I told him I was nearly certain that the life would be accepted—I called at the Life Office next day and found it had been accepted—I then called again at Euston Square and saw Slinker and told him to get everything in readiness so that there might be no delay—on 8th December I went to the Albion Office and paid the premium, 4l. 7s. 6d., and got this receipt—I went and showed it to Slinker—he asked me to leave it, but I declined to do so until I got my policy—I inquired for Mr. Holland on that occasion—Slinker said he was out—I received this letter from W. Holland: "Be good enough to send me Insurance Company's receipt for premium"—I did not do so—I then received this letter of 9th December, signed Wm. Holland: "Be kind enough to send me post-office order for 3 guineas to defray the legal charges"—on the following day I went to Euston Square—I saw Slinker and said it was a preposterous thing to ask me to pay 3 guineas for deeds that were not drawn up—he said it was their usual way of business-as
to the 3 guineas I said they could either deduct it, or else when the money was handed over to me I would return the 3 guineas to them—he said be would speak to Mr. Holland about it—the deeds I referred to were the transfer from the Church of England and the other: they were mentioned at nearly every visit—I understood that I should have to assign the two policies—that was mentioned by Slinker at my very first visit—as I was leaving on this last occasion William Shaw came in at the door; I think he opened the door himself—Slinker said, "Here is Mr. Holland," and he mentioned my name, "This is Mr. Clay"—William Shaw went up stairs—I waited down stairs for a few minutes and was then desired to walk up to the first-door room, where I saw William Shaw—there was a large table in the centre of the room, with catalogues of machinery and of property for sale—I said I could not be expected to pay the 3 guineas before I got the loan, that I showed my good faith by taking out the policy in the Insurance Office, and I thought that was quite sufficient to let him know that I intended to act straightforwardly to my bargain—he said he would consult hid solicitor, and see if it could be managed to let me pay it after—I then left—next day I got this letter, signed Wm. Holland: "Dear Sir,—As I never make any deductions, but hand over the amount of loan in full, you must remit the amount required to defray expenses, on receipt of which I will at once arrange for you to receive the 150l."—on the 15th I called at the office in Euston Square—I saw Slinker and said I would pay him the 3 guineas under the distinct understanding that nothing more was required of me than the transfer of the policies—be said the loan would be carried out under the arrangement already made—I then paid the 3 guineas to Slinker in cash, and he went to the table and wrote, but it was too far off for me to see what he wrote—after writing at the table he handed me this receipt: "Received 15th December, 1876, of Mr. Thomas Clay, the sum of 3 guineas to defray the legal charges connected with the above advance. Wm. Holland"—that was all that passed on that occasion—I afterwards received this letter of 17th December by book-post, with these 5 documents (as before)—there was no name at the bottom—on receiving those I went again to Euston Square with my wife on 18th December, taking the five documents with me—Slinker opened the door to me, as before—I asked for Mr. Holland—he said he was in and would see me in a few minutes if we would walk up stairs—we went up and sat down, and in about five minutes William Shaw came in—I introduced him to my wife as Mr. Holland—I put the drafts on the table and said they were quite contrary to everything that had been arranged before—I said that I did not object to the bill of sale so much, but I objected to the statutory declaration being in public before Magistrates—he said that he could get over that by having it before a Commissioner—I objected to the sureties; I said it was impossible for me to get sureties, that they were more difficult to get than money, that many friends would advance me a small sum of money, but they would not become surety for me—he said that he would see the solicitors and try to see if they would recommend him to do away with the sureties—my wife then asked him when he was going to carry out his promise of advancing the loan—William Shaw replied: "I never do business with ladies"—she thereupon turned round to me and said "Just ask this man when he is going to carry out his promise"—he then got up, put
his bat on and said "I am a gentleman, and won't be called a man by any woman," and be ordered us out—be pushed us out and slammed the door after us—this was about 12 o'clock in the day—the same night I received this letter, dated 18th December, signed "Wm. Holland": "I have seen my solicitor, who states be cannot recommend me to dispense with any of the securities drawn by him; I must therefore request you to enter into the same accordingly and forward the names of two sureties as required by the draft guarantee"—I then wrote for the return of my money, and then got this letter of 23rd December from Holland: "What I have done in this matter is in strict accordance with your written authority of 23rd November last. I am quite ready to complete, upon your complying with the required sureties"—I never got the loan or got back the 3 guineas—I did not renew my policy—I only insured in the Albion for the purpose of this loan—I received the policy direct from the office—I think I have it at home—at the time I paid the premium and the 3 guineas I believed the statements in the advertisement and the letters, that Holland was a surveyor, carrying on business at this place in the way stated—I bad no idea at all of any connection between Holland and the insurance office—I refused to pay the premium till they assured me at the office that no commission was paid on the premium—I saw two clerks there; they told me Mr. Northcott was out—I told them who I was in communication with, and they said no commission was paid—they looked in a book and said they had no agents, and that no commission would be paid on my policy.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I paid the 3 guineas and the 4l. 7s. 6d. in the hope of getting the money eventually—that was what led me to pay the money—that was my motive for paying the money—I knew, of course, that the person lending the money would have to make inquiries as to the position of the person it was being lent to.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I told a clerk at the Albion that I was negotiating a loan with Holland—he looked in a book, and said he did not know the name, but he would ask the manager when he came in.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. On all occasions when I went to Euston Square, Slinker opened the door—no one was present at the conversation with William Shaw but Slinker—I wrote it down in December, and I wrote the whole statement in the following February—my memory was pretty clear then—I am certain that Slinker introduced William Shaw as Mr. Holland, and not as Mr. Holland's man.
RICHARD EASTON THOMAS . I live at Falmouth, and am a wine and spirit merchant—about May, 1876, I saw an advertisement of Holland, of 11, Euston Square, proposing to make advances on personal security and on freehold and leasehold property—on that I communicated with Holland—I wanted an advance of 300l. for five years at 5 per cent.—the whole transaction was carried on by this correspondence, extending from 19th May, 1876, to 4th July, 1877—I never called—it was suggested that I should insure in the Albion—I paid 17l. 11s. 1d. on 1st July for the premium, less the doctor's fee, and 5s. for the transfer of the policy to Holland—this is the cheque, crossed Union Bank of London, Chancery Lane, and payable to Holland or order, and it is endorsed "William Holland"—this is the proposal form; the writing at the top was there when I received it—about 15th July I received an application for 5 guineas for legal expenses—I sent this cheque for 5 guineas that day;
it is endorsed "William Holland,"paid through the Birkbeck Bank—I ultimately received a letter containing these five document; that was about 22nd July—I got the policy, but not the loan—on 31st May, 1877, I wrote to Mr. Northcott, and on 2nd June I received a letter of his of 1st June—I have mislaid the policy—I refused to sign the securities; I considered it a breach of trust.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I sent the 5 guineas and the amount of the premium in order to obtain the loan.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I was asked for what purpose I was effecting the policy, and I replied "For the benefit of my assigns"—my sole object was to secure the loan.
ARCHER DUNGEBOY SCHROFF . I am a medical assistant at Cardiff—I am a native of British India—in November, 1876, I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph of William Holland, of 11, Euston Square, offering to lend money, in consequence of which I applied for a loan of 2,000l.—this is the correspondence that passed in reference to it—I was required to insure my life in the Albion, and this proposal was sent me—I did insure, and paid 56l. 13d. 4d. for the first year's premium; they refused a quarter's—I paid it to one of the clerks at the Albion, and sent the receipt to Holland—on 23rd December I received a letter enclosing these five drafts for my signature—I objected to sign almost all of them—I ultimately sent the names of two sureties—they were required to make a statutory declaration that they were worth 2,000l. or 4,000l. each—I never got the loan—I called at 11, Euston Square, several times to see Mr. Holland; I always saw Wm. Shaw and the clerk Slinker—Slinker told me that Mr. Holland was away, but that his manager would do as well—I had a conversation with William Shaw about the loan, and about not accepting the quarter's premium—I did not see Northcott in the course of the negotiations; I saw him afterwards, in May, 1877—I called at his office and asked him to show me their tables of premium—I said that a man of my age ought to be charged 2l. 6s. per cent.; I was charged 2l. 17s.; altogether I was charged 17l. more than I ought to have been charged—I pointed him out the mistake, and he said I was charged more because I was a foreigner—I said that on the receipt it particularly said if I was to go to India they would charge me extra, and I asked how could he charge me extra already—he said he would refer it to the committee—I wrote to him once again, but got no answer—I never got back my 17l.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I was 24 years of age at the time—I paid 56l. 13s. 4d.—I don't know how much per cent. that is.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. At the time I made the application I was residing at 9, Bellevue Road, Wandsworth Common; I was stopping there with a friend—I had no place of abode of my own—the negotiations extended over about six weeks—I represented that I wanted the money for the purpose of building houses, to be built on a plot of land by the seaside—I was negotiating for the plot of land—it was not then in my possession—it was at Margate; the ground rent was 50l. a year—nothing was paid down—my proposal for the 2,000l. was declined after they got my money—I wrote this letter of November 18, 1876, in which I state, "I have now settled in England. I am about to take a house, and then I shall be most happy if you will do me the pleasure of taking tea with me"—during the interview I had with William Shaw he
represented himself as the manager to Mr. Holland—I paid my money expecting to receive the advance; that was what induced me to part with my money—I brought an action against the Albion—I do not know that an answer was filed; 1 do not understand legal matters; I left everything to my solicitor.
Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. I paid the 56l. to insure my life and get the loan.
Re-examined. I had no other object in insuring my life but to get the loan—I did not then know that there was no such person in existence as William Holland.
(MR. GORST here read a letter from Northcott of 1st June, 1877, to Mr. Thomas, stating, "This society is not connected with any of the persons you mention; we cannot, therefore, recognise any transaction you may have with them.... I have no power to return the premium, but will bring your papers before the directors, and communicate the result."Also one of 4th June: "You say you are prepared to prove that we paid Holland half the first year's premium. I am really unable to understand this statement. We have not made any payment at all to Holland in respect of this policy.")
GEORGE LYLAS . I live at Grange Road, Middlesborough, Yorkshir-in January, 1876, I saw an advertisement of Mr. Hawkins, 9, Great Russell Street, in the Middlesborough Weekly News—it was like this one (No. 2)—I was in want of a loan and corresponded with Mr. Hawkins between 1st January and 14th March, 1877—I stated that I required a loan of 300l., and that I had a policy for 100l. in the United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution—I then received this letter from Frederick Hawkins, dated 2nd January. (Offering the loan upon condition of his insuring his life in an office of the writer's selection, depositing the policy, and requesting the name of a referee)—I answered that on 3rd January and gave him a reference, and on the 6th I got a reply that it was satisfactory—on the 9th I received a printed form of proposal of the Albion from Hawkins to fill up, which I did and returned—I then received a letter of 1st February: "Be pleased to forward me the Insurance Company's receipt for premium. F. Hawkins." I sent the receipt to Hawkins, and received this letter. (Acknowledging the receipt and asking for 4l. 4s. to defray the solicitor's charges)—I had already paid 11l. 13s. 4d. to the Albion—I sent the four guineas, and on the 6th February Hawkins acknowledged the receipt—on 10th February I received five documents (The same as before), on which I wrote a letter of which this produced is a copy—I kept the documents a few days and then returned them, and then received this letter. (Dated 13th February, stating that his solicitor recommended him not to dispense with any of the securities")—we corresponded further, and I received this: "By your signature of 8th January, you have agreed to give the necessary security for the loan, I hereby request you to do so, and I will carry out my part of the contract"—I had signed a formal consent to borrow—I then wrote to get my insurance receipt back—this is my policy, I received it from the office, I did not renew it—I intended to have kept it on if it had been genuine—I believed the statement in the advertisement and letters—I also had a correspondence with Northcott—these are copies of my letters and Northcott's replies.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. On 30th January, 1878, I wrote to Mr.
Northcott about renewing the policy, that was just before it was out—I desired to keep it on from prudential motives, and received this letter of 6th February from Northcott. (Stating that he could pay half-yearly instead of yearly). On 9th February I wrote this letter. (Stating that he was sorry to see mach unpleasant reports about the Albion in reference to Mr. Jex Blake, which made him hesitate in renewing his policy). There was no letter from Northcott, and on the 13th February I wrote; "Please reply to my letter"—up to that time I wished to renew the policy, but I did not do so when I saw the Albion trial.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. When I paid the money I believed that the advance would be made in due course, and that induced me to part with my money.
JAMES SEARBY . I live at Rusheliffe Bottom, Huddersfield, and am a tailor and commission agent—in December, 1876, I saw an advertisement of Hawkins, 9, Great Russell Street, offering to lend money—I commenced a correspondence with him in December, 1876, which went on till the early part of the following year—it is now before me—I wrote to him on the 28th, telling him I could give any number of references, and said: "Will you oblige me with the entire cost, so that I can tell what it will come to?"—in answer to that he wrote: "I shall select a substantial company, and the interest will be four per cent. per annum"—I then sent him references, and enclosed the form of consent—I then received a proposal and this letter from Hawkins, with a request to fill it up—I cannot say whether I returned it to him or to the secretary, but I got a letter from the secretary on 15th January, showing that it came I ultimately into his hands—there was some delay in forwarding the policy, but ultimately my proposal was accepted—the premium was 3l. 12s. per cent.—on 6th January I received a letter, asking me, if my proposal was accepted, to send the policy, in order that he might arrange for me to have the money—he wrote again on 3rd February, pressing for the policy, and again on the 6th, asking for the receipt for the premium—I sent it to him, and received on 6th February a letter, saying:"Be pleased to forward me 2l. 10s. to defray the solicitor's charges, and on receipt of that I will make arrangements for you to receive the 100l., which will be handed to you without deduction "—I wrote on the 10th protesting against paying the 2l. 10s., and said: "In your advertisements you say no charge is made"—he wrote again, and ultimately on 19th February I sent him 2l. 10s. by post-office order, which he acknowledged—on 23rd February he sent me some draft securities, asking me to return them at my convenience—I wrote on the 24th, and said: "I decline to sign any of the documents forwarded, under any circumstances"—I then received his letter of the 27th asking me to return the drafts, and another on 1st March, asking me to return them with any remarks or objections endorsed upon them—on 10th March I received this letter. (This asked for the return of the papers, and informed the witness that he had better instruct a respectable solicitor, as he did not seem to understand business.) I kept the papers and believe these to be the same—I do not know who made these pencil marks—I do not think it was on the document when I first got it—I) never got my loan.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. When I parted with my money I believed that I should get the advance.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I received a circular of a special meeting
to be held on 11th December, 1877, about transferring the business of
the office to another person—this is a copy of it (This was signed by J. T. Northcott calling a special meeting of the Albion Life Office upon 11th December to consider and approve of an agreement for establishing an agency in France)—my policy expired on 1st February, and I did not renew it.
Square, of money to be lent on personal security without commission or charges—this is it—I cut it out of the paper—I wrote and applied for 150l. and received this letter of 9th February, stating "You will have to insure your life in an insurance office selected by me for 300l."—a form of consent was sent me to sign and a printed form of proposal—on 22nd March I received a letter from Holland asking me to send him the policy—I went before a doctor at Aldershot—my life was accepted—I paid 9l. 9s. premium, which was 10l. 10s., less the doctor's fee, 1l. 1s.—I paid that myself at the office and have got the receipt dated 10th April—I went on the same day to 11, Euston Square, and took the receipt with me—I rang the bell—Slinker opened the door—I asked to see Mr. Holland—he said "Mr. Holland is not in"—I said "Perhaps you will do as well"—he took me to an office and I said that I had come concerning a loan—he brought the papers and altered some of them from 150l. to 200l.—I showed him the receipt—he said I had better keep it and that I should have the loan in a post or two—on the 11th April I received a letter asking for three guineas for legal charges—I sent that by post-office order and got a letter on 16th April enclosing draft securities (as before)—I took the documents to Euston Square about 17th or 18th April, saw Slinker again, and inquired for Mr. Holland—he told me he was on the Continent—I showed him the five drafts and said that it was impossible that I could carry them out—he said they would see the solicitor, and as I was an officer in the Army it might make some difference—I afterwards received this letter of 18th April, which states "I have seen my solicitor and he cannot recommend me to dispense with the securities"—I wrote and said that if he did not return the three guineas I should consult my solicitor—this is the proposal: when it was sent "Hamilton" was put on it but not my Christian name—I got the policy—I effected it for the sole purpose of the loan—it has not been renewed—when I paid the premium and the three guineas I believed the statements in the advertisement.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. When I sent the three guineas I believed that I should get the loan and I paid the money to obtain it.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I had no correspondence with Northcott—I went to his office and was told he was busy—the clerk gave me the receipt.
WILLIAM GREENWOOD HUDSON . I am a poulterer and fishmonger, of Cheetham, near Manchester—I saw in the Manchester Courier an advertisement of Mr. Holland, of 11, Euston Square, offering to lend money, and a correspondence commenced on 19th April, which extended to 29th May, 1877—I wanted 50l.—he told me 1 should have to insure my life in the Albion and sent me the proposal and consent—on 3rd May he wrote "I will dispense with the insurance in your case; I will thank you to forward post-office order for 2l. 2s. to defray incidental expenses,"and
on 8th May he wrote "I can complete within four days"—I sent the 2l. 2s. and on 18th May received this letter enclosing four documents. (The same as before)—he pressed me on 24th May to return them, and afterwards threatened me with a lawyer's bill—he wrote again and said that he had placed the matter in the hands of his solicitor—I never got the loan—I believed the statements in the advertisements—I went to 11, Euston Square on 2nd or 3rd September—an old lady opened the door and in consequence of what she said I called again and saw Slinker—I asked for Mr. Holland—he said that he was not in—I gave him my name and told him what I had come about, and showed him the draft securities—he wanted me to leave them and he left the room and brought a gentleman in, who he said was their manager—I cannot say who it was—the conversation was in the clerk's office—Slinker was present during the conversation—I asked the manager how it was he had not completed the loan, as he had agreed, and he wanted to know why I had not returned the draft securities—I said I had informed him in one of my letters that I objected to the draft securities altogether, because they had not been mentioned in the original agreement, and I declined to have anything to do with them and asked him to return the two guineas—he said he could not do that because it had been used in legal expenses—I said "I do not think any legal expenses have been incurred"—he told me he could not waste any further time, and if I thought I had been badly used I could go to law about it—I did not get the two guineas back—this is my proposal.
JAMES VINEY . I am a clerk in the office of Mr. Robinson, of 23, Philpot Lane, solicitor to Mr. Jex Blake, and a number of other gentlemen in Court—in February, 1876, I lived at Hendon, and by Mr. Robinson's direction I wrote from Hendon replying to the advertisement of Mr. Holland, and asking for a loan of 170l.—I got letters from Holland and a form of consent, but I was not asked to insure—I afterwards received an application for 3l. 3s. for legal expenses—I wrote and made an appointment, saying that I would call, and on March 4th, 1876, I went to 11, Euston Square—Slinker opened the door—I inquired for Mr. Holland, he said that he was out of town and would not be in town for two or three weeks—I said I wanted to see him and that I had written—he told me Mr. Holland's managing and confidential clerk was in, and I could see him; that he knew all about my business and could do it as well as Mr. Holland—I was shown upstairs to the first floor, and William Shaw entered the room and told me he was Mr. Holland's managing clerk and confidential man, and that Mr. Holland was out of town for two or three weeks, I told him I had not come prepared to pay him three guineas, but I would pay him 1l, on account—he said that if I would pay him a guinea, the matter should be carried through in a few days—I paid him 1l. 1s., and he went out of the room and brought me a receipt for the amount, which was produced before the Magistrate—I asked him if I should have to give any other security than a personal bond; he told me I should only have to give a bond, nothing else would be required, and that I could have the money one day the following week, and he would write and let me know—I brought the receipt away and as I went through the lower office I said to Slinker: "I hope it will be all right although Mr. Holland is out of town"—he said "Oh yes, it will be all right, we can do it just as well," and said that Mr. Holland was often several weeks away from town surveying—a few days after I
received a letter, and by book post four draft documents (as before) which I kept—I wrote to Mr. Holland on the subject and the matter dropped for a time—on 4th June, 1877, I called again at 11; Euston Square and saw Slinker; I mentioned my name and said that some time ago had applied for a loan; he went into an adjoining room and fetched the papers, and I saw my own letters there—I gave him my address and saw him write it down; I looked at it as he wrote it, and I took its and looked at it; I should know it again—he told me that the matter should be attended to—I afterwards got a letter applying for the names of two sureties, which I sent—these are the letters I received from Holland in 1876, and the copies of my replies—the papers I saw at 11, Euston Square were labelled with my name; this label looks very much like what I saw; my original address is on it, which is altered to my present address—about 9th June I went to Brighton, and saw Wood at the Portland Club, Ship Street—I told him I wanted to make inquiries about joining his club for a friend of mine; he told me my friend could become a member by being proposed and seconded, and the fee was very small, about two guineas a year—he said he was the proprietor of the club and a member of Tattersall's—about a week afterwards I went down and gave him a copy of a writ in the action of Schroff v. The Albion and others, and called his attention to the names appearing on it, William Shaw and Northcott—I asked him if he knew any of the defendants—he said I do not know them, I do not know anything about them—he said that his name was not Thomas Gard Wood, but Thomas Wood.
By the COURT. When I paid the guinea I did not intend to borrow, I did it to deceive them—I thought I would do it as cheaply as I could.
PINDAR SIMPSON . I live at 34, Savile Row—in 1869 I was acting as agent to Mr. Scott, who was the receiver of an estate of which No. 11, Euston Square formed a part—that house was to let, and I received a letter on May 22nd that year from Mr. Wood—I believe this letter to be Wood's writing—I answered it, and informed him the terms—the references were Mr. Cotterell and Mr. N. White—ultimately I let the house to Mrs. Wood, who Wood said was his mother, to be let as offices on the ground floor—the rent was generally paid by Wood's cheque on the London and County Bank—I had several letters from Wood, four of which I produce—the house was given up on March 29th—I called several times at Euston Square, and saw William Shaw, Alfred Shaw, and Slinker.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I wrote to the references and found out who Mrs. Wood was before I let her the house—she occupied the upper part and I saw her constantly—she was a short elderly woman—I do not think I saw Wood on the premises after the beginning of 1875.
MARY ANN NEWMAN . In October, 1873, I became a servant to Mrs. Wood, at 11, Euston Square—there was no other servant—I remained in her service till January, 1878—when I first went there was a brass plate on the door with "Henry Howard" on it, which was changed about June, 1875, and another plate put on with "William Holland" on it—Wood used to come there—he was my mistress's son—he generally came between 10 and 11, and left sometimes at 3 and sometimes at 4 o'clock—I know Slinker as the clerk, he used to come every day—William Shaw used to come after the name of Holland was on the door, not before—I knew him as the manager—he used to come every day as Wood used to come
before—I never saw Howard or Holland to know them—I had nothing to do with the office—I saw George Shaw there and Thomas called sometimes—that was merely to see their brother William—when I was at the police-court Alfred Shaw was in custody—I never saw him at Euston Square—it was not part of my duty to take the letters out of the letter box of a morning, but I did so several times—there might be 20 letters, more or less, by the first post.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I have nothing by which to remember the date when the plate was changed—I may be wrong by some months, it may have been earlier—Wood did not sleep there, and he did not come there after the plate was changed to Holland except to see his mother.
Re-examined. Wood very seldom came after 1875—I do not remember that he ever stayed all night after 1875—he has stopped all night, but I think not since the brass plate was changed.
EDWARD DAVIS . I am a dyer and cleaner, of 120, Southampton Row—my mother is the landlady—Mr. R. F. Preston took the first-floor rooms furnished at the latter part of 1871 or early in 1872—I saw him at Bow Street in the name of Alfred Shaw-there was a brass plate on the door "R. F. Preston"—he was there nearly all day and left, I think, about the middle of 1874—I have no means of fixing the date—I am speaking generally—I recognise William and Thomas Shaw—I knew William as Mr. Shaw—he was clerk to Mr. Preston and came nearly every day and was there from 10.30 to 3 o'clock—Thomas was known as Tommy—he was a clerk likewise—he did not come so often, and the first three or four months he was not there at all—when he came Mr. Shaw used to come as well—he was managing clerk and was there all the while—Tommy was there about four months constant, and then he would be away for a time and come again—I was told that Mr. Preston lived at Brighton-the offices were given up about the end of 1874 and 18l. rent was left unpaid—no notice was given and no address left—there was a separate bell communicating with the office-there was also a rather tall clerk, a Frenchman, who they used to call Fred—from 12 to 15 letters came by the morning post.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. Thomas Shaw was about 18 when he came—his attendance ranged over fifteen months, and he was there about two-thirds of that time.
Cross-examined by Slinker. I never saw you at Southampton Row.
THOMAS WEBB . I live at 9, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury—I saw Alfred Shaw in custody at Bow Street—he took my first-floor as an office rather more than ten years ago—he represented that it was for Mr. Staunton, a surveyor, and that he was his managing clerk—he gave me as a reference Mr. Shaw, Grafton Road, Seven Sisters Road—a plate was put up with Mr. Staunton's name on it—Alfred Shaw came daily, but I never saw Staunton to my knowledge—he stayed about three years till we had some repairs done to the house—I do not know the date, but about 1872, two years after he left, he came and said that he had a new governor, Mr. W. Seymour, a capitalist, who he said he would introduce to me, but he never did, and took the offices again—a brass plate was put on the door with "Wm. Seymour" on it—Shaw came every day; he said that he was a financial agent, and after two years I was told that Mr. Seymour had died suddenly; he then owed me about 42l.—I was
never paid—about two years ago Alfred Shaw came a third time, when I objected to let him the office on account of the debt—he said that he would endeavour to obtain it for me from the friends, and said that his present employer was a large capitalist, Frederick Hawkins, who would pay the rent in advance, and that he was to be Mr. Hawkins's managing clerk—I let him the rooms—a brass plate was put up, but I never saw Hawkins—Alfred Shaw came daily, and I saw Thomas Shaw there sometimes fur a week or a fortnight, and sometimes he was absent—I considered him to be a clerk—George Shaw was also there occasionally during the last twelve months; they called him "the old clerk"—about twelve or fifteen letters came every day by the country post—Alfred Shaw gave his address at Seven Sisters Road—I heard that Mr. Hawkins had an epileptic fit—I did not hear that he got better—they gave up the office then, owing me 4l., which has not been paid.
Cross-examined by Slinker. I never saw you.
JOHN GEORGE LITTLECHILD . I am a sergeant in the detective department, Scotland Yard—in October, 1874, I received instructions to watch 120, Southampton Row—the name of Preston was on a brass plate on the door—I knew that his advertisements were appearing at that time very much in the provincial papers—I kept observation there about three weeks altogether—I saw William Shaw go there daily, and Thomas Shaw frequently; sometimes he would be away for two or three days, and then he would be there three or four days running—I wrote to Preston, applying for a loan in the name of Lambert, and giving a reference to the name of Rolfe, and on 13th November, 1874, I called at 120—I rang Preston's bell; the door was opened by Thomas Shaw; I inquired for Preston; he said, "He is not in, but will you return in twenty minutes or half an hour?"—I did so, saw Thomas Shaw, and asked if Mr. Preston had come in—he said, "Walk upstairs"—he introduced me into an office on the first floor, where I saw William Shaw—I said "Good morning," and introduced myself as Mr. Rolfe, the reference for Mr. Lambert, who was with me—he is also an officer—I said I wished to know what would be my responsibility as a reference, but I said, "Before proceeding any further, I presume I am speaking to Mr. Preston, the principal"—he said, "No, but I am his confidential clerk and manager, and anything you say to me will be as though you said it to him"—I said I preferred to have dealings with the principal, and wished to know when I could see him—he said, "He is not in town now; you had better write"—I then left—that was the only time I called—I produce two letters that I received by post in the name of Preston of 3rd and 10th November, 1874, in answer to my letters—I saw other persons go to 120, but I could not swear to any of the other prisoners—I have kept observation upon 9, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, during the last six years—the name of W. Seymour was up there when I was first acquainted with it—that was about 1873 or 1874—to the best of my recollection I have seen George Shaw there, but I cannot speak positively to him, he is so altered—I have seen Alfred Shaw there, that I am quite positive of—he was arrested on the 30th of April, and escaped at Bow Street as the prisoners were being moved from the dock—about the time I saw Alfred Shaw go to this house, advertisements were appearing—the name of Hawkins was up there at the time I saw Alfred Shaw going there—I received warrants for the arrest of Wood and
William Shaw, Northcott, Thompson, and Slinker, on Wednesday, 20th March, for obtaining money by false pretences and conspiracy—on Friday, the 22nd, I arrested Wood and William Shaw about a quarter to four in the afternoon—they were together in Rathbone Place, Oxford Street—I had been on the look-out for them—another officer was with me—I stopped Wood and called him by name, "Mr. Wood"—he turned round and said "That is my name, you appear to know me"—I said "Yes"—I then said to William Shaw "And your name is William Shaw?"—he said "Yes"—I said "I am an officer of police, Sergeant Littlechild, and this is Sergeant Lansdowne with me; I hold a warrant for the arrest of you both for fraud, and conspiring to defraud the Reverend Francis Jex Blake in connection with the Holland affair"—Wood said "I am not Holland"—William Shaw did not say anything—I asked whether I should read the warrant to them there—they said no, it did not matter—they were taken to the King Street Police Station—Wood was asked his address—he said "I have no regular address, I will give you the address of my solicitor," and he gave me the address of Mr. Apps, of Chancery Lane—I said "We cannot take that as your address"—Wood said "Well, I have no address, I have slept at my dub and at hotels"—William Shaw was asked his address, and he refused it—Wood said "I refuse my address"—they gave their correct names—they were searched in the ordinary way, and I saw found on Wood these books, containing writing—one is a betting book—I also found on him a first-class season ticket from Brighton to London, 365l. in notes, also about 3l. or 4l. in gold, and a quantity of jewellery worth I should say, speaking roughly, 200l—I told him I should go to Euston Square to search the place—he said "You will find the old lady there"—I went to 11, Euston Square on the same day—I found Mrs. Wood there, who was no doubt the prisoner's mother—I searched the office and took possession of a number of documents which are produced—amongst them I found a quantity of this letter paper with the printed heading, "15, Dover Place; 178, New Kent Road, S. E.; late 7, Cook's Court, Lincoln's Inn"—I found a great many sheets of old paper, also a large quantity of printed circulars like those produced—there were several hundreds of these—they are chiefly instructions to newspapers to insert Holland's advertisements—I also found a great quantity of bills from newspapers in all parts of the country—I also found Mitchell's Newspaper Press Directory, which gives a list of all the provincial papers—there were also a number of lists of country newspapers, in writing—I also found those dockets of bills for advertisements inserted, containing on the outside a sort of summary of each case—in some, copies of the correspondence were enclosed, others were merely a blank outside sheet—I also found some plans of some property—I have made out a list of these papers—there are 437, principally for the years 1876, 1877, and the beginning of 1878—they relate to 437 transactions—there are a few of 1875—the total amount of loans applied for is 222, 950l., and the amount of legal expenses, 3,070l. 10s. 1d.—a few of the dockets relate to the cases that have been investigated—this seizure took place after the trial of the action—Mr. Viney's was one of them—there are a number of judgments and County Court summonses against Howard and Holland—the last one is returnable on 2nd April—I do not recollect the date of the earliest—I also found this red book with this memorandum, "11, Euston
Square. I agree to let to Mr. William Holland four offices, ready furnished, at 12l. per month, commencing 1st June, 1875," and receipts in the name of Mary Ann Wood—I found these trust deeds relating to some property in Wiltshire, having the signature of Thomas Gard Wood, witnessed by George Shaw—this agreement was taken from William Shaw in my presence. (This was signed Wm. Holland, dated 3rd July, 1875, and purported to be an agreement between William Shaw and Holland, whereby William Shaw agreed to become his clerk and manager at a salary of 250l. per annum, and to give him the benefit of his legal knowledge in preparing bills of sale &c. Attached to this was an Order of Discharge of Baron Pollock in the matter of William Shaw, a prisoner in Holloway Prison at the suit of Heslop)—I also found at 11, Euston Square, this letter, dated 22nd March, from Blagden to Mrs. Wood—I went that same evening to No. 10, Riversdale Road, Highbury New Part, where I knew William Shaw lived—I have seen him leave there in the morning—I there found this letter in an envelope addressed to William Shaw, at that address, and signed "T. W."—I arrested Thompson on 23rd March—I met him in Chancery Lane—I told him the charge—he said "Who is the complainant?"—I said "Jex Blake," and told him that others were in custody—he said "Is Bennett in custody?"—I said "No"—I found several documents upon him, which I produce—he was living at 54, Lupus Street, Pimlico—this is one document I found on him, a copy of the Articles of Association of the Albion, and some transfers of shares; also some returns which the Insurance Office have to make to the Board of Trade for 1872 and 1873—after George Shaw was arrested on 10th May I went to No. 18, Grange Road, Bermondsey, kept by a Miss Harvey, where he was living—I searched a bedroom on the top floor which she pointed out as the room of Samuel Bilton, and I found there this blotting paper—I examined it carefully—it has been shown to Mr. Chabot—it has the signature "W. Thompson" in various places—Miss Harvey gave me this piece of paper with the name of Samuel Bilton written on it—on the blotting paper there was also the address of Mrs. Ellison, 111, Ball's Pond Road, Islington—I went there next morning and she gave me this letter—the envelope had previously been given to Sergeant Downing—it appears to be the envelope that was blotted on this blotting paper—the letter is addressed to her and signed "J. Williams"—at 111, Ball's Pond Road I found this blotting paper in a portmanteau in the room that was pointed out to me as J. Williams's room—I also got at that address some old cheque books and some letters to George Shaw—I got this letter and envelope from Mr. Robinson, the solicitor—it is dated July 11th, 1872, from 11, Euston Square, signed "H. Howard," and is addressed to the Rev. J. Bostock—I have been engaged in this case for some considerable time, and have endeavoured to find Seymour, Hawkins, Preston, Howard and Holland, but have never been able to find such persons at any of those addresses—I have had the assistance of officers from Scotland Yard—I saw William Shaw write this—some of the documents I found at Ball's Pond Road were in this bag.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. At the time I was asking Wood about his address I had been led to believe that he had left the Hotel in Ship Street, Brighton—I know he had been in Brighton from 1875, as proprietor of the Portland Club, Ship Street—the dockets that I found at 11, Euston Square contain the full addresses of the persons who had applied for money.
By the COURT. I found some books there, but no cash-book or ledger I found a day-book—I found no hook relating to a loan—I believe there was a pass-book with nothing in it—I believe this pass-book of 1863 relates to Wood's father.
ISABELLA ELLISON . I live at 111, Ball's Pond Road—I knew George Shaw by the name of Williams—he occupied a small back furnished room our first floor, at 4s. week—he came on 13th April this year, and was there not quite three weeks—on Thursday, 2nd May, he said that he was going to Brighton, and would return on the Saturday, but he did not—he paid me what was due, and has not defrauded me in any way—on 7th May I received this letter from him—this is the envelope, and about half an hour after that a detective called—I gave him the letter and envelope—he opened Shaw's portmanteau and took out some papers. (The letter was signed "J. Williams.")
Cross-examined by George Shaw. I do not know whether it is in your writing—I never saw you write—the police asked me if a man named, Shaw lived there—I said "No"—I described you and said I knew you by the name of Williams—I showed him the letter and he seemed to recognise the writing—I said that I was anxious to get rid of your portmanteau, and he jokingly said here that he would buy it—he did not tell me that you would be put away for good.
Re-examined. Williams said that you would be back on Saturday from Brighton—he did not come back, but on the Tuesday the letter came—I did not know that he had gone to Grange Road.
ELLEN HARDING . I live at 18, Upper Grange Road—George Shaw came to lodge with me on 3rd May this year—he had a furnished bedroom on the second floor—he gave no reference—he said he had come from the North and was staying with some friends—he gave no name then—one evening he brought down a piece of paper, saying that he had forgotten to give us his name, and he wrote down in pencil "Samuel Bilton"—this is the paper—he paid 4s. 6d. a week—he was taken in custody on 10th May, and the police took possession of some blotting paper in his bedroom.
Cross-examined by George Shaw. When the detective came he asked you if you were Mr. Shaw, and you said "No"—he asked you what you had about you, and you showed him a pocket-book, and I think there was a little piece of paper and a sovereign, out of which you paid me what was owing—I saw Dowdell take possession of your pocket-book with the sovereign in it—he took it out, looked at it, and put it back again.
JOHN JAMES DOWDELL (Detective Sergeant). I arrested George Shaw on 10th May, at Upper Grange Road, Bermondsey—I addressed him as Mr. George Shaw—he said "That is not my name, my name is Bilton"—I said "I hold a warrant for your arrest for being concerned with your three brothers in custody and a man named Wood"—I commenced to read the warrant, which was dated 16th April—he said "That will do, I do not want to hear it"—I said "You are the man I want and I shall take you"—I had been on the look-out for him since that time—I took him to the station—he said "I do not know what you want me for, I have only done a little copying for them, and have been paid for it"—he complained of being very ill—I said "Why did not you go back to your old lodging in Ball's Pond Road?"—he said "You have no right to ask me any question"—he gave his name George Shaw
at the station: I found on him a pocket-book, a small black bag, and a sovereign, but nothing relating to the charge—on 22nd March I took Slinker, at 33, Gathorne Street, Bow—I said "You have been engaged by Mr. Shaw at 11, Euston Square"—he said "Yes"—I told him I was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest for being concerned with William Shaw and Wood in conspiring together and cheating Mr. Jex Blake of certain moneys—I read the warrant to him—he said "Very well"—I took him to the King Street police-station—he said "I was engaged by Shaw as a clerk at 30s. a week and paid every Saturday by him, I never opened any letters and never knew the contents of any of them, but I was directed by Shaw, if any application was made, to direct them to the Albion Insurance Office to get their lives insured before any moneys could be advanced"—he did not tell me which Shaw it was, but I had told him that William Shaw was in custody—on 9th May I took Alfred Shaw, whom I knew as Captain Shaw—I had been looking out for him with a warrant from 16th April—he was at Bow Street on 9th and 11th—I had nothing to do with his escape.
Cross-examined by George Shaw. I told Sir James Ingham about your being ill and that you told me it was only spirits that kept you alive, and therefore I allowed you something as long as you were in my custody—besides the sovereign found on you there was some silver, which was left at the station for your refreshments—I mentioned that you paid your rent—I did not tell Sir James Ingham that you retained the whole of it or the balance afterwards—the balance was handed to you either by me or the inspector—the sovereign is in the pocket-book now—it has always been there.
GEORGE ROBSON (Detective Sergeant). I took Northcott on 22nd March at 9.30 P.m. in Leyton Road, Essex—I said "Good morning, Mr. Northcott"—he said "Good morning, but I have not the pleasure of knowing you"—I said "May be not, but I am an officer from Scotland Yard; I hold a warrant for your arrest"—he said he was sorry to hear it, but he should be able to show his innocence—the warrant was for conspiracy and fraud—I took these papers from him (produced) and some more were in a black bag at his house, 1, Grange Park Villas, Leyton—on 9th May I took Thomas Shaw in High Street, Stoke Newington, about 10.30 p.m.—I called him by his name, Thomas Shaw, and told him I had a warrant for his arrest for conspiracy and fraud—he said "You have made a mistake, I am not the man"—I said "I will, at all events, detain you for the night," and on finding I was resolved he said "It is no use, I am the man, and I am sorry you have caught me"—I took him to King Street station, where he gave his name Thomas Shaw—he said he had no fixed address at present, but his last address was 140, Seven Sisters Road—I went there next morning and among other papers not relating to this case I found these documents. (These were a cheque of Alfred Shaw for 45l. on the London and County Bank, a letter dated June,27, 1876, from 11, Euston Square: "Dear Tom, Call here to-morrow morning about 11 o'clock and bring interpleader summons. William Shaw," and a letter to George Williams, 33, Grafton Road, Holloway: "Dear Sir: Have you altogether retired from business? Yours faithfully, J. T. Northcott")—the warrant against Thomas was issued on 16th April—I had been trying very hard to execute it—I was present when Littlechild arrested Thompson.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Northcott lived at Grange Road, where I arrested him—we commenced the inquiry a day or two before—I had lot the slightest difficulty in arresting him.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I did not speak to Thomas Shaw about the documents—I never saw him after finding him, to have any conversation with him—I do not know that he is a trustee to the settlement of William Shaw's wife.
HENRY SASS . I am a clerk at the Union Bank of London, Chancery Lane branch—in October, 1871, I took a position as junior clerk in the Albion Life Insurance Society, and remained there nearly four years, until August, 1875—soon after I went there a man named Williams used so call—I saw him at Bow Street under the name of Alfred Shaw—he called two or three times a month, sometimes a little oftener and some-times not so often—he sometimes brought proposals for insurances—there was an agency account in the name of Williams, and I believe he was paid 40 or 50 per cent, commission—his commissions were entered to his account—sometimes he saw Mr. Northcott and sometimes he just came in and left his proposal—Northcott occasionally left messages or notes for him—Northcott occupied a separate room, and Williams used to see him there—commissions were always paid to Williams by cheque—I have seen a number of receipts for commissions signed by him but I did not have anything to do with keeping the books, therefore they did not come under my notice in a regular way, but after the receipts have been signed I have seen them—the prisoner Wood used also to call once a week and sometimes wait for a considerable time—I never knew him by the name of Gard, nor had we an agent of that name to my knowledge—there was no one named Rogers there while I was there, but there was an account in the name of Rogers—I never saw a Mr. Ager—I do not remember an agent named Brown—I do not remember Wood bringing proposals for insurance, not so frequently as to strike me—proposals used to be brought into the office from him and they were carried to the account of Rogers—I do not think I saw Mr. Seymour or Hawkins—I have heard Preston alluded to in letters to the society, but never saw him, Girdleston, Barclay, Howard, or Holland—I have heard of Mr. Howard—I am not quite sure whether Wood brought proposals or not, but there were proposals from him, and when they came they were carried to Rogers' account—I think I have heard both Preston's and Howard's names mentioned by persons in the office, and I directed such persons to Mr. Northcott, the manager, in his room.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I entered the office in October, 1871—Northcott was then secretary and manager—I left to obtain an increase of salary—Mr. H. E. Bennett, a barrister, was a director when I went, and he retired while I was there—Mr. W. H. Bennett, a solicitor, was also a director when I went—I do not recollect whether he was there when I left—Mr. Thompson was a director the whole time, and Mr. Arrowsmith, a merchant in Botolph Lane, and Mr. Pinkerton—I think that is all—when moneys or cheques were paid, receipts were taken in every case—the Board days were every Wednesday—cheques were only drawn on Board days—when a cheque was drawn for a commission and the person to whom it was due did not call for it, it would in some cases remain in the book for some considerable time—at other times it would he sent to him—they were in the habit of drawing the cheques by a
number, but I am not positive that they all were—I did not see them all—I think the majority were—full particulars wore inserted in the counterfoil—I said at the police-court that Alfred Shaw, whom I knew as Williams, called occasionally or frequently, sometimes once a fortnight, and said when he called he generally saw one of the clerks and sometimes Mr. Northcott—that is correct—when lie saw the clerk he would ask whether Mr. Northcott had left any note for him—I understood that to refer to any commission due upon what he had originally brought—I never took a cheque ready for him out of the cheque-book—the cheque book was kept in its plane, and if he wanted it he would ask for it—persons would send in to him and he would tear it out and perhaps hand it to me.
Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. During the first part of my being there Thompson came in very frequently, I cannot say at what time—he came to all the board meetings but I do not remember whether he came in the afternoon or in the middle of the day—on days that were not Board days he sometimes came in the morning when I first went, and I think in the latter time he came in the afternoon—as far as I remember Alfred Shaw was always known as Williams—I cannot remember one occasion when Thompson was present when Williams was there.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. During the time I was there I never once saw Thomas Shaw.
HENRY GODFREY . I am articled clerk to Mr. Smart, the official liquidator to the Albion Insurance Society—on 25th February this year I began to examine the books—Northcott came there daily, and stayed from 12 o'clock until 2 or 3 in the afternoon—he was there on 8th March with Shott and Nicholls, who were clerks of the company; they were in the inner office with Northcott, which was not their usual place; they generally sat in the outside office—they were all three together an hour and a half or two hours—Northcott went away at a little alter 4 o'clock that afternoon, and Shott and Nicholls left two or three minutes after him—Nicholls came out of the inner room, and took back a receipt stamp each time; after they left I went with Mr. Frase, a fellow-clerk, into the inner room, and notified that part of a blotting pad had been torn away, and on turning to the fireplace to see if they had thrown it there I noticed the ashes of some burnt paper on the hearth, and several small pieces of paper at the back of the stove—the flap of the register had been thrown back, and it had been thrown up the chimney; that was not blotting paper—I noticed on one of the pieces up the register the words "11, Euston Square"—Mr. Fraser collected all the pieces of paper and took them to Mr. Smart's office in Cheapside, and pasted them together—these are them (produced)—Mr. Fraser has filled in one conjectural word. (The paper was handed to the Jury.) Shett and Nicholls came to the office next morning—Mr. Northcott came about 12 o'clock, and Shott and Nicholls were discharged by Mr. Martin, the liquidator.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I may have burnt letters and seen the paper go up the register when there is a good draught—there was not a fire when I went the first thing in the morning—this was at the end of March—there had been no fire in the room that day—they had not
lighted one—the paper on the hearth had been burnt by a match—these are not part of the burnt papers—it was only ashes, and I could not we any writing upon them—I did not look, nor can I say what class of of paper it was—the other two clerks were in Mr. Smart's employ, and he discharged them the same day—he was only provisional liquidator—anyone could have walked into the inner office—we spoke to Mr. Smart—I do not know whether he spoke to Northcott, but I did not.
Re-examined. There was no fire, and I do not think it possible that the draught could have carried the pieces of paper where I found them.
By the COURT. If you are burning a piece of paper and let it go, the draught very often takes it up the chimney, and then you expect to find the edges charred—I had been into the room earlier in the morning, and am almost certain that the blotting pad was whole then or else I should have noticed it—there was no burnt paper in the fireplace then—nobody went into the room after they left before I went in.
(Sergeant Littlechild here put in notices to produce, served on the Governor of Newgate, to the prisoners Wood, William and Thomas Shaw, and Slinker; also a notice served upon George Shaw at Potter's Coffee-house, Holloway, and a copy served on Northcott at his house.)
SAMUEL GIBBS (Detective Sergeant). On 21st May I served a copy of a notice to produce upon Thompson—I left it at No. 64, which was a mistake in the number, but I saw him next morning, and he said that he had received it the previous night, and that it was all right. (The notice was to produce on the trial copies of the entries in the London and County Bank books of Wood, relating to Shaw's account at the Birkbeck Bank, and of other documents, signed "Hamilton Caffe, Assistant Solicitor to the Treasury".)
JAMES VINEY (Re-examined). I produce an original affidavit made by me and the manager of the Oxford Street branch of the London and County Bank on 1st May before the Commissioner; this is his signature.(This verified the accuracy of certain extracts from the bank books containing the account of Thomas Gard Wood, as extracted from seven ledgers ranging from 26th July, 1869, to 4th December, 1875.) I also produce the original affidavit verifying the banking account of Thomas Gard Wood at the Brighton branch of the London and County Bank. (This commenced on 3rd December, 1875, and closed on 26th March, 1878; by "Cheque self 400l.," and another "Balance drawn out 26th March, 1878, 424l. 11s.") This is the affidavit of myself and the manager of the Birkbeck Bank—this verifies William Shaw's account, which begins on 11th may, 1874, and ends 4th March, 1878—these other affidavits verify Alfred Shaw's account with the City Bank, Tottenham Court Road branch. (This account commenced June 21st, 1870, and was closed on 26th March, 1878.)
FREKERICK BERTRAM SMART . I am an accountant at 53, Cannon Street, and am official liquidator of the Albion Insurance Company—I was appointed at, I think, the end of February this year—Mr. Mollett, who is in my employ, has been largely engaged in this investigation—I have a doctor's certificate that he is unable to be here, but I hope he will be here tomorrow—I have not actually checked him; but, by going through it this evening, I shall be able to do so in the morning if he is unable to attend—I will make myself able to do so—I have the books here and the
documents—the Society was started in January or February, 1864, in the usual way by seven gentlemen signing a Memorandum of Association Messrs. George Thompson, H. E. Bennett, C. J. Crockett, F. Crockett, H.T. Clegold and Mr. Copplestone—I find from the cash-book that those in gentlemen paid in 300l. between them by individual payments of 50l., and think it states in the Articles of Association that these six gentlemen were the first six directors, but there are more names here—I find, on 23rd January, 1864, 100l. paid to Shire for building and furniture: that left a capital on 1st of February, 1864, of 200l.—on 8th of April I find a loan of 500l. made to the society by Phelps and Co., solicitors, and on the 11th of April 1, 100l. was advanced to the society by Mr. Ray, who ultimately became a director, but I do not think he was a director at that time—it is impossible to tell what amount was paid up on the shares when the society started—6, 400l. appears here, out I know that is not correct—there is in the books an account of Mr. George Thompson, but you are going into Mr. Mollett's evidence—I shall be wasting time by attempting to do it—I took possession of all the letters I found belonging to the society, and this letter produced among them. (This was dated "Lincoln, 15th September, 1866," from E.H. Holmes to Northcott, complaining of being asked to give a bill of sale, and asking for the return of three guineas which he had paid to an advertiser)—this is the reply in Northcott's writing. (This was dated 17th September, 1866, and stated, "The gentleman you refer to it not connected with this society, and I know nothing of the matter, J.T. Northcott.")—I also produce a letter from Mr. Bennett, of November, 13th, 1866; these red ink marks are my clerk's; also a letter of November 14th, 1866, to Northcott. (This was from a person in Nottingham complaining that he had been induced to insure his life for 100l., nothing being said about securities or bonds)—this is the answer. (This was signed by Northcott, stating that the person mentioned had no connection with the society.)—here is a letter, dated 26th January, 1867, from T.K. Holmen, 18, Abingdon Street, Westminster, to George Thompson, Esq., 120, Chancery Lane. (This enclosed a correspondence ensuing on a reply to one of the advertisements, and complaining of being duped.)—this is the reply (This was dated 28th January, 1867, from Thompson to Holmes, and another letter was put in from Mr. L.W. Health, complaining of being defrauded by Wood of 24l. in a similar way.)—here is the answer to that dated 28th January, 1867, and signed George Thompson, "Mr. Heath has already been told that Mr. Wood is not interested in or connected with this society; the proposal was not introduced by him; he has not received any commission, and if he has failed to carry out his instructions Mr. Heath's remedy is very simple, &c."—I find nothing in the minute-book showing that Mr. Heath's letter was brought before the attention of the directors—the Rev. Mr. Heath's policy was introduced by Thomas Gard—the entry is among others, "Thomas Gard, L.W. Heath, 24l. 4s. 8d."—that is the amount of the premium—50 per cent, was paid to him on the whole of those premiums—the total amount of premiums introduced by him that month was 297l. 8s. 7d., by Thomas Gard, the 50 per cent, commission being 297l. 8s. 7d.,—I find in letter-book 15 a letter, dated November 21, 1870, addressed to Griffiths by Northcott on August 15, 1849: "Dear Sir,—You have not sent me full particulars in Mr. Nicolady's case as promised; when writing again give me the names and addresses of the parties you refer to as acting as agents for this society"
—here is also a letter from Griffiths of December 7: "The agents were Girdlestone and Barclay. I must have a definite reply of your cheque to-morrow."—I find in the letter-book this letter, of December 7, singed by Mr. Northcott: "I have not been able to see the advertisement referred to by you; let me know which paper it appeared in, and the date. The gentlemen named in yours of the 29th ultimo are not connected with this society, neither authorised to make use of the society's name in any way, therefore I do not see how you can ask us to surrender the policy. The rule is five years. If you think we should consider Mr. Nicolady's a special case I will lay it before the Board."—The letter of the 29th there referred to is this: "The parties are Messrs. Girlestone and Barclay, 11, Euston Square, who advertise in country papers more particularly."—I have found the letter of Mr. Griffiths, of 7th December, 1870 (This called attention to the case of Mr. Nicolady, and stated that unless the money was refunded, proceedings would be taken against the directors, whose addresses were requested)—I find the letter-book, at page 950, a reply to that, signed by Mr. Northcott: "Before furnishing the information required I must asked you for what purpose you ask for a summons against the gentlemen you refer to; so far as I know, there is nothing in Mr. Nicolady's case but what could be dealt with by the directors if properly represented to them"—there is also a letter of 16th December, from Mr. Griffiths, asking for the addresses of the directors, auditors, and Mr. Northcott's own address, in order to take out summonses—at page 953 there is this reply of December 19th: "Sir—I am in receipt of yours of the 17th, and bet go state that this society has nothing whatever to do with the loan matter you refer to. I will bring the matter before our directors at their meeting, and communicate their decision to you. I think it would have been as well if your application had been made without any intimidation; your threat will out influence that directors of the Board in this case." In the 20th there is a letter from Mr. Griffiths to be placed before the Board, and the page 965 this reply from Mr. Northcott, of 22nd December, 1870: "I brought the matter before the Board yesterday, and am instructed to say that the usual rule of the society as to the surrender of policies cannot be departed from, the gentlemen named in your letter are not in any way connected with the society, and we cannot be answerable for their mis-statements. As an act of charity the directors would be willing to allow Mr. Nicolady 3l. as a gratuity"—I find this minute on 21st December, "Mr. Nicolady's application for a surrender value of his policy was refused on account of the policy not having been long enough in existence to entitle him to a surrender value, according to the rules of the society. Present Messrs Arrowsmith (in the chair), Bennett, Thompson, and Pinkerton."—The minutes were afterwards read and confirmed on 4th January—on 3rd November, 1871, I find a letter relating to the case of Mr. Barnes, at page 425 of the letter-book No. 17: "Sir—I am not acquainted with the gentlemen named in yours of the 30th ultimo. Yours J.T. Northcott, Manger and Secretary."—That was in reply to letter from Mr. Barnes inquiring, "Do you know a Mr. H. Howard, of 11 Euston Square?"—At the premises of the Albion this blue paper was found with this advertisement attached, headed, "Miller Street, Manchester, November 3rd, 1871. Money to be lent in town or country, &c. Apply to Mr. H. Howard, late Girdlestone
and Barclay, 11, Euston Square, London."(The letter attached was from Mr. Barnes, relating the transaction with Howard, and stating that unless the money obtained from him was remitted by Howard or the Society, he should make the matter public.) At page 471 of the letter-book there is a letter of 11th November, stating that Howard was not connected with the society—in the letter-book of 1875 I find this letter of August 7th, to Mr. Rogers: "Complaints have been made to me by some of the policy-holders introduced by you of the manner in which they have been treated by Mr. Howard of Euston Square, I of course know nothing of Mr. Howard's mode of transacting business beyond what I have heard from these policy-holders, but they have made such extraordinary statements that I feel I must decline to take any assurance business from you in future except such as is not connected with applications for loans. J.T. Northcott, Manager and Secretary."—There is a similar letter on the same date to Mr. J. Williams—there are no addresses to either Rogers or Williams—I have prepared a summary of the policies issued during the existence of the society, from April, 1864, to October, 1877—it is entirely taken from the books, and is correct—there are 6, 531 policies representing an amount assured of 1, 766, 375l., 116 claims under policies through death; 34, 320l. has been paid, and 504 were still in force at the time the company was wound up, leaving a liability on them of 126, 625l.—I treat all the policies issued in 1877 as being in force—I cannot state at the moment how many of the policies were in existence for more than 12 months, I can do so by the morning—I have traced through the books through whose instrumentality these policies were introduced to the office—I find that Gard introduced 1432, representing assurances of 491, 400l.; Rogers, 2, 193, representing 534, 135l.; Williams, 558, representing 121, 125l.; Brown, 391, representing 92, 900l.; and Agar, 491, representing 149, 610l.—I do not find in the books the addresses of any of these agents, nor do I find the names of Wood, Howard, Holland Seymour, or Girdlestone and Barclay as agents—in the 14 years I find that 65, 233l. 8s. 4d. was paid in respect of premiums, exclusive of renewals—the total amount of commission paid to Gard, by the books, is 8,084l.; to Rogers, 8, 228l. and 18l. 19s. 1d. for renewals; Brown, 1, 300l., renewals, 1s. 9d.; Williams, 1, 659l., renewals, 8s. 1d.; Ager, 2, 296l., renewals 118l. 9s. 4d., making a total of commissions on policies 22, 429l. and renewals 638l.—I have here a number of receipts purporting to be by Gard, Williams, Rogers, and Ager for commissions received by them, and the cheques by which those commissions were paid—they are draws to a number. (It was proposed to read the deposition of Mr. Mollett, the witness who was too ill to attend, but Mr. Smart, being able to give evidence to the same effect, was recalled.) I find a proposal for an insurance of the life of Mr. R.H. Holmes, of Lincoln; he was introduced by Gard—the premium paid was 4l. 11s. 6d., the commission upon that at 50 per cent, is credited to Gard, in July, 1866—Mr. Brenner, of Nottingham, was introduced by Gard; premium 3l. 10s., and the commission at 50 percent, is credited to Gard, in November, 1866—Rev. L.W. Heath was introduced by Gard; premium 24l. 4s. 8d., commission at 50 per cent, credited to Gard, in October, 1866—Mr. Nicolady was introduced by Rogers; premium 7l. 8s. 6d., commission at 50 per cent, was credited to Rogers on May 6th, 1870—Mr. Barnes, of Manchester, was introduced by Rogers; premium 10l. 14s., commission at 50 per cent, credited to Rogers, October 17th, 1871, and paid to
him on the 18th—I find that the total number of policies taken as being in force on 31st December, 1877, was 504l., representing a sum insured of 126, 625l.—no address is given to the names of Lee, Matthews, Day, Ager, or Rogers—I find, in 1864, that 450l. was paid in respect of shares: 50l. in 1866, and 380l. in 1873—on 1st December, 1877, I find a sum paid of 100l., and on 22nd December, 500l., making a total of 600l. in 1877 from one person named Perrin; that comes to 1, 480l. cash, as the actual paid-up Capital—the 450l. in 1864 does not represent fully paid-up shares; that amount was paid on account of shares, but I cannot tell you of how many—I find in the books what is called a balance-sheet, prepared to be made up, by which I find the capital of the company amounts to 6, 980l., which figure is repeated throughout the books—I find that a dividend of 6 per cent, was declared each year but not paid; it is carried to the credit of the share capital—out of the 5, 980l. 4, 150l. is carried to preliminary expenses; that leaves 350l. which goes to law charges and medical fees—I do not know who paid the preliminary expenses, but that is the way it appears, each director had 20 shares—I find 270 shares allotted in that way, representing 2, 700l.; 230l. of which is made up of remuneration given to Mr. Thompson, on his retiring—he was manager for live years—1, 350l. was paid to him in 1869 in consideration of his giving up his position as managing director—during the existence of the society the total amount he received in salary, shares, and cash was 5, 106l. 6s. 10d.; that was in respect of salaries and director's fees, including the 1, 350l. that went to the credit of the shares, making them fully paid-up to the 10l.; so that his shares became fully paid up—in addition to that he was to receive a commission of 2 per cent. on all premiums received by the society—that was in the Articles of Association—I cannot say whether he appears to have received that commission, but I can tell you all he has received—there is nothing to show, that he did receive it, and I don't like to say that he did—during the existence of the society North-cott received 4, 512l. 10s.—that was all for salary, except a 50l. gratuity in August, 1873—he began at 200l. a year salary, and it was raised to 400l.—I also find that Mr. H.E. Bennett received 134l. 19s. 5d. in cash as director's lees between October, 1865, and August, 1873, and Mr. W.H. Bennett 166l. 6s. 10d. between April, 1869, and October, 1875; Mr. George Fagg 178l. 5s. 11d. from July, 1868, to February, 1870; Mr. Pinkerton 298l. 1s. 3d. from January, 1872, to December, 1876; Mr. Ray 146l. 4s. 5d., between April, 1870, and September, 1877; Mr. C. Green 333l. 6s. 9d., which includes 209l. for furniture, from April, 1867, to October, 1869; Mr. Arrowsmith 648l. 18s. 6d. from July, 1868, to August, 1876, and a gentleman named Paulokowski 56l. from January to June 4th, 1867—I see that there is an item for translating some documents—I find that the policy of Miss Janet Gray is credited to Gard in April, 1866, and that the commission allowed him was 50 per cent—the total amount paid in respect of that was 301l.—Gard received most of the premiums at that time, they are credited to him—very few were sent to the loan office at that time, they were all sent to the office after the first one or two—Gard is credited with half and debited with the whole—that is the only way it could be treated—that was paid to him together with a number of others; the premium was 109l. 3s. 2d., and 50 per cent, on that would be 54l. 11s. 7d. (The Journal was here
handed to the Jury.)—the amount would go into the cash-book first, but it must be a journal transaction, because the company retained all they received, crediting him with half, and he kept all he received—the next transaction is Mr. Horsey, premium 24l. 1s. 7d., in July, 1871, introduced by Ager, and the commission, 50 per cent., is credited hereto Ager's commission account—this proposal form (produced) was found at the offices, and this is the receipt for the commission, which appears to be taken from a book with counterfoils—it is signed by Ager—on the back of it is "Horsey 12l. 0s. 9d.; E. Mills 3l. 18s. 1d."—I find in this cheque-book a counterfoil in Northcott's writing for 15l. 18s. 10d. paid to Ager and dated July 19th—the case of Dew was introduced by Thomas Gard in April, 1867—Dew paid 5l. 4s. 2d. on a policy of 200l., and 50 per cent. commission is credited to Gard, but I do not find any cheque or receipt for it—he paid himself, he received the premium—these papers relating to Dew's case were found at the offices—they are the proposal to insure, and the doctor's report—I find a tick on one of them—in December, 1871, Ray's case was introduced by Williams, and 50 per cent, is credited to Williams—the amount is 8l. 13s. 4d.—this is the cheque for it dated 6th December, 1871—it includes other amounts and is for 10l. 1s. 11d., of which 4l. 11s. 11d., is Ray's—that cheque was drawn to a No. 576—we cannot find the name of Williams on the counterfoil, but here is a receipt in the name of George Williams for those two amounts, dated 12th December—Murray was introduced by Rogen in March, 1873—his premium was 2l. 4s. 5d.—it was only for 100l.—his commission was 50 per cent, 1l. 2s. 2d., which is included in this cheque on the Consolidated Bank, No. 774, for 29l. 19s. 5d., dated 2nd April 1873, and signed by Thompson, Pinkerton, and Arrowsmith, and counter-signed by Northcott, payable to the London and County Bank, Oxford Street—I find the counterfoil of this in Northcott's writing, stating that Rogers is the person to whom the cheque was to be paid—I also produce a receipt of the same date signed "H.P. Rogers"—Samuel Shaw was introduced by Rogers, and 50 per cent. on his premium is credited to Rogers on July 3rd—two cheques were paid to him, on 23rd July, 1873, for 30l. 14s. 10d. on July 4th, and 57l. 6s. 1d. on July 22nd—the premium was paid in two amounts—these cheques are both signed by Arrowsmith, Thompson, and Pinkerton, and countersigned by Northcott, crossed "London and County Bank, Oxford Street," and payable to a number—I find the counterfoils of those two cheques in Northcott's writing, in the name of W. Rogers—I also found two receipts signed "P. Rogers" dated 10th and 24th July—in all the cases that have come before me to-day the name is spelt "Rogers," but sometimes it is "Rodgers"—the case of Barnes was introduced by Rogers, and he was paid 50 per cent, commission by this cheque for 27l. 0s. 1d. drawn to a number, and dated July 29th, 1874, that is drawn by Arrowsmith, Thompson, and Pinkerton, and countersigned by Northcott; payable through the London and County Bank, Oxford Street—the counterfoil is in Northcott's writing—the details are on the back of it—this is the receipt, it is dated 31st July, 1874, for 27l. 0s. 1d.—James Knight's case was introduced by Williams, in December, 1874, commission 50 per cent.—I produce the cheque; it is dated January 5th, 1875, No. 1242, for 48l. 12s. 7d., signed by Arrowsmith, Thompson, and Pinkerton, countersigned by Northcott, and paid to the City Bank, Tottenham Court Road branch—I produce
the receipt of George Williams for 48l. 12s. 7d. dated 10th December, 1875—I believe this counter foil in the cheque-book to be Northcott's writing; it is very badly written and I have some doubt about it—the particulars are on the back, making up the amount of commission—Mr. Blake's case was introduced by Rogers; this was over 1,000l., therefore the commission was 50 per cent.—the commission of 50 per cent. Was only up to 1,000l.—the amount of commission paid to Rogers is 23l. 14s. 6d.—this is the cheque; it is dated January 13th, 1875, and signed Arrowsmith, Pinkerton, and Thompson, and countersigned by Northcott; it is on the London and Country Bank, Oxford Street—I believe the counterfoil to be Northcott's writing—the entry on the counterfoil is "1247, January 13th, 1875, commission to Rogers 24l. 10s. 8d."—there is a receipt for the dated January 14th, 1875, signed P. Rogers—the next case is Fitzhugh Bathurst Henderson, introduced by Rogers, 50 per cent. commission, paid by cheque on March 17th, 1875, and singed by Arrowsmith, Thompson, and Pinkerton, and countersigned by Northcott to a number, and crossed "London and Country Bank, Oxford Street;" the counterfoil in the cheque-book is Northcott's writing, "Rogers, March 17th, 34l. 17s.;" the particulars are on the back and the receipt is signed "P. Rogers"—George Henderson was introduced by Rogers in January, 1875; that commission is included in the last cheque, 24l. 17s., which is to George Henderson and F.B. Henderson—there is a tick on George Henderson's proposal form—it is a smudge—the commission is 50 per cent.—John Lubin was introduced by George Williams; the amount is 5l. 13s. 6d., commission 50 per cent., paid by cheque for 13l. 7s. 5d. on April 28th, 1875, to a number, signed by Arrowsmith, Pinkerton, and Ray, and countersigned; crossed "London and Country Bank, Oxford Street"—the receipt is "April 30th, 1875, George Williams"—Sundy was introduced by Williams in May, 1875, commission 50 per cent. paid May 5th; the cheque is 1342, signed by Arrowsmith, Pinkerton, and Ray, and countersigned by Northcott, crossed "London and Country Bank, Oxford Street," and the receipt is dated May 5th, 1875, signed "George Williams"—Frederick John Woodman was introduced by Rogers in September, 1875, commission 50 per cent.; cheque drawn September 22nd, to a number, signed Arrowsmith, Thompson, and Ray and crossed "London and County Bank, Oxford Street"—I have not a counterfoil—this is Rogers's receipt, dated September 23rd, and on the proposal here is a tick—Thomas Clay was introduced by Brown, December 8th, 1875, commission 50 per cent.; cheque signed by Pinkerton and Ray countersigned by Northcott, crossed "London and County Bank, Brighton;" the receipt is signed "William Brown, December 9th, 1875"—Edward Easton Thomas was introduced July 26th, by Brown, commission 50 per cent., cheque 1580, July 12th, 1876, signed Pinkerton, Thompson, and Ray, for 14l. 14s. 6d. commission to Brown, and countersigned by Northcott, crossed "Union Bank, Chancery Lane," and perforated "Birkbeck Bank"—the counterfoil is Northcott's writing—there is a tick at the bottom of the proposal form—the receipt is signed "William Brown"—Schroff was introduced by Brown in December, 1876—the total amount of premium is 56l. 13s. 4d., and Brown had 8l. 19s. and 14l. 11s. 3d., that is not 50 per cent.; they have 50 per cent. up to 1,000l., and less afterwards—the commission was paid by two cheques, one of December 6th, 1870, No. 1645, for 14l. 13s. 9d.,
signed Arrowsmith, Pinkerton, and Paulokowski, and one of December 13th, No. 1446, for 21l. 13s. 1d., signed by the same, and countersigned by Northcott, crossed "Union Bank" and "Birkbeck Bank" perforated—here are the receipts; I have no doubt they are in Northcott's writing—here is a tick at the bottom of the proposal—George Lylas was introduced by Williams, February 7, 1877, commission 50 per cent., and I found the counterfoil of a cheque to Williams on that date, in Northcott's writing—that includes 5l. 16s. 8d. commission on Lylas's premium—James Searby was introduced by Williams; has commission and Lylas's were paid in the same cheque of February 7, signed by Arrowsmith, Pinkerton, and Thompson, countersigned Northcott, and paid to the London and County Bank, Oxford Street—the receipt is dated February 8, 1877, and signed George Williams, 9th February, 1877—my attention was never called to this dot on the proposal till this moment—Hamilton was introduced by Brown in April, 1877, the commission was paid by cheque on 30th May to No. 1726, signed Arrowsmith, Thompson, and Pinkerton, and countersigned by Northcott, crossed "Union Bank"and perforated "Birkbeck Bank"—the counterfoilis "commission to William Brown 64l. 15s. 10d.,"and the receiptis signed "W. Brown, 31st May, 1877"—here are several receipts signed "Rodgers," all written in the same hand—in the earlier stage of the society I find that the account was kept at the Bank of London, and I found used cheques of 1864 pasted back into the book—here is one payable to Rogers, of August 6, 34l. 14s. 1d., paid in on August 6, 1869, signed by Arrowsmith, Thompson, and Ray, not countersigned—I had all the cheques which have come from the Albion Insurance Company have passed through Wood's account at the London and County Bank—here is a cheque for 34l. 14s. 1d. to Rogers, paid through the London and County, Oxford Street branch, and credited to Wood's account—here is a counterfoil for commission to J. Rogers, drawn September 1, 1869, for 20l. 4s. 3d.; here are six names on the counterfoil, and I find cheques corresponding to them paid into the London and County Bank, Oxford Street, on September I, and the amount is credited to Wood's account—I have not seen any such payable to Gard, but here are many instances of Rogers, a few of Williams, and about eight of Brown—this is Wood's account at the London and County Bank, Brighton, beginning December 3rd, 1875—here is a cheque, 1475, December 8, 1875, "Commission to Brown 40l. 7s. 6d.," that is credited to Wood's account on December 10—William Shaw's, account with the Birkbeck commenced May 11, 1874, and the last entry is February 11, 1878, 5l. 5s. paid in—I only have the receipts—here are the cases of both the Schroffs; there were two cheques, one for 14l. 13s. 9d., and the other fur 14l., paid to Wood's account at the Birkbeck—Alfred Shaw's account at the City Bank seems to have commenced in June, 1870, and remained open till March, 1878—all the cheques for commission to agents which found their way into that account, are to Rogers, and Williams—I find eight cheques drawn in favour of Williams at the Albion—I do not find Lubin's or Searby's cheques paid in—I have no doubt that cheques in Williams's favour were drawn by the Albion, but I cannot trace them—Knight's cheque for 48l. 12s. 7d., of 5th January, 1875, went through the bank; that included a commission on Knight's premium of 5l. 0s. 5d., that was put to Alfred Shaw's credit on 9th January, 1875, and the counterfoil in
reference to that is Williams's—amongst other documents which I found at the office were these two receipts signed T. Gard, for 59l. 2s. 4d., for commission—I also found a very large number of receipts for commission, done up in bundles—they are all here.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. In some oases I recognise the cheques which were paid in to the account of Wood at the London and County Bank in a larger amount—on 4th August I find the 7l: 8s. 6d. accredited in the amount of 34l. 11s. 1d.—I find that a cheque of 27l. 5s. 6d. came from the Albion also, and made up the amount—two cheques were paid by the Albion at the same time, both dated August 4th, one for 27l. 5s. 7d. and the other 7l. 5s. 6d., both drawn the same day and both cleared at the bank on the 6th—there is only one item for Brown for seven guineas on 2nd August, 1871, drawn by the directors of the Albion to Williams passed in to Wood's account—it is crossed London and County Bank—the cheque is drawn to a number, 792—the counterfoil has the name of Williams on it—the cash-book also has the name of Williams—there is another instance on November 23rd, 1871, 14l. 6s. 8d. paid in with another amount of Rogers's of 17l. 12s. 10d., making a total of 31l. 19s. 6d.—I think that is all—there were very few—I find very few in the name of Brown there—this is "Oxford Street, October 8th, 1876, 8l. 9s. 11d., and 2l. 18s. 4d.," making up 11l. 8s. 3d.—that is all there are in the name of Brown—there are two, I think, in the name of Williams—I could find out from the books the names of the policyholders, but not those who introduced them—Clay's case I could only find out by the name of Brown.
By the COURT. The name of Clay would be in the register of policies and in the journal—the name of Brown is the person who had the commission, not the name of the person who introduced the policy—the cheque in payment of the commission is made payable to a number, and on looking at the counterfoil you would see what the name was.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. The agenda-book contains the names of the persons proposing to insure—I find that after Mr. Northcott became manager and secretary, in 1869, all the proposals were brought before the directors—I have not ascertained what the actual liabilities on the policies were on the day I became official liquidator—I find a proposal in the name of Horsfall in July, 1872, for 100l.—Rogers introduced him—that was renewed once and the claim satisfied—there is Bownes for 150l. introduced by Rogers in November, 1871, and the amount paid in May, 1873, on death—J. T. Drain was insured for 200l. introduced by Rogers, renewed once and paid on May 21st, 1873—the total amount of new premiums and renewals is 91,000l., the new being 55, 232l. and the renewals 38, 768l.—there are rejected proposal forms among the papers I found—I can't say whether they have the ticks of the parties introducing them—I have never had my attention called to these ticks before—I can ascertain by to-morrow, if the numbers of the policies are given to me.
By the COURT. The agenda-book was kept by Mr. Northcott and contains over and over again the names of Rogers, Williams, Gard, &c.—the ledger account is in another handwriting.
By MR. GRAIN. The account of Gard dates from the very commencement, April, 1864, before Northcote was secretary—there are a great number of accounts in the books, I can't say how many—it is quite an exception to find the addresses in the ledger—Gard's account is headed
"Home Agency, T. Gard," and in the next page 18 "Thomas Gard's commission account"—there is nothing about home agency as to Rogers or Williams, Brown or Ager, only the names; it is only in the case of Gard—all the cheques are signed by two or more of the directors and countersigned by Northcott—the bank would not honour them without—the majority of them are drawn to a number, not all, and the name to whom the cheque is posted in the ledger is in all cases on the counterfoil—I have no reason to doubt that the entries in the agenda-book are copied into the minute-book as having come before the directors, but my attention has not been called to that sufficiently to say—there are two letters of complaint written, one to Rogers and one to Williams, stating that they must not send any more policies—I find a letter addressed to a Mr. R. Hunt, on March 11th, 1876, asking his reason for insuring, also one to Mr Trew, of March 31st; also one to Mr. Honeywood, of April 13th, 1876; also one to J. S. Taylor, of 22nd June, 1876—I think I have seen replies to such letters—there are very few entries in the agenda-book or the minute-book, of legal matters brought before the Board—there are four minute-books—I have examined them, but not very carefully—there certainly are entries of legal matters brought before the Board—on 16th August, 1877, there are these minutes: "Mr. Mark Shepherd, the solicitor, attended at the request of the Board to advise them in respect of proposals from a Mr. Brown," the result of which was that Brown's proposals should be rejected—the directors then present were Mr. Arrowsmith (in the chair), Messrs. Bennett, Pinkerton, and Thompson—on 6th June, 1877, there is an entry of the application by Mr. J. Thomas for a return of his premium acceded to by the Board, the directors then present being Messrs. Arrowsmith, Pinkerton, and Thompson—the average of payments on account of claims is 3,000l. a year—I believe it was the invariable practice of the office to reinsure in, all cases over 1,000l., the Articles of Association provide that—among other offices they reinsured in the Liverpool and London—I believe in such cases the liability of the Albion ceases beyond that; for instance, in Mr. Jex Blake's case the claim on the Albion would have been 1, 500l., and 500l. on the other office—they actually did reinsure in that case and in Mr. Schroff's—Mr. Northcott began with a salary of 200l., the 400l. a year I think began at the latter end of 1868 or the beginning of 1869—I only know from the books that Mr. Pilkington was secretary up to the time Northcott became manager—Gard's account was open in Pilkington's time, not all the others; Rogers does not come in for some time afterwards—I do not remember seeing any letter from Dr. Hooper among the papers—I think there was considerably more than two-thirds of the sums in reference to these premiums outstanding when I came into the office—the petition to wind up was presented on 18th December, 1877; it was the petition of a Mr. Lane; I do not know him; I have only seen him once since—I was appointed provisionally on 15th February, 1878, and official liquidator on 1st March—up to the time I went in, as far as I know, Northcott had full access to the offices of the company, and to the books, papers, and everything—I had nothing to do with Mr. Thompson.
Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. The Albion was formed in October, 1863—the Articles of Association are dated 16th November, 1863—I find the name of Mr. Thompson with seven other gentlemen as the first directors,
Mr. Holmes the parliamentary agent, Mr. Coplestone, Mr. W. H. Bennett, Mr. Clegold, Mr. Bannister, Mr. C. F. Crockett, and Mr. F. Crockett—there is a letter of Mr. Pilkington's of 22nd June, 1864, applying to be appointed secretary at a salary of 250l. a year and a commission of 20 per cent. on business introduced by him, and a memorandum of the directors appointing him on the terms proposed—the first payment to Gard appears to be on 27th April, 1864, 42l. 8s. 6d.—at that time he received the premiums, consequently he is debited with the amount and credited with his commission—I also find a memorandum in May, 1864, of 12l. paid to Pilkington; that seems to be the earliest—it might be a payment for something done in February, March, or April; it merely says "To cash 12l.," and on the other side it begins "March, 1865, by transfer of salary account"—I may say that these books are not to be relied on in 1864 and 1865—there is nothing to show what that payment was for—there is another account of Pilkington's; it is merely a half-yearly premium paid in 1865—the total amount paid to Mr. Thompson is 5,000l., commencing in April, 1864, down to the end of February, 1878—I cannot state what he was entitled to, or why that was paid to him; I have not gone into the 2 per cent, commission—he did not receive any money by way of interest on his shares; I don't think any of the directors did—there seems to have been no dividend paid, but they got credit for it in the books—the sum of 126, 605l. does not represent actual liabilities—it would be an actuary's duty to value those; I am not an actuary, but I shall have to do it in a great measure in the course of the liquidation—at the time Mr. Thompson resigned his post of managing director in December, 1869, the amount, of the premiums on renewed policies was 3, 381l.—the renewed premiums for 1877 were 3,083l., so they had decreased by about 800l.; in some years they had increased; one was 3, 700l., another 3, 600l., another 3, 500l.—I have Mr. Thompson's share account here; he had 60 shares to start with, then 20, and then 50—they all appear to be fully paid up—l, 300l. was paid to him on his resignation as managing director; that was carried to the credit of his share account—he held 270 shares when he went out, when the winding-up order was made—they are all fully paid up, to 10l.—it is an unlimited company—there is an interest account, but you cannot tell what interest is due unless it is analysed; 1, 740l. is the presumed interest due to Mr. Thompson, but the Board of Trade would not pass the accounts with this interest in them—I have a letter from Mr. Knox Holmes, dated January, 1867, enclosing Mr. Heath's letter to Thompson—I know that Mr. Holmes resigned his directorship—from the time Mr. Thompson resigned, Mr. Northcott acted as manager and secretary.
By the COURT. "When the company was wound up the assets tangible would be the calls to be made upon the shares; the office furniture would be very little—the calls would be 8, 800l., including 4, 500l. from a gentleman named Perrin, from whom I received a judgment summons from Paris within the last two or three days, reclaiming that 4, 500l.—that gentleman only entered into a contract to take the shares this year—he signed for 500 shares, representing 5,000l., and he deposited 500l. on account of those shares, leaving a liability of 4, 500l., but I cannot treat that as an asset, because it is claimed back, and has been disputed all through; and it is a question that has to be decided in Chancery, whether, the transaction having taken place after the petition
was filed, it can stand at all—I don't like to give an opinion upon it; it is very doubtful—those 500 shares had not been applied for at the time the petition was actually filed; it was between the time when it was filed and the time of the order being made—I have the pass-books of the company from the commencement in January, 1864; it was then in the Bank of London, it was then transferred to the Consolidated, and it goes right up to February 23rd, 1878—the only asset is the 8, 800l., consisting of calls to be made on shares—there is a small loan secured, not more than 100l., I think on a short lease—there is the lease of the premises where the office was carried on, that is held at a ground rent of 70l. a year, and it was transfered to Mr. Thompson whilst he was managing director; that is under mortgage to Mr. Bennett, the solicitor, and I am advised that will belong to the estate—after payment of the mortgage I should think it would be worth 500l. or 600l., the Law Courts coming near it, and it is a 60 years' lease—there is also a balance of a bill due by Mr. Bennett of about 70l.—I have not had an approximate estimate made of the value of the policies, the claims have only just come in, of course I shall have to do it—there are one or two death claims, to the amount of about 2,000l., included in the 34,000l.—there is a balance of 34l. at the bankers—the balance to their credit at the end of 1877 was 289l. 7s. 7d.—on 1st January, 1877, it was 472l. 13s. 7d.—in 1876 it was 936l. 11s. 8d.—in 1875 1,005l. 16s. 5d.—in January, 1874, 1, 300l.—in 1873 1, 400l—in 1872 1, 800l.—in 1871 1, 126l.—in 1870 669l.—in 1869 393l. 5s. 10d.—in 1868 789l. 13s. 8d.—in 1867 321l. 11s. 7d.—in 1866 658l. 8s. 4d.—in 1865 324l. 19s. 1d., that was the first year.
JAMES VINEY (Re-examined). I have seen Slinker write—I have seen the letters purporting to be from H. Howard to E. Murray, in March, April, and May, 1873—I believe they are in Sinker's handwriting—I have examined the letters from Howard to S. Shaw, from May to October, 1873, and believe those to be in Slinker's writing; also those from Howard to S. K. Barnes in June, July, and August, 1874; also those from Howard to Rev. Jex Blake, and the heading of the proposal form of 29th September, 1874; also the letters from Howard to F. B. Henderson in February, March, April, and May, and the heading of the proposal form of 9th February, 1875; also the letters from Howard to E. Poole in July and August, 1875; also those from Howard to G. Henderson in January, February, March, April, May, June, and July, 1875, the consent, and the heading of the proposal form of 19th January, 1875; also the letters from Holland to Woodrow in September and October, 1875, and the endorsement "William Holland" on Woodrow's cheque of 24th September, 1875; also the letters from Holland to Clay in November and December, and the heading of the proposal form of 30th November, 1875; also the letters from Holland to R. F. Pearson in May, June, July, and August, 1876, and the endorsement "William Holland" on the cheques dated 1st and 14th July, 1876, and the heading of the proposal form of 23rd May, 1876; also the letters from Howard to Schroff of November and December, 1876, and the proposal form heading of 18th November, 1876; also the letters from Holland to J.D. Hamilton, of February, March, and May, 1877, and the letters from Holland to Hodgson of April and May, and the proposal form of 23rd April, 1877; also the letters addressed to myself by Holland on 26th and 28th February, and 1st March, and the receipt of 4th March, and the letters of 7th, 9th, and 27th March, and 5th June, 1877—the docket in my case found
at 11, Euston Square, is also Slinker's writing, and the dockets, generally—these pieces of paper in Heslop's case found up the chimney at Euston Square, I also believe to be Slinker's writing.
FRANCIS WILLIAM SPRING . I live at 148, Seven Sisters Road, Holloway—Thomas Shaw lodged with me for about 12 months—I knew him by that name, as a solicitor's clerk; he left about a day after I heard of William Shaw's arrest, that would be about 23rd or 24th March—he did not give me notice that he was going to leave—I did not know where he went, he left no address with me—while with me he did some writing he did for me; this is a copy of a bill, and this is a draft copy of lease—I believe these letters from Hawkins to Lynas of 2nd, 6th, 9th, and 17th January, and 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 13th, 15th, and 28th February, and 8th and 14th March, to be Thomas Shaw's writing, also these letters from Hawkins to Searby, of December, January, and February, and 1st and 16th March, with the heading of the proposal from January 9th, 1877; also these letters from Hawkins to Trew of February and March.
Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. I knew Thomas Shaw for three or four years before he came to lodge with me; I believe he lived with his father and brothers in Grafton Road, Holloway, till he came to me; I believe his mother died and the home was broken up about April, 1877—this is a letter addressed to him by Mr. Shaw, dated June 27th, 1876: "Dear Tom—Brown to suit of self. Call here to-morrow morning by 11, and bring interpleader summons with you without fail.:—I do not recollect the circumstance to which that letter refers; I remember his going to the Edmonton County Court; I went with him, as I had business that way, but what it was about I do not know—I have seen him write eight or ten times or more.
WILLIAM CARP . I am a clerk in the City Bank, Tottenham Court Road branch—Alfred Shaw had an account there—I know his writing—I believe the letter of F. Preston to J. Horsey, of 17th June, 1871, to be his writing, also the endorsement, "Wm. Seymour," on this cheque of 26th January, 1875, in Knight's case; also the letters from Seymour to Lubin, of 17th March, 15th April, and 11th May—this name and address at the top of Lubin's proposal form is Alfred Shaw's writing, and so are these letters of 1st April and 7th May, 1875, from Seymour to Sundy—the receipt for the commission in Sundy's case signed "G. Williams" is very similar to Alfred Shaw's writing, but not so much like it as the other—I would not swear to it—looking at this letter of December 7th, 1876, from F. Hawkins to J. Searby, the date, the signature "F. Hawkins," and the "Searby" in the corner I believe to be Alfred Shaw's writing.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. During the whole time I have known Alfred Shaw I never saw Thomas Shaw at the bank—I do not think I gave evidence about Trew's letter at the police-court—I have seen these other letters before, but I was not asked any questions about them.
HENRY SASS (Re-examined). I know Northcott's and Thompson's writing—I have been through this list—all these documents on page 12 are in Northcott's writing, and so are these letters to Holmes, Heath, Griffiths, and Barnes—I have a list here of the documents which have examined of George Thompson's—this letter signed George Thomas to Pilkington, and dated 21st October, 1864, is in Thompson's writing—these letters from
Holmes to Heath, dated 28th January and 21st February, 1867, are Thompson's writing, and so is this memorandum on the receipt signed "T. Gard," and dated 19/5/64—these cheques on the Bank of London, of April 27th, May 4th, 18th, and 26th, June 1st, 8th, and 16th are also his (Some of these were signed by Thompson in favour of Wood, and some in favour of Gard; other cheques were put in, also signed by Thompson)—this cheque for 6l. 15s. 9d., payable to Gard or bearer, is in Thompson's writing—the counterfoil is 8th June, 1864; it has been drawn to Wood, but Gard has been written over it in large letters.
CHARLES CHABOT . This cheque of 8th June, 1864, has originally been drawn to Wood, but altered to Gard—I can see that as plain as possible—I live in Red Lion Square, and have made handwriting my study for a great many years, find have been examined frequently in Courts of Justice for the purpose of assisting the Court and Jury in matters of handwriting—with regard to Wood's writing, I take this receipt of Miss Gray's, dated 20th April, 1866, as a basis of comparison, also her receipt of 2nd May, 1866—they are clearly in the same writing—the receipt in Barnes's case, 23rd July, 1874, for 17l. 10s. 3d., signed Howard per clerk is in the same writing as the others—I have also examined the writing in this writing-book and betting-book, taken from Wood—it is not all in one writing, but some of the writing in it is the same as that of these receipts—I am able from these documents to give an opinion with regard to Wood's writing, which is somewhat peculiar—I have carefully gone through this list of documents—the documents in this list are, in my judgment. Wood's writing, but I have checked them, and there are one or two little corrections; I want "27" struck out from "27th May, 1871;" also some portions of the writing in the betting-book, and these words, "Commission, Receipt" in George Henderson's case and in F. B. Henderson's case—that is only one receipt—then the words, "Signed, F. Gard, 11th August," at the bottom of the page—I am not sure whether that is meant for 8 or an 11—those are the only corrections—the writing on some dockets found at 11, Euston Square, is also Wood's writing; also this letter signed "T. W." and dated 2l. st March, 1878, and found at William Shaw's house, and this letter, feigned H. Howard, 11th July, 1872, addressed to the Rev. Mr. Bostock; also this envelope, with the same address, and the post-mart of 11th July—I have been shown by Mr. Smart a number of receipts for commission on the Albion forms—they are so numerous that it is impossible to make a list of them—some are signed Thomas Gard, others R. Day, T. Rogers, F. Rodgers—these are in Wood's writing—there are a large number of them—this commission receipt, signed "G. Williams" in Ray's case, is in Wood's writing; also this commission receipt, signed T. Rogers in Murray's case, and another in Shaw's case, and Barnes' case, and Mr. Jex Blake's case, and in the Henderson case—here are some signatures: "T. Gard;"—they are also Wood's, and so is the memorandum specially referred to at the bottom of this paper, signed T. Gard—these cheques dated the 8th and 15th September, and 13th, 20th, and 29th October, 1877, are signed William Shaw—they are on the Birkbeck Bank, and are in Wood's writing—the wording is Thomas Wood and T. Wood, in favour of Thomas Wood and T. Wood for 10l. 10s., 7l. 13s. 7d., 2l. 10s. 8d., 10l., 14l. 13s. 3d., and 6l. 10s. 1d.—they are all crossed "London and County Bank."
FREDERICK HILL . I am a clerk in the Birkbeck Bank, Southamptou Buildings, Chancery Lane—I produce some cheques of William Shaw, who is our customer—he is the prisoner with the beard—he opened his account with this memorandum, "William Shaw, architect and surveyor, 2, Sandringham Terrace, Tottenham"—that is in his writing, and these cheques are his writing also, both the body and signatures.
CHARLES CHABOT (Continued). I have examined the writing in these cheques, and also on this memorandum signed William Shaw—hat enables me to form an opinion of his writing—I have carefully gone through all the documents on this list—I have to make one correction—this 26 ought to be 22—I have looked at the letters signed R. F. Preston to Harris, 21st May, 16th June, 18th July, 12th July, 12th, 16th, and 17th August, and 9th, 15th, and 18th September, 1871, and in my opinion they are in the writing of the same person who signed this document, William Shaw—the letters of R. F. Preston, of 21st April, 1st May, and a portion of a letter dated 19th March, 1873; also a letter signed J.P. Hudson, and the wrapper enclosing draft securities referring to Mr. Viney, found at 11, Euston Square, are a large portion of them in the same writings—if I remember rightly there is more of William Shaw's writing than anybody else's—here are two lists of country newspapers, one in William Shaw's writing and another in George Shaw's writing—this authority of William shaw to Thomas haw found at Thomas Shaw's lodgings, is also George Shaw's writing—I have also examined a number of commission receipts, shown me by Mr. Smart, and signed T. Rogers, G. Williams, and William Brown—some of them are in William Shaw's writing, but many are not—this copy of a letter to Blagden is in William Shaw's writing, but it is not signed—here are some commission receipts in Woodman's case, signed T. Rogers, and some in Clay's case, and R.E. Thomas's case, signed William Brown, and two signed W. Brown in Shroff's case, and one signed William Brown in Hamilton's case; are all William Shaws writing—this affidavit, signed Wm. Shaw, is William Shaw's writing (This was in the cause of Hislop v. Holland, sworn 27 November, 1877)—I have examined the writing of this letter and envelope produced, also the blotting paper which has been produced by the police, and the writing "Samuel Bilton"—I had formed an opinion about it before I was told of it, and I have subsequently learned that it was proved to be George Shaw's writing—I have carefully examined the blotting paper, and there is the blotting of this very letter to Mrs. Ellison upon it, and the address, "111, Ball's Pond Road"—I also find on the blotting paper the impression of some names clearly in George Shaw's writing—I am quite sure he has used this blotting paper to blot his writing—here is the name of William on one sheet, which is marked "A"on both sides, another sheet is marked B2, and on the sheet marked C1 is "truly Seymour,"and on A2 there are several figures—I should require a looking-glass to find it all out—portions of these draft securities in Drew's case are in George Shaw's writing—these letters from Howard to Murray of 8th March, and 3rd, 5th. and 10th April, 1873, are in George Shaw's writing, and so is the heading to the proposal of 13th March, 1873—these letters of Howard to John Shaw and Sons, dated 28th July, this draft bond, the heading to this proposal, this letter of Howard to Brown, this proposal in Knight's case, dated 22nd September, 1874, this letter from Seymour to Lubin, and from Seymour to Sunday, dated 9th April, and these letters from W. Holland to
Shroff are all in George Shaw's writing—here is some more blotting paper—I think there is some of Thomas's writing on it, but very little, only some figures, nothing particular—I do not feel any difficulty about the various writings.
Cross-examined by George Shaw. I have never seen you write—I know no one who has.
FREDERICK BERTRAM SMART (Re-examined). Five cases were mentioned on the first day I was examined, Holmes, Benner, Heath, Nicolady, and Barnes of Manchester—I have looked into them, and find that Holmes was introduced by Gard, and the commission paid to Gard was 50 per cent.—Benner was introduced by Gard in November, 1866, and L. W. Heath in October, 1866, and 50 per cent, commission paid to Gard—Nicolady and T. Barnes of Manchester were introduced by Rogers, and 50 per cent. commission paid to him—I have had all the papers looked out in Callaghan's case—he was introduced by Brown in March, 1876—I have examined them, and find that this list is substantially correct, and so are the details of the different years. (This was headed "Specimen of death claims paid upon policies")—there are a considerable number of them from 1872 to 1877, amounting altogether to 30,000l.—the policies generally were not renewed, or if they were, it was not for more that a year—Mr. Phelps, of the firm of Phelps, Bennett, and Woodward, became a holder of five shares in February, 1865; but in July, 1867, he took ten more—he is only a holder of ten now—his liability is unlimited—Phelps, Bennett, and Co. were solicitors to the association when the shares were taken; they continued so, I think, up to 1876—their office is 14, Red Lion Square.
Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. I am not sure that this provisional agreement (produced) between George Thompson and the directors is referred to in the minutes—the agreement refers to 1, 350l.; it was when Mr. Thompson retired from the management—I do not find that it is word for word in the Company's books.
SAMUEL LAKE . I am clerk to Mr. Robinson, the solicitor in the action of Blake v. The Albion—the letter produced, of 28th May, I proved to be in Thompson's writing—I obtained it from Mr. Pilkington and handed it to the witness—Mr. Pilkington is subpoenaed.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Mr. Northcott was not a party to the action of Blake v. The Albion. (The statement of William Shaw in the action of Shroff v. The Albion was here put in, but not read.)
This being the case for the Prosecution, and the defendants calling no witnesses to fact, MR. GORST, instead of summing up the evidence, claimed the right of Reply upon the whole case, after the Counsel for the defendants had addressed the Jury. He based his claim to this right as Counsel nominated by the Attorney-General to directly represent the Crown, and submitted that this right was not confined to cases where the Attorney-General appeared in person to conduct the prosecution, or where a Queen's Counsel represented him, but extended to every Counsel who directly represented the Crown in a prosecution instituted, as this was, by the authority of the State.
The Counsel for the defendants resisted the claim, and referred to instances in which it had been questioned and disallowed, or where it had been specially confined to the Attorney-General when personally conducting a prosecution. MR. AVORY (Clerk of Arraigns), answer to a request by the Court, referred to the following cases in which this question had arisen, as reported in the
Central Criminal Court Sessions Papers:—Reg. v. Toakley, Vol. 64, p. 609; Reg. V. Burrows, Vol. 65, p. 192; Reg. v. McCubery and Others, Vol. 70, p. 540; Reg. v. Waters, Vol. 72, p. 566; Reg. v. Dixblanc, Vol. 76, p. 124; Reg. v. Mason and Another, Vol. 79, p. 96; and Reg, v. Cooper and Another, Vol. 82, p. 498. The other cases cited in the course of the argument were Reg. v. Gardner, 1 Carrington and Kirwan, p. 628; Rex, v. Marsden, M. and M., p. 439, Rex v. Bell, same, 440; Reg. v. Beckwith, 7 Cox's Criminal Cases, 505; and Reg. v. Christie, 7 Cox, 506.
MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS.In my opinion Mr. Gorst is entitled to a general Reply. The right of Reply is in my judgment vested in the Attorney-General by reason of his representing the Crown in all cases which are really prosecuted at the suit of the Crown, by which I mean, not ordinary prosecutions which are not prosecuted at the suit of the Crown, although the Queen's name appears nominally as the prosecutor, but prosecutions on behalf of the country at the instigation and direction of the law officers of the Crown, and which may for this purpose be termed State prosecutions. Wherever a ease is really prosecuted in that sense, I think the Crown has the prerogative right of Reply, and if the Attorney-General, whose duty it is to conduct such a prosecution appears in person to conduct it, he has that prerogative right, not because of a mere personal privilege attached to himself, but because he is the representative of the Crown, exercising the prerogative of the Crown. For this reason it is that the Solicitors-General, in the absence of the Attorney-General, and representing him, has always been allowed the same right, and not because of a personal privilege attached to his office, and for the same reason I am of opinion that any Queen's Counsel or ordinary barrister appearing as the representative of the Attorney-General in such prosecutions as I have referred to, is entitled, on behalf of the Crown, to the same privilege of Reply.
Counsel for the defendants urged that the Counts for false pretences were not supported by the evidence, but MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS held that there was evidence for the Jury upon those Counts. Four witnesses deposed to Northcott's good character.
JAMES ABRAHAM FOOTE . I am a barrister—I have known Mr. Thompson about 25 or 26 years—in the early part of that period I knew him more intimately than the latter part—I have not seen much of him lately, formerly I saw a good deal of him—he has always borne a high character for honesty and integrity; perhaps I might add that I became acquainted with him as the managing director of the Merchant's and Tradesman's Life Assurance Company, and he always maintained that a charge of 50 per cent. upon the first year's premiums was a sound and healthy business, with 5 per cent. on renewals.
By the COURT. That was 25 years ago—I certainly did not agree with him; we paid 25 per cent, on the first year's premiums, and 5 per cent. on renewals—Mr. Thompson advocated that it would extend business to give 50 per cent., but the directors, I believe, objected to it.
Five other gentlemen deposed to Thompson's character.
WOOD, NORTHCOTT, and THOMPSON— GUILTY of obtaining money by false pretences and conspiracy. — Five Years' Penal Servitude . WILLIAM SHAW— GUILTY of same. — Two Years' Imprisonment . SLINKER— GUILTY of conspiracy only. Recommended to mercy. — Nine Months' Imprisonment . GEORGE and THOMAS SHAW— NOT GUILTY .
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, JUNE 24TH.