CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
WHETHAM, MAYOR. THIRD SESSION.
A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two start (**) that they have been more than once in custody—an obelisk (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
OLD COURT.—Monday, January 13th, 1879.
Before Mr. Recorder.
ARTHUR LAMPLOUGH . I am a licensed victualler at the King of Denmark in the Old Bailey—I purchased that house from Mr. Watson Ansell on 23 July, 1877—I paid him part in cash and part in three bills, two of 100l. each, and one for 200l., the first was a three months' bill, and the second six, dated 23 July, 1877, the day of the change—the 200l. bill was afterwards cancelled, and I gave another for 150l. for it—the 200l. bill was, I believe in Mr. Ansell's possession—that was cancelled about 6th March last—on that day I think I saw the prisoner at my premises—the form of a bill for 150l. was drawn out on that day—Ward drew it up—no name was put as the drawer—I accepted it in Ward's presence—he drew the bill for Mr. Ansel who was busy at the time—nothing was said about any name being put as the drawer of the bill—Mr. Ansell gave him instructions what he was to do with the bill—he said, in my presence, "Take care of that bill for me, and keep it in your safe"—I heard nothing else said as to what was to be doner with the bill—I did not hear anything said about the drawer's name—Mr. Ward took the bill away with him—the name of Josiah Ward now upon I was not on it at the time I accepted it, or at the time Mr. Ward took away—it was not put on in my presence—it is not in the same ink as the rest of the bill—an account was made out at the time the bill was drawn up between Ward and me—he drew it up for Mr. Ansell, showing the state of the account between Ansell and me—I did not owe Ward any money at that time, I never owed him any—the hill was presented to me the day it became due, by Trenchard and Smith, and I paid it.
Cross-examined. I should say that the bill was fraudulently signed by Mr. Ward with his own name instead of Mr. Ansell's—I had no knowledge of that at the time I paid it—I saw the bill, of course, with Ward's signature on it when I paid it—my banker told me that I must pay it—it was payable at the bank—I did not make any excuse for not paying it—I was
ill the day it was presented, I was not present, I was in bed—I stated in my sworn information at the police-court: "Since that I have, under the threat of legal proceedings, paid the said money to Messrs. Trenchard and Smith, who presented the bill in company with Mr. Morris, the defendant's manager and clerk"—I am not the prosecutor in this case, Mr. Ansell is—he was out of the room at the time I accepted the bill—he was in his own office—he had not been into the room that morning at all—Mr. Ward drew up the bill, and I accepted it—I believe he brought the bill to my place and drew it up there—I don't think it was ever in Mr. Ansell's possession—he never had the bill—he was not in the room when Mr. Ward made out the account—it was not an account between Ward, Ansell, and myself combined—it was between me and Ansell, it had nothing to do with Ward—I can't say whether Ward wrote down the amount of his commission for discounting the bill—I don't recollect—this (produeed) might have been the account that Ward wrote out at that time—I can't say—I say it was Ward who wrote out the account—I did not write it—this is the account against Ansell—that is my writing "26l. 13s. six months' rent, 25l. 10s., interest 5l."—I wrote that at the time—I don't know who had the interest—that was written when Ansell was out of the room—I don't know whether Mr. Ward was to have the 5l. for his security—I am sure Mr. Ansell's sigrature would have been worth the paper on which it was written, if he had signed the bill—if he had put his name to it it would not have prevented the bill being discounted—I did not know that he had undertaken to pay a composition of 6d. in the pound in a fortnight, and that he failed to carry it out—I heard of it in Court a week or two ago—I do not know that a demand in bankruptcy was made against Mr. Ward in reference to this bill—I never heard of it—I do not know that Mr. Ansell made a demand in bankruptcy on 12th September last year for the payment of the debt on this bill—Mr. Ansell and I carry on business in the same premises—he calls himself a carrier's agent—I never heard of this document: "The following are the particulars of the demand of Ansell against Ward, amounting to 153l. 15s., being the amount of money received by you from Lamplough as trustee or agent for me in discharge of the balance due on a bill of exchange for 200l."—I have no recollection of it, it might have been shown, or I might have been told, I don't recollect—I can't say the date when proceedings were taken against Mr. Ward at Guildhall Police-court—I don't think it was so early as the latter end of last summer, or the beginning of autumn—I know that proceedings were taken against him—I was a witness—I think I filed an information—the charge was dismissed—I have not been here before.
WATSON ANSELL . I am a carrier's agent at the King of Denmark in the Old Bailey—I have known the prisoner some years, I don't know how many—I think I handed him the 200l. bill to take care of about December—I am not certain—I gave it to him at his place I believe—he kept possession of it till the beginning of March—I gave it him to take care of for me as I had no banking account, I had to carry it about in my pocket or leave it at home, he had an iron safe—Ward brought back the bill to the Old Bailey at the beginning of March—I don't know the day exactly—Mr. Lamplough was there—I was not there when the bill was delivered to Mr. Lamplough—I saw Ward after he had been to Mr. Lamplough—he handed me 3l. 16s., I think it was—that was for the interest of the 200l. up to that date—that came from Lamplough—I owed Lamplough 50l. at
that time, and in consequence of that I wanted the 200l. bill cancelled, and a new bill for 150l. drawn—I believe the 200l. bill was cancelled on that day—I did not see it—I trusted to Mr. Ward as an old friend—I never saw the 150l. bill till after it was met—I did not see it on the day when we were all three at Mr. Lamplough's premises—I asked Ward to take care of it—I was not present when it was drawn—I was in the house, but I was busy downstairs—he had not said anything to me about it before that—he said he had got the 150l. bill, and had paid Lamplough the 50l.—I only told him to take care of it—I said nothing about putting my name to it as drawer—he took it away with him—I wanted possession of the bill some time afterwards, and 1 could not get it—that was perhaps five or six weeks after—I have no dates—I saw Ward, and told him I wanted the bill to turn it into money—he said he had lodged it somewhere in Oxford Street, I think, that I could not have it just then—I understood him it was at his banker's, but I am not certain—I applied for it several times after that, but could not get it, ox get any satisfaction where it was for some time after—I first heard that it had been presented on the Thursday following the date—that would be about 29 or 30 August—I knew before that that it had been paid away to a firm at Greenwich, Trenchard and Smith—I knew that after he had paid it away—I did not see him after that—I saw his man—I don't think I wrote to him, I don't know—it was not with my authority or consent that the name of Josiah Ward was put on the bill—I did not give him any authority to deal with it in any way, or to pay it away to Trenchard and Smith.
Cross-examined. I have known Ward, it might be five or six years or eight or nine years, not twelve or fifteen; he has not been a very great friend to me that I know of; he has cashed a bill for me before—I was summoned for keeping a betting house, but I never kept it, and the charge fell through—Ward was my bail for 25l.—in 1877 I owed him something like 70l.—I don't know the exact figures—he went to a meeting of my creditors—I believe he voted for my paying my creditors a composition of 6d. in the pound in a fortnight; I don't know, I was not there—I have no doubt he did—I never had the paying of it; my solicitor had the money to pay; I don't know whether he paid him or not—I don't know that it was never paid; I never had the accounts rendered to me, and' never saw them—I think the amount of my debts was something like 2,400l.; 2,100l. was secured—there is an account between Ward and myself now; he has done repairs for me, but I have never had the account—I should not think it was as much as 33l. 10s.—he built a little place for me—I have never asked him for the bill—he did not tell me that he would do further work for me on my promising that he should be paid the 70l. in full, and pay him for the future work he was to do; that I swear—I sold the King of Denmark to Lamplough—there were three bills, two of 100l. and one of 200l., at three, six, and twelve months—I had a cheque for 33l. about 24th December—that was on account of the 100l. bill—the 200l. bill was exchanged in March—I had several amounts in cheques from Ward; 100l. altogether—on 24th December I had a cheqde for 10l.; on 11th February, 15l.; on 18th March, 2l.; on 27th April an acceptance for 25l.—I did not have a truck from him on 1st March which was charged 7l.; I swear that—he paid some small sums for backing horses for me—I had no gold from him after the second bill became due; that was about 26th February, I think—I took proceedings at the police-court before Mr. Alderman Knight, and the
charge was dismissed—that was about November, I think; I am not certain—I believe I had leave to be bound over to prosecute—I never gave Ward a bill of sale—there was one drawn up, but he never had it; I was to have had some money of him, but I never had it, consequently the bill of sale was never handed over to him—I don't know whether the bill of sale alleged that I owed him 120l.; I never read it—I don't know whether it was filed in the Court of Queen's Bench; my solicitor handled it, and did what he liked with it—I very likely signed it; I think it was done in anticipation of my having some money, but I never had it—Ward knew I was going to give the bill of sale if I had the money of him to pay an action, but it was never wanted; I should certainly have read it if I had handed it over to him, but there was no necessity; he never had possession of it—an action had been brought against me in the Mayor's Court by the South-Eastern Railway Company; his lordship overruled the South-Eastern Company, they applied for a new trial, and they beat me there before Mr. Brandon, but they have never asked me for the money—there was no execution out against me at the time I signed the bill of sale—my solicitor served Ward with a demand in bankruptcy for the 150l.; we endeavoured to get the money civilly if we could, and if not we tried to get it this way.
Re-examined. Ward was to let me have the money on the bill of sale to pay the South-Eastern Company, because he said I could not have any on the bill; he said no one would discount Lamplough's bill, but it was not required, and the bill is now in my solicitor's possession; I saw it this morning—the cheques that have been spoken of were on account of the second 100l. bill—the 150l. bill was not discounted for me—now and then I would go to a race meeting with Ward; perhaps once a month—I believe there was no account between us on racing matters.
By the COURT. I owed 50l. to the acceptor of the 200l. bill—Lamplough owed me 200l., and I owed him 50l.—Lamplough accepted the 150l. bill; I never saw my name put to it at all—I never could account for its not having been drawn to myself—I told Lamplough not to pay it, because I had never seen it.
JOSEPH HARGRAVE SIMMONS . I am a solicitor, and am acting as solicitor for the prosecution in this case—I was acting for Mr. Ansell in the second action brought against him by the South-Eastern Company—there had been a previous action before his lordship, in which, under his ruling, Mr. Ansell gained the verdict; the South-Eastern Company went to the Court of Common Pleas, and obtained a new trial—after several postponements by the South-Eastern Company it came on per proviso in March—I told Mr. Ansell that it was necessary to have Queen's Counsel in the matter, as important points of law were raised, and I must have some money to pay them with; he said "My fried Josh Ward will let me have it under a 150l. bill if I give him a bill of sale as collateral security," and acting on those instructions I executed the bill of sale, and it was executed and dated, fancying we should have the money that day—no money was obtained under it to my knowledge—several appointments were made for Ward to let Ansell have the money; it went on till the last day for tiling, and I filed it on that day, and I have held it ever since.
Cross-examined. The bill of sale is deted 14th March; it was filed on 4th April—before I tiled it I read this sentence in it: "Received the day and year first above written, of and from the above-named Josiah Ward,
the sum of 25l., as agreed"—it is my own handwriting—as far as I know the 25l. was never paid.
By the COURT. I filed the hill of sale in order to make the instrument valid in case the money was advanced.
The RECORDER was of opinion on this evidence that there was no larceny of the bill, and therefore the case failed.
NOT GUILTY .
The evidence of Mr. Ansell and Mr. Lamplough as given in the last case was read over.
JOEL SMITH . I am a member of the firm of Trenchard and Smith, cement and slate merchants—I only knew Ward by having seen him on one or two occasions after this transaction—I first saw this bill in May last—it was brought to me by a person in the employ of Ward—after having it some time at the London and County Bank we discounted it—the bill was presented to Lamplough for payment at their branch in Shoreditch—it was returned as unpaid.
Cross-examined. The person who presented it is not here—Lamplough afterwards paid it.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
121. In the case of EDWARD BYRNE MADDEN (56) , standing indicted for feloniously sending to the Right Hon Richard Assheton Cross, H.M. Secretary of State for the Home Department, a letter threatening to kill and murder the Queen — on the evidence of Mr. John Rowland Gibson, surgeon of Newgate, the Jury found the prisoner to be of unsound mind, and unfit to plead to the indictment.— Ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.
125. WILLIAM NEEDES (37) to forging and uttering an acceptance to a bill of exchange for 120l. 10s. 2d. with intent to defraud.— Fifteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
NEW COURT.—Monday, January 13th, 1879.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
MARY RAYSON . I am the wife of Henry Rayson, a greengrocer, of 484, King's Road, Chelsea—on 8th December, between 6 and 7 p.m., I sold the prisoner a penny orange; she gave me a sixpence, I gave her five pence, and she left—as she was leaving I found it was bad—she was outside—I called her back twice, and she came—I bit the sixpence, it was soft and greasy; I told her it was bad—my teeth went nearly through it—she said she did not know it was bad, and gave me another—I examined it, and found that was bad too—I rang it, and it sounded dull—she gave me back the fivepence—I called my brother, examined the coins, and told her they were bad, and if she did not go out he would send for the man opposite—that was a policeman—she then left.
JOHN RAYSON . I am the brother-in-law of the last witness—she called me on the Sunday evening and showed me two bad sixpences; they were of a leaden colour—I told the prisoner I knew as much about brummagem as she did, meaning bad money, and if she did not go out of my shop I would call the man who stood opposite and give her in custody—she said that a pawnbroker gave them to her on Saturday night, and that she had no more money—my sister-in-law gave her back the sixpences, and she gave back the change and the orange and left—I followed her into Laymont Road and along the King's Road, where she went into Mr. Brady's, a tobacconist's—most of the shops were shut, it being Sunday—I looked through the window, and saw Miss Brady serve her with a cigar—when she came out I went in and spoke to Miss Brady, who showed me a sixpence—I recognised it, as my sister-in-law had bitten it—I followed the prisoner down Beaufort Street, where she went into the Adam and Eve and had two pennyworth of whisky or gin, and paid with 2d.—after she came out I went in—I then followed her to Mrs. Gibbings, a tobacconist's on the Chelsea Embankment—I watched through the window; she bought half an ounce of tobacco, and gave another sixpence, which I examined and identified as the one which I had rubbed with my finger—I had spoken to a constable, who went after her and brought her back to Mrs. Gibbings, who handed him the sixpence—I then took her to Mrs. Brady's, and Miss Brady handed a sixpence to the constable—I took the prisoner to the station.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I have been a teetotaller for four months—I did not hear you ask me to put the sixpences in the fire for you—I did not make use of bad language.
ELLEN BRADY . I am the daughter of Henry Brady, who keeps a cigar shop at 325a, King's Road, Chelsea—on 8th December, about 7 p.m., I served the prisoner with a penny cigar—she tendered a sixpence—I gave her 5d. change, and she left—Rayson then spoke to me, and I showed him the coin; I noticed that it was battered—a constable came in about 10 minutes with the prisoner, and I gave it to him—I think it is the same. (Mrs. Rayson here stated that this was the coin she had bitten.) This looks like the same paper.
WILLIAM WILSON (Policeman T 507). On the night of December 8th I saw the prisoner coming out of Mrs. Gibbings's shop—Rayson pointed her out, and we followed her to a public-house—I asked her as she came out what she had in her hand—she said, "Only a few coppers and a cigar"—I took 7d. in copper from her hand, and said, "Do you know you have been
passing bad money?"—she said "No, I know I had a bad sixpence, which I threw away"—I took her to Gibbings's shop, and Mrs. Gibbings handed me a bad sixpence and said in hex presence that it was the one she tendered—I received another sixpence from Miss Brady.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate was that she found the coins wrapped in paper at the drinking fountain on Ebury Bridge. In her defence, she repeated this statement, and said that if she had known that the first one was bad slue should not haw been so foolish as to have passed the second.
GUILTY of the utterings to Brady and Gibbings. Recommended to mercy by the Jury .— Four Months' Imprisonment.
Before Mr. Recorder.
THIRD COURT.—Monday, January 13th, 1879.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
JOSEPH BOY . I am a confectioner, at 14, Blackfriars Road—I was in my shop on Saturday evening, 9th November—prisoner came in between 8 and 9 o'clock in front of the counter—my wife was behind, attending to the customers—the prisoner came in—my wife served him—he asked for a penny cake, and handed a two-shilling piece—my wife took the money, tried it, and bent it in a tester—she handed it to me, and I found it was bad—I told her to keep it—she told prisoner it was bad, and that she would keep it—prisoner then took out another florin and gave it to her, saying, "The other was bad, so that must be bad as well—the second florin was good—prisoner said I might charge him if I liked; and a constable passing at the time, I called him in and gave him in charge—my wife gave the florin to the constable—my wife is not here—she is not well.
EDWARD WAKELING (Policeman L 294). On 9th November last I was called to No. 14, Blackfriars Road—the prisoner was in the shop—Mrs. Boy told me in his presence that he had tendered a bad two-shilling piece—she gave me the coin—I produce it—Mr. Boy was present—the prisoner pulled out another florin, and said, "If that one is bad, this one is bad"—I searched him and found nothing on him—I took him to the station—he said nothing—the inspector asked him where he got it from—he said a friend of his gave him change for half-a-sovereign outside a public-house in Lambeth Walk—he did not mention the name of the friend, or of the public house—the inspector asked him—he made no answer—he was brought up to the Southwark magistrate on the 11th; remanded to the 13th, and discharged—he gave the name of William Reuben Woodman.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You had upon you two two-shilling pieces; three altogether with the bad one—no one tested it.
By the COURT. I gave them up on his discharge—one was cracked in testing—the good one was cracked when he gave it to me at the shop.
RACHEL EATON . Last November I was in service at the Blue Post public-house, Holborn—I have since left, and now reside at 37, George Street, Portman Square—the prisoner came there on Saturday, 30th November called for a half-pint of ale, and handed me half-a-crown—he laid it down on the counter—I observed it was bad—I gave it to the landlady, Mrs. Woolridge—she told the prisoner it was a bad one—he said he was not aware of it—he was given into custody, and the half-crown was given to the constable—that is it (produced).
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. There were not many people in the bar—it was bad money.
Re-examined. I saw it was bad the moment he put it on the counter, and before anybody bent it.
ANNIE WOOLRIDGE . I am the wife of Henry Woolridge, of the Old Blue Post, Southampton Buildings, Holborn—on Saturday night, November 30th, between 10 and 11 o'clock, prisoner came to the bar—I did not see him put the money down—Miss Eaton put it into my hand and gave me a look—I looked at it, and saw it was bad—I saw a gentleman at the bar twist the coin—I marked it—I said to prisoner "That is a bad coin, and I shall lock you up"—he said he was not aware of it—I did not know him before.
JAMES GAGER (Policeman E 352). I was called to Mrs. Woolridge's—I took prisoner into custody—Mrs. Woolridge handed me this half-crown—I asked him if he had any more upon him, and if he was aware it was bad—he said he was not—I searched him, and found one shilling, a sixpence, and three pence in bronze—all good money.
The Prisoner in his defence stated that the money was taken by him as a hawker, and that his sight being defective he was not aware that it was bad.
GUILTY **.— Two Years' Imprisonment.
MESSRS. CRAWFORD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
ALFRED JOHNSON . I am 16 years old—I live by myself at Soho Chambers, Tichfield Street—I have known the prisoner about six months—I went out with him on the night of 24th December last—he gave me a shilling and two sixpences to go into a post-office in Oxford Street to get two-shillings' worth of stamps, and to bring them to him—I had been living in the same room with the prisoner about a fortnight—I went to the post-office and handed the two sixpences and the shilling to Miss Benwell—I went away with the stamps—I was afterwards brought back by the policeman and given into custody—I was brought up twice before the Magistrate, and on the second occasion discharged—two days before, on the 22nd December, prisoner gave me a shilling—he sent me to a chandler's shop in Tichfield Street, kept by Mrs. Wood—he told me to buy a packet of cocoa and some sugar, and to bring them out and give them to him—that was at our lodging—I went to the shop and tendered the coin—it was returned to me by Mrs. Wood—I brought it back to the prisoner, and told him it was bad—I knew him by the name in which he is indicted—we call him "Spanker Jack"—other people call him that as well.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I am an errand-boy at Crosse and Blackwell's—I have not been in a reformatory nor in an industrial school—I have been in the St. Andrews Boys' Home, Dean Street, a refuge for orphan boys, not idle boys—the night I went out for you was about a fortnight before Christmas—I had been in the habit of going errands for others, not for Bradley—I have been out with him—you have usually sent me to a shop in Porter Street—I do not recollect what occurred the Friday night before Christmas—I remember going down the Haymarket about 11 or 12 o'clock at night—I remember telling you I had found a two-shilling piece—I am positive I had not been out with Bradley that day or anybody else—I know a man named Stutterer, from the Empress—I had not been out with him—I know he is under charge for a similar case to this—I gave Bradley my scarf—we slept in the same room—I had not been with him that night—I gave it him in the morning as I got up—you told me to find you at the corner of Soho Square—it is about three weeks before Christmas since I worked at Crosse and Blackwell's—I have done nothing since—I have lived by going with you and others—chiefly by running errands.
MARIAN BENWELL . I am a clerk in the post-office, Oxford Street—the last witness came there the day before Christmas—he handed me one shilling and two sixpences for two-shillings' worth of stamps—I did not give them to ham—I observed the shilling was bad and I kept the money—the sixpences were good—in consequence of something that was said the boy ran out of the shop—I sent some one after him, and he was brought back by the constable—I gave the constable the shilling—that is it (produced)—I bent it with a tester—I have no doubt about witness Johnson being the boy.
CATHERINE WOODS . I am wife of Thomas Woods—I keep a shop at 6, Tichfield Street—on 22nd November the boy Johnson came to my shop—he tendered me a shilling for some tea and sugar—I examined it; it was bad—I bit it and bent it nearly in half—I gave it him back—I rang it first—it sounded dull, and I bit it—it was a very white colour.
ALFRED PAYNE (Policeman E 185). I was called on 24th December to the post-office, 421, Oxford Street—the last witness handed me a shilling—I took the boy to the station—he was taken before the Magistrate on Thursday, 26th—in consequence of something the boy said he was discharged, and the Magistrate ordered the prisoner to be taken into custody.
WILLIAM BRADLEY . I live at 26, Tichfield Street—I am a tailor—I had known the prisoner about a week before 24th December, when he came from the Empress Lodging-house, Seven Dials—I was with him on Tuesday, 24th December—he came down to the lodging-house, and asked me to go and drink with him—I went out, and we had several drinks—he paid for it—about 11.30 or 11.45 he asked me to buy him a penny scone—we were standing opposite Grumell's shop, at the corner of Church Street and Dean Street—Zelio was in the shop—I was to bring the change and the scone back to the prisoner—he was opposite, by the church—I tendered the shilling—the lady kept it—I went back to the prisoner and told him it was bad—I did not bring the scone—I had no money myself.
Cross-examined. I am a tailor—the week previous to Christmas week I did four days' work at 4, North Street, Grove Road, Lisson Road—I had done several days before that—I have done some since—it was about 8 or 8.30 when I saw you—about 11 or 11.45 when I went into the shop to buy the cakes—they did not serve me—I did not give you 10d. change out of 1s.—I
recollect going in a public-house—we had some rum, and you paid for it—we had no scones—you were taking me round to give me some drink—I had no money—I had money on Christmas Day—I did not admit having money when I started out with you—I did not buy any socks—I had only one pair—I went into a fish shop with you—you paid for the fish—I paid for mine with a shilling you handed to me—we went into several public-houses—I do not recollect going into a public-house at the corner of Little Earl Street and West Street, or changing sixpence for a pint of ale—we were not together on Christmas Day until 1 o'clock till about 2.30—when I found out you had been having me as a victim, I blacked one of your eyes and I cut your nose—I was turned out of the lodging-house through the odium of your connection—I went to see you in the House of Detention.
ANGIE ZEGLIO . I am the wife of Louis Zeglio—my mother keeps a shop at 50, Dean Street, Soho—the name of the shop is Grumell—I remember Bradley coming into our shop the night before Christmas about 11.30 or 11.45, for two penny buns, I believe—another young lady served him—I was present, and took his money—he gave a shilling into my hand—I felt it was bad—I told him so, and he appeared to have no idea of it—I kept the buns and the shilling, and he left the shop.
JAMBS O'DEE (Detective Sergeant). I took the prisoner into custody outside a public-house in Soho on 29th December—I said, "Is your name Spanker Jack, or do you go by that name?"—he said "No"—I said, "You answer to the description of a man who sent a boy to a post-office, 431, Oxford Street, on the 24th inst., for some stamps, with a counterfeit shilling and two sixpences—he said, "I know nothing about it"—he was taken to the station and searched, and one good shilling found in his possession—I afterwards, from information received, went and found Bradley—Mrs. Zeglio gave me this counterfeit shilling (produced).
Cross-examined. I never saw you before then, to my knowledge.
The Prisoner, in his defence, denied giving the witness Johnson any bad money, and stated that he and Bradley were associates, and their evidence was not to be relied on.
GUILTY . He also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction.— Two Years' Imprisonment.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 14th, 1879.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
MR. BOWEN with MR. E. CLARKE Prosecuted.
EDMUND JOHN TREBBLE . I am a clerk in the Registry department of the Board of Trade, Whitehall Gardens—on 31st December last I found two letters in the basket provided for the reception of letters intended for the Marine department of the Board of Trade—my room is either No. 55 or 55a, I don't clearly remember which; it is called the Registry Room; it belongs to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade—we receive letters there for the Marine Department—I sit at one end of the room; it is a long room—I have no recollection of who brought these letters to the Board of Trade
—I am not able to say how they got into the basket—I do not remember seeing them brought; all I can say is that I found them there—it is a room to which the public have access who wish to bring letters to the Board of Trade—this is one of the letters I found—I took steps, according to the usual course of business, to have it placed before Mr. Gray, the assistant secretary—the basket is one to which the public have access—this letter is dated Dec 27, 1878. and the other Dec. 31, 1878.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I was in Newgate Prison a few days ago—I was instructed to go there to see if I could identify you as having brought that letter.
THOMAS GRAY . I am the assistant secretary of the Marine department of the Board of Trade, Whitehall Gardens—on 1st January these two letters were handed to me in the ordinary course of business by the boy who brings papers to me from the registry room.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I do not know who delivered these letters at Whitehall Gardens—it is the letter of 27th December, 1878, that contains the threat against my life—I do not think that was an impossible thing to accomplish on any other day but the day on which the letter bore date—there is a postscript attached to the letter—there has been a good deal 'of correspondence between us—I cannot say whether that correspondence has been of a nature to rouse your indignation—your certificate as a master was withheld because in the opinion of the Board of Trade you were not fit to command a British ship, partly by reason of insanity—it was originally withdrawn in 1869 I think—it was returned to you for a short time, and was again withdrawn—since that it has been withheld on the ground I have stated—I believe it was reforwarded to the Board of Trade by the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine at Calcutta in a letter about 3rd April, 1875; that was the date at which it came into our possession a second time—it is not customary to search into the private affairs of shipmasters, and if their aspirations do not please the Board of Trade to keep their credentials from them—I have never heard of your incarceration in and escape from the Royal Liverpool Asylum between December, 1870, and May, 1871—I never heard of your emancipation by the interposition of a magistrate while being transferred from one asylum to another at Liverpool about 27th May, 1871—since these proceedings were commenced against you I have heard of your escape from the Colney Hatch Asylum on the 1st May, 1876—I do not recollect any letter sent from the head of a firm at Liverpool to the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine there stating that you were a most outrageous madman—I do not think there is any such letter in the hands of the Board of Trade.
Re-examined. It is the duty of the examiners of the Local Marine Board, with the concurrence of the Board of Trade, to decide on the competency of masters holding certificates of competency, and they are granted by the Board of Trade on the result of that inquiry; they are issued from my office with my signature.
THOMAS ROOTS . I am an inspector of the Criminal Investigation department at Scotland Yard—on the evening of 1st of January I went to the Destitute Sailor's Asylum in Well Street, Whitechapel—I saw the prisoner there—I had these two letters with me—I said "Is your name William Mullens?"—he said "It is"—I laid both the letters before him
and said "Did you write these to Mr. Gray, of the Board of Trade?"—he said "I did"—I said "Then I must arrest you, and you will be charged with threatening to murder Mr. Gray"—he said "That is just what I wish to be charged with; that was the object I had in view in writing the letters—I had no other means of provoking a prosecution and thus bringing my injuries before the British people"—he said he had taken the letters himself and delivered them at No. 55 room of the Board of Trade, Whitehall Gardens; that he took them to the end of the room and gave them to some gentleman there; he described the room as a long room, and that he had to pass by a number of clerks. (The letter of 27th December was read as follows:—"Sailors' Home, London, Dec. 27, 1878. To the Assistant Secretary, Board of Trade, Marine Department, Whitehall Gardens. Sir,—No one but the Lord Chief Justice of England and a jury of my fellow-countrymen can decide the point in dispute between the Board of Trade and me, since the Board of Trade declines to discuss the matter with me any further There therefore becomes a cruel necessity forced upon me to adopt some unprecedented means of forcing on a trial in the Criminal Court, which I can only do by placing myself in the undesirable position of a prisoner committed for trial But independent of this object, the misconduct of your colleagues in their treatment to me justifies me in denouncing them all as a gang of dishonest, unprincipled, and cowardly robbers, tyrants, and oppressors, and as I must hold somebody responsible for their misconduct, I hold you responsible for the department of which you are assistant secretary, and demand from you the instant restoration—restitution is the proper word—to me of the second renewal of my master's certificate of competency, bought and paid for by me, sir, as well as earned, eleven years ago, by 17 years' hard service under the British flag. If you are able to comply with this imperative demand, and I know whether you are or not, this letter ends here, and my case begins and ends with your compliance with my just demand. If not, then, sir, singling you out from the gang of daylight robbers who take a mean advantage of their power to ruin and destroy me upon a plea which itself is a gross, infamous, monstrous, and most cowardly libel upon my character and reputation, that everything in connection with my history during the last ten years tends to disprove. I threaten—mark the word, sir—I threaten you with a sudden and violent death as you emerge from the head office of the Board of Trade to-day to return to your private residence, and take care I am not armed and fully prepared to carry out my threat. I am a true-born Englishman, sir, and I must either have redress for my wrongs, or I must be completely annihilated. In this crisis, sir, I quote the motto which appears beneath the Royal arms above the doorway that they adorn, and closing my letter with the shout of 'God and my right,' I have the honour to remain, your obedient servant, WM. MULLENS. P.S.—At my earliest convenience will serve my purpose just as well as the day of which this letter bears the date.")
SIDNEY ROBERT SMITH . I am the governor of Her Majesty's gaol of Newgate—the prisoner has been under my charge since his commitment—I have had many letters from him—I should say this letter of 27th December was his writing—I have seen him write.
had known him previously—he was under my care from 26th February, 1876, until 1st May of the same year in Colney Hatch Asylum—when I saw him on the 9th January last I was with him about two hours and a half—I had conversation with him during the whole of that time—I formed an opinion as to the state of his mind—I believe he was of unsound mind—he had various delusions, first of all as to his own connections, which were great; secondly, as to his own aspirations, which were great likewise—he wrote love letters to one of the Royal Princesses—he passed from under my charge at Colney Hatch in this way: he constructed with great ingenuity a skeleton key, with which he liberated himself early in the morning of the 1st May, and escaped from the asylum, and when he got to a port by the seaside he sent me back the key which he had constructed, with a polite note.
Cross-examined. I have the key at home—I showed it you the other-day—it is a very pretty little toy.
By the COURT. I believe he knows perfectly well what he is about now—his whole mode of proceeding is very insane—I think that when he wrote this letter he knew that he was making use of the threat which is contained in it; that he knew the character and meaning of the language he was using, and that he knew the threat he made use of was an illegal thing—he was quite capable of understanding that—he is highly intelligent John Rowland Gibson. I am the surgeon of Newgate—the prisoner was under my charge in the prison in 1869—my opinion then was that he was of unsound mind—he was then charged with sending threatening letters—I saw him again the other day when Dr. Sheppard saw him, and I quite agree with him.
By the COURT. I agree with him in the answer he gave, that although the prisoner's mind may have been affected, he knew the value and meaning of the language he was using—I think he perfectly understood; whether he intended carrying it out is another matter, but I think he perfectly understood that the threat to murder was an illegal and a wrong act; of course I speak from the experience I have had of him since he has been with us, I do not know the state of mind he was in at the time—I saw him on the 2nd of the present month; the letter was written on 27th December—I do not recollect what the state of his mind was in 1869; I merely know the fact that he was here.
Cross-examined. You were here a month ago; the Lord Mayor sent a request that I should report on the state of your mind—I did not examine you; I had a conversation with you, but you protested against my examining you, and therefore, not being able to go fully into the matter, I excused myself from making a report to the Lord Mayor without having a full opportunity of judging—there was no one to prosecute, and the case there ended—I had a general conversation with you, but no examination—you protested on the score of submitting your statements, opinions, and principles to the arbitration of any medical man; you told me that you looked upon doctors as your natural enemies, and you therefore objected to express any statement, opinion, or feeling to a medical man—you said that you preferred to submit your thoughts, feelings, and statements to a jury rather than to two doctors.
Prisoner's Defence. Before I commence my defence I feel constrained at this crisis to utter the ejaculatory prayer to the Great Judge of all judges,
and to say in the hearing of this Court, and in the hearing of all England, "God defend the right, and confound the wrong, for His great mercy's sake, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Gentlemen of the Jury, the question that has to be decided by your verdict is not a mere question of life or death, or imprisonment or liberty, to me. I care nothing for death. Death has been my playmate since I was a little boy twelve years of age, and I have gone through a thousand fiery ordeals to gain the object which I have gained to-day. Therefore I bespeak the patience of the entire Court to hear me to the end. Nevertheless I feel constrained to adopt the bold and fearless language of that bold and fearless' outlaw who, after having achieved a thousand daring feats, and being brought at last into the presence of a conqueror so mighty that he wept because there was nothing left to conquer, cried out to his judge, "Alexander, I am your captive. I must hear what you please to say and endure what you please to inflict; but my soul remains unconquered." I sincerely trust that the noble and learned Judge presiding over this case will respond to my appeal, and answer me in the language of the mighty Alexander, telling me to speak freely, for that it is not for him to silence me. With regard to the question of counsel, I received a letter from the Almagamated Society of British Seamen, offering assistance in my defence. I replied, thanking them, but declining it, in my belief that the spirit of truth and justice will impregnate the Court as I stand a prisoner at the bar of England. In commencing my defence I feel impelled to remind you of the beautiful prayer contained in the Litany of the Established Church, which so beautifully links my case, that of the desolate and oppressed, with the case of the widow and fatherless, that every Sunday morning hundreds and hundreds of consecrated lips give utterance to, and that is responded to by the no less beautiful expression, "We beseech Thee to hear us, good Lord." I propose to confine my defence to the establishment of the truth of the statements which I made to Sir James Ingham on the 2nd inst., and by the ability with which, in your opinion, I prove the truth of those statements, I propose to vindicate the sanity of my mind. (The Prisoner then proceeded to contend that there was no proof that he had delivered the letter, and that if he had, the threat, if any, only referred to the day mentioned in the letter.) He then added: I have no ill-feeling towards Mr. Gray, but I think I was justified in resorting to some ruse, in order to bring the case I have against the Board of Trade before the public eye of Britain. By writing the letters I was merely pretending to ape the madness which has been shouldered upon me on and off for ten years, entailing medical examination after medical examination, most annoying to me. I entreat you, my lord and gentlemen of the jury—I ask you indulgently to consider the tremendous odds that I have to contend against. I am only a poor mariner of England, doubly and trebly branded with the stigma of insanity, dragged into a reluctant contention with a gentleman who in his own person represents a whole Department of the Imperial Government, and if I have resorted to a harmless stratagem, in writing these letters, to draw the Board of Trade out of their great stronghold, it is not because I would enter into open rebellion against their authority, but that I might again honourably place myself beneath their jurisdiction. I would not hurt the wing of a fly or dislodge a hair upon a baby's head; and all the thunderbolts which the Board of Trade can launch will never drive me out of my beloved country. Gentlemen, your verdict to-day will either be a last culminating wrong or the
healing balm for all my previous wounds. I will say no more. I will leave the matter to God, to the Jury, and to his Lordship.
GUILTY .Recommended to mercy.— Judgment Respited.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 14th, 1879.
Before Mr. Recorder.
135. JULIUS HERTZBERG (31) , Unlawfully failing to discover to his trustee the whole of his estate. Other Counts, varying the manner of laying the charge. MR. SERJEANT PARRY, for the defendant, stated that he was willing to plead guilty to the counts charging him with obtaining goods on credit within four months of his bankruptcy, and MR. POLAND, for the Prosecution, consenting to this course, the defendant PLEADED GUILTY to counts to9 to 37 inclusive, undertaking to make reparation to the prosecutors. The Jury were discharged from giving a verdict on the other counts .— Judgment Respited.
MR. TICKELL Prosecuted; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS and MR. MANN Defended the Prisoner. He received an excellent character.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. DIXON Prosecuted; and MR. FRITH Defended.
JAMES DOWSHER . I am a warehouseman, and live at Sewardstone Road, Bethnal Green—on 2nd January, about 7.40, I was in Sewardstone Road—three men came behind me and one before me, who put his leg in front of me, while one of the others gave me a severe blow on the back of my neck, from which I am suffering now, and I fell forward on my face—I regained my feet, I do not know how, and the prisoner seized my chain and dragged it and my watch away and ran off—I followed him fifty or sixty yards to the, end of the road, where he doubled back, and I doubled back and followed him; two parties tried to trip me up a second time; I stumbled, but did not fall—I called "Police!" and then got up to the prisoner, who stopped and said, "Here, governor, here it is," and handed me my watch and chain—I seized him; we had a desperate struggle, and I gave him in custody.
Cross-examined. The assault was instantaneous—I was so confused that' I do not know how I got up—when I called "Stop thief!" people came out
of the houses to join in the pursuit, but I had seized the prisoner before that—the prisoner was forty or fifty yards ahead of me at one time, but I gained ground on him—no one was running between us, and no one was round us when he gave me my watch—I live in that road, and I know that there is no side street in it.
Re-examined. When I was knocked down I was considerably excited, but as soon as I gained my feet I recovered myself.
MICHAEL KAVANNAGH (Policeman K 541). I live at 11, Sewardstone Road—I was in my house, and heard cries of "Police!"—I ran into the street, and saw the prisoner and Dowsher struggling—Dowsher said, "Are you a policeman?"—I said "Yes"—he said, "I give this man in custody for stealing my watch and chain; here is the watch and chain; he has just returned them to me"—he had them in his hand—the prisoner said at the station that he never had the watch, and never gave it to Dowsher.
Cross-examined. They were both perfectly sober—I have been six years in the force, and have heard of thieves throwing away property when pursued.
The Prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY .— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
PLEADED GUILTY .
143. WILLIAM JENKINS the elder was again indicted, with WILLIAM JENKINS the younger (28), for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Mary Jacobs, and stealing therein a clock, a teapot, and other articles, her property, to which WILLIAM JENKINS the elder
PLEADED GUILTY **, and also to a former conviction of felony.
MR. HUMPHREYS Prosecuted.
ELIZA COLOMBO . I am the wife of Henry Colombo, of 206, Cable Street—on 22nd December, about 6.30 a.m., I was at my door, and saw the younger prisoner jump out at the parlour window of No. 204, and another man after him.
Cross-examined by the younger Prisoner. You had a dark moustache when you jumped out at the window and a fair one when you were at the station, but I know you by your walk—I was taken to I lford, and saw you with five or six others in a group, and said, "I think that is the man"—I am quite sure of you.
Re-examined. When he jumped out of the window I laid hold of him; we had a tussle, and he got away.
MARY JACOBS . I am a widow, and live at 204, Cable Street—on 22nd December, about 12.15, I heard a noise, got up, went downstairs, and found that an entrance had been effected into the front parlour by the window, the room was in confusion, and the wire blind was broken—I missed 5s. 6d. from the mantelpiece, a teapot was removed from a cupboard and laid by the fireplace, and some laundry was removed from the table—I also missed a bottle of wine—the window was shut and the blinds fastened when I went to bed—I found the window open, so that anybody could jump out.
Cross-examined. Your moustache was similar then to what it is now.
JOSEPH SOPER (Policeman K 383). About 10 o'clock on the evening of 22nd December I saw the younger prisoner at 6, Joseph Street, St. George's-in-the-East, in a ground-floor back-room which is occupied by the other prisoner—the younger prisoner was wearing a black moustache—I was looking for some stolen property, and did not take him, as I did not know a second person was wanted.
Cross-examined. No. 6 is on the door—I did not say that I saw you afterwards with your moustache dyed.
Cross-examined. I did not see you in Turner Street snowballing on the Sunday that this happened, but I saw others.
RICHARD WILDEY (Police Inspector K). I took the younger prisoner at Ilford—he was under remand there on another charge; that was a fortnight after the elder prisoner was taken—I said that he would be charged with a burglary at 204, Cable Street—he said "You have got me right this time."
Cross-examined. There was only one other prisoner with you when you were identified, but there were six persons altogether—Mrs. Colombo lsooked at you for about two seconds, and then said "I think that is the man"—I said "Touch him"—she had not seen you go to the train, we kept her from doing so.
The younger prisoner in his defence stated that when he was remanded on a charge of drunkenness Mrs. Colombo saw him get out of the train without a cap or a jacket, and therefore easily identified him, and said that he had a black moustache, which was not so, and that he knew nothing of the case, and wished to call his fellow-prisoner.
By the COURT. I do not know 6, Joseph Street—I do not live there, or occupy the back-room ground-floor—I was alone when I committed this burglary—no one was with me when I jumped out of the window—I was drunk at the time, but not so drunk as not to know whether another person was there or not.
Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. I never lived at 6, Joseph Street, and never saw the other prisoner there—I am no relation of his—it is false that two men were concerned in the robbery—the constable knew this man, and he spoke to the man I was talking to.
WILLIAM JENKINS, JUN.— GUILTY .
He was further charged with a previous conviction in May, 1869, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY**.— Fourteen Years' each in Penal Servitude.
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, January 14th, 1879.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. LLOYD Prosecuted; MR. M. WILLIAMS defended Marsh.
came to the shop for a sixpenny pockethandkerchief, and tendered in payment half-a-crown—I noticed it was a very bright one—I put it into a till in the desk—there were five or six other half-crowns there—quite old ones—a detective came in about a quarter of an hour afterwards—in consequence of what he said I took out the new half-crown, and discovered it was bad—I gave it to the detective.
SYDNEY HAWK . On 19th December I was manager of the Auxiliary Steam Company, New Broad Street—about 2.45 Marsh came for a Christmas card, price fourpence—he tendered in payment half-a-crown—I gave him the change—the policeman Smith afterwards came in—I looked at the half-crown—I had previously put it in the till—there was no other there—I gave it to the constable.
Cross-examined. I did not see anybody else but Marsh.
ALICE WATKINS . I am in the employ of Mr. Davis, pork butcher, 9, New Broad Street—on 9th December, about 3 o'clock, Marsh came for half a pound of butter—it came to tenpence—he tendered in payment half-a-crown—I gave him 1s. 8d. change—I put the half-crown in the till—there was no other half-crown there—Mr. Sagar came in two or three minutes after, and in consequence of what he said I examined the half-crown, and found it to be a bad one—I gave it to the constable.
CHARLES WILLIAM SMITH (City Policeman 161). About 2.30 on the 9th December I was on Finsbury Pavement with Mr. Sagar—I saw the two prisoners with another man—I followed them through Finsbury Circus—they were suspiciously loitering about—I saw Wood go into No. 1, Bloom-field Street—he came out, and I followed him—he joined the other men in New Broad Street, 150 yards distant—I saw Marsh go into 36, New Broad Street—I went in and asked what he had purchased—Sagar remained outside—I continued following them—they were together, about 30 yards from the shop—they turned back before Palmerston Buildings, and had some conversation—I lost sight of the other man—the two prisoners did some writing together on the window-sill at Palmerston Buildings—I followed them into Bishopsgate Street—then they came back—Marsh left Wood standing in Palmerston Buildings—I then followed Marsh to Davis's pork-butcher's shop, No. 9—I got Sagar to go in and see what he was purchasing—I waited outside—Marsh went to Wood again—Sagar afterwards joined me—he took Wood into custody—they were together then—I took Marsh—I said "I have been watching you—you have been passing bad money"—he said "I know nothing about it"—I searched him at the station, and found 10s. in silver (three florins, one shilling, half-a-crown, and sixpence) and twopence in bronze, all good money—also one scarf pin in the coat pocket, a bunch of four keys, two old knives, a tobacco pouch, a pipe, and a pockethandkerchief—all on Marsh, in the pockets of his coat and waistcoat—I also found half a pound of butter—I found on Wood these seven counterfeit half-crowns (produced), two scarf pins, a new pockethandkerchief, one pair of earrings, a pair of sleeve-links, three florins good money, and twopence in bronze—the seven half-crowns were wrapped up in three different papers, the outward piece brown, then tissue, and then newspaper—I received these three half-crowns (produced) from the witness Thompson.
Cross-examined. Marsh gave me a correct address—I saw nothing pass between the prisoners while following them.
Cross-examined by Wood. I saw you first at Finsbury Pavement—the
third man was with you—I did not see you cross to Moorgate Street station—I did not see anything pass between you—I saw you go into a public-house in Wormwood Street with him—I ascertained you went in to change 10s. silver for half a sovereign—at Moor Lane station I believe you said the money was given by Marsh—you did not say the parcel of coins were handed to you by a strange man.
ROBERT SAGAR . I live at 47, Bartholomew Close—I was with the last witness on the afternoon of 9th December last, and have heard his evidence—I agree with it—I am not a member of the police force—I took Wood into custody—I went into the shop and Miss Watkins showed me a bad half-crown.
Cross-examined by Wood. I first saw you on Finsbury Pavement—I was with Smith the whole time from Finsbury Pavement to Broad Street—I saw a third man with you—I did not see anything pass between you.
WILLIAM WEBSTER . Here are three counterfeit half-crowns; one uttered by Wood, the other by Marsh—all from one mould—the seven half-crowns found on Wood are all bad—five from the same mould as those uttered; the other two different.
Wood in his defence stated that a strange man whom he met at a public-house sent him with the half-crown to buy a pocket handkerchief, and handed him the paper parcel containing the bad coins, and that he had no idea of its contents.
Marsh received a good character.
MARSH— NOT GUILTY .
WOOD— GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
146. EDWARD ARDLEY (22) to stealing a watch and moneys the property of John Elliott Henley, his master, having been previously convicted of felony.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
147. JOHN LEWIS (40) to a burglary at the dwelling-house of Rev. Reginald Gunnery, and stealing seven table knives and other goods, his property, and nine pairs of stockings, boots, and other goods, and 1s. 1d., the goods and moneys of Mary Hawkins.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, January 14th, 1879.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
149. WILLIAM GEORGE REEVE (16) to forging and uttering a request for the delivery of goods, an order fox the payment of 97l. 8s. 6d., and other requests and orders, with intent to defraud.— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] Judgment Respited.
151. FREDERICK PAGE (27) to stealing 60l. and 23 plated spoons, the goods of John Cox, in his dwelling-house, and afterwards burglariously breaking out of the same, having been before convicted.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. POLAND and MACMORRAN Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.
CHARLES JAMES DRUMMOND . I am assistant secretary to the London Society of Compositors—its object, amongst others, is that of a benevolent society for the relief of unemployed compositors—the rule referred to in this case is in Appendix B—it governs the mode in which application is to be made by an unemployed member—I produce the call-book and the unemployed claim-book—the prisoner's name is signed here on 5th October—I saw him sign it—a member places his initials, which the heading at the top explains shall stand for his signature, each morning, if the member is out of work—the prisoner signed this as being totally unemployed for five days, which entitled him to the 8s. 4d., and I placed "Nil "against the column "Earned or received," he having told me he had earned nothing—if I had known he had earned 1l. 1s. 6d. that week I should not have paid him anything.
Cross-examined. The society encourages the members to get work—there is no difference between night and day work, except that night work is paid 3d. an hour more for—a man out of day work getting into night work would be disentitled to relief under the rules, with this qualification, that there are certain technicalities in our trade, and there are what are called grass hands and casual hands—a grass hand is a man who has work in an office week after week on weekly newspapers, and a casual hand is a man daily at work—the rules never contain resolutions—this is a book of rules only—I produce a book containing a resolution affecting night work of August 31, 1875: "Resolved, that such earnings be not considered as affecting provident claims n—that does not refer to casual hands—then there is a resolution of November, 1877—I copied them out as there was no occasion to bring the book here—each member has one of the books of rules given him.
Re-examined. The prisoner told us he had not earned anything that week—the resolution relating to casual hands does not apply to him, as he was a grass hand—I never received notice to produce the book—there is no distinction between day and night work as regards the right of members to relief.
THOMAS GILES . I am overseer to Messrs. Judd and Co., printers, of St. Andrew's Hill—it is my duty to see the workmen paid—I produce the book of payments made, and I saw the prisoner paid on 5th October 1l. 1s. 6d.—he commenced work on Monday and worked up till Friday night, when our week ends—it was partly for day and partly for night work—they are paid for the number of lines they do.
Cross-examined. I can give a fair idea as to how much was for day and how much for night work—they commenced work on Monday afternoon, and one job particularly we should not have done at night—it is called "Historical Credibility"—his share on that would be 7s. 6d. day work—the paper he was on would be done, a great part, in the day—that week he must have had nearly full work.
Re-examined. On the Thursday and Friday, perhaps, he would earn 3s. or 4s.—there would be on the sum he was paid a proportion of 6s. or 7s. for night work and 15s. or 16s. for day work.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PURCELL Prosecuted; and MR. FRITH Defended.
EMILY CURLING . I live at 27, Leamington Road Villas, Westbourne Park—on Thursday, 7th November, I was walking in Talbot Road at about 6.30—Stuchfield passed me, and then pounced back on me and wrenched my muff-bag from me and caught me a blow on my breast—a pocket handkerchief, a purse, and a bunch of keys were in my muff-bag—he ran away—Henley immediately came up and asked me what was the matter, and what the man had done—I told him the man had robbed me, and he pretended to run after him, but did not call "Stop thief!"—I ran too—both men got away—I gave information to the police—several weeks after I was taken to Marylebone police-court, and picked Stuchfield out—I afterwards saw another man brought into court, and immediately identified him as the man who accosted me after the robbery.
Cross-examined. The robbery was completed by the time Henley came up to me—he actually ran after the other man—I had given a description of Stuchfield to the police, and I picked him out of six or seven—I do not remember that they were much older than he is—there was no constable standing by him—I should think not more than a month or five weeks had elapsed since the robbery—I was not confused at the time of, the robbery, but shocked.
By the COURT. The blow arose from the violence of taking the bag, and was not directed so as to knock me down.
HENRY MORGAN (Police Sergeant D). I took Henley on 21st December from a description given me—I placed the prisoners amongst six or eight strange persons brought in from the" street—the last witness picked out Stuchfield—she was previously in the witnesses' room while we put the men in order, and then she came out alone—she afterwards identified Henley in court—he was apprehended by another officer.
Cross-examined. She did not identify Henley until she heard him speak—I was standing three or four yards from Stuchfield—I brought him out and said, "You can stand where you like"—the lady was not present then.
Re-examined. I had arrested Henley previous to the lady knowing anything about the matter—they were both apprehended the same day—Stuch-field was placed alone with the others.
MR. FRITH submitted that there was no case as against Henley; that if guilty at all he was an accessory after the fact, for which he was not indicted.
The COURT held that the case against him was not inconsistent with a previous arrangement between the prisoners.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 15th, 1879.
Before Mr. Recorder.
KEEFE PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. GILL Prosecuted; MR. DAVIS Defended.
JOSEPH THURSTON . I am butler in the service of Mr. Edward Tyler, of 29, Oxford Square—about 1 o'clock on the morning of the 4th December I was sleeping in Cambridge Mews—I was called up by the police, and found Keefe in their custody—I went to the police-station and charged him—I afterwards went to 29, Oxford Street—I searched the area there, and in it found this jemmy and two wooden wedges—there were marks on the area door where the jemmy had been used, and the wedges had been put into the door—the area gate was locked—I had left the house about 11.15—the area door had been tried from the bottom up to the lock in the centre, close against the doorpost—there were persons sleeping in the house that night, but not on the basement—the door had not been lately opened, but a portion of the bottom was cut away, and the stonework was chipped or broken away for several inches, as if from the use of one of these instruments—the area door opens outwards—it was strained and damaged, but not opened—it was forced, so that the screws of the lower bolt had given way.
WILLIAM JOHN RUDDY (Policeman D 137). About 12 o'clock on Tuesday night, 3rd December, I was on duty in Oxford Square—in passing No. 29 I noticed some dirt on the area gate and footprints down the steps—I turned on my light, looked over the area railings, and saw the two prisoners on their hands and knees at the area door—I could see them both distinctly—I asked what they were doing there—one of them replied, "We were gaffing for some beer, and we dropped half-a-crown down the area, and we had gone down to look for it"—I said, "Shall I come down and help you look for it?"—one of them replied, "Oh no, not now, some other time will do"—they then ascended the area steps, and climbed over the gate into the square—I had my bull's-eye upon them all the time until they were ascending the area steps, then I turned it off; when they got over the railings I secured them both—we had a struggle; I found that the two of them were rather too much for me, I let Wyatt go, and secured Keefe, and took him to the station—I was struggling with them, I should think, about 5 minutes—Wyatt ran away—I searched Keefe at the station—I there saw six or eight persons, and out of them I identified Wyatt—I have not the least doubt of his being the man.
Cross-examined. It was rather a darkish night, not raining—I don't know whether it was frosty—there was no light burning in the house; it was thoroughly dark—the nearest street lamp might be a dozen yards off—the area was quite dark—I saw the two men by the light of my lamp—I thought something was wrong, and turned on my light, and then saw the two men in the area—I did not see their faces at once; I saw them well enough to recognise them—I had my light on for perhaps a minute—I attacked them as soon as they came over the area gate—the struggle was not very violent; they both tried to get away—when I went to the station on the 28th I was not told what I was wanted for; the sergeant on duty said, "You are wanted inside, see if there is anybody there you want," and I went in immediately and identified Wyatt as the person concerned with Keefe—I was perhaps half a minute before I identified him; I looked round seven or eight times; I wanted to be sure—I have no doubt in my own mind about him, and I have not now.
400 yards from Oxford Square—I met the two prisoners there—Wyatt asked me for a light—I turned my lamp on, and he turned round and walked away sharply; he did not wait for the light—I saw the two prisoners again between 11.20 and 11.30 in Burwood Place, Edgware Road, near to Oxford Square and Cambridge Street—I have no doubt about their identity—in the morning I went with Thurston to examine the area door—I found this jemmy concealed among the flower-pots with one of the wedges.
Cross-examined. I did not speak to the men; the second time I met them they passed me, and I turned round and looked after them; I did not follow them—there were not many men about at that time—I might have said at the police-court that Wyatt stood a second or two after I had turned on my light—I did not give a description of him at the station—I next saw him on the morning of the 29th December at the bar of the police-court, after he was charged—I then knew what he was charged with—I was warned to attend at the police-court—I knew that a burglary had been committed, and that one man had escaped.
WALTER THEOBALD (Police Sergeant D 21). On the morning of 4th December I was at the station when Keefe was brought there—this jemmy and the wedge were handed to me, and I went and examined the house, No. 29, Oxford Square—I found the bottom part of the kitchen door broken away, as if some instrument had been used with considerable force, and had been put right through the inside of the door—the wedge had gone right through to the inside.
Cross-examined. There have been, several burglaries in that neighbour. hood recently, and on one or two occasions we have failed to discover the authors of them; we have not been blamed for it.
JOHN ALISON (Police Sergeant E). I received a description of Wyatt, and about half-past 5, on the 28th December, I was in the Lamb and Flag public-house, near Covent Garden Market—I saw Wyatt there—I told him I wanted him for being concerned with a man named Keefe now waiting his trial for committing a burglary at Oxford Square—he said he was not there, and knew nothing of Keefe—I told him he would have to go to the station, and I knew that he did know Keefe—he and his companions resisted very much.
Witnesses for the Defence.
Cross-examined. I have known Wyatt eight or ten months—I do not know where he was before that—before the night of the robbery I was living at 11, Cross Street, Carnaby Street, Regent Street—I swear that—I was not living at 57, Castle Street, Leicester Square—I did lodge there about three months since—I and Wyatt were there together for about two months—we did not leave at the same time—I left first, and left him there—I was living in Cross Street with a stranger; I was not at Castle Street on the night of 3rd December or on the night of the 2nd—I was in Windmill Street on the night of the 3rd—not with Wyatt—I did not see Wyatt at all on that night—I did not see Detective Pickles on that night nor on the 2nd that I am aware of—he never spoke to me—it was a man named Whicher who
was with me in the area; he did live in Carlisle Street, turning out of Church Street—I met him in Little Windmill Street that night—I do not know whether Pickles knew Whicher—I was not close to Oxford Square about 20 minutes to 11 that night.
Re-examined. It was at a lodging-house that Wyatt and I were together about three months ago—he was in one room and I in another; we just met in a casual way.
JAMES FELTHAM . I am a carpenter—I know Wyatt—he lodges in the same place—I remember the night of 3rd December, it wanted 10 minutes to 12 when I went in that night, and I saw Wyatt and Smiley together; they were in Castle Street, Leicester Square.
Cross-examined. It was at No. 37—we had a glass or two together that evening at the White Rose Tavern, just opposite—I am a carpenter and joiner—I was working in Southampton Street about a week ago—I had work to go to yesterday, but I had to be here—it was at 57, Castle Street, I was living—I only knew Keefe by sight—I do not know when he left—God knows what time he came home that night—I do not know whether he slept there on the night of the 2nd—I cannot say whether he slept there after the 2nd—I cannot tell who was living in the house besides myself—I know Wyatt was there at 10 minutes to 12, and that is all I know—I left him in the kitchen.
By the COURT. I cannot tell what day in the week 3rd December was—I don't know what time Wyatt came home on the 1st or 2nd or 3rd December or the 30th November—I knew this was on the 3rd because I was at work at that time, and I booked it down—I was summoned to come here as a witness—I did not hear of his being custody till I had the summons—I do not know what day I got that; it was one day this week. William Smiley. I am of no profession—I act as deputy lodging-house keeper, at 57, Castle Street, Leicester Square—I let the rooms and take the money—I cannot tell when Wyatt came there—he did not lodge there on the night of 3rd December—he was in the house a good part of the evening—I was in the public-house with him just opposite about 11.15—I should say it was about 12 when he left me, and he came down to the house after he left the White Rose—Feltham was in the public-house with us.
Cross-examined. I did not see Keefe there that evening; he was lodging there some considerable time before that—if Feltham says he was lodging there at the same time it is not true; Wyatt did not sleep there on the night of the 3rd—I would not be positive whether he slept there on the 2nd—I cannot tell who sleeps there, there are so many—I remember the 3rd December on account of the locking-up affair—I heard of that next morning—I heard that Dick, as we called him, was locked up.
Re-examined. One of my lodgers told me about his being locked up—I saw an account of it in the papers some days afterwards.
KEEFE— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, January 15th, 1879.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MOORE— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
BURNS— Six Months' Imprisonment.
MR. MILLWARD Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended Gould.
JAMES PURKIS . I am a draper, of Durnford Road, East Holloway—on the evening of 11th July I was in the Woodman public-house, Colney Hatch—I saw Gould there, and to the best of my knowledge Stratton was standing by his side—I treated them both to twopennyworth of something—a few minutes afterwards, about 10.40, I was going along the path towards the railway station, and was suddenly knocked down by a blow on my head and rendered insensible, but I saw no one—it appears that I received three blows, for I have three wounds; one blow cut away part of my thumb and the nail—I fell—I had a watch in my waistcoat pocket attached to a chain—I missed them, and also 5s. or 7s., and a bunch of keys—this is my watch (produced)—Quintan helped me up and gave me into the hands of a policeman—I have known Gould twelve months—I have a very slight knowledge of Stratton.
Cross-examined. I went into the public-house about 10 o'clock, and stood at the bar half an hour—I had been at one public-house before that—Gould I believe bears an excellent character; he has been a customer of mine, and has been in the employ of Mr. Shaw, a builder—I was as near sober as possible—there were eight or ten people in the bar—my watch could not possibly fall out of my pocket, nor did I take it off the chain and ask Gould to take care of it for me, and give it to Mr. Wiltshire, the proprietor of the Woodman, next day, because I was not in a safe state—I did not ask him to mind it for me—I had to walk along the line—I did not fall,' I was knocked down; it was very slippery, and I was obliged to walk carefully—I never saw the prisoners after I left the public-house.
Re-examined. I was not drunk—neither of the prisoners asked me anything at the police-court about my giving Gould my watch to take care of—I had a stick which was found lying on the grass broken in three places. Edward Quintan. I am a bricklayer, of Station Road, near Southgate—on 11th January, about 11.20 p.m., I was on my way home by the path leading to Colney Hatch station, and found Purkis lying on the path about half way between the railway bridges half insensible—his head was bleeding very much from more than one wound—I picked him up and set him against a fence while I picked up his hat and handkerchief—I put his hat on, and put his handkerchief, and this part of his waistcoat, which had been torn off and was lying by him, into his pocket—his walking-stick was lying by him broken into several pieces—I took him some distance, met a policeman, and handed him over to him—I know both the prisoners well.
Cross-examined. He would not stand without support—he appeared the worse for liquor—I did not see the prisoner that night—I know where they Five—I had not been-to the Woodman.
WILLIAM BURR (Policeman Y 207). On the night of 11th January, about 11.50, I was on duty, and met Quintan with Purkis in Betstyle Road, Southgate—Purkis was bleeding from more than one wound on his head—he was wearing this hat, which has blood inside it, and the remains of this waistcoat—he was partly insensible—I took him to Southgate Police-station, which is about two miles—I had almost to carry him on my arm—I sent for a doctor, and his wounds were dressed—next night I went with detective Skeates to Stratton's house, 20, Ely Place, Southgate—he is apprenticed to a carpenter—Skeates knocked at the door and said, "Is Frederick in?" to the younger brother who came to the door—Stratton then came to the door, and Skeates said that he was a detective officer, and should take him in custody for highway robbery on Mr. Purkis—he deliberately struck Skeates on the mouth, saying, "Will you, you b——?" and ran through the house—Skeates followed him—I ran to the back-door to prevent him going out, and then went inside and found Skeates and Stratton struggling together—Stratton had got hold of Skeates by a dangerous part of his body—I told Stratton what he was charged with—he said, "I don't care for that, I thought it was something else you wanted me for; I am innocent of this charge"—I assisted Skeates to take him to the station—he was not violent after that—he was searched there, and this silver watch, which Purkis identifies, was found in the watch-pocket of his trousers—I asked him how he became possessed of it—he said that a gentleman gave it to him—I asked who the gentleman was—he said, "I do not know"—I went with Skeates to the Railway Hotel, New Southgate, saw Gould there, and told him he would be charged with highway robbery on Mr. Purkis—he said, "I am innocent of the charge, I know nothing about it"—I took him in custody—I have been in the neighbourhood 10 years, and have known both the prisoners during that time.
By the JURY. Purkis had been drinking, but he was not drunk—his hat was on, and blood was pouring from under it—I searched for the stick afterwards, but could not find any part of it.
By MR. PURCELL. It was wet, and I found blood on my hands afterwards, but that was after I had picked up the prosecutor—it was a small walkiag-stick.
CALEB SKEATES (Policeman Y). On 12th January, about 6.30 p.m., I went with Burr to Stratton's house—I knocked at the door, and his brother came—I asked him for his brother, and Stratton came to the door—I said, "I am a constable, and must take you in custody for a highway robbery with violence on an old gentleman named Purkis—he said, "Will you, you b——?" and struck me on the mouth with his fist and rushed to the back door—I went after him—he tried to escape at the back—we had a struggle in the wash-house, and Burr came in at the back door—he caught hold of me between my legs, got his hand through my trousers and drawers, and said he would tear my * * out—I told him the charge—he said, "I don't care about that, I am innocent of that; I thought it was something else you wanted me for"—I took him to Southgate station, searched him, and found on him a knife, 2s. in silver, and this watch and a key—I asked him how he
got the watch—he said, "I met an old gentleman last night, and he gave it to me"—I asked him if he knew who it was—he said, "No, Gould was along with me"—I asked him if he got a chain—he said, "No, Gould has got it '—I went with Burr to the Railway Tavern, and saw Gould there—I touched him on the arm, and said, "I want to speak to you"—he came out, and I told him he would be charged with assaulting Mr. Purkis, and with highway robbery last night—he said, "I am innocent of that, I know nothing of that"—on the road I said, "Mr. Purkis is very ill, I don't know whether he will die or not"—he said, "Well, I shall make a clean breast of it: Mr. Purkis treated us to twopennyworth of whisky each at Mr. Willshire's, and left about a minute before we did, and soon after the old gentleman came out I saw Stratton knock him down and rob him. I stood on. I did not interfere myself, and said nothing to no one. I afterwards went with Stratton as far as his gate and left him"—I received this hat and waistcoat from Purkis.
Cross-examined. I think Burr would hear the conversation about Purkis being likely to die—he was only a couple of yards behind—I did not tell him it would be better for him to make a clean breast of it—he said that Mr. Purkis had made a coat for him—he is a tailor.
By the JURY. Gould did not say that Stratton knocked him down with a stick—a stick was not mentioned—the doctor is not here.
The Prisoner's Statements before the Magistrate. Stratton says: "Saturday night I tried to pick up Purkis, Gould helped. Purkis had his stick; he was drunk, and did not know what he was doing; he fell down again, we picked him up; he pulled out his watch, gave it to me, and said he was in the Bankruptcy Court. He said 'You keep this watch, and I will see you at Mr. Willshire's on Monday night'. I said, 'No', when he dropped it on the grass I picked it up, and put it in my pocket He said, 'That's right' We helped take him down till we got to the railway path, when he fell down again; we took him as far as the first railway signal, when he said, 'I can go now,' and we let him go. He asked me to get his hand-kerchief out of his pocket, and I gave it to him." Gould says: "I went into Mr. Willshire's on Saturday night, and saw Mr. Purkis there. He gave us each some whisky; we drank it and left We had not gone far down the road when he came rolling behind us. He got through the gate, and fell down; we picked him up and took him as far as the first signal; he took his watch out of his pocket, and started off to go along the line when he fell down again; he was pouring with blood; we picked him up again, when he asked Stratton to pull his handkerchief out of his pocket, which he did. He stumbled about again, and I left Stratton with him. I had not got far when Stratton called me up, and told me he had got the watch. I told him to keep it, and then went home," Stratton in his defence repeated the same statement.
STRATTON*— Twelve Months' Imprisonment and Twenty Strokes with the cat.
GOULD received a good character.— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
Hill—on 26th November, shortly after midnight, I was at the corner of York Road, City Road, and received a tremendous blow on the right side of my head—I had bought a flask of whisky in a public-house, and when I came out I saw two men who noticed me—one crossed over to the right side of the City Road, and the other kept on the York Road side—I did not notice their faces then, but I felt that I was watched, and crossed the road twice—the blow partially stunned me, and knocked me down—I attempted to get up, but found I was attacked by two men—there was a severe battle for a moment, and I was down in the mud—I noticed the prisoner's face—he kicked me, and mauled me about, and cut the whole of my trousers and waistcoat out—he took the whole front of my trousers away containing my pocket, and my money disappeared, and my watch and chain, but my impression is that the other man took them—they ran away, and on the next day I described them at the station—I went to Worship Street station on 6th December, and picked the prisoner out from six or seven others.
Cross-examined. This took place as near as possible at 12.30 on the morning of the 27th—I only saw two men—it was just after the public-houses closed—on 6th December I went to Worship Street, and I pointed the prisoner out from six or seven others—there were two lads about 20, and the others were about 27 or 28—my property has not been recovered.
FREDERICK STOCK . I am a labourer, of Lewis Place, St. Luke's—on 27th November, between 12 and 1 a.m., I was in the City Road and heard cries of "Murder!"—I ran to the corner of York Road, and saw Webb lying on his back and two men close to him—I saw the prisoner tear his pocket out and part of his trousers from the knees right up, and the other man was tugging away at the waistcoat pocket—they both ran away, and Webb got up and made a complaint to me—I noticed that his trousers were torn; I could see his flesh—he seemed hurt in his left leg; he was limping—I gave information to the police next morning, and on 14th December I picked the prisoner out in the yard at Worship Street from eight or nine others—I had known him before.
Cross-examined. I am a brassfounder; I do not do odd jobs for the police—I have never been a witness before—there is not a policeman lodging where I lodge—I first gave evidence on the remand—I made no effort to stop the man—the other man was shorter—I did not go to the station that night, as I had to be up next morning at 6.
HENRY TADD (G R. 7). I was on duty at 12.25 in the City Road, and saw Webb come out of the Fountain—the prisoner and three others came out just before him—I saw the prisoner's face; he went down the City Road and Webb after him.
Cross-examined. This is the first time I have given evidence—I had charge of the prisoner at the station, and said, "Halloa, Joe, what is the matter now?"—he said, "I am in for a job in the City Road"—I then informed Maroney that I had seen him on the 27th—I did not know that there was an alibi.
STEPHEN MARONEY (Detective G). On 6th December, about 8.30 p.m., I took the prisoner in custody in consequence of a description, and told him he would be charged with assaulting and robbing a man in the City Road between 12 and 1 on the morning of 27th of last month—he said, "Are you getting it up for me?"—I said "No"—he said "All right"—I took him to Old Street station—when I took him he was carrying a bundle—he dropped it, and the contents were carried away by the crowd, except a table-cover,
which we have at the station now—he said nothing then about being at the Criterion or the Vaudeville Theatre on the night in question—I was not aware that he was going to call witnesses till the day he was committed for trial, and then I got Tadd—I found on the prisoner this skeleton latch-key (produced), which will open half the street-doors in London—it opens my door—after he was committed for trial he asked to see the police—I went to his cell, and said, "Do you want to see me?"—he said, "Yes, I did not do this job at all; I will tell you who done it; it was Dicky Dowdell and a chap that got four months at Worship Street Police-court last week for stealing wine"—I said, "What kind of chap was that who got four months?"—he described him, and I said, "Do you mean Dicky Dowdell who is on ticket-of-leave now?—he said, "Yes, I do"—he had seven years; he is not the man who got four months—I said, "Neither of the men you mention answers the description of the persons who are wanted for this robbery."
Cross-examined. It was on the 7th that the prosecutor saw him; there were not a couple of boys with him—I never saw a better lot—I have known Stock some time—he has never assisted me by giving evidence—he lives about two or three hundred yards from the police-station—he did not come to see the prisoner till the 14th—there had then been one hearing—I heard the prisoner make his statement, and mention the Vaudeville and Criterion Theatres; he then called his witnesses.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I wish to be remanded again, as I wish to have an interview with the police. Since I have been remanded I have learnt who did this, and I do not see why I should suffer innocently. There was a man remanded, I believe, on the 28th of last month, named Thorpe, for stealing wine, at this Court He was one of the men, and the other is at large, and can describe him. At 12.30 that night I was at the Criterion Theatre, and I can prove it.
Witnesses for the Defence.
ELLEN MANN . I live at 17, Edward Street, Shepherdess Walk, and am married—I have known the prisoner three years—my birthday is on 28th November—on 26th November I met the prisoner at the corner of Edward Street and Shepherdess Walk—he took me to the Vaudeville Theatre, in the Strand—we came out before it was over at a little after 11—we then went and had something to drink at a public-house in the Strand close to the Vaudeville on the same side of the way—we then walked home to Shepherdess Walk, which is just by the Eagle in the City Road, and when we passed the Eagle they were just closing the bar—that would be about 12.30—my house is about two minutes' walk from the Eagle—I stopped talking to the prisoner at the corner of the street, and he never left me till 1 or quarter past—I saw him again the next night, the 27th, and he took me to the Criterion; I asked him to take me on the 28th, but he had business, and took me out on the 27th instead to celebrate my birthday the day after.
Cross-examined. I am no relation of his; I am his sweetheart—I am married, but I have parted with my husband through faults on his side, and I thought I had a right to have a gentleman as he had a woman—I meet the prisoner one or two nights a week—I did not meet Kate Turner on the night of the 26th, or see her at all—we walked the whole way from the Vaudeville, across the Meat Market and Bunhill Row to Shepherdess Walk—I mean to say that the prisoner was not out of my company till about 1.15—there is no on ehere who I know of who saw me in his company—I heard that he
was taken on the Saturday on which he was taken—I did not go to Worship Street till the 14th—I do not know Dicky Dowdell or Thorpe, and did not tell him anything about them—at the time I went to the police-court I was under the impression that he was charged with this offence on the night we went to the Criterion Theatre, the 27th.
Re-examined. Kate Turner met us at the Criterion on the 27th, but not till after 11 o'clock.
Cross-examined. I have known him 14 or 15 years.
GUILTY . He was further charged with a previous conviction at Clerkenwell in March, 1876, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY.**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude and Twenty Strokes with the cat.
MR. TICKELL Prosecuted; MR. GILL appeared for Binstead, and MR. RAVEN for Tyler.
WILLIAM CAMPBELL LEACH . I am assistant manager to the Harburg and Vienna India-rubber Company—Binstead has been in their employ nine or ten years as messenger—he had no authority to sell goods, only to do whatever he was told—I never saw Tyler till he was at the police-court—these two dozen goloshes are our make and are worth 26s.—I identify them by this eagle stamp—Binstead had no right to take them without my permission, and I did not give him permission.
Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I have been assistant manager a year and nine months—Binstead was there when I went—Mr. Hodges is the manager—Binstead was sometimes sent to collect money, and large amounts passed through his hands—only he and I were in the office on this Friday evening, and I left him to lock up at 5 o'clock—Mr. Hodges was away from home; he paid Binstead's wages if he was at home, if not I did—the first I heard was that Binstead was in custody on Saturday, the 7th—that was before he had an opportunity of speaking to me or to Mr. Hodges.
Re-examined. Mr. Hodges had been away nearly a week travelling, and I occupied his place—if any customer wanted goods it would come to my knowledge; no goods would be supplied without my knowledge—Binstead ought to have left the office on 6th December as soon as he could get the postage stamps on the letters and get them ready for the post; he ought to have left five minutes after me—he had made no communication to me about goloshes when I left at 5 o'clock—I heard nothing about it till I saw the police next morning—Binstead has not bought any over-shoes of the firm during my time.
been in the concern 15 years—I never knew Binstead to bay any goloshes of the firm, unless it was for his own private use—I do not know Tyler—I did not see him till I was at the police-court—Binstead had no authority to take goloshes without my authority or Leach's—when we supply goods to customers we always send an invoice by post or deliver it to the carman—goods are always entered in the sale book before an invoice is made out.
Cross-examined by MR. GILL. Binstead has been over nine years in the employ—he has had large sums passing through his hands, and we had unlimited confidence in him—his salary was 1l. 12s. 6d. a week, and it would have been due the next morning and paid by Mr. Leach in my absence—the first I heard of this was that he was in custody—I did not wish to press the charge at the police-court—he may have intended to pay the money; I should give him the benefit of the doubt, considering the time he has been in our service.
Re-examined. I said, "It is possible he may have had the intention of paying the money, but I do not think that was his intention."
ARTHUR COX (Detective Officer M). On the night of 6th December at 7 p.m. I was in Park Street, Southwark, which is nearly half a mile from Gracechurch Street, and saw Tyler with a brown-paper parcel—I said, "Halloa! what have you got there?"—I did not know him—he said, "I have some slippers"—I said, "What kind of slippers ore they?"—he said, "Goloshes"—I said, "What are you going to do with them?"—he said, "I am going to take them to the shop"—I said, "What shop?"—he said, "To a shop in Union Street"—I said, "Have you an invoice with them?"—he said, "I have"—I asked him to produce it, which he failed to do, and said he had not got one—I said, "I shall have to take you in custody for the unlawful possession of them"—I asked him where he got them—he said from a man he knew as "Bill" who resided in the neighbourhood of Rockingham Street, and he did not know him by any other name, and did not know his address; but was going to pay him 6s. down fox them, and was going to receive 9s.—I took him in charge, and from the information he gave us at the station I went with Wright to the William the Fourth in Rockingham Street, and saw Binstead there, but did not hear the conversation—I then went to his lodging, and his wife handed me this pair of goloshes from a chest of drawers—they are of the same kind.
Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I went to the station with Binstead—I communicated with Mr. Leach next morning, when they were both in custody—Wright and I both signed the charge-sheet—I told Tyler I was a detective—I have made inquiries about him, and find he is a clerk at Gray and Martin's, lead merchants.
GEORGE WRIGHT (Detective M). I was with Cox at the William the Fourth on December 6th at 9.30 p.m.—we saw Binstead there, and I said to him, "We are policeman; I want to see you respecting the goloshes that you let Tyler have"—he said, "I know nothing about Tyler or goloshes"—I said, "Tyler says you do"—he said, "I sent two dozen round to a man named "Bill," or "William," in Park Street—I said, "What are you going to charge him for them?"—he said, "1s. 2d. per pair"—I said, "Tyler says he is going to sell them for 9s. a dozen, and get 3s. profit; have you any authority to take these things?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Have you paid for them?"—he said, "No, but I shall pay for them to-morrow"—Tyler handed me this bill at the station, and said that he took the goloshes
from 53, Graacechurch Street. (Read: "December 6th. Mr. S. McCarthy Dr. to W. Tyler, 2 dozen pair of over-shoes at 9s., 18s. Paid, W. Tyler, 6.12.78.")
Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. What Binstead said was that he had sent two dozen to Park Street to a man he knew as Bill, or William-Tyler's name is William—the charge was unlawful possession—no document from Tyler was found on Benstead.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Thursday, January 16th, 1879.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. CUNNINGHAM Prosecuted.
JOHN SIMMS . I live at 42, King Henry's Walk, Islington, and am of no occupation—on 26th December, between 6 and 7 p.m., I was in Mildmay Road, Islington, and met the prisoner and three men—the prisoner made some remark to one of the men as I passed—I did not hear what it was, but I was immediately seized by the neek by two of the men, and held by the throat, and the prisoner caught me by my beard with one hand and commenced rifling my left trousers pocket, where I had 2s.; she tore the pocket out and took two out of four onions which I had in my right trousers pocket, while the other men held my hands behind me—when the prisoner had got the money, the first man let go of my throat and struck me two severe blows on my eye and head, which stunned me—the other man did not strike me—one of the blows knocked me down—the three men ran away, and the prisoner ran a little way; I got up and overtook her, caught hold of her round her shoulders, and she forced her hand in here and caught me by my private parts; the pain quite overpowered me and I was obliged to let her go—she afterwards came back and held me by that part again for some time—a young man came up and tried to get her away from me, but could not; he then gave her a blow and threw her, and I fell with her—he separated her from me and accompanied me to my house—I could only walk with assistance—I saw the prisoner at the Dalston Police-station in custody about two hours afterwards—she was not with other persons, but I could have identified her from 1,000—I had never seen her before—I have no recollection that she demanded any money, I was in such pain.
FREDERICK CHARLES BLETCHLEY . I am a butcher, of 65, Stanley Road, Ball's Pond Road, Islington—on 26th December, about 7 p.m., I saw a mob collected in Mildmay Road, and saw the prosecutor and prisoner wrestling together; she had his pocket in one hand and his beard in the other hand—his pocket was not severed from his trousers, but it was turned inside out—she swore that if he did not give her 6d. she would choke him—she could not strike him because she had him with both hands—I tried to pull her away and could not, and caught hold of her and threw them both in the road, and pulled the man up and assisted him home—he seemed very weak indeed, I had to give him an arm—a crowd stood looking on all the while—' he appeared in pain—I went to the station and described the prisoner—I am sure she is the person.
December Bletchley came to the Dalston station with Mr. Sims's wife, and described a woman, in consequence of which I arrested the prisoner in Dalston Lane, three quarters of an hour afterwards—that is about ten minutes' walk from Mildmay Road—both places are in my province—I had seen the prisoner about 6.45 that evening with two young fellows near Peacock's, the tobacconist's, and noticed that she had mud on her back, as if she had been down—the roads were very muddy—the two men near her, and another who was near at hand, belong to a gang which she frequents, but I have not seen them with the two men who were with her when I saw her before to my knowledge—I was in plain clothes—I charged her with robbing a man, she said "I have not robbed you, have I?"—nothing was found on her but a small militia purse.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I never touched his pocket, and never demanded 6d. from him."
GUILTY (†)— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MR. FULTON Prosecuted.
CORNELIUS HOLLAND (a blind man). I live at North East Passage, Cable Street, Wellclose Square, and have a number of night lodging-houses in different parts of London, which are managed by persons appointed by me, and I go every morning and collect the money from them, but the money I had on this day had nothing to do with that—I had 160l. in gold in a cat-skin bag in a hip pocket of my trousers on the right-hand side, and 5l. in silver in a canvas bag in my right trousers pocket—I had not collected above 2l. 10s. of it that morning—I put that with the rest—the prisoner is my nephew; my sister's son—he lived in the house, 48, Golden Lane, St. Luke's, where this was done, and knew my habits—that is a mile and a half from Wellclose Square—I met him on 13th August, about 9 am., at the Golden Lane lodging-house—one of his brothers was with him, and his other brother came in afterwards—he spoke to me, and we all four went to the William the Fourth next door and had a few pots of ale, I will say a couple, and some spirits as well—they all left with me, and continued in my company the rest of the day—I told them the amount of money I had got on my person—we were backwards and forwards, and we finally left the William IV. when it was getting dark, about 8.30 p.m.—I felt stupefied, and made my way to go home in a cab, and my nephews followed me and fetched me back—when I got to 42, Golden Lane, the three brothers took. me through the kitchen into the back yard—they then took me upstairs, and told me to have a sleep, and they set me on the side of the bedstead, and gave me some bread and cheese and some beer—while I was eating it I found a very heavy blow come on the. front of my head—I did not hear any one else but those three persons—I am familiar with their voices—I made to get up, but the blows came on my head so heavily and so often that I could not stand straight—the prisoner said "If you are my uncle I will knock your brains out or else I will have your money"—I called out "Don't murder me, you can take the money," because they were beating me so—I felt them putting their hands in my pockets and taking the gold from my hip pocket, and they tore out the pocket where the silver was—one of them
(not the prisoner) has lost two or three fingers, and I felt the stumps—the prisoner was beating me with a stick—I bled, and the room was like a slaughter-house—here are the scars, and my forehead was split across—I was taken to the hospital, and was there three weeks and four days—I lost my senses getting into the cab, and did not recover them till they were stitching my wounds up in the hospital—the blood was pouring out of nine wounds for half an hour.
ARTHUR MARTIN . I am a labourer of 2, Holborn Buildings, Gray's Inn Road—on 13th August I lodged at 48, Golden Lane, St. Luke's, and saw the prisoner come in by himself about 3.30 p.m.—the other two brothers and the prosecutor came in about 8 o'clock—they took their uncle upstairs, and two or three minutes afterwards I went up to my bedroom, and as I came down again I heard a little bit of a noise, and looked in at the door and saw one of them strike the blind man on the head—I did not see who struck the low.
By the COURT. Q. Be careful, here is your deposition, in which you say "I saw the prisoner strike the prosecutor on the head with a broom. A. I saw one of them strike him.
MR. FULTON. Q. You said before the Magistrate "I saw the prisoner strike the old man?"—A. Yes; I saw them take the broom up out of the yard—I rushed down into a closet, and saw the youngest brother come down with no boots on—the prisoner is the youngest—I saw him come down without boots—I went into the kitchen, and he asked me to go upstairs and get his boots, and I would not go—he said if I would not go he would have my life—the old man was upstairs at that time—I did not go up—the eldest one said "My uncle is murdered, fetch a cab"—I did not fetch a cab. Lydia Grace Flanders. I live at 7, Glass Lane, Aldersgate Street—in August last I was living with the prisoner—on the evening of 13th August, about 7.30, I saw him in the lodging-house 48, Golden Lane, St. Luke's—I had a bedroom there, and he sent me up the City Road to a doctor—I think I was gone about an hour—I did not see the prosecutor there when I left at 7.30, but when I returned I saw the prisoner's brother Jerry running through Play House Yard with no boots on—that adjoins the lodging-house—I went to No. 48, and heard the prosecutor halloaing out "Murder"—I ran upstairs, and he was holding the window-ledge, and was pouring with blood—I took something which was hanging on the clothes-line, and wrapped it round his head—nobody else was in the room, but the prisoner was on the stairs—I saw Holland put into a cab and conveyed away—I saw a man named Mike the same night in Play House Yard, about 9.30 or 10 o'clock—I saw a canvas bag, and they divided the money, and threw the bag over the hoarding—that was the silver—the prisoner said that he pulled his uncle's pocket out when he pulled the bag out—the next day I remained with the prisoner till 3 a. m., when the prosecutor's wife came and turned him out—I left London soon afterwards with the prisoner, and we went to Holyhead and Dublin with his two brothers, and the wife of one of them—we remained in Dublin three weeks, and when the two brothers left us we went to Cardiff, then to Newport, and then to Birmingham, where I left the prisoner—on the night this happened the prisoner burnt a birch broom, about 2 o'clock in the night—it had a stick to it thicker than this iron bar, but not so thick as that lamp—at the time he burnt it he said "Oh, Christ gracious, if I don't burn that it will get me lagged"—this (produced) is the kind of
stick—he did not burn the handle—he burnt the bottom of the broom—the stick had been broken off—what he burnt was the broom itself—it was a broom you sweep the streets with.
WILLIAM MILLER (Police Sergeant G). I took the prisoner en 7th December in bed at 48, Golden Lane—I said "How long have you been stopping here 1"—he said "Two nights"—I said "You will have to get up and dress yourself"—I was in plain clothes—he said "You don't know me"—I said "Don't I, you will be charged with being concerned with your brothers in an assault and robbery on your uncle"—he said "All right, I knew nothing about the poge being got until two or three days afterwards Jerry told me—I understand that poge means "purse"—he said "All right, I will go with you, I suppose I shall get put away for it"—I took him to the station—I hold a warrant against the two brothers, but hare not been able to find them.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I don't want to say anything."
Prisoner's Defence. The same night as the robbery was done I was upstairs in bed lying down, and heard a noise; I ran downstairs, and saw my uncle inside the room bleeding. I ran downstairs, and went into the kitchen, and said, "My uncle is murdered, go upstairs and get my boots, and I will go for a cab." He said, "No!" I went up and got my boots, and saw my brother outside. My uncle was taken to the hospital At 3 o'clock in the morning the prosecutor's wife came up with two policemen, and turned me out of bed, and said, "You are as bad as your brother; you shan't stop in my house any longer," and I went out to Gardner's lodging-house. I had got no money. My brother said, "Cheer up, Conny, I have got a couple of pounds, you can come with us," and we went to Dublin. I did not get employment, and then went to Cardiff, and he gave me 5l.; we then went to Birmingham, and could not get work, and stopped there three days, and I came up to London, and went to my uncle's house to lodge, as I had no money to pay my lodging, and was there two nights, and the third morning the detective took me in custody. I knew nothing about the robbery till two or three days afterwards, and I am innocent of the knocking about He could not find my brothers, and he is trying to get it up for me.
GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
MR. LEESE, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence, an ample apology having been given.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. POLAND Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL appeared for Burke, and MR. FRITH and MR. DAVIS for Donovan.
GEOROE CLARK (Police Inspector D). On 30th November, about 4.40 a.m., Burke passed me in the Marylebone Road, near Quebec Street, going east, and carrying this rush basket (produced)—three men had passed me two or three minutes before going in the same direction, about 80 yards in front of Burke—I have no doubt that Donovan was one of the three—I 'stopped Burke—the basket was rather heavy, and I said "What have you got in the basket?"—he said "My tools, with which I am going to set a stove at Battle
Bridge, a hammer, and chisel, and such things"—I said "I want to see them"—he said "I do not see why I should show you my tools in the street"—I said "As I have stopped you I am determined to see what you have got in the basket"—we had some conversation, and I said "If you don't allow me to see the tools here I must take you to the police-station;" he said "I prefer going to the police-station," and I took him there, he carrying the basket—I examined it at the station, and found in it a jemmy, a chisel, and eight skeleton keys tied together with string (produced), and 5l. 4s. 11 1/4 d. in bronze, part of which was in a canvas bag, an old coin, a token, eighteen spoons, two pairs of sugar-tongs, and two pocket-handkerchiefs—upon him was 1s. 3 1/2 d. in one pocket and 2d. in another—I said "Where did you get these things from?"—he said "A man named Tom, who lives in the neighbourhood of Notting Hill, gave them to me; he brought them to my house at 4 o'clock this morning, and called me up and told me he would give me 1s. if I carried them to the corner of Tottenham Court Road"—he said that Tom was a bricklayer's labourer, living at Notting Hill, but did not describe him—Burke lives at 5, Providence Place, Lisson Street—he was charged before a Magistrate and remanded—he would go to the House of Detention, and on his coming up on remand on December 7th, he said "I have seen Tom in prison—he is the man who brought me the basket"—on 11th December I went to Bow Street Police-court, and saw Donovan in custody on another matter, and recognised him as one of the three men who passed on the morning of the 30th—he was eventually charged with Burke.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I have been told that Burke has lived in the same house in Providence Place twenty years—I do not know that he is 65 years old, or that he has been in the receipt of parish relief for two years—three gentlemen are here to give him a character—I saw three men walking ahead, and this poor old man (Burke) was carrying a basket—he said that he would rather go to the station with me—this prosecution is conducted by the Treasury.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I was standing still, and the three men passed me close—they were eighty yards ahead of Burke when I stopped him—he was going towards King's Cross, and he compelled me to take him to the station, which is half a mile in a contrary direction—the charge against Donovan was loitering with intent to commit a felony and assaulting the police—I took Burke's daughter to the station with me, and she very kindly assisted me and pointed out Donovan afterwards—I was sure of the man, but I took her down that she might be a witness at the police-court, and to identify Donovan as Tom—I asked her to see whether Tom was there—I did not ask her to point out Dovovan—she picked him out without any asking at all—she knew what she was coming for—I had sent her there as she said she should know the man Tom—I had told her what her father had said—she is a witness for the prosecution.
Re-examined. I went in first, and saw Donovan with seven or eight people, and identified him, and then some other witnesses went in, and then Burke's daughter—she was afterwards called as a witness—I took her there to see whether she recognised Donovan as a friend of her father's, named Tom, not to assist the police.
three men together—Donovan is one of them—they holloaed and whistled and went into 5, Providence Place—I did not then know that Burke lived there, but I knew him—I heard of his arrest at 6 a.m.—on 11th December I identified Donovan at Bow Street Police-court—he was with eight or nine others—I am sure he is one of the three men—he passed within three feet of me under a lamp; as he came out of the court he turned round on me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Davis. I only saw Donovan for half a minute.
SARAH PAUSEY . I am the wife of John Pausey, of 7, Providence Place, Lisson Street—Burke is my father—he has lived at No. 5 for 28 years—I know Donovan by sight—I have seen him speak to my father in Lisson Street frequently—I only knew him as Tom—I never saw him at my father's house, but I have heard my father say "Good day, Tom."
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. My father is past sixty—he has been in the receipt of five shillings a week parish relief for the last two years—he has been doing odd jobbs in the neighbourhood—one of the gentlemen he worked for got him the money from the parish—he is often out in the street.
Cross-examined by MR. DAVIS. It is six weeks weeks since I saw Tom—he was in Lisson Street talking to my father.
The Prisoners' Statement before the Magistrate. Burke says: "I have nothing more to say than this, the man gave me the basket to take to the corner of Baker Street and Marylebone Road, and he would give me a shilling." Donovan says: "On the night of 29th November I went to bed at 12 o'clock, and did not get up till 7 o'clock the following morning. I know the prisoner Burke from seeing him in different public-houses in Marylebone associating with all classes. I have never spoken to him more than once or twice in my life, and that was in a public-house over a glass of beer on 24th November. I did not give him any basket to carry on 24th November—I was worse for liquor, and I have witnesses to prove it—in the evening I mean."
BURKE received an excellent character, and a witness promised to employ him.
The Jury recommended Burke to mercy. To enter into recognisances to appear and receive judgment when called upon.
DONOVAN was further charged with a previous conviction at Clerkenwell of a like offence in February, 1871, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY— Eight Years' Penal Servitude.
There was another indictment against Donovan for burglary.
OLD COURT.—Friday, January 17th, 1879.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
Upon MR. POLAND'S opening the case for the Prosecution, MR. JUSTICE
HAWKINS expressed a doubt whether, if the facts were proved as opened, they would be sufficient to induce the Jury to convict, the chief fact relied upon being the improbability of any person other than the prisoner committing the offence. The JURY expressing a similar opinion, Mr. Poland offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT Prosecuted; MESSRS. BESLEY, GRAIN, and HORACE AVORY Defended.
EGERTON EDWARD TRYON . I live at 31, South Parade, Trafalgar Square, Chelsea, and am a wine merchant, carrying on business at 16, Abchurch Lane, City—I have known the prisoner for some time, and since April last I have had business transactions with him; he carried on business as a stockbroker at 18, Austin Friars, his name was not on the door—I have visited at his office and he has visited at mine, and we have had transactions together—on Saturday, 5th October last, about 10.20, he called on me, bringing this cheque marked A. (Read; October 4th, 1878. Messrs. Williams, Deacon, and Company. Pay to bearer 105l. Henry Labouchere." On the stamp were the initials "F. A. P.") He said "Kindly get this cashed for me"—I said "How do you want it?"—he said "Get me one 50l. note and eleven 5l. notes, pay 50l. into your bank for me, for I shall want a cheque on Monday or Tuesday for that amount, and bring the eleven fives down to Kempton Park to day"—I said I would do so—I have a banking account at the London and Westminster—I knew that he had no banking account and I had obliged him, before in the. same way—at the time he handed the cheque to me there was no receipt stamp upon it; he asked me for one and I gave it to him, and he put it on the cheque, and he put on the letters F. A. P. and the figures 4-10-78 on the receipt stamp in my presence—he said "If they ask at the bank who this cheque is from say from Pinckoff's"—I went with the cheque to Williams, Deacon, and Company, about 11 o'clock; an inquiry was made of me by the cashier, and I mentioned the name of Pinckoff's—the cashier then paid me the cheque with one 50l. note—this is it (produced)—I know it because I endorsed it in my own handwriting—it is numbered 29133, dated 2nd March, 1878—I paid this note into my account at the London and West-minster, the chief office in Lothbury—I also received the eleven 5l. notes, which I pinned together and took down to Kempton Park race meeting on that Saturday, where I saw the prisoner and handed them to him—the 50l. remained as it had been arranged—I did not see anything of the prisoner until the following Tuesday, the 8th; he came to me that day between 12 and 1 o'clock, and while he was there a clerk called on me from Williams, Deacon, and Company, and in the prisoner's presence he said to me "Mr. Tryon?"—I said "Yes"—he said "I have called to trace a 50l. note, can you tell me where you got it?"—at that time the prisoner was behind me reading a newspaper, and as I was about to reply he kicked my legs with his foot, and said "No, no, no, no," and that was the answer I gave the clerk, "No"—the prisoner said behind me "Kempton Park or Carter"—that was whispered, but loud enough for the clerk to hear—I then said "Prom Kempton Park or Carter, but I don't know where"—the clerk then left—after he was gone I said to the prisoner "There is some mistake about this cheque, what is the meaning of it?"—he said "Oh, yes, they paid me too much, that will be all right; I will go and put it right and be back in half an hour"—he then left, and I did not see him again until I saw him in the dock of the Mansion House—I know his hand-writing—this letter marked D is his writing—I don't think the envelope is—I do not know that handwriting—the prisoner might have called at my office about 1st August—I remember his bringing this cheque marked C—it is dated 1st August, drawn on Williams, Deacon, and Company, for
75l., payable to bearer, signed H. Labouchere, and on the stamp is written 1-9-78, H. V.—he asked me to get it cashed for him—I said I would—he told me to get 25l. in gold and ten fives, I did so, and handed the money to him—I remember his coming to my office about 30th August, on that occasion he brought me five 10l. notes—I paid those notes into my bank on the same day, and gave him a cheque in exchange for it—this is it—the cheque is dated August 30: "Pay to No. 977 or bearer 50l. Tryon and Co."—the number is the rotation number of the cheque—I put a number at his request—I said "What name?"—he said "No name, put a number"—these three letters, marked F. G. H., are in the prisoner's handwriting, and I believe the envelopes also.
Cross-examined. I had no business transactions with the prisoner before April—I knew of his being a liquidating debtor—I claimed 161l. as lent to him in January, but I wish to withdraw that proof—it was made up of 61l. 2s. for wine supplied, and 100l. money lent on 12th January—I swore to that debt—it was not a true debt—I did not give him the 100l. in a music-hall one night in January—I have seen him at a music-hall more than once—on no occasion did I give him money at a music-hall—I did not know of any syndicate operations on the Stock Exchange with regard to a company in which Mr. Labouchere was interested—I do not know anything about it—when the prisoner gave me the two cheques he did not tell me from whom he had had them—I did not ask him—at the time the clerk came from Williams, Deacon, and Company I had not heard of a large embarrassment in Mr. Labouchere's account—I knew nothing whatever about it—I was not asked by the detective Hancock to go to the Mansion House—I went to Mr. Mullen's office at first, and I went to the Mansion House on my own account—I did not believe I was about to be given into custody—I received a letter from Mr. Mullens, and on receipt of that I went to hi office—I did not go from there to the Mansion House—I was not kept in suspense as to whether I was to be a witness or a prisoner.
Re-examined. Mr. Mullens's clerk called on me, and I said I preferred seeing the principal, and I went on to his office and made a statement—I afterwards attended at the Mansion House several times and gave evidence. George Tinson. I am a cashier in the bank of Williams, Deacon, and Company, 21, Birchin Lane—Mr. Henry Labouchere has an account there—I have been in the habit of cashing his cheques for a long time—this cheque for 105l. was presented to me for payment over the counter on Saturday, 5th October—I have not the slightest idea who presented it—I cashed it in the ordinary way—I have my book here with the entry—it is in my own handwriting—I gave in payment for the cheque a 50l. note, No. 29133, dated 2nd March, 1878, and 11 5l. Bank of England notes—I believed the cheque to be a genuine one, and paid it accordingly.
Cross-examined. There are about 70 clerks in the bank—about ten would be employed in paying and cancelling cheques—this is my own cancellation—we know each other's cancellations perfectly well—I was not present when Mr. Labouchere went through a large bundle of cheques—some cheques were shown to me alleged to be forged, which I had cancelled—there were certainly over a 1,000l. that I paid myself—no inquiry was made into the cheques that were presented in 1874 that I am aware, I think only from 1877—there would be a few before that, but I did not see them—no forged cheques of 1874 or 1875 were submitted to me—I cannot tell you how many there were that I
had cancelled, perhaps five or six—I should not think there were anything like forged cheques amounting to 40,000l. from the 1st January, 1877, up to the end of 1878, nor to the amount of 20,000l.—those I had cancelled might amount to 400l. or 500l. more than the 1,000l.—I do not know what they amounted to altogether, but I believe it was something between 13,000l. and 14,000l.—I have not the slightest idea what the earliest date of these would be—I cannot tell you whether there were any earlier than 1877—I have the books here—I was not subpœnaed to bring the cheques—they are in the hands of the solicitors—I have not seen them—there are very few customers at our bank who draw on plain paper—some gentlemen occasionally draw on blank paper, but very few, not habitually, they usually draw on forms—to the best of my belief Mr. Labouchere is the only customer who invariably sends his cheques on blank paper—I have not brought Mr. Labouchere's cheques for 1874—I cannot possibly say how many cheques would represent the 1,500l. that I paid—if I saw the cheques I could tell those that I paid—I don't know whether it was ten or a dozen—they were exactly similar to this cheque, marked A, and I believe written by the same hand—the writing was so like Mr. Labouchere's that I passed them all—I could not pledge my oath now that it is not Mr. Labouchere's writing—all I mean to say is I look at the signature, and it is so like Mr. Labouchere's that if I had no reason to question it I should say it was his—they were all alike, and I paid them all—the cheques would not be returned to Mr. Labouchere every month, but whenever he liked to call for them—I cannot say whether ho ever had them returned—I know it must have been very rarely—of course any clerks in the house could go and look at the drawer where the cheques are kept—I suppose all the cashiers have dealt with Mr. Labouchere's cheques—the junior clerks who go round to the clearing house would not necesssarily have them in their hands they would only have them in their hands from the clearing-house to the bank, or when they write up the pass-book—it is no part of their duty to see that they are genuine—the senior clerks who cancel the cheques would go through them to see that they were right—the junior clerk has nothing to do with the cancelling, he only collects them from the clearing-house—I have no doubt that from 1874 to the time when the prisoner was taken into custody 40,000l. worth of cheques in a similar handwriting to this have been passed through the clearing-house or over the counter against Mr. Labouchere's account—all the cheques are registered in a book—customers who have printed forms would have the opportunity of ascertaining at once whether the cheques were genuine, if they were not upon the book delivered to him—a printed form is a great protection to the bank as well as the customer—if I saw nothing on the face of the cheque to make me doubt I should not trouble myself to look at the signature book; it depends upon circumstances how often an ordinary customer gets his pass-book made up; they vary; if it is a mercantile account it is done every week, and some have them every day, but private customers may not have their account made up in six or twelve months or two years—out of 1,000 customers quite one per cent would let us keep their pass-book for a year—I dare say there would not be one in 200 who would let us keep it for two years; we always send back the cheques to ordinary customers—if we saw amongst a number of cheques one not having a consecutive number we should make inquiry, but the chances are we should never see it unless the customer
pointed it out to us—the fact of the consecutive numbers being disturbed, and a strange number interposed, would no doubt put us on inquiry—in ordinary cases we simply look at the pass-book, put the cheques together, and send them back—if I had any doubt of this at the time I should not have paid it; if it were presented to me to-day in its present state I should gay I would pay it; if Mr. Labouchere swore it was not his handwriting I should not pay it—in the face of Mr. Labouchere's oath I should not pay it—if it was presented to me, and I knew nothing of the present proceedings, I should pay it—I should not pay any of these cheques now without looking into it thoroughly first; that is not because we have orders not to pay any more of the Labouchere cheques; we have no orders of the sort—I am told this is a forged cheque, and I say that the signature is so exact that I should have paid it if I did not know the circumstances; without reference to the circumstances I should undoubtedly pay it—with reference to the ledger accounts of all the customers, the balances are struck every three months—if the customer has got his pass-book we wait for him to bring it in; if we have it it is made up—the pass-book is a copy of the ledger—I cannot fix the date when Mr. Labouchere had his pass-book in 1876—I do not know whether it was at the bank all that time—I don't think we had his pass-book for some time; that would not be known to all the clerks; perhaps to three or four or half a dozen, it might be only two clerks, who make up the ledger and strike the balances; they do not change about—I don't know of the existence of any pass-book of Mr. Labouchere's—I don't think I ever saw one—he would not have any difficulty in looking at the ledger at any time—I cannot tell what his balance was on January 1st, 1877—the ledger would show; it is not here—I don't know that I was subpœnaed to bring it; I was subpœnaed to bring the books; we cannot bring the ledgers, they are all in use—the book containing Mr. Labouchere's account contains three or four hundred accounts; we want it every quarter of an hour—I have not a copy of his account.
Re-examined. Mr. labouchere has been a customer 15 or 20 years perhaps—his father was a partner in the bank—I cannot say that he has always drawn his cheques on blank paper—I know he has for a great many years—business-like customers have their pass-books made up pretty often—we have unbusiness-like customers who are somewhat irregular in that respect—Mr. Labouchere did not have his pass-book at all regularly.
THOMAS HENRY MORRIS . I am one of the cashiers to Williams, Deacon, and Co.—this cheque, marked C, for 75l., dated 1st August, 1878, was presented to me on that day, and I paid it in 10 5l. notes, and the rest in gold; I have cashed a few of Mr. Labouchere's cheques—I believed this to be a genuine one, I have no recollection of the circumstances under which I paid it—I see a great many people in the course of the day.
Cross-examined. This is my cancellation—I always put the letter £ as well as a cross—after October I saw a bundle of cheques, those with my cancellation were not taken out of the bundle—I cannot say how many there were with my cancellation, there seemed to be a very few—I have not looked through the list and do not know the amount—when I cancel a cheque I put it on a file and it is collected by a clerk—I have not to cancel cheques which come from the clearing-house, some gentleman does that—it is only by the mark I make which shows that I paid it over the counter, it passes through my book marked E—I have no notion who presented it—I don't
know that I should pay it now; from the facts that have transpired I should object to pay it—there is nothing in the character of the handwriting to give me reason to doubt its being Mr. Labouchere's—I believed it to be his signature at the time I paid it—I believe Mr. Labouchere's pass-book is it the bank now—bank-notes are put in one drawer, all the cashiers and all the clerks during business hours go to that drawer.
WILLIAM HODGE LEGOE . I am one of the cashiers to Williams, Deacon, and Co.—on 29th August, 1878, I cashed this cheque marked B, for 112l. 10s. 6d.—I have an entry of the payment—I paid it with ten 5l. Bank of England notes, numbered 18401 to 18405 inclusive, dated 4th Feb., and five 10l. notes—the cheque was presented in the ordinary way over the counter—I thought it was a genuine cheque, and paid it—I have no woollection of the particular circumstances.
Cross-examined. I was examined at the police-court—I have had a subpoena served upon me—Mr. Thornton's name is mentioned in the copy of the subpoena, he is a partner in the firm—I have not made any investigation at the bank with reference to the genuineness of Mr. Labouchere's cheques in the years 1875 and 1876—there is no partner from the bank here—I have not selected from a larger number the cheques with my cancellation upon them—this is my cancellation, I always recognise my own cancellation—I cannot say how many alleged forged cheques there are from January, 1877; there may be three of my cancellation, I think not more—I have not counted them, but I only noticed three—I believed at the time I paid the cheque that it was a good one, there is nothing in the character of the handwriting which gives me any reason to doubt its genuineness.
JOHN WILLIAM MARSHALL . I am a cashier in the London and West' minster Bank—Mr. Tryon has an account there—on 5th October this 50l. note, No. 29133, dated 2nd March, 1878, was credited to his account—on 30th August five 10l. Bank of England notes, No. 18401 to 5 inclusive, Were also credited to his account, and this 50l. cheque (marked E) was passed through the clearing-house on 30th Aug., and debited to his account.
Cross-examined. I am not aware that a person named Hulford had an account at our bank—I know nothing of him—I am not aware that Mr. Tryon has had large transactions with us, I know he has an account, that is all—I know nothing of any Stock Exchange transactions—a man named Herbert banked with us—I do not know whether his account is closed, or whether he failed on the Stock Exchange.
FREDERICK ANTHONY PINCKOFFS . I am a stockbroker—I have acted as stockbroker to Mr. Labouchere on various occasions—the initials F. A. P., on the stamp on this 105l. cheque, dated 5th October, are my initials, but they were not written by me; two of the letters are rather like mine, the third is not, the figures are not like mine—they were not written by me or my authority—I know nothing whatever of the cheque, or the transaction to which it relates—I know the prisoner—I think I first knew him in 1872, he was then butler to Mr. Halsey, and afterwards hall-porter at the Bank of Commerce—I have known nothing of him recently, I have seen him occasionally in Throgmorton Street, nothing beyond that.
Cross-examined. I have been acting as broker for Mr. Labouchere from 1st April, 1875, I then went on the Stock Exchange, and very shortly afterwards I began to do business for Mr. Labouchere—Mr. Stevenson was at one time a partner of mine; he was Secretary to Lloyd's at one time, he
was a member of the Stock Exchange—he has not failed, he is still a member of the Stock Exchange—I have no doubt Mr. Labouchere's transactions have amounted to hundreds of thousands a year—Mr. Stevenson has not to my knowledge operated with Mr. Labouchere in any syndicate for lifting up or pressing down securities—Mr. Stevenson and I dissolved partnership early in Jan. 77.
WILLIAM HODGE LEGOE (Re-examined). When cheques are cleared by oar bank from the clearing-house we stamp our name on the face; if this was not stamped it would be an oversight—probably two were turned over at one time; in a great hurry that is sometimes done, not usually—the writing at the back may be one of our clerk's—I can't swear to it, I think I doubt it—I could not give you the date when Hulford had an account, he had one: for a short time—I can't tell whether this was paid into his account, if it had our stamp on it I could—if the cheque came through our bank Hulford got the benefit of it—I can't swear that it did come through our bank, I believe it did from the look of it—there is a little blue mark on it as if the stamp had not been pressed sufficiently—I have Hulford's pass-book, in which appears, "Aug. 30, 1878, cash 50l."—I believe it went through the bank to his credit—his account was closed. 9th Dec, 1878—at the time this 50l. went to his credit his balance was 46l. 0s. 10d.—it was never overdrawn—130l. was paid in at the same time as the 50l., making 180l.—I did not know him as a broker—I believe he was known to Sir Philip Rose—I don't know who introduced him.
HENRY LABOUCHERE . I live at Pope's Villa, Twickenham—I have been for a good many years a customer of Messrs. Williams, Deacon, and Co., and have an account there—I had at one time a pass-book—I had not seen it for some time before these forgeries were discovered—my father was a partner in the bank—it has been my practice to draw my cheques on blank paper—I first knew the prisoner as porter at the Bank of Commerce; I think in 1873 or 1874—I don't know what wages he had there—during that time I may have seat him across to Williams, Deacon, and Co., with a cheque for 5l. or 10l., or something of that sort—I don't remember whether I did or not; it is very possible that I did—he was about three years there—on Monday, 7th October, I went to Williams, Deacon, and Co., and turned to the ledger and saw the total of my account—I called the attention of the clerk to it, and said, "There ought to be more here"—I then turned to the debit side, and there saw entered a cheque for 105l., drawn on Friday and presented on Saturday—I said, "That cheque is not right"—I then looked further into the account, and afterwards a bundle of cheques was shown me—these cheques (A, B, and C) are not my writing or written by my authority; they are a very fair imitation of my handwriting, a good imitation—I never had any transaction with the prisoner, or with a person named Crowe.
Cross-examined. I think the Bank of Commerce began in 1872 or 1873, and closed about 1875—I did not know the prisoner when he was in the service of Mr. Halsey—whilst he was employed as porter at the bank his conduct was perfectly satisfactory—when he had any cheque of mine to take to Williams, Deacon, and Co., it was while he was the messenger at the Bank of Commerce—I have no recollection of any specific occasion of his going, only a general impression that I may have given him a cheque—I think it is very probable that I did send him; if I did, he would
take it and bring back the money, and there would be an end of the transaction—I had not received any intimation that I was being robbed at the time I went to the bank in October, it was quite an accident—the credit side of my account would be made up by collections by the bankers or moneys I might pay in—the paying-in slips would not amount to many in a week, perhaps not one a week—I should think the account was principally fed by collections made by the bankers—I had no other banking account except a little one in a country bank when I am down there—when I noticed the diminution of the assets side of the account a bundle of cheques was brought to me—I do not quite remember when they commenced; I should think not more than a year, but I am not certain—I should think they were of the year 1878—there was a considerable number of genuine cheques—I think the principal number were forged, the same as these—about half were genuine—I did not pick out a genuine one as a forged one—I don't think I left a forged one in the bundle without pointing it out—I am as sure of that as I can possibly be—I don't recollect any one telling me that I had made a mistake—I went through the bundle once, that was quite enough for me—I took up the whole bundle, and looked through them, and put out the ones I supposed to be forged—I then carefully looked at the ones I threw out, two or three times, on account of the imitation, but I did not go throngh the bundle more than once—the prisoner's salary at the Bank of Commerce would be about 28s. a week—I drew perhaps one cheque a week; sometimes two perhaps—I think I have gone into the cheques for the year 1876 and a portion of 1875, not beyond that—I am not certain of the earliest date in 1876—Mr. Mullens had a further bundle of cheques going back beyond where I had gone through, and I looked through them, and separated what I considered forged cheques, but I do not remember how many—I don't remember what was the earliest forged cheque I saw—it was'some time in 1876, but I could not tell the date—I have totalled up the numbers, and they amount to 14,900l. odd, not more—I have no reason to suppose that there were forgeries in 1872 and 1873, I have not examined—I did not come to an arrangement with the bankers that I would only go back to a certain date—I told them that I should not go back further—it was no arrangement that if there were other forged cheques before that time I should not claim them, and I should be at that disadvantage—I had a pass-book, but it was not made up regularly I think, and I never saw it—it was always at the bank—that would be its natural place—I suspect that I had looked at the ledger some time before October, and not discovered any loss—I have no distinct recollection of any particular time in the last 18 months—I don't think I had looked at it all in that time—I think I did in 1876—I could not give you the amount of the forged cheques in 1876—the first one here is in 1877—these seem mainly in 1877—here are some genuine cheques—these I admit to be in my handwriting, to the best of my belief, because I only took out what I was convinced were forgeries—if I had the slightest doubt, I did not consider it a forgery—I am net quite certain that the bank did not throw out that I was a little negligent in conducting my banking business—they did not say it would serve me right, and they did not see why they should pay—I don't think there was any agreement that if I would not cast my eyes on cheques before 1876 they would pay me the 14,000l.—I should have said there was not the slightest doubt of the liability of the bank; I stated, as a matter of
fact, that I should not go back beyond 1876, but the legal point was never contested for a moment—they accept the fact that I say these are forgeries—the one is not the consequence of the other—it is the fact that I am not going back beyond these, and they accept these as forgeries—if there was 20,000l. of forgeries prior to 1876, I don't know why I should lose that money—I did go back a little beyond, in the beginning of 1876 I think, and I did not see any forged cheques—I don't think I went back as far as 1875; it seemed to be going back far enough.
Re-examined. By looking at one side of the account I could pretty well tall what money ought to have stood to my credit; that was how I found it out—I have no reason to believe that 14,900l. does not truly represent the amount of the forgeries; I believe it does—I have not gone beyond that.
By the COURT. I made the discovery on Monday, the 7th October, bo that when I saw the cheque dated the 4th I had only three days to carry my mind back—I was out of town on the 4th—I was absolutely certain that I had not drawn that cheque—I did not know Mr. Tryon; I had never seen or heard of him before this case.
By MR. BESLEY. In Stock Exchange transactions in which I have been engaged I do not remember any name other than my own being used with my sanction—to the best of my recollection in all the transactions in which I have been interested my name has. been used—I never went into syndicates; I have never advanced money to other persons to speculate with, and taken either the loss or the profit; I have never done anything of that kind.
EDWARD HANCOCK (City Detective Sergeant). I received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest about 12th October—on the 29th, accompanied by Sergeant Outram, I went to an hotel in Arundel Street, Strand—I found the prisoner in a bedroom—I said "I want you"—he said "I know you do"—I said "I have a warrant for your arrest"—I read it to him—I said "This warrant was granted for your extradition because you sent a bogus letter to Mr. Tryon saying you were going to Monaco"—Mr. Tryon gave the letter—the prisoner said "I wrote that from Paris; there are others in this besides me"—except reading the substance of the warrant I do not recollect saying anything to him—Outram searched the room—I saw him take possession of several letters—a woman was in the room—I took' the prisoner away in a cab—he said "What shall I say to this?"
By the COURT. I was taking him to Bow Lane Station, City—I said "You are in very good hands with your solicitor"—he said "How much do they make it?"—I said "I believe between 10,000l. and 11,000l."—he said "I have had nothing at all like that" (or words to that effect); "there are others in it; have you traced any of the notes to Crowe?"—I said "I cannot say ".—he said "He had more than 1,200l. of them" (speaking of the notes); "I hope poor little Tryon will not get into any trouble, for he had nothing at all to with it; I intended to have given myself up when a reward was offered"—the charge was read to him at the station, and he said "I have nothing to say."
Cross-examined. I was examined at the police-court on 30th October, the day after the arrest—I did not make any note at the time of the conversation in the cab—I did not go into details with him—"forging and uttering ", was on the warrant—I did not tell him it was for forging a great number of cheques—another man, since dead, named Donague, was in the room—I do, not know Bailey, who is mentioned in the letter—I know Hulford; he is, I
presume, at his office in Corahill—Herbert is in Court—I don't know Stevenson—I was never told that the cheques were given in respect of Stock Exchange speculations.
Re-examined. I did not give the conversation in the cab when I was first examined because I was in search of Crowe, whose name was mentioned in the conversation—Crowe is now in custody—I reported the conversation to Mr. Mullens.
ROBERT OUTRAM (City Detective Sergeant). I went with Hancock on 29th October to the hotel in Arundel Street—the prisoner was in bed—I searched the room—I found the three letters produced, marked F, G, and H, and the three envelopes, on a blotting-pad upon the bed—the letter marked H was also in the pad, but while I was reaching to get them a woman in the room with the prisoner tore it up—I took the pieces from her hand—Kettle was present—I have put it together—the envelope is not torn—Kettle said he had written them to send to a friend in Paris to post for him—I searched him at the police-station—I found upon him the two cheques produced marked J. and S.
The following letters were here put in and read:—D. "Wednesday night My dear Tryon,—By the time you get this I shall be in Monaco, where I will write you from. I am writing this at' Pau,' on the borders of France, as I am safe now; but the cheque, if nothing more has been said, say nothing at all and they will know nothing, and the whole thing will blow over altogether. I have written to my Mrs. and told her what she has to dispose of in the way of wine you would give her a fair price for. The money that you had, the 50, do not give up; say it was a bet that the bettor owed you; but I don't think any more will come of it, as they could only bring home to me for having the cheque in my possession, and this can be avoided. I will write you about the money later on, but should anything happen to me pay the balance to my wife, whom I have left without anything, and my little child. Please see to this, old fellow, and keep the way clear if possible. I will write you in a few days. I hope to get on all right, and come back to you allagain. Don't let any one know of this; I send it enclosed in another letter to you; more in my next Sincerely yours, C. G. K. I am staying now at Pau, Basses Pyrenees, but leave here presently, and on then in a few hours. I shall write to Mrs. K. at Dalston to-morrow to come on to me, and about the house at Dalston." Envelope addressed, "E. E. Tryon, Esq., 16, Abchurch Lane, E.C." Postmark, "London, E.C., October 12, 1878. (1d. stamp.)"——F. "Paris, October 30, 1878. Dear Hutchinson,—I am here safely, and I think myself it's best that I should remain here for all parties concerned in the affair". I should endeavour to remain here, and if I should be caught, why you will know how to act. I suppose Crowe has not parted with any money; but if anything comes of it he must come into it I never told you the whole pedigree of the thing, as I fully believe that [word illegible], that went away last January, must have had at least 3,000 in money. He promised to write me at No. 18, should he do so, kindly "[here the letter breaks off] Envelope addressed, "Bury Hutchinson, Esq., Solicitor, Vauxhall Bridge Road, London, E.C., Angleterre."—G. "Paris, October 30, 1878. Dear George,—I am here safe, and intend to remain here for a little time to see if I can avoid detection, as I think myself its best for all parties, as do not you recollect that when the anonymous letters commenced I went to Bailey,
over at Old Jewry, and he of course has the letters now I suppose; I am terribly grieved over this, and rest assured that rather than disgrace myself, I shall most certainly do as you said, take poison. That I think is much the best thing to do after what has passed, and I shall, if I possibly can, try to get a living, that I may never return again. I have fell into good hands here, and I can keep secret here for some length of time to come. I shall write you again in quite another name, as I must never be known in my name again, when I have been here some time. I walk out here, as I know no one knows me; aud I am in a large house, where I can remain, as I can assist my friend in his house, and that is sufficient for him. You will hear of me again, and I trust that nothing more will come of it. You are aware that Crowe and one or two others are the same, which is best for them also that I am out of the way. I shall communicate to you again shortly. Yours, G. Kettle." Envelope addressed, "Mr. G. Goulding, 42, Dorchester Street, New North Road, Islington, London, Angleterre."—H. "Paris, October 30, 1878. H. Labouchere, Esq. Dear Sir,—I regret very much to have to bring you acquainted with this serious affair, and I have managed to get to Paris, where I intend to remain if I possibly can for the sake of other accomplices who are much worse than myself, and who have had the money and not myself. I certainly would willingly suffer any punishment if others are brought to justice; but rest assured, rather than disgrace myself, I shall most certainly do away with myself, which I am prepared to do rather than have my "[breaks off] Envelope addressed, "H. Labouchere, Esq., Truth Office, Queen Street, London, E.C., Angleterre."
GUILTY — Ten Years' Penal Servitude.
OLD COURT.—Saturday, January 18th, 1879.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT Prosecuted; and MESSRS. E. CLARKE and HORACE AVORY Defended.
GEORGE TINSON . I am a cashier at Williams, Deacon, and Co.'s—on 29th May I paid this cheque marked O. (Read: "Pay to bearer 256l. 10s. 6d.—Henry Labouchere.") On the stamp there is "28.5.78, H. V."—I paid that cheque with a 200l. note, No. 76343, dated 14th May, 1877, and the rest with a 50l. note and gold.
Cross-examined. I cannot tell who at the bank had the duty of inquiring into these forgeries and the destination of the notes; we put that in the hands of our solicitor—I believe the total amount of the forgeries was 14,900l., extending from the beginning of 1877 to the latter part of 1878—I do not know that endeavours have been made to trace all the notes given in exchange for the 14,000l., or what amount has been attempted to be traced, or how many notes have in fact been traced—I don't think there is any one here from the bunk who can give that information—as far as I know, they may have gone to the most respectable people in London—I do not remember an inquiry being made about a 50l. note, No. 2940, dated 2nd January, 1878, paid by Mr. Crowe to Robarts and Co.—there was a forged cheque for 105l. presented on 4th October, 1878—that was paid by me—I gave a 50l. note in exchange for that, No. 29133—I believe an in
quiry was made about that note—I don't remember whether an inquiry was made of Mr. Crowe with regard to a 50l. note which had been in his possession a day or two afterwards, and that it was discovered not to be a note obtained by a forged cheque—there were so many inquiries made about these notes that I cannot recollect—Mr. Corder, one of our clerks, made an inquiry about a 50l. note, whether it was this identical note or not I cannot say.
By the COURT. I should think about 40 or 50 forged cheques would make up the 14,900l.—all the cheques were written on plain paper—they had all the appearance of being written by the same person, it was all the same character of writing, and the same signature to the best of my recollection—I cannot say whether there were other forgeries before the beginning of 1877.' Benjamin Herring. I am one of the cashiers of Williams, Deacon, and Co.—on 22nd June last this cheque for 225l., dated 20th June, 1878, signed "H. Labouchere," was paid' by me in five 20l. notes, Nos. 38521 to 5 inclusive, and 10 tens, 14401 to 14410, and one 5l., 90498—on the stamp was "21.6.78, H. V."
EDWARD BLUNDELL . I am a cashier at "Williams, Deacon, and Co.'s—I paid this cheque marked Q on the 3rd July last for 110l.—it is dated 3rd July, 1878, payable to bearer, and signed "H. Labouchere"—among other money I paid with five 10l. notes, Nos. 84594 to 8, dated 10th December—on the receipt stamp is 3.7.78. H. V."
ROBERT HUGHES . I am a registered medical practitioner at Woodbridge, Suffolk—I known Mr. William London, senior, managing clerk to Alexander and Co., Bankers, at Woodbridge; I saw him yesterday; he lives on the bank premises; he is too ill to travel and appear here as a witness; he is suffering from bronchitis and exhaustion; he is 77 years of age.
ROBERT OUTRAM (City Detective Sergeant). I was present before the Lord Mayor when Mr. London, senior, was examined as a witness—the prisoner was present, and his counsel had the opportunity of cross-examination. (The deposition of William London was read. It stated that the prisoner had kept an account at the bank of Alexander and Co. four or five years, and that on 26th June he paid in the 200l. note, 76343, with other moneys, and on 8th July, 1878, 425l. 15s., 160l. of which was in notes.)
WILLIAM LONDON, JUN . (Re-examined). I know Mr. Crowe; he lived at Woodbridge, and has kept an account at Messrs. Alexander's since 1872—he was not officially introduced to us—this is his last pass-book, beginning 25th October, 1876, down to the end of November, 1878—on the morning of 26th June last his account was overdrawn 304l. 0s. 5d.—on that day I find placed to his credit the 250l. in bank notes referred to in this slip R—one was a 200l. note, and the 50l. was made up of five tens; the numbers of those five tens are in the writing of Mr. Braham—on 8th July the prisoner's account was overdrawn 177l. 7s. 6d.—on that day there was paid in 425l. 15s.; a portion of that was 160l. in Bank of England notes—I have written on one of those notes; the entry of the number is Mr. Braham's—this is my writing on note 32824—on that same day these two cheques J and S came through the clearing-house—J is for 200l., dated 5th July, drawn by the prisoner on our bank, payable to self, and S is for 50l., same date, payable to Kettle—they
were debited to the prisoner's account; they had passed through the London and Westminster Bank, Lothbury; that would leave his account overdrawn 1l. 6s.—on the morning of the 5th his account was overdrawn 159l. 2s. 11d.
Cross-examined. The prisoner's account was opened in 1872—his name had been mentioned to one of the clerks by a gentleman well known to the bank—since 1872 the prisoner has been constantly residing at Stoke House, Woodbridge, with his wife and family—our balances are drawn in the beginning of February and August—between August, 1877, and February, 1878, there were payments in to the amount of over 3,000l.—between 1st February and 29th October, 1878, 2,400l. was paid in—customers were, on arrangement with the manager, allowed to overdraw their accounts from time to time—interest would be charged on the account so overdrawn—10l. 15s. has been charged as interest in February, 1878; 1l. 18s. 6d. in March, 1878; and 14l. 8s. in October, 1878—I have not his account here of 1877, nor any copy; I don't think the account had been overdrawn before—I have been through the payments made into the bank from August, 1877—on 8th October, 1877, 70l. in bank notes was paid in; November 7, 60l.; December 20st 150l.; April 5, 1878, 10l.; 17th, 10l.; June 26, 250l.; and July 8, 160l.; total, 745l.—we have had the numbers of all those notes looked at—there is a balance to his credit now.
PHILIP BRAHAM . I am a clerk to Alexander and Co.—the number of the 200l. note paid to Mr. Crowe's credit on 26th June is 76343, and the Five tens 14401-2-4-9-10—the notes produced have the stamp of our bank upon them—on 8th July there is a credit of. 425l. 15s., 160l. of which is in bank notes, four twenties, numbers 38521-3-4-5; three 10l. notes, numbers 14403-5-8; and five other 10l. notes, numbers 84594 to 84598 inclusive; that makes up the 160l.—they have our stamp on them—the rest of the 415l. was in cheques, not bank notes.
EGERTON EDWARD TRYON . I reside at 31, South Parade, Chelsea—I am a wine merchant, and have offices at 16, Abchurch Lane—I knew Kettle in 1877—I first knew Mr. Crowe about May, 1878—I have seen him and Kettle together at Austin Friars, where I believe Kettle had an office—I remember Kettle and the prisoner being at my office together on 5th July, 1878—Kettle asked me in the prisoner's presence to pay in a cheque of Mr. Crowe's for 50l. to my account, and to give him an open cheque for 50l. for it—this is the cheque he gave me (marked S)—my cheque was passed through my account in the London and Westminster Bank, and debited to me—I went on to the London and Westminster Bank about five or ten minutes afterwards to pay in the 50l. cheque, and while I was there Kettle came in alone and brought me Crowe's cheque for 200l. to pay in to my account—I endorsed it at his request, and it was paid in to my account; Kettle left me in the bank—I went back to my office, and saw Crowe in Abchurch Lane—I did not see him come out of my office, but knew he had been there—I afterwards paid back 200l. to Kettle in different sums—I got these cheques, marked D and C, from Kettle—I cashed them at the bank, and Kettle had the proceeds.
Cross-examined. I had known Kettle about 12 months before May, 1878—I had not the slightest suspicion that there was anything wrong about these proceedings, or I should not have cashed the cheques—I knew Kettle as a stock-jobber on the Stock Exchange—I have been at his office seven or eight times—I have seen Crowe there, and I have seen gentlemen of respectability
in the City there also, customers of Kettle—Crowe was with Kettle on July 5th—I did not know their private residences—I knew that Crowe did not live in London—I was told that he had no banking account in London, and that he was obliged to get his cheques exchanged, if he wanted money, in town—I believe that reason for the cheque being given to me when I was asked to give an open cheque in exchange, he wanted cash on that day—I do not know whether Crowe was in the office or just outside at the time Kettle gave me the cheque—I don't think he heard what Kettle said to me—I forget whether Kettle took my cheque away with him—when he gave me the 200l. cheque he said, "Pay this into your bank, will you? I am going to give Crowe money for this cheque, but I am not going to give him all; he thinks I have plenty of money, and I have not"—he said he would give Crowe cash for it, but he did not want Crow to know that he had got the money—if I said just now that Kettle said he should not give it him all, it was a misunderstanding; what he said was, "I shall give him cash for the cheque, but I shall not have this country cheque credited to my account till four days, so I have not the money to give him"—the 200l. which I paid in on the 5th would not be credited to my account till the 9th—Kettle said that Crowe and a lot more thought that he had got lots of money—he said he had given him part of this 200l.—he told me that at the bank when he gave me the 200l. cheque—he said, "Pay this into your account, because I have given Crowe a part of this amount"—I believe he mentioned not wanting Crowe to know about his having the money in order to explain his only giving him part of it—I don't know why he should not have given him the whole—I have given Kettle cheques before; not in exchange for cheques, they have generally been for notes—he, having no banking account, occasionally brought me notes, and I have given him my cheque for his convenience—I had not the slightest idea that there was anything wrong about the cheques—no charge has been made against me about it—an inquiry was made of me about one 50l. note which was the proceeds of a forgery—I don't know the number of it—I was asked for an explanation, and I gave it—I received a letter from Mr. Mullens, and gave my explanation.
CHARLES EDWARD ROBINSON . I live at Benshanm Road, Thornton Heath—about two years ago I made the acquaintance of Kettle—I knew him as a stockbroker, at 18, Austin Friars, trading under the name of Kettle and Crowe, that was in October, 1877—I knew Kettle there up to June, 1878, when I left—I was employed in the office—there were two rooms, I sat in the outer room, Kettle occupied the inner room, and Mr. Crowe when he was there—the name of Kettle and Crowe only remained up for about two months, not longer, certainly; it was then painted out—while that name was up Crowe came frequently—he came less often after the dispute arose—there was some litigation between Kettle and Crowe, and then Crowe ceased to come but seldom—he resumed coming about February, 1878, and then continued to come from time to time until June, when I left—sometimes he would call every day. and sometimes it would be two, three, or four times a week—he would remain perhaps half an hour or an hour in the inner office with Mr. Kettle, and sometimes in the outer office—after the name of Kettle and Crowe was painted out the name of Robinson and Co. was put up, that was myself—that name remained up to June—I think it was the end of June when I left—I think I saw Crowe a day or two before I left—my salary was 3l. a week.
Cross-examined. I had known Kettle from about the commencement of 1877, probably it might have been the end of 1876—I knew him for six months before I knew Mr. Crowe—I went to Austin Friars in October, 1877—they were both present when I was engaged—Kettle engaged me and paid me my salary—the business carried on was the stockbroking business—Kettle was the stockbroker—the name of Kettle and Crowe was painted up the day I went there; Kettle gave the order for it to be done—I kept the books—there was an account entered to Mr. Crowe of the transactions that occurred—they were transactions of the same character as those of any other customer of Kettle's—there were about four or five other customers I think that used to come to the office, not more—I posted the books as the business was done—my connection with the books ceased in June—I did not make out the accounts to Kettle's estate—the customers who came to the office were Mr. Ince Hardy, Henry Hardy, and Hulford—Power was not a customer, nor Wheatley—there was an account in the name of Bailey, but I never saw him to my knowledge—there was an account entered in the name of Golding, but I never knew anybody of that name coming to the office, a youth named Giles used to come—I did not know Buscheck—they would come to the office to see Kettle; sometimes they would stay nearly all day—some of them used to come every day, those that did transactions—I think Mr. Henry Hardy was there most often—I should say he was there a great deal more than Mr. Crowe—Mr. Ince Hardy was there, but not so often—I think it was about Nov. or Dec., 1877, that the dispute arose between Kettle and Crowe—I think the transactions which Kettle had done on behalf of Crowe had invariably resulted in a loss to Crowe—at the time of Kettle's liquidation, in May, 1878, I believe that loss amounted to 725l.—a writ was issued by Kettle against Crowe—I don't know anything about a debtor's summons, I know there was litigation between them; an action was brought and Mr. Crowe resisted it; it was eventually settled, I cannot tell how; they told me that it was settled, that is all I know—I don't know anything about the liquidation, I had nothing to do with it—the name of Robinson and Co. was put up when the dispute took place with Crowe; Kettle said, "I won't have Crowe's name up any longer, I will have your name put up"—I cannot tax my memory with the date exactly; it was about two months after I went there to the best of my recollection—Robinson and Co. was put up by Kettle's order—Crowe used to come to the office occasionally after that—I did not do any business, the business was all done in Kettle's name, not in mine—there was no business done in the name of Robinson and Co. at all—some transactions took place later for Mr. Crowe, in the fore part of 1878, I think in May or June, by Kettle—I was in the office at that time—I was not a partner with Kettle—all transactions were done in his name; he was the only sworn broker, I was not, nor were either of the Hardys or Crowe—there was never any balance-sheet struck between Kettle and Crowe, no partnership accounts of any kind, all separate accounts.
By the COURT. The signatures to these two cheques (J. and S.) are Crowe's—the body of them looks very much like Kettle's writing—I believe Crowe filled up his own cheques—I cannot say whether these are like his writing—they look more like Kettle's writing to me—I should not like to swear to it.
partner in the bank—latterly I have been in the habit of drawing my cheques on plain pieces of paper—my account is a considerable one—these three cheques (0. P. and Q.) were not written by me or by my authority—they are very good imitations of my writing—neither of these two cheques (A. and C.) were written by me or by my authority—they are very good imitations—all five appear to be of the same character—I first discovered these forgeries on Monday, 7th October—they amount to about 14,900l.—I know nothing of the prisoner—I knew Kettle; he had been a porter at the Bank of Commerce, of which I was chairman.
WILLIAM CROSS (City Detective). On 27th November I was in the Liverpool Street station, the prisoner arrived there by a country train—I said "Your name is Crowe"—he said "No"—I told him I was a police officer, and I should take him into custody for being concerned with a man named Kettle in a forgery on Williams and Deacon's Bank—he said "You have made a mistake; I know nothing about it"—I took him to Bow Lane station—on the way there he said "My name is Crowe"—I said "You might as well have said so at the first"—I was not examined before the Magistrate.
Cross-examined. The prisoner had come up by the 12.15 train from Ipswich, when I arrested him—I did not know then that he had been in communication with Mr. Mullens, the solicitor to the Bankers' Association—I did not ask him if he was Captain Crowe, and if he knew Kettle—I did not ask him if he knew Kettle, not then—I told Sergeant Hancock and Outram what he said—I did not tell Mr. Mullens.
By the COURT. I believe there was some conversation in the cab at regards his knowing Kettle, but not at the time—he kept talking to me all the way—I believe in the cab he did say something about Kettle—I said "You know him," or something of the sort, and he said something about his knowing him—I don't know the words exactly—I believe he said he knew Kettle—I can't recollect what made him say that—there was another officer in the cab, he might have spoken to him—I don't recollect asking him "Do you know Kettle?"
MR. CLARKE submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury, either of forgery or uttering; there was only the bare fact that out of a forgery of 14,900l., notes to the amount of 410l., the produce of those forgeries, had come into the possession of the prisoner.
MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS was of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to go to the Jury, from the recent possession of the notes the produce of the forgeries.
The Prisoner received an excellent character from seven witnesses.
NOT GUILTY .
There was another indictment for conspiracy , upon which no evidence was offered. NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Thursday, January 16th, and
NEW COURT.—Friday and Saturday, 17th and 18th, 1879.
Before Mr. Recorder.
168. JAMES BEAUMONT, alias HUGHES (34), FRANK CHATER (39), JAMES MARCH (50), CHARLES STEPHENSON (32), ALFRED BEAL ROCKE (45), FRANCIS CARLTON REEVES (26), and EDMUND BURKE REEVES (30), were indicted for unlawfully obtaining goods from Thomas Dunn and various other persons by false pretences, also for conspiring to cheat and defraud the same.
MESSRS. BULWER, Q.C., DICEY, and TORR Prosecuted; MR. SIMS with MR. RAVEN appeared for Beaumont, MR. WARNER SLEIGH for March, MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS for Stephenson, MR. STRAIGHT with MR. KISCH for Rocke, and MR. KEITH FRITH for Francis and Edmund Reeves.
THOMAS DUNN . I am a tradesman in Roman Road, Old Ford—I know Chater—on 9th August last he came to me with this cheque for 100l. dated 9th August, drawn by Alfred B. Rocke, payable to self or bearer, on Rocke and Co., Old Bank, Shrewsbury—he asked if I would pass it through my bankers for him—I at first objected, and asked where he got it from—he said he had taken it from Mr. March, a pawnbroker at Poplar, in payment of two cases of cigars; that he had been to Lubbock's bank, and they had told him that they had orders to pay, but being a crossed cheque it must be passed through a bank—ho assured me that it was perfectly right, and it would put him to great inconvenience because he had not given it a thought of the cheque being crossed, and he could not get the money—he asked me to make him an advance, to give him a post-dated cheque of my own for 15l., dated the 15th; he said he had an account to pay at Bradford the next morning, and that it would save his commercial reputation if it was paid, and eventually I gave him a post-dated cheque; I was to pay the 100l. cheque in to my bank, and it would be collected and the balance would be in my bank before my 15l. cheque became due—I paid in the 100l. cheque, and it was returned on the 13th through my bank marked "No account"—I stopped my 15l. cheque the same morning; Chater was to call for the balance of the 100l. on the Monday or Tuesday, the 12th or 13th; he did not call—I communicated with him, and on Friday, the 16th, he came with Stephenson, who was a stranger to me—the shop was closed; Chater rang the bell; I went to the door and said, "You have some one with you"—he wanted to come in—I said, "I don't want any of your friends inside," and I declined to admit his friend—Chater came inside and I closed the door—he asked me if I had got the balance of the cheque—I said, "You are quite aware that the cheque was no good"—he said the cheque was perfectly good, and he had taken it of March, of Poplar, as he had stated to me—I said, "Then the best thing we can do is to go and see March, of Poplar, to see if this is correct"—I then said, "Who is your friend outside?"—he said, "Mr. Charles Davis, solicitor, of Cheapside"—I then went out with him, and he introduced me to Stephenson; he said, "This is Mr. Charles Davis"—we then all three went to Poplar and saw March; we went into the shop, and I asked March if he had given Chater a cheque for 100l. in payment of two cases of cigars—he said, "No, I never had a business transaction with Chater; in fact, I have no knowledge of him"—I said, "Then it is not true that he got this cheque from you?"—I had the cheque with me; March asked me to produce it—he said, "No, I never saw it"—Chater and March then commenced a quarrel, and I left, leaving Stephenson, Chater, and March together—I came from Poplar by the last train, and Stephenson and Chater came in the same train, I believe in the same carriage—when we, got out of the train Stephenson said, "You can see plainly enough that March knows all about this cheque"—I said, "I decline to have anything to say about it till I have consulted my solicitor"—Stephenson said, "Who is your solicitor?"—I said, "Mr. Crossfield, of
Mark Lane, Ellis and Crossfield"—he said, "Then you had better refer Mr. Crossfield to me; I have not a card, but Mr. Charles Davis, of Carey Street, Cheapside"—next morning March and Beaumont called on me; March said, "I have come to know why you disturbed me so late last night about the cheque, I know nothing about it, I have never had a business transaction with Chater in my life"—I said "Who is this gentleman with you?"—he said "It is my solicitor"—Beaumont then said "Do you know what you have done?"—I said "No"—he said "Well, you have given a post-dated cheque, for which you are liable to a penalty of 50l., and if you take any steps in this matter we shall lay an information against you and enforce the penalty"—I then ordered them to leave and they then left—this is my 15l. cheque produced—I went and saw Mr. Grout about it—I wrote to Rocke and Eyton, of Shrewsbury, about the 100l. cheque and got an answer—I applied for a warrant against Chater—Mr. Grout showed me these three bills produced and left them in my hands for inquiry—I had seen one of them before—I believe it was the one for 86l. 12s. 9d., but I could not positively swear to it—that was about a week before I gave Chater the 15l. cheque—Chater showed it to me and asked me to discount it—he said that Stephenson had been in the habit of paying him with a cheque, but that he had sent in this bill by post, stating that trade was bad and he could not get it discounted—I returned it to him and he took it away, this is it. (Read: "London, July 10th, 1878. Three months after date pay to my order 86l. 12s. 9d. for value received.") Addressed to Mr. C. Stephenson, 2, Carey Lane, Post-office, London; drawn by Frank Chater, accepted by Charles Stephenson, payable at the London and County Bank, Shoreditch; endorsed "Frank Chater, 65, Lefevre Road, Old Ford, London, E"—when I get these bills from Grout I made inquiries respecting the acceptors—I did not try to get the money, they were not due—I went to the addresses—I went to Beaumont's address and to Stephenson's address which was given on the bills—I went to 23, Wilson Street, Finsbury; I found the name of Beaumont and Co. on the door-post, but there was no one in the office—I then went to 2, Carey Lane; I could not find Stephenson there or any one of that name—when Chater showed me this bill for the larger amount, I said "I don't know who Stephenson is"—he said "I am very much surprised at that, you being in the trade; he is a large staymaker, carrying on business in 2, Carey Lane; I thought every one knew him"—I saw a person at 2, Carey Lane—after the first hearing of the case against Chater, March called on me—a person named Tickell called first—March and Beaumont called together—March said that he had called to see if we could not come to some settlement—I said "I have nothing to say to you, this is your solicitor; what is his name?"—Beaumont said "I am not a solicitor, my name is Hughes, I am summoned for the defence"—I said "Then you are Beaumont?"—he said "Yes, Beaumont Hughes"—I said "Then I have nothing to say to either of you, get out of my place"—they left; nothing more passed—when Rocke's cheque was presented to me I thoroughly believed it to be a bond fide cheque—I should certainly not have advanced the money had I not believed it—a person named Tickell called on me twice with reference to this affair—these documents (produced) came to me by hand in this envelope—a child left them wrapped up as a parcel—both letters are in Chater's writing. (The first was addressed to the witness, asking him to read the enclosed and forward ii through the post. The loiter enclosed was addressed
to Rocks, Esq., Old Bank, Shrewsbury, dated 23rd September, 1878, dating that he had innocently received a 100l. cheque from Mr. Roche, on which he had obtained from Mr. Dunn a cheque for 15l., and, as Mr. Rocke could, not be found, suggesting to the bankers to request Mr. Dunn to forward the 100l. cheque to them, remitting him the 15l. It enclosed a summons addressed to chater to appear at Worship Street Police-court on 12th October, for attempting to obtain the 15l. from Dunn.) The cheque was not paid, it was stopped at the time.
Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I saw Beaumont on two occasions; the first was at my place of business—he came with March—he sat down in a chair in the shop while I conversed with March—March said he was his solicitor—Beaumont did not himself say that he was a solicitor—the next time I saw him was on the Friday night, when he came into the shop with March and said what I have stated.
Cross-examined by Chater. You first called on me about this cheque on the 11th, and afterwards on Friday, the 16th—it had been returned on the 13th—I received a letter from you on the morning of the 15th, asking me to wire you whether the cheque had been met or not—you did not call on me on that same evening; when you did call, you asked me for the balance of the cheque—when you had my cheque you did not deposit any security with me besides the 100l. cheque—I received that same day a security for a previous advance—you gave it me enclosed in an envelope—I did not see what it was at the time—I afterwards found it was two contract-notes for two pieces of silk in pledge—I had lent you 10s. four or five days previously—the securities are in the hands of the solicitor to the Treasury—I decidedly did not receive them as security for my cheque—after I had given you the cheque you apologised for not giving me the 10s.—I said, "You had better give me an I O U"—you had a broken finger at the time, and said you could not write, and you gave me these two documents enclosed, and said, "Here is something worth 40l.; put that in your cash-box, and I will bring you the 10s. in the morning"—you gave me the tickets as security for the 10s.—I did not open them till after the cheque was returned—I have known you 12 years, perhaps more—your letter was dated from High Wycombe; but posted at Richmond—I applied to your wife on the 13th, the day the cheque was returned, and she said you had gone into the City and would be home to tea—you were in town that day, I had the means of knowing—your wife came to me on the 13th after the cheque was stopped, and showed me a telegram; it was open—she said you had gone to Bristol—I did not go to your wife afterwards and say you were a foolish man not to have come to me—I went with a sergeant of police past your house, your wife was standing at the door, I am not quite sure that I spoke to her, she had been ill, I believe I said, "Your husband is a very foolish man never to go near any one about this affair, to let it come to this pass"—she said, "He is in the public-house below"—she said she had persuaded you to come and see me or Mr. Grout about the affair, but she could do nothing with you—I went down to Mrs. March four times.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I am a woollen draper—I have a shop—I have not at present lost any cash by this 100l. cheque; before I parted with my 15l. cheque I had never seen Stephenson to my knowledge I parted with it on the 9th, and I saw Stephenson on the following Friday week, 16th August, the day after the 15l. cheque became due—I
stopped it on the morning of the 13th, before I ever saw Stephenson—I did not receive it back; it was returned to Mr. Grout, who paid it in—I received a sealed envelope, which I subsequently opened, and it contained two duplicates relating to silk—I never asked Chater for any security at the time I parted with my cheque—I asked him for an I O U for the 10s. I lent him—I did not ask him for any security—I asked him for an acknowledgment, because he had not returned it—it was only as security for the 10s. that he handed me these two duplicates—I did not ask him whether I should deduct the 10a that he owed me from the 15l. cheque—I did not suggest that I should give him a cheque for 14l. 10s.—I said before the Magistrate that Chater was drunk when he came with Stephenson—I think I said he had been drinking—he was excited from drink—the conversation with Stephenson took place in Addington Road, Bow, in coming from the Bow Railway Station—I did not say before the Magistrate that I travelled alone in the carriage; they got out of the same train; they may have been in the same carriage, but not in the same compartment—I was perfectly sober—when I went to 2, Carey Lane, I saw a man who represented himself as Mr. Masters—I saw the name of Masters up; he did not tell me what he was—I beg pardon, the man I saw was not Masters—at the time Stephenson said "You can see plainly there March knows all about the cheque," I had formed an opinion too; I was of the same opinion as Stephenson.
Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. I believe in my cross-examination at the police-court I said that I would not have given this cheque except on the faith of its being received from March—I gave it on the faith of Chater's statement, not on the faith of his statement that he had received it from March—I said at first that I did, but I was not allowed to explain—I was cross-examined by Mr. Abbott, and he put it to me, "Would you have given him the change only on the faith of his only having had it from March?" and I said "No"—of course, if he had brought me a cheque which he picked up in the street I should not have cashed it—I believed he had taken it in a business transaction—I had no idea who March was—I did not take it on Chater's statement that he had it from Rock—I never heard a word about his having had it from Rocke—I never saw Chater to speak to him but once after the cheque was dishonoured; that was on Friday night, 16th August—I saw him several times, you understand, but only once to have conversation with him; that was the time he called for the balance of the cheque; nothing was said about Rocke then; not a word—I saw the name on the cheque in the first instance, and asked him who Rocke was—I gave him the cheque on the faith of his statement entirely—I did not take pains to find out who the drawer of the cheque was at the time Chater gave it to me—I said "Who is Rock?" and he replied "Rocke is a brother of the member of the bank on which the cheque is drawn"—I did not make any further inquiry—it was at Chater's request that I post-dated the cheque after I declined to give him an open cheque—I had no doubt about the 100l. when he gave it to me; his object was to get the 15l. by some means, or to get anything—he did not suggest the date of the 15th; I swear that—he said the 100l. cheque was payable at Lubbock's, and would be got on the Saturday morning—I was asked at the police-court what my balance was at the bank at the time I gave this 15l. cheque—I did not decline to answer—I beg your pardon, I was not asked what my balance
was—I was asked to produce the bank book, and in the absence of my solicitor I declined—I had it in my pocket—Chater did not say "If you give me your cheque post-dated, and it should not be paid, yours will not be presented till after the 100l. cheque is, and I will give you the money or the cheque back and take back my securities"—I never saw the securities until after the cheque was returned through the bank—I did not know what they were, only from his statement—he said they were duplicates for silk, and that they were worth 40l. or 50l.—he did not say that one was in pledge for 9l. and the other for 7l.—I say that I took them for the 10s., and not as collateral security for the cheque.
Cross-examined by MR. KISCH. I never saw Mr. Rocke till he was at the police-court, when he was summoned for the defence of Chater—I never heard of him at all—I know nothing about his brother, the banker at Shrewsbury—I have heard that he has a brother a banker there, and I referred to the directory and found there was a Rocke at Shrewsbury—I did not know at the time that that was his brother, only from Chater's statement that he was a member of the banking firm of Rocke at Shrewsbury—Chater did call for the balance of the money on the 16th, and I told him he knew the cheque was no good—he said he believed that it was, and that he had taken it from March at Poplar, he repeated the statement he had previously made; he did not appear surprised—when I went to see March he denied knowing Chater at all, and he repeated that at the police-court—it was my opinion that March knew all about it, and that he was withholding the true circumstances under which he became possessed of the cheque.
Re-examined. Chater told me that the drawer of the cheque was a member of the firm of Rocke, at Shrewsbury, that that was what had been stated to him—my cheque is at present in the hands of Mr. Grout—I tendered him 10l., which he had at first advanced on the cheque; he subsequently advanced 5l. more, and he declined to take the 10l.—he holds my cheque—I have not as yet been sued upon it, so that I have not as yet lost anything—I acknowledged the 10l., and offered to pay it, but Mr. Grout claims the 15l. of me, and I am advised only to pay 10l.
WALTER GROUT . I live at 23, Roman Road, and am a pawnbroker—I know Chater—on 10th August, 1878, he came to me and offered me these three bills, which he wanted me to discount—I declined doing so, being suspicious. (These were dated 1st July, 10th July, and 24th July, for 24l. 15s. 6d., 86l. 12s. 9d., and 24l. 10s. 6d., respectively; drawn at three months by F. Chater; the first accepted by Beaumont and Co., and the others by Charles Stephenson.) When I declined to discount the bills Chater took them away—he came back with a cheque from Mr. Dunn, which I re—cognised, and I advanced 10l. at his request—on the 12th I made another advance of five guineas—I asked him for 5s. at 5 per cent—he had not 5s. in his pocket, and he said "I want exactly 5l.; I will leave you these bills till to-morrow morning, and I will call for them and pay you. the 5s."—I retained possession of the bills until the prosecution was started, and I then delivered them to Mr. Dunn for the purpose of the prosecution, holding a receipt—I retained Mr. Dunn's cheque, and it is a matter of difference between us now—I claim 15l. of him—I hold it still, and I held it when Mr. Dunn took out a summons against, Chater at the police-court—after the hearing March called at my place with
Tickell to settle for the cheque, to relieve Chater from the responsibility attending it—they said so, and that it was a charitable view on their part—March said he would give me 10l., and a promissory note, backed by Tickell, if I would deliver the 15l. cheque—they stated Chater's case as being very unfortunate, and they were willing to do it on his account entirely, and they were not at all interested otherwise—I did not agree to the proposal.
Cross-examined by MR. DAVIS. Mr. Dunn did not tell me that he held security for the bill—I am quite sure of that—he said nothing whatever about security—I never discount accommodation acceptances, or advance money upon them—it is not in my way of business.
Cross-examined by Chater. I knew you previous to this transaction—I knew you as a traveller for Scott and Co., of Dundee—I did business with you—I always found you a respectable man in business transactions.
Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. The representation made to me when March came with the other person to settle the matter was that they were sorry for Chater and his wife—I did hear a rambling statement about giving the cheque to the Shrewsbury Bank—I did not understand from March that Chater had been taken in in the matter—I do not remember his telling me that Chater had given a 100l. cheque for the 15l., and that Mr. Dunn's cheque would not be presented until the 100l. cheque was honoured, and that Chater had been deluded and had not intentionally acted wrongly.
JOHN ALLEN PHILLIPS . I am a clerk and cashier at Lubbock's bank—they are agents for Rocke and Co., bankers, of Shrewsbury, upon whom the 100l. cheque was drawn—I am in the country office—I know the country business—cheques are not paid in London unless we have special instructions—that is a course of business which all the clerks are familiar with—that cheque was not paid or presented—it would be presented at the Shrewsbury Bank for payment—some little time after the cheque was returned from Shrewsbury, Chater came to our bank—I think he stated that a summons had been issued—he said some one of our clerks had given an answer to the cheque, and he came to see if he could find him—he said that answer was that the cheque was all right, but must be paid through another bank—no clerk or cashier would have given such an answer—I told him so—he gave me a description, but we had no one in the office answering that description.
Cross-examined by Chater. You came to the bank some time in the morning, I think—you said you had called a fortnight or three weeks previously after banking hours—you pointed to a book that the clerk went to before he gave you his answer—you might have seen some one go to it—that is the book he would refer to, but it would show him that there were no orders to pay the cheque—it would take three days to pay into the London bank by a country bank.
THOMAS SLANEY EYTON . I am a member of the firm of Rocke, Eyton, and Co.'s bank, Shrewsbury—I have seen the cheque produced—it is drawn on our bank—my partner Mr. Rocke and the defendant Rocke are brothers—we have a branch at Ludlow—the defendant Rocke had once an account there, but not at Shrewsbury—his account at Ludlow ceased on 15th September, 1865—he had no authority to draw upon us and no assets—the 100l. cheque was presented to our bank through the London and South-Western, and was dishonoured—there were no funds to meet it—we gave no orders to Lubbock to pay it—the two months' bill produced, dated
London, August 17th, 1878, for 22l. 15s. was drawn by Rocke upon our bank in favour of Charles Wild at Roberts and Co., our London agents—it was presented and passed through our bank, and returned marked "No assets"—I call this paper, dated August 27th, an order to pay 3l. 10s. 4d. to Ann Tomsey.
JOSEPH WITHERS . I am a pawnbroker—I know Rocke—I know his handwriting well—the signature to the 100l. cheque is his—this letter I should not like to say—the third (the bill for 22l.) I believe is his handwriting—I have seen him write, I should think a dozen times—I have seen him write in my own shop.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I have been a partner in the bank about fourteen years—I think since 1863—I was a partner before Rocke's account was closed—it might have been a month before—I do not know if he ever drew cheques on blank paper—he may have done so—I cannot say whether during the time he had an account at Ludlow he drew cheques upon the Shrewsbury bank—it is highly improbable, because he had no account at Shrewsbury—I will not swear he did not—I swear he did not to my knowledge since I have been a partner—I never heard he had done so—he has drawn them, but they have never been cashed—I cannot say before I was a partner—when this cheque for 100l. was presented it came before my notice as one of the principals—I cannot tell whether I consulted my partner about it—I should not, though Rocke was the brother of my partner—I did not—it came to his knowledge—he was written to that evening—I cannot say why he is not here—Rocke had no authority to make the bill payable there—we do sometimes pay bills without an authority—and by people having no account there, but they provide for them before they are presented—there is nothing extraordinary in this promissory note being made payable without authority—I know nothing at all about differences between the defendant and his brother, or of their private affairs—I have not heard of any differences—it struck me as curious that these cheques should be presented—the defendant's brother had given orders not to cash any single cheque—I had not spoken to him about it, he spoke to us—I have not had any conversation with him about these matters, but other personal matters of the prisoner—I do not know that my partner is trustee of the Chapel Bank property in the interest of the firm.
Re-examined. I know what the prisoner has been doing with himself for the last ten years—it does not at all surprise me to learn that his cheques were not cashed.
ROBERT LAMBERT . I am a commission agent at Watford—I am acquainted with the two prisoners Reeves—I know their handwriting—I have seen them write—the letter G 1 is Francis Reeves's writing—the memorandum K 8 I got through them.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I have seen Edmund write many times, Francis seldom, several times—I have known them five years, and have known nothing against them—as far as I knew they were honourable and upright gentlemen.
Re-examined. I have occasionally corresponded with them—I have received letters from them, and have written to them.
STEPHEN LONDON . I am a warehouseman, and reside at 23, Wilson Street, Finsbury—I know the prisoner Beaumont—I saw him some time previous to 25th March last—he took a room at 23, Wilson Street—he called on me about a week before he entered into possession, two or three weeks before 25th March—he wished to rent the office I had to let on the first-floor—I told him the rent—he said he was going into the cigar trade, and he wanted it to have his samples there—I said "I have no objection to that, but I shall want a reference, as I live in the premises myself"—he asked if I should object to take a barrister's reference—ho gave Mr. Reeves, 5, Lincoln's Inn, to whom I wrote, and received a letter in reply. (This letter was dated 5th March, 1878, stating that he had known Beaumont some years, and believed him to be highly respectable, and would be found a desirable tenant, and in every way satisfactory.) I let him the room upon that at 20l. per annum—he came there, I think, a little before 25th March—it was a small back room on the first-floor, about 12ft. by 6ft.—no rent was paid—it did not appear to me that any business was carried on—I had to go through the house in the day time to my meals, not through this room—the name of the company was in the street, and on the room-door was painted, "Beaumont & Co.," and on the door was a letter-box, with "Bills for acceptance"—I saw a number of persons there at different times—I have seen there Mr. Tickell, Chater, the two Reeveses, two or three females, and other persons—there are four of the prisoners whom I do not know—I could get no rent—Beaumont said he had been disappointed with the Reeveses about it, and made promises to pay, but did not pay—they were there very little, and I was anxious to get rid of them—I instructed my solicitor, who wrote to them, threatening unless they gave up possession to put the matter into the hands of the police—E. B. Reeves brought me the key, and they went out of possession—he said if I had applied to him he would have paid me the rent—they were there about four and a half months—there were repeated inquiries for them.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. They left some time in August—it was such a room as would be let for the purpose of an office—Beaumont told me when he came that he was expecting the capital from other parties for the business to be carried on, and had been disappointed—I had no impression that he had nothing to do with it—I thought the other parties who gave up the room were acting on the part of Beaumont and Co.—my business kept me out during the day, but I was to and fro to meals—I live on the two floors above them—all the opportunity I had of seeing what was going on was when I went to my meals.
Cross-examined by Chater. I had seen you at the office not more than three times—I think I have seen you once in the office.
Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Before these inquiries I did not see March there—I never saw him until he was charged at the police-court.
Cross-examined by MR. KISCH. I have seen Rocke before—not in company with the other prisoners.
Cross-examined by MR. DAVIS. I did not answer the letter of reference from Mr. Reeves—it was a reply to mine—I saw Beaumont before the 25th, and gave him possession—he continued in possession till August—I left all steps to gain possession to my solicitor—I handed him Mr. Reeves's letter and left it to his discretion—he wrote to Reeves—I saw Mr. Francis Reeves at the office on two or three occasions—the last occasion winch I remember
was when he and his brother spoke to me about taking two other rooms on the first floor.
MR. EDMUND Burke Reeves—it contained a lot of papers and books—he told me to take care of them till he called—I gave them to Mr. James Norris, my employer.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I have known Stephenson 15 or 16 years—I knew him in business as a stay-maker at different places; I always believed that he was carrying on a legitimate business.
Re-examined. He was not in business at the time of this transaction, not for some time, he failed.
By MR. WILLIAMS. I do not know that his failure was in 1876, and that he paid 16s. in the pound.
ST. JOHN WONTNER . I am a solicitor, and am concerned for the Treasury in this prosecution—I received the papers that Sergeant Miller has spoken of—I have them all here—I have examined them; they relate almost entirely to correspondence addressed by various persons from different parts of the country and abroad relative to orders given for goods, addressed to J. Beaumont and Co.—amongst them I find three memorandums from Waterlow Brothers to J. Beaumont and Co., 23, Wilson Street, Finsbury, relating to orders for stationery, delivery notes, and a long account for stationery; a letter from Anvers of 25th April, in French, to Messrs. E. B. Reeves, another to B. Reeves, Esq., Wimbledon, relating to wine from Hamburg; there is a vast quantity of that correspondence—I communicated with a number of the writers of the letters, and received replies with enclosures, which I now produce; they are letters signed J. Beaumont and Co., in different handwriting, and addressed to the writers of some of the letters which were found in the drawer—the articles referred to in the correspondence were of every imaginable kind, from pianos down to fire-bricks cigars, watches, iron goods, coals, woollen goods, fencing wire, cement, work-boxes, pianos, fancy boxes, glass-ware, flooring, matting, dolls, stone, slate, fire-bricks, wine, and many other articles—here are letters found in a bundle addressed by the Longford Iron and Steel Company, Limited—here are the replies received in answer to my communication—in one of the letters there is a reference to J. Barth and Co., 17, Devonshire Street—there is another bundle among which I find a letter addressed to Mr. Hughes, from Mr. George, of Moorgate Street; also some income-tax notices addressed to Beaumont and Co., 23, Wilson Street, dated 22nd July—Barth and Co. were supplied with goods by one of the prosecutors in this case—I was not at the police-court at the first hearing against Chater about Rocke's cheque—I was present at the adjournment when Rocke appeared; I was applied to to assist the police—there was a question of an adjournment, and I stated that I had only just been instructed and I wanted time to look into the matter, and perhaps it would be necessary to call Mr. Rocke or
to deal with him in some way—he then came forward and said he was Mr. Rocke; that he had attended on a prior occasion, and he came there to give evidence, and he had already written to the clerk of the Court—this is the letter I afterwards received from the Chief Clerk of the Court. (Read: "October 15th, 1878. London and County Bank, 15, Langham Place, Dunn v. Chater. Sir,—My attention has been called to a report of this case in the Daily Telegraph, On coming here I found a summons to attend on behalf of the defendant. I need only say that upon adjournment I shall be most happy to attend, but the testimony I can give I imagine would most aid the prosecution. My cheque was given to Mr. March for a totally different purpose from that to which it was used, which appears to me to be an attempt to frighten my brother in the Shrewsbury Bank into paying the money to avoid exposure. I never knew that March had parted with it till it came to my knowledge through the Shrewsbury Bank, and that Chater was trying to extort 15l. from them to settle the matter; as I feel sure no money has passed it may be settled. I shall be very happy to attend, especially as I have suffered most severe losses through the treachery of March and his associates, whom I don't even know. Signed A. B. Rocke.") I also received this diary, in which I find numerous references to most of the parties in it—it begins on the 21st March—I find references, for instance, to Barth and Tickell, F. Reeves, and others—it is simply a scribbling diary—the last entry is October 4th, "Chater 24l. 15s. due"—I produce an I O U from Rocke to Beaumont for 5s., dated September 18th—I received it from Miller, but not with this bundle—this is a bundle I received in a cash-box which Miller brought from a public-house in the neighbourhood of Wilson Street—there is a post-card in it, and a letter addressed to Chater by a Mr. Perring, of Welling borough, dated 16th October, 1878: "Have not heard from you since taking four pair of samples from Mr. Norman. I have expected a line from you with some orders, please remit me post-office order. Your kind attention with orders will much oblige. "Here is a memorandum dated from Aldersgate Street making an appointment for 10 o'clock, another with the initials T. T., meaning Thomas Tickell, and another from Chater—here are two receipts of Hope Brothers for 30s. and 2l. 11s., addressed to Mr. J. Beaumont, a letter signed E. B. Reeves and Co., and another from Huddersfield, dated October 11th, 1878, to Beaumont and Co., about the renewal of an acceptance due on the 15th October—a letter from James Mayer to A. B. Hughes and Co.: "Your promissory note for 16l. was due on Saturday, let me hear from you without fail on Friday. "Here is a further letter from the same people: "I am surprised not to have heard from you or seen you; no alternative but to realise at your expense to-morrow. "That is addressed to A. B. Hughes—then there is a receipt for 10s. deposit on letting two rooms on second-floor at 29, Fenchurch Street, at an annual rent of 20l., and a bill for 19l. 5s. on March, due September 13th, 1878, drawn by Augustus Beaumont Hughes, payable at the London and County Bank, Limehouse—these are papers that were given to me from the cash-box by Miller.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I find no reference to Stephenson in any of these papers.
Cross-examined by MR. KISCH. I was at the police-court at every hearing when I was prosecuting but the last—there were two or three hearings before I was introduced into the case—I don't know that Rocke attended to give
evidence before there was any summons—I have no knowledge about that one way or the other—I heard him say that he was summoned for the defence—the only paper I find affecting Rocke is the I O U for 5s.—I don't find his name anywhere else.
Cross-examined by Chater. The entry in the diary that I have referred to is "Chater 24l. 15s. due"—I do not find your name in any other place except on the memorandum that I mentioned just now, where there is apparently a meeting appointed with you at the Angel.
RICHARD JAMES DART . I am a licensed victualler, and landlord of the Ship in Lime Street—I handed to Sergeant Miller a paper parcel which I received from Beaumont—I knew him as Hughes for some two months as a customer—I also knew Chater, March, and Stephenson—I did not know Stephenson by name, only as having seen him in my house as a customer, and I knew the two Reeves by sight, that is all—I also knew Tickell—I knew March for some time before I knew either of the others, merely as a customer, to meet certain persons at my place—Chater, Hughes, and Tickell were the most I knew—the others I have only seen at my bar; whether they have been with the other prisoners I don't know—I only knew them by sight—Chater would leave messages for Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Hughes for Mr. March, and so on, that they would be back in an hour or two hours—they came frequently, as customers, that is all—after I gave up the parcel to Sergeant Miller a lady called representing herself as Mrs. Hughes with a letter asking me to give the parcel up to her, but I told her it was gone—I did not know the contents of it—I knew a man called Duffield—he called on one occasion and asked for Mr. Chater, and I told him he had just left—I afterwards told Chater that—I can hardly say whether he left any message for Duffield or not.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I have a great many customers—I did not know Stephenson's name or who he was.
Cross-examined by Chater. You did not stay in my place at any time; you would leave a message and go out—I can't say how many times you came; I dare say it was 50.
Cross-examined by MR. MESSAGES were left for March by several persons—I could not say exactly who; certainly by Chater—I could not say in what month, or how often they were left—Chater used my house for some months last year—I have no reference to any particular month—I swear decidedly that messages were left for March—I expect the purport of them was "I will be here at a certain time"—the messages were left with me personally—I can't tell you any single message word for word; they were appointments—I have a great many messages left with me; some hundreds of persons visit my house in the course of the day—I have more particular reason for remembering March and Chater, because I have been in the habit of taking messages for March for nearly 12 months, and of Chater for receiving letters for some time—I can't recollect March leaving messages for Chater—he has left messages for other people—I do not know March's place of business.
Cross-examined by MR. KISCH. I don't know Rocke at all.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I was not asked at the police-court whether I knew the two Reeves by sight—I did not see them there; they were sitting underneath the dock; not with the other prisoners, and I was not aware that they were prisoners—I should not have known them by the
name of Reeves, only as customers—I read their names afterwards in the newspapers, but not while the case was going on.
Re-examined. I don't think I ever received a message for Stephenson from either party—I considered him merely as an ordinary customer—the others of course I knew, as being friends, leaving messages for one another—I have seen Stephenson there—I should not like to swear that I have seen him there in company of the others or with Tickell.
JOHN GARRATT . I am general manager to Messrs. Waterlow, stationers, in the City—in April last year Beaumont called to order some printing and stationery—he gave his name and address as "Beaumont, 23, Wilson Street"—I made inquiry, and eventually executed the order; they were printed memorandum headings and letter paper with headings; that was done by his direction—I asked him for a reference, as he was a total stranger—he did not mention any name, but I received this letter. (Read: "5, New Square, Lincoln's Inn. 5th April, 1878. Messrs. Beaumont and Co. have requested me to write and tell you that I have known Mr. J. Beaumont for many years, and I have much pleasure in doing so, and in stating you will be quite safe in trusting him to any reasonable amount Yours truly, Francis C. Reeves.") I referred to the Law List, and found that Mr. Reeves was entered as a barrister-at-law at that address—I did not supply the order upon that; I sent this memorandum to Mr. Beaumont: "Your reference, Mr. Reeves, being unknown to us, we think it will save time if you will favour us with a deposit of 3l. or 4l." Upon that he made a deposit of 3l., and I gave him a receipt, which is among this papers here—after that I supplied him with goods to the amount of 5l. 7s.—we have not been paid the balance; our collector has called at 23, Wilson Street.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. There is nothing extraordinary in this letter, but I certainly did not like the appearance of it; the usual thing is for a gentleman to give a reference, and for us to apply to it; it is very unusual to receive a letter of that sort; if I had written and applied for the reference it would have been another thing; I should have taken it in quite a different light; I did not act upon it; as a man of business I should not do so—whatever I let Beaumont and Co. have was certainly not on the strength of anything contained in that letter; it was solely in consequence of Beaumont and Co. having deposited the 3l.; I thought that was good enough to let them have goods to a small amount—I did not give them notice that the deposit was overdrawn—when he gave the order I could not tell to a few shillings how much it would come to—the first order came to about 3l. 14s., and I simply asked him, as I was accustomed to do, to let me have a deposit of 3l.
JAMES HARDING . I am a merchant and chemical agent, of 17, Philpot Lane—last April I had a traveller named Taylor in my employ—he obtained an order from Beaumont and Co., 23, Wilson Street, Finsbury, for two tons of glue—I knew the address, having been there many times—we could not send two tons, as we only had one cask in stock, 6 cwt., which we sent—the value of it was 13l. or 14l.—a delivery order was sent for it from the railway station—the terms were 14 days prompt—the money was not sent at the end of the 14 days—we sent to 23, Wilson Street for it a number of times—I saw Edmund Reeves once, and also Hughes or Beaumont, who said that he could not pay then, but he would Fend it on as soon as he possibly could—he asked me to take a bill, which I said would be of no
use; but subsequently, not being able to get anything more tangible, I took a bill at one month, dated 11th July—they returned the bill with this letter: "We herewith enclose draft for 12l. 13s. 6d.; should have returned it sooner, but postman delayed in delivery. Please acknowledge.—Beaumont & Co., July 12th." (With this was the bill for 12l. 13s. 6d., Accepted by Beaumont & Co.) When it fell due I went to 23, Wilson Street, and found the place shut up—the bill has never been paid—I traced the glue from the railway to Frith Street, where I saw it in the shop of Bellow and Co., who showed me an invoice and receipt for 8l.—it was from my traveller's representation that the order was executed—he told me that it was all right—I saw Edmund Reeves before the bill was given—he said, "This is not my affair, it is an affair of my brother's."
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I trusted the firm on Mr. Taylor's recommendation—I knew that the glue had been parted with at the time I took the bill.
Cross-examined by Chater. We had a confirmation of the contract for the glue, but it was destroyed, as I thought it would never be of any value—I saw Beaumont in the office—I believe he said, "If Mr. Beeves said anything about his brother being responsible for the glue he is mistaken; I am responsible"—he also said, "I had nothing to say to the business; I had to manage certain financial matters for him, and that was all.
Re-examined. I believe the confirmation order was signed by E. B. Reeves—I did not see F. C. Reeves there, so he must have got the information else where.
THOMAS TAYLOR . I was traveller to Mr. Harding last April—I know Beaumont as Hughes—I met him in the City in April; he told me he was acting as manager to a firm in Wilson Street, and I told him I would call for orders—he knew that I was in Mr. Harding's employment, and that he dealt in glue—he did not tell me what business was being carried on in Wilson Street—I called there, and saw the two Beeves and Beaumont, but they seemed to be busy, so I called again, and the two Beeves gave me an order for two tons of glue at 44l. a ton; but Mr. Harding had not so much in store—I told them so, and that he only had one cask, and E. B. Reeves said, "Let us have that"—I communicated with Mr. Harding, and they got the glue—they said that they wanted it at once, as they had an order on hand—I think I went quite 20 times to 23, Wilson Street, but have only seen the two Reeves and Beaumont there—I know Stephenson, but have not had dealings with him—I know March, Chater, and Tickell, but not Breed on—I have seen some of them together at various times—I have seen Tickell at 23, Wilson Street, with Reeves and Beaumont—when Beaumont introduced me, he said, "I am manager to Mr. Reeves"—that was in their presence—he said that one of them was a barrister; that was Mr. Francis Reeves, but he did not say so in their presence—he had previously told me that Mr. Francis Reeves was finding the money—I let them have the glue on the representation made to me by Beaumont, that there was money in the firm, and I was influenced by the fact that Mr. Francis Reeves was finding the money.
Cross-examined by MR. SIMS. I sold the glue on credit to Reeves; I believed Hughes was only manager, and I did not sell on his credit—I have known Hughes four or five years—I did not know him till after he came from sea—he was a general merchant when I knew him first, and I did
business with him—he was then in Thames Street carrying on a legitimate business, so that I was not surprised at finding him in the position he represented himself to be with Beaumont and Co.—I had done business with him before, and found that he did it in a straightforward way.
Cross-examined by Chater. I hare known you a few months; I hare seen you with Hughes in the City—I am aware that you reside close to each other.
Cross-examined by Stephenson. I have known you living at Bow for some years.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I have known Beaumont four years—I am no relation of his—I have not had any transactions with him since April—I sold the glue on the representations made by Beaumont respecting the Reeves—the Reeves were never present—what Beaumont chose to say about the Reeves's in their absence is what induced me to let them have the goods—the Reeves's were not present when Beaumont told me that he was their manager—Edmund Reeves did not tell me that he had been simply asked to give me a message about it—I applied to all three of them for the money—I will not swear that the acceptance is not in Beaumont's writing—I may have said "I believe it is "at the police-court—I will undertake to say at this distance of time that Mr. F. C. Reeves was at the office when the order for glue was given—it was about the end of April—I have not had an interview with Beaumont in the House of Detention about the glue—I went and had lunch with him in Wilson Street—I have seen his friends come in there and have lunch or a glass of wine—I did not occasionally go there specially for lunch, but if when I was there Mr. Beaumont said "I have not got a clerk, I want to go out, will you answer any one for me?" I might do so, but I should not say to anybody who came that I would speak to Mr. Beaumont about it—when my employer took the bill I did not know that it was in Beaumont's writing—I looked at it in the office—I knew Beaumont as Hughes—I don't remember whether I saw the Reeves at the office after the bill was accepted.
Re-examined. Beaumont was unfortunate in business about 12 months before last April, but not bankrupt I believe, I cannot exactly say.
FREDERICK BELLOE . I bought a cask of glue of Beaumont last May for 8l., and saw him write this receipt: "J. Beaumont and Co., Wilson Street. One cask of glue 8l. Received, J. Beaumont." Mr. Harding came and saw it at my place—Beaumont gave me this card: "Beaumont and Co., merchants' and manufacturers' agents, 79, Fenchurch Street, E.C."
Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I have a traveller named Martin; the settlement was made with him, and I stood in the office and saw the receipt signed.
SOLOMON TRECHETT . I am a cigar importer, of 52. Victoria Street—in July last Chater, who I knew as a traveller in cigars, met me and asked me what commission I would allow him if he brought me customers—I said 2 1/2 per cent.—he said he would bring or send me a large operator in cigars—I told him to give me the name and I would go and see him—he told me it would be no use, the man would not buy unless he was in actual want of cigars, we must wait and see when he wanted them—a few days afterwards he came up with Hughes and introduced him as the senior partner of the
firm of J. Beaumont and Co.—he pointed out a certain brand of cigars, and Hughes spoke so understandingly about cigars, that I sold him two cases in bond to be delivered in two weeks, aggregate price 60l. to 65l.—he also picked out 15 boxes of cigars and one box of a better class for his own smoking—this was about 1 o'clock in the day, and he said "I am going to leave town about 3 o'clock, and these cigars must be delivered by that time; please send them at once to 23, Wilson Street, as I have to deliver them to a publican and he will pay for them next Saturday"—(the larger amount was on a three months' bill, subject to a reference)—Chater said "Your account is stiff enough, pay this paltry sum at once"—it was about 9l.—Hughes said that it was his rule not to pay any money before the 4th of the month, as he dated all his bills on the 1st, and they consequently fell due on the 4th—this was July 31st—I agreed to that arrangement and Hughes went away—Chater remained and spoke highly about the business Hughes did, and what an acquisition I had made by getting him as a customer—Chater left, and I sent the cigars by two boys, but after they had gone a few minutes, I went out hoping to overtake them, as I was not satisfied about delivering the goods without looking at the place of business—I went in a cab to Wilson Street, and met Hughes at the door—I saw the name on the door—he asked where I was going; I said, "I want to have a look at your shop"—he said nothing, but rapped at the door, which was locked; somebody opened it from the inside, we went upstairs, and there were Chater and March smoking their pipes—I saw nothing in the room but my cigars—I said, "Have my cigars come?"—Chater said, "They just came," and I said, "I am just going to take them"—one of the three said, "All right"—I took hold of the two bundles, went to the corner, took a cab and rode home—I had a receipt from my messenger for the cigars, but have not got it here—March and Hughes told me at the station that they had receipted the invoice—my habit is to send a book by my delivery man—about half an hour after I got home with my cigars, Hughes came and said, "I want my cigars, this is no way of doing business"—I said, "They were yours, now they are mine, if you want them you will have to pay for them"—my partner, who was there, said, "I will allow you 15s., pay cash for them"—he refused to do it, went away, and about 15 minutes afterwards came back with March and a policeman—March said, "These are the cigars he stole, and that is the man, pointing to me"—he was even more violent than Hughes—I was taken to the station, Hughes preferred a charge against me, and March supported it—I told Hughes he would suffer for it, but March insisted that the prosecution should go on—the case was investigated by a Magistrate—Hughes and Chater appeared as witnesses. but March disappeared—the case was adjourned—I was present when Hughes was cross-examined—the case was dismissed without calling upon me for any defence—before the bargain was completed, I told Hughes that, as a business man, ho would take no offence if I asked him for a reference; he said, "Certainly not," and gave me the name of Mr. Reeves, of Wimbledon, and another name, which I think was Mr. Tickell, of Basing hall Street.
Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. Chater introduced Beaumont in my office—he said, "This is Mr. Beaumont, the senior partner in the firm of J. Beaumont and Co."—I got everything back, even the invoice—Hughes first tried to intimidate me, and then gave me in charge.
Cross-examined by Chater. I have only known you a few months—I
have been in business about six months—Mr. Nathan, of Hamburgh, told me that you were a very clever salesman, and that he met you in his travels in the country, and that you introduced Mr. Nye to him as a purchaser of cigars—you introduced Hughes as Mr. Beaumont, and said that he was in a large way of business—I do not believe that your door was locked, and could only be opened from the inside—I did not ask for payment for the cigars before I took them away, you told me you would spend two guineas to have your satisfaction—you said in the lobby of Worship Street Police-court on the second hearing, that you purposely came down from the country to do me, and you said, "I must give you six months"—I was not in custody, I was out on my own recognizance—you were under the influence of liquor.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I never applied to the reference of Mr. Reeves, of Wimbledon, he never appeared from beginning to end. The depositions of Hughes, Chater, and March, against the witness on the charge of stealing the cigars, were here put in.
JAMES DAWSON . I am a member of the firm of Dawson and Thornton, cloth manufacturers, of Huddersfield—last autumn we received a communication from a man named Tickell, and were induced to employ him as our London agent for the sale of goods—we received an order in April purporting to come from Beaumont and Co., of Wilson Street, in consequence of which we sent on 9th April goods to the amount of 19l. 3s. 5d., and about the 18th to the amount of 17l. 18s. 2d.—our terms are generally two months—we received this bill in payment—this is my signature (This was dated July 12, 1878, at three months, for 37l. 1s. 4d. J. Beaumont and Co., Merchants, London. Signed, Dawson and Thornton)—it was never paid—it is payable at 23, Wilson Street—it was put into our bankers' hands—it is endorsed, "Premises closed"—we afterwards received this letter (This was dated October 9, 1878, from Beaumont and Co., expressing regret, and requesting the renewal of the acceptance for a short time, as the late partner had failed to put the capital into the business)—I then wrote this letter to Beaumont and Co. (This stated that they had better prepare to meet the bill, as it was in the bankers' hands)—I supplied March with goods to the amount of 31l. odd, but the order came from Tickell—we never received a penny—he did not give us a bill—we also supplied Barth with goods, but did not get paid.
Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. We had one transaction before with Beaumont on 20th March, 1878, for a piece of cloth value 12l. 14s. 4d., which was paid—I understood that we were dealing with Beaumont—I have never seen him write—I have received documents signed by Beaumont and Co., but do not know who wrote them—I received this letter of October 9 signed "Beaumont and Co.," and understood that they had given up 23, Wilson Street and taken larger premises; he says, "Please notice the change of address," and writes from 79, Fenchurch Street—my reply was found in their cash box.
Cross-examined by MR. TAMPLIN. we supplied five pieces of black cloth, value 31l. 14s. 2d., on 29th August, 1878—we sent in our statement to Mr. J. H. March, of Poplar, the first week in November—he was at a pawnbroker's shop there, I understand—I believe March was actually applied to for payment in the gaol of Newgate in November or December—we employed our attorneys to see about getting the money—he never disputed the account
—I should be glad to hear that he is perfectly willing to settle it—he let the time go by when it was due; he has neglected to pay.
EDWIN JOHN JENKS . I am manager at 79, Fenchurch Street—I know the prisoner Hughes, or Beaumont—he came to me on 12th September about taking rooms on the second floor of No. 79 for himself and March—the rent was 40l.—that (produced) is my receipt for the 10s. deposit—he did not occupy them many days, when he was taken into custody—no rent was paid after the deposit—he gave orders about fittings, and I fitted up some counters round the room—March came there five or six times—I painted up "Beaumont and Co.," and under that "Mr. Hughes;" also "Sample Room" on one door, and "Mr. March "underneath that—they each had two keys.
Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I cannot tell the date (The receipt was dated 12.9.78)—Beaumont commenced rent at the September quarter—he came into possession a few days before the 29th—he remained there about eight or ten days—I saw him at least a dozen times, sometimes twice in a day—I knew March as a pawnbroker—I did not know Beaumont and Co. till I saw Mr. Hughes—the rent was to be paid quarterly—the first quarter would be due at Christmas—I had orders to fit up the room—the account of that was to be sent with the quarter's rent.
Cross-examined by MR. TAMPLIN. March was supposed to be the head of the firm of Beaumont and Co.—his name was painted up separately on the door of a separate room which did not communicate—Hughes required an office himself—several letters came.
HENRY DARRAD . I am a money-lender, at 1, Chancery Street, Leicester—in May, 1878, I was introduced to Chater by a person named Peter Kant—Chater asked me to discount a bill for him—I said "I do not know the names of either parties"—that is the bill (produced. Amount 40l. 14s.; drawer Frank Oater; accepted, William Brown; address 13, Norberto Road, Old Ford, Bow, London.) I lent him 20l. on that bill—he said he required the money to send to London for wages, and that he was a cigar manufacturer, that he was doing a large business, and had just dissolved partnership with a person named F. Nine, and was paying him off—about May 24th Chater came again with two bills—this (8l.) bill is dated 8th April, drawn by Frank Chater upon Charles Stephenson, 2, Carey Lane, Post Office, London; accepted payable 2, Carey Lane, Charles Stephenson; due July 11th; amount 71l. 15s. 6d.—also this bill (produced), drawer Frank Chater; date April 30th; due August 2; per Ebert and Co., 28, Great Tower Street, London; accepted payable at the Commercial Union Bank, Fish Street Hill, for 48l. 12s. 9d.—I told him I did not know anything of Stephenson—he produced the bill and this letter from Charles Stephenson. (Read: "2, Carey Lane, E.C., April 9, 1878. Dear Chater,—I am sorry I cannot send you a cheque to-day, as money is scarce, but have enclosed you bill accepted, as per arrangement, which please acknowledge, as balance of account, and oblige yours respectfully, C. Stephenson.") He left those two bills, and wanted 42l. to send again to London for wages—I advanced him the money—he said Stephenson was a customer and bought a great many cigars—I relied upon the letter received with the bills, which I supposed to be a genuine business transaction—at the same time I held a bill for 40l. 14s., which was coming due in a week or two, on which I had advanced 20l., and I was of course to have the balance—I passed that bill through my bank; it was dishonoured—all the bills were dishonoured—I wrote previously to Stephenson
to ask about his acceptance—this is his reply: "42, Carey Lane, E.C., June 26th, 1878. Sir,—Your letter received, and in reply I beg to say that the bill you mention is of my acceptance. I am yours respectfully C. Stephenson. To H. Durrad, Esq., 1, Chancery Street, Leicester. "I wrote again after his bill had been dishonoured—the letter was returned to me through the Dead Letter Office, and also one from Ebert and Brown—I communicated with Chater—I know his handwriting—these letters are his writing. (Read: "65, Lefebvre Road, Old Ford, 18th July, 1878. Gentlemen,—Yours to hand about C. Stephenson's bill. Why was it not presented lust Friday? I saw his clerk to-day, and he tells me the money was left with him to pay on presentation, but no one called. How is this? Mr. C. Stephenson, I believe, is now in Paris. However, you must present the bill, or I must call and pay you, and then present it myself. I had hoped this matter would have been settled before now. Shall be in Leicester either Saturday or Monday, and will call and see you. Yours faithfully, Francis Chater.") This other letter is dated 3rd August, 1878, from the same address: "Gentlemen,—I have just returned home, or should have written you earlier. You have not replied to mine of ten days ago about C. Stephenson's bill Please do so at once. Frederick Ebert and Co. desire their bill renewed for two months. Please send me word what amount you require for holding it over for that time. I have promised to do this for them. Yours respectfully, Frank Chater."
Cross-examined by Chater. When first introduced to me you had met with a serious accident—you said you required the money for wages—I do not know that you sent it to London—you were confined to your room—I had never given you a cheque—the first payment was in four 5l. notes—I did not give you a 20l. cheque, nor a post-dated Manchester cheque—you told me you had just dissolved partnership with Mr. Nine—when Brown's bill was dishonoured you told me he had gone to America.
Re-examined. These two letters (produced) are in Chater's handwriting. (Read: "4th July, 1878. Nickel's Hotel, Leicester. Dear Stephenson,—No cash yet, or should send you. Shall come up to-morrow, and either bring cash or silks. Frank Chater." "Leicester, Sunday, 14th July, 1878. I duly received your telegram about silks. Whatever more can I possibly do than I have done? Sykes promised to remit as soon as he is able to get out, and I tried all I could to get the accounts at Leicester, or I could have sent you the cash, even as late as 9 p.m. last evening, but did not succeed. My hand is very painful, in fact so serious that I fainted yesterday, so shall go again to Bartholomew's to-morrow, and work the country again on Tuesday. Yours truly, Frank Chater."
STEPHEN LONDON (Recalled). Cross-examined by Mr. Frith. I saw E. B. Reeves at the office when he gave up the keys—I swear I saw him after May—it was some time in July—I will not swear I saw the barrister there.
ROBERT READ . I am a tailor, living at Friar Lane, Leicester—I met Chater at the Blue Boar's Head in February—he said he had a case of Havana cigars, and could put 70l. into the landlady's pocket, but she could not afford to have it herself; that he had a bill, and if I would put my name to it I should never hear any more of it, and it would do the widow and children good—I put my name upon the bill—the amount was 90l.—it was for a case of Havana cigars, to clear it from the docks—he told me the dockcharges were 50l., and 40l. the warrant, making 90l., and the widow woul
have a profit of 75l., he would not do it to anybody else, only at the place where he stopped at—I let him have the bill then and there—in the morning I went down to him, and he told me he had sent it to the Union Bank of Loudon, and I might depend upon it I should have it back again—this was a little before 12 o'clock on the Saturday morning—I found it was untrue, for in two hours after I had seen him in his bedroom he had taken it to a pawnbroker's and got 85l. for it—I got the dock-warrant that morning to clear the cigars—I did not clear them, but sold it for 25l., and he sent me a note that I was 10l. 10s. 5d. in debt—Chater came to meet the 90l. bill, and wanted to raise money on more bills—I think the balance would be 30l. or 40l., but he wanted that, and I told him I could not do so—there was a money-lender named Taylor, and he said, "The old man seems very disconsolate"—Chater gave me this bill for 74l. 10s., accepted by Charles Stephenson, 2, Carey Lane—I made inquiries who he was, and he could not be found—Chater said he was his best customer, and I thought I had a proper trade—I found it was worthless—I met him in December, and he reminded me that I knew him as a boy of 13 years—I did not remember him—his father-in-law was with him, and told me he had become a rich merchant of the City of London, worth 40,000l.—his father-in-law is a farm-bailiff at Leicester.
Cross-examined by Chater. You did not show Mrs. Fox the warrant for cigars—I did not buy them of her—I did not tell her she should have the cigars, and I would be responsible for them—you said that in four months' time she would be able to turn herself—they had just taken this house, which was undergoing alterations, and she would have the best cigars in Leicester, and if she was not quite prepared then, she should have another four months' bill—I was to put my name on the bill for Mrs. Fox—the goods were sold to me—the warrant was not sold to Mrs. Fox—you had the bill and the clearance money too—you had got it all, after you gave it me on the Friday night, and you told me you had sent it up to London, instead of which it was lying on your bed—it was your proposal to forward the case of samples down to Leicester after clearing—I did not agree to it—I should have had nothing, if I had parted with the warrant, because I could not depend upon you—I gave you the 90l. for the case of cigars—I would not part with the warrant—I gave the bill for the case of cigars, but I found you had the warrant and the clearance money and everything, and you said on Monday morning, "You shall have the bill back from the Union Bank of London, and I will give you the 40l. for the warrant"—I did not when accepting the bill arrange that there should be 50l. for the warrant and 40l. the clearance, it was just the reverse; 40l. the warrant and 50l. the clearance—I did not send send it up to London so that you could clear it—I told you I wanted the 50l., and refused to part with the warrant—I did not want you afterwards to sell it to somebody else—I am not aware that you sent a copy of the invoice to the auctioneer by whom the goods were sold—I let Mr. Horn, the pawnbroker, have the warrant—I believe the endorsement was from Hamburg—I had them valued in London by regular tobacco people, and they said, "Never clear them The value is but 12l."—I cannot give the names—I think the clearing cost about 43l. 10s.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. Until Stephenson was in custody I never saw him.
Re-examined. My age, I believe, is about 72.
Breedon, he introduced me to Chater, who, he said, was a commission agent—I wanted to borrow as much as I could get on the lease of my premises, which were condemned as dangerous, and I wanted to repair them—Breedon asked Chater if he could lend the money on the lease—he said he could get me 50l. to 60l.—I had handed the lease to Breedon—I did not see him give it to Chater—Chater afterwards said that he had not got the money, but he was going down to Yarmouth and I had better accept a bill for what money I required—I accepted a bill for 64l. odd, which he drew upon me—it is not here, it has been discounted—I never got my money or the acceptance back—the bill is overdue and a writ is waiting for me, though I have not been served with it—Chater said that he could not get the bill discounted, and a friend was short of money and referred him to another friend at Yarmouth, and he knew W. Hudson, a retired publican, who lent his money out, and he thought he could transact the business there; but to get down there he wanted me to lend him 10l.—I said that I had not got it—he said "Give me a cheque and I will guarantee to hold it over and give you the funds to meet it when it becomes due"—I said "I don't mind that on conditions"—he said "What conditions?"—I said "That you take the responsibility of it being dishonoured at my bankers," and he gave me a written guarantee to that effect—I asked him the amount of the cheque, he said "Make it 20l. 16s., and I can draw 10l. upon it"—I did so, it was presented at my bank and duly honoured—I overdrew my account—I never got a penny from Chater—I have seen Beaumont with Chater—I know Stephenson by the name of Davis—I went down to Yarmouth after Cliater, while looking for him one day I met him and Stephenson together in Holborn—I asked Chater what he had done with my lease and the bill—he said that he could not give them to me then, but if I would give him till Saturday I should have the money—I said "That cheque I handed you you have not given me the money to meet; it has been to the bank and duly honoured"—he said that it was dishonoured—I asked him who he gave it to—he said to a man named Biscoe, the proprietor of the Nag's Head, Hackney—I said "I should "like to go with you to him and see him, for I can prove that the cheque was duly honoured by my pass-book, which I have in my pocket now"—he said that it was not convenient then, but if I would meet him at 8 o'clock that evening he would go—I met him at 8 o'clock and asked him to go with me; he refused, and defied me, and I gave him in custody—this took place at the Royal Exchange—he was taken to Bow Lane, and then promised to give me the documents the following morning—there was a case going on at the Old Bailey which he was interested in, and I came here and saw him here and asked him what he was going to do—he said "I shall do nothing, I refer you to Mr. Beard, my solicitor"—I then instructed a solicitor, and Stephenson said, "What is the matter?"—I said "Who are you?"—he said "You know me, you saw me in the public-house the other day"—I said "I am not supposed to know everybody I see in public-houses"—he said "My name is Lavis, a solicitor"—I said "I don't recognise anybody but Chater," and left them, and a man called after me "Where are you going? what is the matter with you?"—I asked him who he was—he said "I will tell you; I have got your lease and bill, I have had them all the week"—I have called at the Ship in Lime Street and seen Chater there—I saw Stephenson there once and Hughes—I have seen Tickell there several times—I don't know March—I have been to 2, Carey Lane, to see if I could find Chater there, but only
saw a boy—I wrote to Chater to make an appointment with him, but instead of his coming Davis came, and said "I have seen the letter addressed to Chater; he has gone down to Wellingborough; if you wish to write to him you must write sharp to the Royal Hotel there, as he may be away before night"—I left with Davis, walked towards Bow Road, and Stephenson and I got on an omnibus together—he said "If you see Mr. Tickell will you tell him I shall be back at 12 or 12.30"—I said "Yes; what name shall I sayl"—I had forgotten his name—he said "Tell him Charley"—I saw Tickell and told him, and he said that it was Charley Davis.
Cross-examined by Chater. Breedon told me that he was an accountant—I did not try to arrange any affairs with my creditors before I knew you—I had some goods from Clarke, of Tooley Street, and Breedon was security to Mr. Clarke for me—I was served with a writ for the goods—I purchased the bill stamp—I did not ask Breedon to transfer the lease to get the discount—it was not for our mutual accommodation—I do not recollect saying "If we cannot meet this bill we must draw another up"—I did not deny receiving the bill—I denied having it at that time—I did not deny having it when I was at the police-court—when I was in your company going to the station you said "You have got a 32l. bill of mine"—I thought you might say I had compromised the matter and I threw the bill away into a place of safety—Hughes found it a week afterwards—there is a high brick wall which we passed going to the station—I threw it over there—and it was found lying under the leaves there—of course I knew the sort of man I was dealing with—I believe you wanted 5l. for getting the thing done—I said in Breedon's presence that we would get another bill discounted if we were not in a position to meet this—"we "included all present—I arranged with you and Breedon was in you company—you suggested to me that I should say that I had received potatoes, your father being a farmer, and that I had given you the lease as security—I have said that if you would give me 5l. or 6l. I would settle the case, for I have a large family and nothing to keep them on.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I deposited the lease with Breedon, but not for the purpose of getting credit for some potatoes—he gave me credit for 19l. as a matter of accommodation—the potatoes were obtained I should think in October, and the lease was deposited in September; at that time the lease was in Chater's hands, or should have been—I sold the potatoes, but have not paid for them—I should say that it was quite a month after I deposited the lease and gave the bill that I first saw Stephenson.
Re-examined. It is false that the deposit of the lease was to enable me to get credit for the potatoes.
JOHN WILLIAM PARKER BRICKWOOD . I trade with Mr. Chard as "Parker and Co.," commission agents, at 74, Little Britain—I deal with Messrs. Hope Brothers, 40, Ludgate Hill, and Nicholson and Co., St. Paul's Churchyard—my business'is limited to gentlemen of the Civil Service—I get their orders, and the tradespeople supply them to my order—I am responsible for goods so supplied—in July last I was introduced to a man named Breedon, and through him to several other persons—my transactions with them were unfortunate-amongst others, I was introduced to Beaumont on the 30th July—he gave the name of Beaumont, and brought me this document.
(Read; "From J. Beaumont and Co., 23, Wilson Street, Finsbury, July 30th,
1878. Dear Sirs,—Mr. Beaumont would be glad to avail himself of the privilege of having his name in your books, and should you think proper to accept him, you cannot do wrong. Yours faithfully, Thomas J. Breedon") Beaumont obtained goods from me to the extent of 8l. 18s. 9d. from Hope Brothers, and 6l. 19s. goods from Nicholson—he paid me 2l. 9s. 9d. on Hope's account, and on Nicholson's 1l. 3s. 2d.—that was all I received—there was due 12l. odd, for which I am responsible to Hope Brothers, and Nicholson—I have nearly paid them—that is my loss—I applied to him many times for payment—on the 8th August, March brought to me this paper, from Beaumont, "August 8th, 1878, to Messrs. Parker and Co., Little Britain," introducing the bearer, Mr. March, as an old friend of his, and to "please let him have what he requires"—March gave me an order 10l. 2s. 9d. from Nicholson, and 6l. 7s. from Messrs. Hope—he paid me in cash, and with one gold watch for which I gave him credit at the rate of two guineas, altogether 3l. 19s. 5d., leaving me 13l. odd behind—I am liable for that to Hope and Nicholson—I have applied to him for payment, but have not succeeded in getting any—on the 18th Angust Chater called on me—he brought me this. (Read: "August 18th, 1878, from Beaumont to Chater. In accordance with your request, I forward you an order to go to Parker and Co.," with a note written on the back dated August 18th, 1878, to Messrs. Parker and Co. as follows:—"Gentlemen, Mr. Chater has requested me to introduce him to you, and I have much pleasure in so doing. James Beaumont." I supplied to Chater, through Messrs. Nicholson, goods to the extent of 5l. 12s., and through Messrs. Hope 7l. 8s. 6d.—I received no payment from him—I am still liable for 13l. 10s. 6d. to Hope and Nicholson—on the 24th August, Stephenson called on me with this letter from Chater, dated 65, Lefevre Road, Old Ford, 23rd August, 1878, recommending Stephenson as a customer under the monthly payment system—Stephenson paid down 1l. 10s. deposit—I have applied to him for payment—he has paid nothing more—I am liable for the difference 8l. 9s. upon that account—on the 14th August Tickell called on me with this memorandum from Beaumont to Parker and Co., confidently recommending him to them for any thing ho might require—I received from Tickell 2l. 15s. 2d., and since then my solicitor has received another similar sum—I do not know where Tickell is to be found—other persons were introduced to me in a similar manner, with similar results—March came to me on 7th October, respecting two bills of 50l. each—on Saturday, 5th October, I went to see March-Beaumont had previously introduced him to me as a very useful man in the way of raising money, and that he had done it for him many times, and if I wanted a hundred or so, March was the man to do it—March said, "If you want a hundred, or any sum you like, I will do it for you; I will call upon you on Monday, and if you have the two acceptances for 50l. each, I will do it for you"—I very foolishly did so—I entrusted him with them on the evening of the same day—he gave me this receipt dated 7th October, 1878—I was to have the money by 1 o'clock on Monday—I never had a farthing—I did not have my bills back—there is an action brought against me on the first bill—the second bill was stopped—I called on him the same day, and asked him to return me the bills or the money—he promised to send me the money by 1 o'clock—at halfpast 1 a messenger came in from March with a letter, enclosing two more bills of 50l. each—the letter was to this effect: "Dear Sir,—The two bills you handed me this morning of
50l. each, have not been discounted. I enclose two more bilk, as I have discovered a fresh channel through which I may discount them" I saw him next day—he said, "I have not got the money or the bills, but you will have it to-morrow or the day after"—I saw him after that—he never gave me any truthful account of what became of the bills—he said he had not got them in his possession, and had not received any money for them—he would give me no information—all I know about them is, one was stopped, and the other I have been sued upon.
Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I am a commission agent so far as this is concerned—I obtain things for different people and get paid by commission—I have a place of business, but no shop—if you came I should require a letter of introduction—I should give an order on one of my firms in that way (producing a book), this would be taken to my firms, who would supply the goods—I am a middle man between the customer and the firm, and am paid by commission on my payments made to the firms—it is all credit—the usual terms are three monthly instalments—Beaumont was to pay Nicholson by six monthly instalments—the goods were supplied on 23rd August—the first instalment would be due on the 1st of the month following—that instalment was paid by Beaumont—the next instalment would be due on 1st October—there was no arrangement made between us about that instalment, no communication about it; the instalment fell due, and there was no necessity for any communication between us—he had made his payment on the 1st September, and the next would be due on the 1st of October—if the 1st of October passed without a payment I should write to him—I cannot tell whether I received a communication from him—to the best of my belief I put him with several others into the hands of my solicitors to sue—I may have had a communication by letter, but not personally—shortly after that I learned he was in custody—I had had further transactions with Beaumont—I let him have a sewing machine, which he never paid for, and he brought a portion of a box of Hamburg cigars one day, and said "I have got a great number of these coming in, and I will leave this for you to taste—I gave no order.
Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I have an office—I deliver goods when sold—I did not deliver these articles to Stephenson—they were delivered on my order—I decline to say what commission I receive—I do not, as a rule, receive money in advance—I received 30s. deposit from Stephenson on 26th August, I think, the day I gave him the order on Messrs. Nicholson—I charged him 9l. 19s. 10d.
Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I had dealings with March—there is a balance against him of 13l. 10s. 4d., due 8th August—I trade under the name of Parker and Co., commission agents and boot and shoe dealers, tobacconists, &c.—I had goods from March in the way of business—I paid him for a gold' watch—I gave him credit for that, two guineas—I had six watches—at 17s. 6d. each afterwards, and six chains at 7s. 6d.—I did not pay for them—also six chains at 8s. 6d.—they were left with me on the sale or return system—it was not a purchase—they are a set-off—he paid 17s. 5d. in cash and 2l. 2s. by a watch—I have not creditea him with the other goods on sale or return—he has not had them back—the two bills or 50l. were for the purpose of raising 40l., and he wanted to obtain 100l.—they were pure acceptances by me—he was to bring me 100l. in the course of the month—I said "How much will you charge for this?"—he said "Leave that for after consideration; I won't
charge you much, I will bring you the money in the course of the morning—they were to be discounted to the best advantage—he said he could get 96l. for them.
Re-examined. The goods he had deposited were for sale or return—they had nothing to do with this transaction—I give an order upon Hope Brothers to a customer, and they supply to my order and I am responsible, I depend upon payment from him.
JAMES GREEN . I am clerk to the London and County Advance Company, 35, Farringdon Street—on 7th October last March came to me with two acceptances of 50l. each by J. W. Parker and Co.—I had known him before through several transactions with the company—we had discounted for him before—he was in our debt—that is one of the acceptances. (This was a two months' acceptance, dated 7th October, 1878, for 50l., in favour of James March, by J. W. Parker and Co.) He said the bills were for watches and chains, &c., supplied by him to Messrs. Parker and Co.—he wanted us to discount them—I took them in to the manager and he asked March to leave them—I returned them and he took them away—this bill was brought to us the next day by a man who said he came from Johnson, or that his name was Johnson, to be discounted—we communicated with Messrs. Parker and Co., and the bill was stopped by their direction—we kept the bill.
GEORGE KIRBY . I reside at 34, Surrey Street—I occasionally discount bills—March called upon me on the 8th October with a bill drawn upon Parker Brick wood and Co.—I discounted it—he made no statement except that it was a trade bill—I sent a notice to Messrs. Parker and Co.
JOHN WILLIAM PARKER BRICKWOOD (Re-examined). I identify the documents produced as signed in my presence—the post-card produced was given to me by Beaumont in order that I might write to him (This was an agreement entered into by the witness, signed by Tickell, showing the terms on which goods were to be supplied).
JOSEPH ROBINSON SCOTT . I am a wine merchant at 409, Strand—I know the prisoners Beeves—one of them is a barrister—I do not know what E. B. Reeves is—I knew him as employed in the Civil and Military and Naval Co-operative Society, Bedford Street—I believe they lived together at Wimbledon—I knew them as connected with 23, Wilson Street—I saw Francis the barrister there once—I only heard what they were doing from my clerk going there on commissions—I called with respect to a pony they had of mine—I thought I saw Francis Reeves there—Beaumont opened the door—I told him I had called to see the Reeves—he said, "They are not here"—I said, "I can see one of them there now," but the room was so full of tobacco smoke I might have been mistaken—there were several persons in the room—I did not know the others—I know Reeves's handwriting—I have had correspondence with them—that is E. B. Reeves's writing (This was a letter from E. B. Reeves to Mr. Crump, Antwerp, stating that Mr. Scott, of 409, Strand, had given his name, as he wanted to purchase some cigars)—the document addressed to Mr. Crump, 8th April, 1878, is from E. B. Reeves—he wished to buy some cigars similar to those I had given him—I refused to sell mine—he then asked me for Crump's address—I gave it him—Mr. Crump wrote to me on receipt of his communication, and I replied.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I had known one of the Reeves for some time, and had several transactions with him since Christmas, 1877—I supplied him with wine and other things—I had no objection to their
knowing where I got the cigars—I have heard they never got them—up to that time I regarded them as straightforward people—they had not been good customers—they never paid—I cannot swear who was in the room, it was so smoky.
Re-examined. They have still a bill unpaid—they would not satisfy customers with regard to payment—I was glad to get rid of them—their orders were more liberal than their payments.
By MR. FRITH. I do not think they owed me anything 12 months ago—when I closed the account I think there was about 20l. owing—about 18 months ago they had a dozen of hock, and eleven bottles were sent back—that one bottle was all I have supplied them with, excepting the last few days of 1877—they might have paid sums before I came into the management of the London business—I knew the barrister—the account only extended over a few months—I believe, he owes about 20l. now—I think he paid about 5l., but there is 10l. he owes me for cash—the 10l. cheque was the subject of a criminal charge against him at Bow Street—the Magistrate allowed them to go out upon their own recognisances.
WILLIAM PEEL (Police Inspector). I was with Sergeant Miller when the Reeves were apprehended—in consequence of information I received I went to 19, Elgin Road, Maida Vale, in November—Mr. Avery, the occupier of the rooms I went to search, stated that Mr. Rocke had been the tenant previously—I found several documents there now in possession of the prosecution—in the drawer of a desk I found some papers, and handed them over to Mr. Wontner—I apprehended Beaumont on the 22nd October, in Fen-church Street, in the street—the warrant was read over to him by Miller—he replied he knew nothing about it—I said "That is not the only charge against you, there are several others for obtaining goods at various parts when you were in Wilson Street"—he said "I was only a servant there managing the business for Reeves, the barrister, and his brother"—he said he had 2l. a week salary, but they did not pay him after the first week; that they traded as Beaumont and Co., and that all the goods they had were paid for, with the exception of 37l., and if he got into any trouble it would be through Chater—I asked him to accompany me to his office, which he did, at 79, Fenchurch Street—"Beaumont and Hughes "was painted on the door—I said "Here you are as Beaumont again"—he replied "I was going to trade as Beaumont, but my proper name is Hughes"—he opened the door of the office, and it was perfectly empty—he said "I have not commenced business yet"—I said "You have March here"—I saw March's name on the next door—he said "Yes, I have let him the office next door"—I then arrested him.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I knew Stephenson when he was trading—I knew him four years or better previous to these transactions—he was carrying on a bond fide business in Fore Street up to 18 months or 2 years ago—I have no doubt that it was a bond fide business—I have inquired at 2, Carey Lane, and there was a man named Masters there; he is in Holloway now for six week", on, I think, a judgment debt.
Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I was present before the Magistrate when Rocke was committed for trial—the Magistrate admitted him to bail in two sureties in 100l. each—that is less than the others.
to him under a lamp-post—I took a note at the time in pencil, of which this is an exact copy—he said "Have you got the others; if I have got into trouble it is through Chater"—I said "I have got Beaumont, Hughes, and Stephenson"—he said "Have you got Chater?"—I said "No"—he said "Chater is a thorough scoundrel"—I said "I have been to the office, 79 Fenchurch Street for you"—he said "I have got no office there"—I said "Your name is on the door on the second-floor front, and Beaumont's on the back"—he said, "If the name is on the door Beaumont has put it on without my sanction"—I saw him give his wife a letter-case—I took it from her and found in it a cheque for 50l., drawn by Kirby, of 34, Surrey Street, Strand, the same day—I took him in custody and went to Fenchurch Street the same day—I received a cash-box from Dart, the landlord of the Ship, Lime Street, City, in which I found the bundle of documents which was produced yesterday—I went to Chater's house the same night; he was not at home, he went to the station next day—there was an adjourned summons out against him—on the Monday, when I was going to "Worship Street, Chater tapped me on the shoulder and said "I have been to Mr. Wontner's office to explain everything to him, but could not see him, and I am going again;" and that Beaumont, Rocke, and March were a set of scoundrels—at that time Stephenson came up and said, "Well, Chater, what became of the summons on Saturday?" (that was the adjourned summons in Dunn's case)—Chater said "Adjourned again"—Stephenson said "What is the meaning of it?" and walked with me—I was going to get the warrants, but I did not tell him so—I did not take Chater in custody—I took Rocke on 7th November at the London and County Club, Langham Place—I read the warrant to him; he said that he had seen it in the Times, and had been to the police-court, but had not been called as a witness or put in the dock—I said that I could not help it, he would have to go to the station with, me; he said "March did not tell the truth; it was the cheque I gave March, and he gave false evidence at the police-court," alluding to the 100l. cheque in Dunn's case—I went with Peele on 21st November to 2, Carlton Cottages, Rayner Park, Wimbledon—I made a parcel up, and sent a strange man with it; he knocked at the door, and a female came and said "Who is there?" the man said "I have brought a parcel for Mr. Reeves, a barrister," and he replied, "He is not here, he is in Cork, in Ireland"—the door had not been opened—he said "Well, I will take the parcel back where I got it from"—the door was then opened, and Mr. Burke Reeves came to the door and said "I am Mr. Francis Reeves, the barrister's brother; I will take the parcel"—I slipped inside and said "I am a police officer, and hold a warrant for your apprehension"—he went back into the parlour, and behind the parlour door was Francis Reeves—I said "This is your brother; I have also got a warrant for your apprehension for conspiring with five others in custody to obtain goods"—Francis Reeves said "Mention one item," and I said "Glue"—he said "Who has laid the information?"—I said "A man named Taylor, I believe"—he said "He is a fine gentleman to lay an information," taking something from his pocket and putting it on the back of a table by the window—it was this banker's pass-book and a document of a will—Francis Reeves said that he denied himself because the sheriffs were after him, and he thought it was the sheriffs' officer knocking at the door—they were both taken to Bow Street station (This was the passbook of Francis Reeves, showing a cheque of 14l. to "Beaumont" on 8th
April, of 2l. to "Hughes" on 11th April, and of 20l. 2s. 3d. to "Stephenson" on 13th April, leaving a balance of 3l. 3s. 5d.)
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. Stephenson was taken in Newgate Street—I thought I should have got the warrant on the day he walked with me, but I did not—he said "Where is Mr. Peel?"—I said "At the Old Bailey"—he said "I will meet you at the Old Bailey"—I saw him outside here.
Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Rocke referred to what he had seen in a newspaper report—he did not complain that Mr. Eyton had been sent up from Shrewsbury, who did not know the actual relations between him and his brother—I did not hear Mr. Campbell's name mentioned.
Cross-examined by Mr. Frith. I was at one end of the room and Francis Beeves at the other when he took the papers out and put them on the side table—I had no difficulty in seeing them.
Cross-examined by Chater. I do not know that you surrendered yourself to the police—I have made inquiries respecting your character—I have been to Kingsland—they gave you a bad character there, but at other places they said that you were a wonderful good servant and traveller.
ROBERT BOULBEE (Police Sergeant G). I took Chater on 23rd October—Sergeant Miller read the warrant to him—he said that Beaumont, Rocke, and March were a set of d——d rogues; they had robbed him of 30l.
CHARLES BOYDEN (Policeman). I took Stephenson—Miller read the warrant to him—he said that he only accepted a few bills for Chater, and got no remuneration, and it was to oblige Chater, and if he got into trouble it was through him—I wrote that down at the time.
Chater, in a long Defence, stated that he did not know Rocke until the day he received the cheque; March he knew very little, having only seen him Jive or six times; Beaumont he had known by reputation for some years, but had no intercourse with him until three months before this transaction. The Reeves he had never seen until taken in custody.
Stephenson he had known many years.
STEPHENSON and BEAUMONT received good characters.
— GUILTY .
BEAUMONT, STEPHENSON, CHATER, and MARCH— Five years' Penal Servitude.
ROCKE, F. C. REEVES, and E. B. REEVES.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MESSRS. STRAIGHT and MEAD Prosecuted; MR. M. WILLIAMS Defended.
FREDERICK JACOBS . I am a first-class pensioner and military foreman of the Royal Engineers' Department, Woolwich—on 28th September a man under me named Miller was suspended, and on that day I observed a large boiler in one of the store-rooms—I missed it on October 14th, and afterwards saw it, to the best of my belief, at Mr. Ginman's—no one had had authority to take it away—Miller, up to his suspension for being drunk, had charge of it.
Cross-examined. I asked Miller whether he had been foolish enough to
deal with the copper when drunk—he told me he had not—he was twice charged before the Magistrate respecting the copper, and finally no charge was proceeded with—there was no Government mark on the copper—I think it was on October 17th that I spoke to Miller about it, and on the 18th I went to Ginman's and was there shown the copper—there are two other gates by which the yard can be entered—Miller has not charge of them—McManus took Miller's place temporarily when ho was suspended—a great number of Government people had access to the office where the keys of the stores were kept—there is no entry that I know of, of the copper in the Government books.
Re-examined. The copper was in the store on 28th September—it was a large copper, burnt through at the lower riveting-rim—a patch had been put in, and the patch was burnt through again—there were three skins to it—the copper I afterwards saw at Mr. Ginman's was a similar one, with all those peculiarities—I know Mr. Slaughter, the surgeon-major—this certificate is in his writing. (Read: "McManus is very ill indeed.") I was present when the case was heard before the Magistrate—Miller was charged, and the prosecution was withdrawn—the prisoner was also charged, and was represented by Mr. Hughes—he had an opportunity of cross-examining McManus—one of the two entrances leads up to the commandant's house, and the other direct to the office by steps—a cart could not go up them.
The Deposition of Thomas McManus. "I am a sergeant of Engineers. On Monday, 30th September, I took Miller's post; he had been suspended on the 28th. I received the keys from Mr. Jacobs. I should say I received the keys between 11 and 1 o'clock, and from that time I had charge of the store. Mr. Miller's successor was appointed on Oct. 14. I ceased to be employed in that capacity. Cross-examined. I had not the stores given over to me officially—I would not consider myself responsible if half the things had gone away, the doors and windows being insecurely fastened—one of the windows had fallen by its own weight—I remember seeing a man named Jupp in the store for cement shortly before I had the keys—I could not say whether the copper was there then or not—there are two compartments in that store—I do not know in which compartment the copper was kept—I had heard Miller had complained of the insecure fastenings of the place—when you open the door of the store you can see into both compartments.
Re-examined. I went into the store that morning to give out the cement I did not notice the copper."
JOHN ROSS . I am a gardener, of 3, Millwood Street, Nightingale Line, Woolwich—on Saturday, 28th September, Miller spoke to me, and I spoke to Wagstaffe on Monday, and engaged with him to bring a horse, pony, and cart to the engineer's yard with me—he drove—some wood was loaded into the cart, but Mr. Terrell interfered, and the wood was taken out and the cart was driven away—I left, and afterwards saw a horse and van and a man outside the engineer's double gates, the only public entrance I know of, and I saw the van go in the yard.
FREDERICK JACOBS (Cross-examination continued). I said before the Magistrate "On the 19th October I said I should not like to swear to the copper—I went to Mr. Ginman's on the 21st October with Miller to look at the copper again—I said I could not swear to the copper on that time too," having only seen it four times.
By MR. STRAIGHT. To the best of my belief it was the copper.
Edward Fitzgerald. I am a gunner in the Koyal Artillery—early in September I was in the engineer's yard—about three months before that I passed through the yard to sharpen a knife, when I noticed a large copper standing about two yards from the weighing machine—about 30th September I went up to the yard and noticed some one standing outside Miller's house, and on my way back I saw a four-wheel van and horse standing outside the gates—there was no name on the van—a man in a white smock and reefing-jacket was standing with his back to the horse—Piper was going into the engineer's yard by the wicket-gate—I passed on.
Cross-examined. I had often seen Piper there before, and thought he was one of the workmen.
JOHN REED . I live at Woolwich, and am employed by Mr. Hicks, a butcher—on Monday, 30th September, I was knocking at my master's door when I saw a four-wheel van pass with a very large copper in it—a man with a monkey-jacket (not a slop) and a felt hat was driving from the direction of the engineer's yard—I did not take any notice of the van. Richard Ginman. About 6.30 a.m. on Monday, 30th September, Piper came and asked me if would buy a copper—I said "Yes," and he brought it at about 7 o'clock in a van which I did not notice a name on—I did not notice the driver—I paid Piper 11l. 16s. for it—about a fortnight after Whitlock came and I showed him the copper.
Cross-examined. Piper is a seller of metal and I a buyer—my clerk entered Piper's name in a book in the regular way and the weight—I paid the market price for it.
CHARLES WHITLOCK (Policeman). In consequence of instructions I received I took Piper on 18th October—he said in answer to the charge that he bought the copper of Mr. Evans, a general-dealer, of Dartford, and brought it home and tried to sell it between 28th and 30th September, but the man had not the money in his possession, and he took it round to Mr. Ginman, who bought it—the copper has been shown to Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Jacobs, who identified it.
Cross-examined. I went the first time with Jacobs—I swear he indentified it the first time on the 19th.
Witnesses for the Defence.
ALFRED JUPP . I work in the Royal Engineers, and am a pensioner—Miller was suspended on 28th September, and on the following Monday (the 30th) at about 9 a.m. I went to the store for 51b. of cement—I went. to Mr. Jacob's office and he let me in—I saw in the store a boiler which I had seen there lots of times—I was examined and cross-examined before the Magistrate.
Cross-examined. I know nothing of McManus—my attention was drawn to the copper by Power—on 3rd December I had mentioned nothing about seeing the copper—I went to Mr. Hughes's office, where I first mentioned seeing the boiler on the morning of the 30th September.
PATRICK ARTHUR POWER . I am a gunner in the Royal Artillery—I went with Jupp to the store to get the cement on 30th September, at about 9 o'clock—I do not remember prior to that seeing the boiler there—that morning
my attention was drawn to it by Jupp, who said if I had the price of the boiler I need not work any more that day.
Cross-examined. I think I remembered 30th September before the Magistrate because it was muster day—I have had time to think over it since—muster day is the last day of each month.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
Before Mr. Recorder.
171. WILLIAM TOWNSEND (24) PLEADED GUILTY to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Herbert Townsend, and stealing therein a pair of boots and 24s., his property.— Six Months' Imprisonment. (The Prosecutor was the Prisoner's father.)
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
MR. POLAND Prosecuted.
JOSEPH MOORE . I am eight years old—I have been living with my father and mother, at 2, Russell Court, Old Kent Road—the prisoner is my mother, my father is a basket maker—there are four children besides me, I am the eldest—we only had one room—the baby was the one that died—her name was Ellen, she was 11 weeks old—it died on a Saturday; I don't know how long it was before the Saturday that this matter occurred—mother was in the room and had the baby, father came home in the evening and they were quarrelling, I don't know what about; she went outside the door, father shut her out, she came in again, and sat down and gave the baby some tittie, father told her to be quiet, after that mother went to the door and set the baby down, she threw it down on the floor, it cried—it began to cry before, and when it was thrown down it began to cry again—father picked it up, and then it left off crying—he knocked mother down and went upstairs and asked the lady upstairs to take the baby, mother was then in the passage—father came down without the baby—mother told him to bring it down, he did not, and she went up and brought it down and gave it a drop of tittie, and father knocked mother down, and the baby fell out of her arms—father hit mother in the jaw, and she got up and said, "All right, you have broken my jaw-bone"—the baby fell on the floor, mother sat down—father picked the baby up, gave it to me, and told me to take it upstairs to the lady, I did, and the lady said mother had taken it away from her, and I took it down again—I did not hear it cry when it fell on that occasion—father made the bed, and I went to bed, I don't know when they went to bed—this was about half-past 11—mother had had a little drop, and I think father had, too—mother fetched the doctor, and he told her to keep the baby quiet; I don't know when the doctor was fetched—I never saw mother do anything to hurt the baby, except on this occasion.
By the COURT. I am sure I saw the baby fall twice—father was going to hit mother, and she held up her hands as she always does to save herself, and then the baby fell, that was what I meant when I said she threw it down.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. ST. AUBYN Prosecuted.
FREDERICK JOSEPH GAMBLE . I am now living at Boundary Terrace, Camberwell—my father, Joshua Gamble, died in 1859; he also resided at Camberwell—at that time I was at the gold diggings in Australia—I have a brother named Henry still living, and a sister married to a Mr. Giffard—I received a communication in Australia from my brother about my father's death; that was about the middle of 1860—there was some information in that letter as to how the money was left—I returned from Australia last April, and shortly afterwards met my brother-in-law, Mr. Giffard—in consequence of some conversation I had with him I went to the defendant's house—at the time of my coming to England I had not received any money under my father's will—I think it was at the end of last September that I went to the defendant's house with Mr. Giffard—I saw the defendant, and had some conversation with him—I asked him where was my share of the legacy that my father left—he said, "I paid it, and all the papers are burnt"—I said, "Who did you pay it to"—he said, "Into a bank"—I said, "On whose account, and what bank"—he said he did not know—he next said he paid it to my brother Henry at Hereford—I was not satisfied with that—he said, "Well, rather than pay it, I will lay and rot in prison," but he did not say, "not pay it again," there was no "again" at the end of it; it was, "rather than pay it"—I then went to Mr. Chance, the Magistrate, and he gave me instructions to take a constable—I don't know that the defendant went anywhere or did anything after saying he would rot in prison—)paper produced)—I have not seen this paper before; wait a moment—I beg pardon; no—he went upstairs and got some papers, a paper signed in lead pencil—I am very short-sighted—no; I have never seen this before—I am sure he went upstairs and got the papers; that was the second time I saw him—I went twice to his house, but the second time he went to get the papers from upstairs or his room—I am positive this is not the paper I saw at Lambeth Police-court.
MR. ST. AUBYN, under these circumstances, did not proceed further with the Prosecution.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. GILL Prosecuted.
LUCY JANE BAKER . I live at 47, Bowles Road, Old Kent Road—the prisoner is my husband—we have been married all but 20 years—on Monday afternoon, 30th December, about 4 o'clock, I was at home with my husband and daughter Eliabeth—my husband sent her out with a letter, and told her to wait for an answer—he told her to take it to 23, Bermondsey Square—that was written on the envelope—she went out with it, and he followed her out, and shut the street door after her as I believed—I was
then in the kitchen—he came back to me in the kitchen after shutting the street door, and he shut the kitchen door as he came in—he stood beside the corner of the dresser, and said "Your time is up now, I mean to settle you, you have no protection now," and he struck me on the middle of the head with a chopper several time?—the first blow was on the top of the head—I struggled, and warded off the blows with my whole strength—he had the chopper in his right hand—he seemed to me to unbutton his coat, and took it out of his inside coat—we had not been quarrelling—we had had no words at all on that day—we have had different words lately on account of his having been out of work some time—we had not quarrelled for some time—I don't know how many days before—I struggled to get away, and got to the back door—I tried to get out there—it was fastened with two bolts on the inside top and bottom, not locked—after a few minutes I managed to get into the passage at the front door—that was also fastened—it seemed as if the kitchen lock was broken into the door, as if it had been hit with some force—my head was bleeding very much, and I was getting very dizzy—I heard a repeated knocking at the door, and somebody speaking outside—after the knocking had been going on for some time my husband said if he let me alone would I prosecute him—I said no, I would not prosecute him—he said he would open the back door, and if I attempted to make a noise he would finish me—he went and opened the back door, and answered the person over the wall—I went out into the back yard, dipped a towel in a basin of water and rushed into the closet, and bolted the door—I stood there until I was helped out into the parlour, and a policeman came—my husband was quite sober on this day—Mr. Cully came and spoke to me at the door of the closet—when I got into the parlour I charged my husband before the policeman—he did not say a word—I was taken to the police-station, and my wounds were dressed—I remained in bed till the Sunday morning—this happened on the Monday—I am still suffering, my head if very bad.
Pirsoner. The front door was not barred—she knew very well that in slamming the door it double locks always, and you are obliged to go out with the latch key to get in—I never had any chopper in my coat at all.
Witness. The door was fastened, and the little lock seemed knocked in—I don't know how it was done.
SARAH CULLY . I am the wife of Charles Cully, of 4, Pye Terrace, Manchester Road—on Monday afternoon, 30th December, about 4 o'clock, I went to Mrs. Baker's house, and knocked several times at the front door—I was unable to get in—I then went round to the back door, and that was bolted—I fancied I heard something inside, and that made me more eager to try and knock—as I lived a long distance off I did not wish to go away without obtaining admittance—I spoke to a woman in the next garden, and then went round to the front door and knocked several times again—I then went through the next house, and went to the back door, and said "Open the back door for me"—the prisoner opened it, and I saw Mrs. Baker go round behind him into the closet—I said to the prisoner "What have you been doing this for? Why don't you open the door for me?"—he said "We have had a little fright, if you had heard what I have heard you would not ask me why I did it"—I said "What, chop a woman's head open"—he walked out—Mrs. Baker at this time was in the closet—I fetched a policeman—she would not come out till the policeman came—I saw her head bleeding very much, pouring down her neck into her.
ELIZABETH BAKER . I am the prisoner's daughter—on Monday afternoon, 30th December, about 4 o'clock, I was at home with my father and mother, he gave me this letter and said "Take this letter to 23, Bermondsey Square"—I asked him if it was a private house or a shop—he said a private house with a workshop at the back, and I was to wait for an answer—I went, but I could not find the number—it is a long way from where we live—it took me nearly an hour to get there—I never heard the name of Sears before—I never heard my father mention it. (The letter was directed to John Sears, asking him to send the money that Mr. Sefton said he would send.) When I went out my father came to the door and shut it after me; there had been no quarrelling between my father and mother before I left—I heard him say a week before that mother would not live long, he would settle her—he did not say why—when I came back I found a policeman in the house.
CHARLES BOURNE (Policeman P 194). On 30th December, about 4.30,1 was called by Mrs. Cully's daughter—I met the prisoner coming away from his house, he was perfectly sober, he said "I had a struggle with my wife and the chopper slippedn—I took him back—I found his wife in the front parlour bleeding from the head—at the station he said that he had been chopping wood, and if anything occurred it was quite an accident—I found this chopper produced on the kitchen floor, there were marks of blood on it at the time—I saw no appearance in the kitchen of wood having been chopped there—there was blood on the front of the prisoner's shirt and his hands—I afterwards received this letter from the daughter—I went to the address upon it and made inquiry—I was not able to find any body named Sears; I tried all round the square at a number of houses and no one could give me any information as to the name of the party on the letter.
Prisoner. I said I was going to chop wood, not that I had been chopping it.
Witness. I understood him to say that he had been chopping wood, but I would not say that he did not say the other.
WILLIAM ROGERS . I am a surgeon, at 84, Rodney Place—on Monday evening, 30th December, at 6.30, I was called to see Mrs. Baker—I found two wounds about an inch and a half in length, one on the top of the head and the other on the back; they went down to the bone; the one on the top of the head was a very clean cut indeed, the other was partly clean and a portion of it jagged; they were such wounds as might have been caused by this chopper—there must have been considerable violence used; the scalp was thick—I should describe them as dangerous wounds—the bone iteelf was not injured.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistarte. "I had just returned home and been in the kitchen five minutes; the chopper was on the: dresser. I took it up to go into the yard and chop some wood. My wife said 'What are you going to do with that?' at the same time laying hold of it. She struggled with me, and I suppose it must have cut her head. I said Let me put it away;' she said 'No, no, let me put it away.' I said 'Very well,' and let go, and she threw it into the coal cupboard. I took her into the back washhouse and bathed her head. She said 'Let me have a drop of brandy.' I took her into the bedroom and she had some brandy and gave me some as well. As to the doors, they were not barred at all; very often the catch of the front door will slip down, and you are obliged to go
outside to open with a key. She has said many times that she would like to get me out of the house and have it herself. We take in single men lodgers, and I have often spoken to her about things that I have seen.
LUCY JANE BAKER (Re-examined). He seamed to take the chopper from inside his coat—there was nothing on the dresser but plates and dishes—I took hold of the chopper and struggled with him before he chopped me—I have not been in the habit of quarrelling with him—we never quarrel very much; most times was when he used to get tipsy—I let my place furnished, and take in single men lodgers—my husband has never complained to me about anything he has seen—there has never been anything to see—he never complained to me of my conduct in any way—nothing passed before he struck me further than I have stated—he did not bathe my head or give me any brandy—I had no brandy in the house.
Prisoner's Defence. "I never attempted or either threatened her life the whole time we have been married. On this afternoon I came home from my work and went into the kitchen. The chopper was lying on the dresser; it generally was in the drawer. She laid hold of it. struggled to get hold of it, and said, 'Let me throw it away.' I used to complain of her carrying on with the young men in the house, and she said she would when she got the master of the house herself."
GUILTY on the Second Count .— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. GILL Prosecuted.
GUILTY of the attempt. Recommended to mercy on account of his youth .— Three Months' Imprisonment.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. BESLEY and M. WILLIAMS Prosecuted.
JULES DENOUAL (Interpreted). I am a medicinal capsule maker, carrying on business at Carlton House, New Cross Road—the prisoner is my nephew—he entered my service on the 8th September, 1865, and continued in my service at an increasing salary until April, 1875—at that time an agreement was made between us in writing—this is it (By this agreement the prisoner was entrusted with the management of the business for three years ending 1st April, 1878, receiving one-sixth part of the net profit when, if the business proved successful, he would become a partner, and ultimately the sole proprietor; but in default of making certain quarterly payments to Denoual he (Denoual) would again become the sole proprietor)—I have a farm in Normandy, and live there—I left the prisoner to manage my business here—he had no authority to accept bills of exchange in his name or the name of the firm—he was specially prohibited from doing so—I had no idea until I came over to England that he was engaged in any business of distillation—in consequence of something that came to my knowledge I came over in May, 1877, and told him that he had entered into bad speculations and had spent my money outside of my business—he said he had committed foolish things,
but would not do so any more—I then paid with my own money part of the debts he had made, and told him that I pardoned him this time, but it must not happen again—he said he would never recommence again—the books were then at the warehouse, but they were not very well kept—I then returned to France—I came back to this country in October, 1877—four days after my arrival, in consequence of what I heard, I saw the prisoner at the factory, and then taxed him with having recommenced his foolish or stupid action—I asked him for the books of the business—he produced some, but not all, some were missing, the receipt-book and the banker's pass-book and the cash-book—I asked him about them, and he said that he had taken them to the City for the purpose of having them investigated—I made repeated applications for the books, but never received them from him—in consequence of that and other matters on the 8th November 1 wrote him a notice, of which this is a copy, cancelling our agreement—he had a sister living on the premises—he slept on the premises himself—I never received from him a sum of 13 guineas which he had received from Maw, Son, and Thompson on the 10th November, or a sum of 9l. 14s. 8d. from Sutton's; or 38l. 19s. 10d. from Mather—these three receipts for those sums are in the prisoner's handwriting; also this endorsement on the cheque for 13l. 13s. from Maw, Son, and Co.—I visited the factory day by day, and ultimately remained there after the 17th—on that day he absconded—he said nothing about leaving—I received this letter from him, dated the 19th November, stating that he was going to Spain, and enclosing a list of moneys due to the firm amounting to 76l. odd—I had never given him any authority to sell any property for me—on the 14th January I received this letter from the prisoner, dated Algiers, asking me to send him his clothes and books and things or remit them to Mr. Charles—I found these three bills, drawn by Magney and accepted by the prisoner, at the factory after he left—I did not know of their existence before—I had given him no authority to accept them—Charles is a person who I have since learned has been trading as Garrett and Co.—I find that name in my books—it was at Charles's house that the prisoner was taken into custody—I have endeavoured to find him, but have not succeeded.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. In October, 1875, I authorised you to accept bills for the house, only for goods which had been received—I did not authorise you to pay bills; anyhow only one—this present agreement would cancel any previous one—I am not aware that any contract or agreement was proposed against this—I cannot recollect that I ever authorised you to sign my name before 1875—I cannot say that I received 5l. out of the 13 guineas or 1l.
JULES MAGNEY . I am a son-in-law of Mr. Denoual—I was manager to this business, at New Cross, on the 21st November, 1877—I have gone into the figures to ascertain what moneys were paid into Mr. Denoual's banking account in 1875—this account is correct—the payments in during the current year amount to 981l. 2s. 9d.—deducting the cash in the bank on the 1st January, 1876, there was paid in 687l. 15s. 11d—on 1st January, 1877, deducting the money in the bank from the amount paid in up to the 17th November, the result was 225l.—I cannot tell you what was paid in up to the end of 1877—we have not found the pass-book—I went to the premises on the 21st November, and found the prisoner's clothing there, in his wardrobe, not packed up, among other things a new suit of clothes—they were claimed by a tailor, and I gave them up—I found his books just as he had left them—I had
not the slightest idea that he was going away on the Saturday night—I know Charles, trading as Garrett and Co.—I saw him at the Greenwich Police-court when this case was heard, but have not seen him since—he lived at 157, Ladbroke Grove Road—I went there last Sunday, and found the house padlocked, and a notice for it to be let—the endorsement on this cheque is in the prisoner's handwriting—I do not know where his sister is.
MARIE DESCHEULLES . I am an assistant in the employ of Mr. Denoual—I have been at the factory since March, 1875—I lived there with the prisoner and his sister—the prisoner left on the Saturday morning, as he was in the habit of doing every Saturday—his sister received these two letters after he had gone—I read them—one was to Mr. Denoual, and the other to the sister—in consequence of what was in her letter we sat up till midnight expecting him to return—he did not return—he generally came back about 5 o'clock to pay the workmen.
WILLIAM LINDSAY BUTLER . I am employed by Maw, Son, and Thompson, of Aldersgate Street—this account of 8th November for 13 guineas was paid on the 10th by a cheque—it came back to our bankers from the Peckham branch of the London and South-Western Bank, with the endorsement of "Taylor" upon it.
CHARLES BAZELL . I am a clerk at the chief office of the London and South-Western Bank—I went to the Peckham branch to make inquiries—Charles Taylor was a public-house keeper in the Peckham Road in 1877—, this cheque was paid by Taylor to his account—I do not know where he is now.
GEORGE JONES . I am a clerk in the employment of Sutton and Co., of 10, Bow Churchyard—I produce an account, dated 1st October, for goods supplied to our firm by J. Denoual, showing a balance due of 9l. 14s. 8d.—that was paid by cheque on our bankers—I have looked for it, but have not been able to find it—this receipt is in the prisoner's handwriting.
HENRY CLEMENT HALDANE . I am cashier at Mather's, the druggists—this is a statement of account of moneys owing by the firm to Jules Denoual on the 17th December, 1877, for 38l. 19s. 10d.—I paid the prisoner that amount by this cheque.
GEORGE WILLIAM MUNT . I live in Cross Street Buildings, Hatton Garden, and am a fancy box maker—I know the prisoner—on the 17th November he paid me this cheque of Mather's for 38l. 19s. 10d.—he said he had just received it from Mr. Mather in payment of an account, and as it was crossed it was a little inconvenient to him, and would I kindly give him an open cheque for it—I did so on my bank, the London Joint Stock Bank in Charterhouse Street—I made it payable to order—it is endorsed by him—I paid the other cheque into my bank, and it came back to me in the ordinary course as paid.
DONALD WATERS (Police Sergeant R). I took the prisoner into custody on a warrant on the 12th November, 1878, at 176, Ladbroke Grove Road, Notting Hill—that was the house of Mr. Charles—I told him he was charged with embezzling moneys from his uncle—he said he had not had any wages for about 16 years.
Prisoner's Defence. Part of the 13l. 13s. has been given to the prosecutor, and part of it was spent in the business. Sutton's cheque was sent to the prosecutor. The proceeds of Mather's cheque I took myself, there being money due to me. There was an account in 1875 which showed that 160l. was then due to me. (The Prisoner proceeded to read a number of letters from
the prosecutor in relation to the business, with a view of showing the trust reposed in him, and that the money he received Was expended in the business by him as a partner.)
JULES DENOUAL (Re-examined). I sold some property on 20th November, 1876, I did not draw the money from the bank—I believed that all the money belonging to me had been paid into the bank, and instead of finding 500l. or 600l. there, there was only 30l.—he had 900l. in hand of mine—he kept the books, and he took them away with him—when I left London 20l. 19s. was owing to him, and I left him a cheque for 30l. for that and 8l. for petty cash—he has never said till now that he retained the moneys he received on account of a debt due to him—he never told me that I owed him 150l.
JULES MAGNET (Re-examined). When I went as manager on 19th November, 1877, I found the names of 20 persons in the prisoner's books as owing money to the firm, besides the three for which he is now being tried; they amounted to 159l. 19s. 9d.—I have seen his receipts from those 20 persons for the money they paid him, and which he has not accounted for—that was during July, August, and September.
GUILTY — Six Months' Imprisonment The Jury considered that the prosecutor ought to have exercised better supervision of the accounts.
178. SAMUEL CHAPLIN (55) , Feloniously causing to be received by Richard Owen Oliver a letter threatening to accuse him of the murder of his servant Lucy, with intent to extort money. Other Counts varying the form of charge.
MR. INNES Prosecuted; MR. EDWARD CLARKE Defended.
MR. CLARKE referred to the terms of the letter, and submitted that it did not contain any such threat as that charged in the indictment. The Recorder being of that opinion, directed a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
RICHARD OWEN OLIVER . I am a surgeon, now residing at Wallington, in Surrey—prior to Midsummer last I was occupying Cambridge Villa, Watford, under the defendant—I quitted at Midsummer, and went to Wallington—the defendant commenced an action against me in the Watford County Court for 25l. for wilful damage and dilapidations—the action was Bet down for trial on 21st October—I instructed my solicitors to defend that action—on Saturday, 19th September, I received this letter through the first post—the name "Owen" on the envelope was doubly underlined—it was not true that I did wilful damage at Cambridge Villa, or that I ever kept a bawdy house—it is a wicked falsehood—I am not aware that the action has been removed into another Court—I think it is in abeyance, I don't know—I know the prisoner's handwriting—this envelope and letter is his writing.
(Read: "Mr. Chaplin informs Mr. Richard Owen Oliver that if he gives Mr. C. further trouble he must and will take steps to punish him for making a bawdy house of his premises, and also causing inquiry concerning the death of his servant Lucy. Mr. Richard Owen Oliver, wilful damage to Cambridge Villa, 25l.")
Cross-examined. I have removed the action into a superior Court for my character, my character is everything—I made an affidavit—I believe I put
in it this letter, at least my lawyer did—the action is pending now in the County Court—I am not aware that it has been removed into the superior Court—I did remove it—I have no idea when the case is likely to come on—I attended at the County Court—I believe my solicitor applied that the action should not be heard until I had summoned Mr. Chaplin to the police-court, and it stood over for that reason—I did summon Mr. Chaplin to the police-court at Croydon—I cannot say how long after that it was that the application was made to remove—I was five years at Cambridge Villa—Mr. Chaplin was not my landlord when I went there—he became so during the time I was there—we did not have a good deal of dispute—we were most friendly at first—there was a difference previous to my leaving—my wife did not quarrel, his wife did, and he came to blackguard my wife—it was owing to his wife not keeping her word—I defended the action partly on the ground that difficult questions of law might arise under the agreement made with Mr. King—I believe my solicitor sent a surveyor to Cambridge Villa—I did not go with him—I don't know the surveyor's name, I trusted it to my solicitor—I lived next door to Mr. Chaplin, under the same roof—the houses were semi-detached—the regular postman handed this letter to me; I opened it and read it, and handed it over to my solicitor, and then got the action adjourned.
Re-examined. This prosecution is for writing and publishing this letter—I had to prosecute the defendant before for slander.
URIAH ALFRED MATTHEW . I am a letter carrier at Carshalton—I deliver the letters at Wallington—in the ordinary course of my duty I should deliver this letter on the day it bears date in the first post in the morning.
Upon MR. INNES proposing to ask the wiiness if the prisoner had made similar statements, MR. CLARKE objected, as such evidence would only tend toprove dander, which was a different offence to that charged. The Recorder was of opinion that the evidence was inadmissible; the only question for the Jury, on the present form of charge, was whether the intention of the letter was to provoke a breach of the peace.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. KELLY and LLOYD Prosecuted.
HENRY MILLER (Policeman L 115). About half-past one o'clock on the morning of the 3rd January, from information received, I went to 1, Ann Street, Waterloo Road—I found the prisoner and another man in bed in the top front room—Policeman 135 L went with me—I said "Saunders, get up"—I knew him—I said "You have counterfeit coin in your possession"—he made no answer—I said "Are those clothes in the chair yours?"—he said "Yes"—I said "I will search your clothes"—I did so—in the trousers I found 13 half-crowns (produced) wrapped in tissue-paper—I said "Put the trousers on"—I made him get out of bed—he put them on and I saw him wearing them afterwards—on searching his undercoat I found 35 florins (produced); three packets of 10 florins each were wrapped up, the other five were loose—I made him put on the undercoat—in the greatcoat he is now
wearing I found 44 shillings, wrapped up in three packets of 10 each, and the rest loose—I produce the 44 shillings—I found a key in his trousers' pocket—I asked him if it was his—he made no answer—I said "Is that the key of the portmanteau there?"—he said, "Yes"—I unlocked it and found in it 42 florins and 40 shillings (produced) wrapped up in four packets of 10 each, in tissue-paper—there were two loose—he had a purse in the trousers pocket containing 12 sovereigns in gold, good money, and three half-crowns, four shillings, a sixpence, 3 1/2 d. in bronze, loose in his pocket—also two watches; this one (produced) in the undercoat breast-pocket.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. When I was searching your things Mr. Westmore, the landlord, was present—when I took out the watch he remarked, "Oh! ho brings lots' of them sometimes"—I had been watching the house some time—the landlord let me in—I found one catalogue (produced) for sale of jewellery, watches, &c.—it contained a number of pawn-tickets—I found also 36 duplicates, which you told me related to old clothes pawned which you had been buying at sales—I believe you were dealing at sales—I took no papers from the top of the cupboard—I did not find any.
Re-examined. I have looked through the catalogue—I find no entry of florins or half-crowns, or shillings to be sold—I examined the duplicates—no counterfeit coins had been pawned.
THOMAS WESTON (Policeman L 135). I was with the last witness when he entered the room, and saw him search the prisoner's clothes—I saw him take from his trousers-pocket the 13 half-crowns, and the 35 florins from his undercoat—also the 44 shillings from the greatcoat pocket, and the 40 shillings from the portmanteau—I heard him ask the prisoner whether the key found was the key of the portmanteau—he answered "Yes"—I saw it taken from his trousers pocket and the portmanteau opened with it, and the coins taken out—I heard the other constable say "I am come to arrest you for having counterfeit coins in your possession"—he made no reply.
WILLIAM WEBSTER . The 13 half-crowns of 1877 from the trousers are all bad and from the same mould—the 35 florins of 1873 taken from the undercoat are all bad; several from the same mould, but not all—the 44 shillings from his overcoat are all bad—they were of 1866, 1868, 1872, and 1873, and all of one date are from the same moulds—the 42 florins and 40 shillings found in the portmanteau are all bad, and several of them from the same mould as those taken from the overcoat and undercoat—the dates were 1873, the shillings 1866, 1868, 1872, and 1873—they are the best made coins I have seen for some years—very dangerous indeed—they were blackened over to take away the brightness of the coin after they were made—they are very light.
The Prisoner in defence said he should have pleaded guilty, but that he wished to explain that the coins found in his possession were given to him by a customer of his to take care of as he was afraid of being found out.
GUILTY . He also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction for a similar offence at Hastings, in October, 1874.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
MESSRS. POLAND and TICKELL Prosecuted.
in at about 11.30 in the evening for half a pint of fourpenny ale—my wife served him—he put down a shilling—my wife handed it to me—I found it was bad—I said to the prisoner, "Of course you know what you have given me?"—he said, "A shilling"—I said, "It is a bad one; I will give you in charge of the police"—he said nothing—I said to my boy, "Go and get a constable at once"—the prisoner then drank up his ale, threw down a penny, and ran out of the door—I ran after him and caught him outside the door—he broke away, and ran up Little Tothill St. into Victoria Street, a distance of about 600 yards—I caught him again, and gave him in custody—I gave the shilling to the constable, B 462—I had previously marked it—the prisoner was taken to the police-station, and afterwards remanded at the police-court and discharged on 9th December—he gave the name of Thomas Sullivan at the police-station.
HENRY BROWNSCOME (Policeman B 462). I saw the prisoner outside the Westminster Palace Hotel tap, struggling with the last witness—he got away—I followed, and in Victoria Street the witness gave him into custody for uttering a counterfeit shilling—the prisoner said, "All right, I'll go to the station; I must have got it in change at the Feathers public-house, Great Smith Street, Westminster"—I searched him at the police-station and found on him a shilling, a sixpence, and 2d. in bronze, all good—he gave me the name of Thomas Sullivan, of No. 6, Great Smith Street; that is a lodging-house—the next day he was taken to the Westminster Police-court and remanded until the 9th, and then discharged—Mr. Hamblin gave me the shilling—I produce it.
THOMAS EMPSON MILLER . I keep the Royal Engineers' Arras beerhouse, Westminster Bridge Road—at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of 10th December the prisoner came with another man and asked for a pint of four ale—I served him—he gave me a coin, saying it was very dull weather—as I took the coin I thought it looked dull, and I pitched it down—it sounded verywell, but didn't bounce well—I went round to him and said, "Did you pay me for this pint of fourpenny ale?" and he said, "I gave you a shilling"—I said, "You have not"—he said to the man who was with him, "Haven't I?"—he said "Yes"—I said, "You have given me no shilling," and he said, "Give it to me back if it's a bad one"—they drank half the ale, and put down a penny or two halfpence, and prisoner said, "There's for the half-pint we have drunk, and we will give you the half-pint we have not drunk; we have no more money"—I had the shilling in my hand—he wanted it back—I said, "No, I won't give it you"—I called Mr. Thorn out of the bar-parlour—I said in the prisoner's hearing, "They have given me a bad coin; will you fetch a policeman?"—they both rushed to the door—the other man got away—I laid hold of the prisoner—he pulled and tried to get away till we got outside about 10 yards distant—he then said, "Let me go, or you will ruin my character"—I said, "I will not let you go till a policeman comes"—when the constable came up I gave the prisoner and the coin into his charge—that is the coin (produced).
THOMAS THORN . I live at 26, Westminster Bridge Road—I was in Mr. Miller's bar-parlour—I saw the prisoner come in with another man and ask for a pint of ale—I saw Miller serve them, and he afterwards called me out to fetch a policeman—he said, "This chap has given me a bad shilling"—I went out—the two men made a rush outside the door—one got away, and the prisoner was caught by Miller.
GEORGE SIMPSON (Policeman 194). I took the prisoner into custody—he said, "I did not know it was bad"—I took him to the station, and found nothing on him—the prosecutor gave me the shilling produced—the prisoner gave an address, 16, Francis Street, Westminster Bridge Road—I went there, and was told he had his food there, but did not sleep there.
The Prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY — Six Months' Hard Labour.
MESSRS. POLAND and TICKELL Prosecuted.
ELIZABETH NICHOLLS . I am assistant to Mr. Brown, confectioner, No. 9, Mount Terrace, Westminster Bridge Road—on the 11th December Kelly came about half-past five at night for 1/2 lb. of biscuits—he gave me a two-shilling piece, and I gave him 1s. 6d. change, and put the two-shilling piece into a bowl in the till—Macey and Fletcher, the two detectives, came into the shop, and in consequence of what they said I produced the florin, and they marked it—there was no other florin there—no one had been in the shop between the time Kelly left and the two detectives came in—Kelly was worse for drink—I understood what he said, and he seemed to understand what he was doing—I did not see the other two prisoners.
KATE LACEY . I am sister to Mr. Robinson, general-dealer, No. 1, Royal Street, Westminster Bridge Road—on the evening of 11th December Kelly came into the shop at about 20 minutes to 6—he asked for 1/2 lb. of cheese—I served him—he gave me the florin produced—I put it into a bowl—there was no other florin there—I gave him 1s. 9 1/4 d. change—a few minutes after detective Macey came, and in consequence of what he said, I went to the bowl and took out the florin, and then he marked it—he left it with me—I afterwards gave it up to him—that is the one produced—I was shown some cheese the next day—it was the same piece I had served Kelly with—our shop is about five minutes' walk from Mr. Brown's—I did not see either of the other prisoners—Kelly was in liquor—I understood what he said to me, and he appeared to understand me.
WILLIAM LASSCOCK . I am a tobacconist, at 24, Savile Place, Lambeth Road—it is about five minutes' walk from Royal Street—on the 11th December Kelly came about 6 o'clock for half-an-ounce of tobacco—he gave me in payment this florin—I gave him 1s. 10d. change—he was about half-drunk—I understood what he said and he seemed to understand me—Detective Macey came in afterwards and spoke to me—I then looked at the two-shilling piece—it was in the till, and there was no other two-shilling piece there—I found it was bad—the detective marked it—I did not see the other two men.
RICHARD MACEY (Detective Sergeant L). On the evening of the 11th December, at about 4 to 5 o'clock I was with Fletcher in the Westminster Bridge Road in plain clothes—I saw the prisoners standing under the windows of the Hercules public-house—they were in deep conversation—I watched them—they stood there about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—I saw Kelly leave the other two and go into Brown's, the confectioner's shop—it is on the opposite of the way—the other two prisoner's—left him and went
as far as Alderson's, the draper's, at the corner of Westminster Bridge Road—I saw him served by the witness Nicholls—I could see through the doorway—he then came out and joined the other two—Quinlan and Thomas were looking in at Alderson's window—I then went into Brown's shop and spoke to Miss Nicholls—she showed me a florin—I marked it, and left it with her—that is it (produced)—I then saw the three prisoners together going up the Westminster Bridge Road, followed by Fletcher—they stopped again outside of Lawe's, the ironmonger's, and I saw Thomas pass something to Kelly—they then turned down Carlisle Lane as far as the corner of Royal Street, where Kelly went into the shop of Mr. Robinson—I saw him served with something—when he came out I at once went in, and the witness Lacy showed me the florin produced—I marked it and left it with her—Kelly on coming out joined the other two prisoner's about fifty yards off—they were standing waiting for him—we followed them into Lambeth Road and Savile Place—they stopped again outside Burrow's', the pawnbroker's shop—I saw Thomas give Kelly something again—Kelly went into the shop of the witness Lasscock, I did not see him served—after coming out he joined the other two, about thirty yards distance, where they were waiting—I went into the shop at once, and spoke to Lasscock—he showed me a bad florin (produced)—I marked it and left it there—we saw the three prisoners turn together into Lambeth Walk—as they did so I and Fletcher went round Berkeley Street into Mill Street—we met the three prisoners face to face—I seized Thomas and told him I should take him into custody—he said "I have not robbed the man"—I had not then stated what for—afterwards I told him I should take him into custody for uttering coin, when Thomas and Quinlan said, "You have made a mistake"—Kelly said nothing—we took the three together, and when a few yards down Lambeth Road they began to struggle, and I pushed them into a shop and sent for some uniform men—I searched Kelly at the police-station—he had this basket (produced), and in it some cheese, apples, sweets, sausages, and bacon—he was carrying the basket on his shoulder—I also found 8s. 6d. in silver and 1s. 6 3/4 d. in bronze, all good money—on Thomas I found a new knife; a pipe and case, sixteen shillings in silver, good money, also a pawnbroker's ticket—I only partly searched Quinlan at the shop when we pushed them in—I found on him a packet of tea and sugar.
Cross-examined by Quinlan. I had my staff in my pocket when I took you in custody, and I got it ready—I did not go into the public-house when I saw you there—you did not say at the police-station you had bought two halfpenny loaves—I did not see Thomas pass anything to you.
Cross-examined by Thomas. I did not take a bag of cakes from you—I saw no biscuits at all—you had none upon you—you struggled to get away just before I pushed you into the shoemakers shop—I sent for the policeman after.
HENRY FLETCHER (Detective L). I was with the last witness and followed the prisoners with him until they were taken in custody—when I first saw them they were all together standing under the window of the Hercules public-house—I afterwards saw Kelly go into Mr. Brown's shop, and the little chandler's shop in Royal Street, and also into the tobacconist's shop—the other prisoners were waiting outside for him a few yards away—I saw Thomas pass something to him three times—the first time was under the
window of the Hercules public-house, the second time outside the ironmonger's, and then in Savile Road, outside the tobacconist's shop—on the third occasion, after coming out of Lasscock's, I saw him join the other two—I and Macey went round into another street and met them face to face and took them into custody—I caught hold of Quinlan—he said "What do you want me for? I have done nothing"—I said "We will take you in custody for being concerned with others in uttering counterfeit coin"—I think I said "Florins"—he said "You have made a mistake this time; I have not done anything"—I took Quinlan, and Macey took the other two—Quinlan was rather rough—he said "If you were single-handed, you should not take me alone"—Thomas tried hard to get away from Macey—we pushed them into a shop and waited till a constable in uniform came, and the three were taken to the station—I saw Macey search Quinlan—a packet of tea and sugar was found upon him.
Cross-examined by Quinlan. I saw you outside the Hercules about a quarter of an hour before Kelly went into the tobacconist's—you stood outside—I never heard you say you went into the baker's shop—I did not go into the Hercules—I do not know that Macey did.
Cross-examined by Thomas. Macey took from you some keys and a knife, I think, also a pipe—I did not notice all he took from you—cannot say if he took a bag and cakes from you—Kelly's hat was dirty as if he had been at work—cannot say if it was wet—it was splashed with mud—his coat was not splashed so much—his boots were very dirty.
Cross-examined by Quinlan. There was very little mud on his coat, and merely a few splashes on his hat—your hat was not splashed.
EVAN VAUGHAN (Policeman L 143). On the evening of the 11th December I was in uniform and on duty in Lambeth Walk—I saw the three prisoners in custody of Macey and Fletcher—I took Thomas to the station—the other constable took the other two—at the police-station Thomas passed something into his mouth—I sprang to his side and forced the florin produced out of his mouth—two or three minutes after he passed something again to his mouth—I again seized him and forced a half-crown from his mouth—that is good, but the florin is counterfeit—I saw Thomas eating some biscuits at the station while we were waiting for the witnesses—Kelly had a little dirt on his back as if from a fall—his hat was dirty too.
Cross-examined by Thomas. I saw you eating the cakes and throw a piece of paper rolled up under the seat—that is the half-crown produced—I did not see the other constable take a paper bag from you.
WILLIAM BROTHERHOOD . I am the landlord of the Old Rose public-house in Russell Street, Bermondsey—on the 7th December Kelly came in about 8.20—I did not notice any one with him—he called for a pint of fourpenny ale—in payment he tendered a florin—I saw it was bad by the way he put it down, and I told him so—he made a rambling statement, and then said he had changed half-a-sovereign at a public-house—I said "Where is the change? and whether he had any more like it—he did not answer, and then he said he had changed a sovereign at Dockhead—I asked him what he had done with the money—he said he had spent it in four-half—I then told him I should send for a constable—he pulled out 1s. 6d. and 5 1/2 d. in bronze—I had given him no change—the ale came to 2d.—I did not allow him
to have it—I took it away—I gave him into the custody of Police-constable Adcock—I also gave the policeman the florin—I marked it (produced)—that is the florin—he was taken before the Magistrate on the Monday morning, the 9th—he was remanded till the Wednesday, the 11th, and then discharged between 12 and 1 o'clock, the same day he uttered the other money.
EDWARD ADCOCK (Late Policeman M 241). I have left the force—on the 7th December I was called to the Old Rose public-house, and Kelly was given into my custody with the counterfeit florin—I found on Kelly 1s. 6d. in silver and 5 1/2 d. in bronze—I took him to the station—I also found in his waistcoat pocket 3d.—I asked him how he got the florin—he said he got it in change for a sovereign at Dockhead—he did not know which public-house—he said he had spent the remainder in four-half—he gave me the name of Patrick Keating—he was taken before the Southwark Magistrate, and remanded till Wednesday the 11th, and then discharged at about 1 o'clock.
Cross-examined by Kelly. I searched the bag, and found a few sausages and a bit of bacon, about a pennyworth of apples, and a few sweets—I saw two open knives, but no pocket-knife.
WILLIAM WEBSTER . The five florins produced are all bad—the first and second are from the same mould—the fourth, taken from Thomas's mouth, is also from the same mould—the fifth is also from the same mould.
Kelly's Defence. I am very sorry. I was drunk at the time, and meeting the other prisoners, Thomas sent me with the coin to various shops.
Quinlan in his defence said he was seeking work at the docks, and saw Kelly drunk, with a crowd round him—he took Kelly's part, and Kelly treated him to drink—he was directing him the way home when they met with Thomas, and that he had nothing to do with the money.
Thomas stated that he saw Kelly fighting in a crowd near the Hercules public-house with his hat off, and found there was a dispute about some money. He got him away, and Quinlan brought him his hat. They had some beer together, and were accompanying him on his way home. That Kelly went into several shops and gave him the two-shilling piece to buy beer with; he had no idea of its being counterfeit, or that Kelly had been uttering bad money; he thought when arrested that the policeman suspected he was the man who had taken Kelly's money in the crowd.
KELLY— GUILTY .— Nine Months' Imprisonment.
THOMAS— GUILTY .
Two Years' Imprisonment . Several previous convictions against Thomas were proved.
QUINLAN— NOT GUILTY .
MR. PURCELL Prosecuted; MR. GILL Defended.
is about 100 yards from the prisoner's stable—he is a greengrocer, and has horses—I saw a track of crushed oats from the prosecutor's to the prisoner's stable, such as would be left from a hole in a sack—I went to the prisoner's stable, Foley stood on a cart and looked through the fanlight, and in consequence of what he said I went to the prisoner's shop, 400 or 500 yards from the stable, and said that he had a sack of oats and a truss of clover in his stable, and I wanted him to give an account of how he became possessed of them—I was in plain clothes, but he knew me—he said "I bought them last night of a man called Jack for 7s."—I walked with him to the stable—he said three or four times in Foley's presence with an oath, "I am done"—I found this sack with a hole in it in the stable, with Mr. Cowan's name on it—it was tied above the hole—I took the prisoner to the station, and went to his house and found in his bedroom, on the first-floor back, 12 towels, 42 table-napkins, 2 sheets, 3 window-curtains, 2 oil paintings, a piece of a carpet, a sofa cushion, 2 pillows, a dressing-case, a woollen dress, one jacket, a shawl, 5 chair-covers, 2 yards of silk, a piece of cashmere, 2 table-covers; and a crumb-cloth—they have been identified by Mr. Nash—the sheets were between the bed and mattress, not wrapped up, but chucked in in a hurry—the other things were all strewed about the room, some in boxes and some on the floor—the room was in confusion—I went back and told him I had found all those things—he said "Yes, I bought them"—I found in that room two shawls and a timepiece which have been identified by Mrs. Roberts—I told him I had found them—he said that he bought them, but he did not say of whom, or what he gave for them.
Cross-examined. Mr. Cowan is a miller—I did not open the stable door till the prisoner came—his house is 400 or '500 yards away—a loft adjoins his stable—he keeps a van and two horses there—I found about half a sack of corn and clover loose in the bin—there are two or three holes in the sack—his sister was at the shop when I went; she lives there.
Re-examined. It is a greengrocer's shop, not a clothes store—several other sacks were found in the stable, but no other sack of Mr. Cowan's.
JAMES FOLEY (Policeman R). On the morning of 8th December I went to the prisoner's stable, stood on a cart, looked through a fanlight, which I shoved back, and saw Mr. Cowan's sack—when Bryers came back with the prisoner the door was opened—we went in, and the prisoner said, "God strike me dead, I am done"—we found some hay and oats in the stable, and had two men to take them away—we found two bushels of provender there, and another empty sack corresponding to this, with the name on it—I said, "How do you account for this sack and this provender!"—he said, "It came as the same time as the other"—he was asked about the other, and said that he bought it of a man named Jack last night at 12 o'clock, whom he had seen hanging about Rotherhithe Wall.
Cross-examined. The Wall is a place where corn is unloaded, there are granaries there—I went back to the house and was present when all these things were found.
ARTHUR STAINES . I am foreman to James and Thomas Cowan—these sacks are theirs—on 8th December, a sack of oats, a sack of clover, and some mixed provender were missed—I cannot identify the provender found at the prisoner's yard, but £ identify the sacks.
Cross-examined. The corn is kept in a loft over the stable, 13 sacks of crushed oats had been sent in on the Saturday afternoon—Messrs. Cowan
have a very large number of sacks—we use these exclusively for wheat—; the sacks are supposed to come back, but possibly we may lose some—these are four-bushel sacks.
ELLEN ROBERTS . I am the wife of James Roberts, of Elgin Crescent, Notting Hill—in the last week of August, I and my family went into the country, and left the house to take care of itself—I returned the first week in September, found that the house had been entered, and missed property to the amount of about 25l.—these two shawls and this timepiece (produced) were part of it—the timepiece is worth 30s.—this is all I have found—I never saw the prisoner.
Cross-examined. The shawls are worth about 10s.—the clock was a present, I have had it nearly 14 years.
ROBERT NESS . I live at 30, Clarendon Road, Notting Hill—my family were at the seaside on 30th September, and I left the house to take care of itself, but I lived in the neighbourhood—I called there on 30th September, and found it safe—I went again on 18th October, and on putting my key in the door found that it was bolted—I went round to the kitchen entrance and found the door open—it had been securely locked and bolted on my last visit—I walked in, found the gas burning—I called a policeman—I found some desks broken open, a wardrobe and sideboard broken, and property to the amount of 150l. taken away—the property discovered is about a sixth of what I lost—I identify all these articles, they were safe on the morning of 13th September.
Cross-examined. The least valuable things are here—these things are worth about 25l.
Re-examined. Among other things, there were a quantity of Dresden ornaments, a marble clock, and some silk dresses.
GUILTY of receiving . He was further charged with a previous conviction at Clerkenwell, in December, 1868, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY*†.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
188. EDWARD POCOCK (44) PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling 10d. and 1s. 4d.; also 1s. 2d., 1s. 1d., and 1s. of the London Tramways Company', his masters; also to unlawfully falsifying a certain way-bill— Six Months Imprisonment.
189. JOHN CONNOR (20) to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Fox, and stealing a coat and other articles, his property; also to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Alexander Clerice, and stealing a hat and other articles, his property.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
190. RICHARD LLOYD (16) to forging and uttering an endorsement to an order for 11l., with intent to defraud. (His master engaged to send him to sea.)— Four Months' Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
191. PETER EALS* (42) to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Hall, and stealing a pair of boots and two umbrellas, his property.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr Esq,
192. CHARLES MESSON (18) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a watch and other articles, value 8l., the property of John Hubbard, in his dwelling-house, and feloniously and burglariously breaking out of the said dwelling-house.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
MESSRS. STRAIGHT and TICKELL Prosecuted; MR. KULTON Defended.
HENRY PHILLIPS (Police Inspector T). I am attached to the Criminal Investigation Department—John Ward, alias Charles Peace, was convicted last November of shooting at a police-constable—he was arrested on 10th October—from inquiries I made I went down to Darnall, which is about three miles from Sheffield, on 5th November—the house I went to was occupied by John Bolsover, his wife, sister, the prisoner, and Willie Ward—I sat down and had some conversation with them, and told them I had come from Peckham—I turned round and saw a clock on the drawers, which I knew from a description to belong to Miss Dodson, of Blackheath—Inspector Twybell came in, and I told the prisoner and Bolsover that the clock was stolen property, and I should take charge of it—the prisoner said "I did not know that it was stolen, a tall man gave it me about five weeks ago"—I told her a man who lived at Peckham had been remanded, and she said "He has been a great deal of trouble to me and seems to harass my life wherever I go"—I searched the house and found various articles which have been identified by different persons—when the other inspector was about to open a box, the prisoner said "Never mind that box, Mr. Twybell, I know what you want, I will give it you"—we opened the box and took from it a large parcel containing about forty articles—we took the residue of the property, and I charged her with receiving the property knowing it to be stolen—she replied "I did not know it was stolen—she was taken before the Magistrate on 13th November, and on the 14th I went to Balsover's house again and found the articles identified by Mr. Shapley—the prisoner gave her name as Hannah Peace, and her son said in her presence she was married at St. George's Church, Sheffield—she did not contradict it—I brought a big box up to London, too large to bring here, which I showed to Pickering and to Mrs. Belfit—the prisoner said the old man burnt her marriage certificate some time ago.
EMMA SHAPLEY . I am the wife of William Gordon Shapley, of Seymour Lodge, Peckham—on the night of 23rd September we discovered that about 23l. worth of wearing apparel had been stolen—I identify these articles as. the same (produced).
JOHN BONNEY (Inspector R). On 5th November I went to Mrs. Belfit's, 11, North Street, Nottingham, where I saw a small red box open, and in it) I found a pickle-fork which has been identified by Mrs. McDonald—I also found the seven handkerchiefs and table-cover which have been identified by Mrs. Shapley—at Peckham I had 20 spoons, 24 forks, and two scoops handed to me.
LOUISA NEWMAN . I am cook to Mr. Charles Thomas Perry, of Richmond Lodge, Honor Oak Road, Forest Hill—on the night of 5th August I went to bed, leaving the house safe, and next morning I found that it had been.
entered—amongst other things we missed two caskets, one tortoiseshell and one cornelian, value about 30l. or 40l.
FREDERICK STANLEY . I live at Arbutus Lodge, Denmark Hill—in September, 1877, I was at Brighton, and on my return I missed, amongst other things, two dessert knives, one dessert fork, and a pair of bracelets—these are the articles (produced).
SAMUEL SMITH . I am a builder's foreman, of 68, St. Mary's Road, Peckham—in May, 1878, I had a house, 5, East Terrace, Evelina Road, Peckham, to let—four persons called on me with reference to it: the prisoner (who passed as Mrs. Ward), Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, and Willie Ward—I asked for references, and I went to their old residence, and gave them possession of the house—it was let to the man, in the name of John Thompson—in October I went to the house, and found ail the occupants gone and the back door open—the house was empty—I had received no notice from them, and never got the keys.
Cross-examined. It was after 10th October I found them gone, and after I heard of the burglaries—I saw Mr. and Mrs. Thompson in the house early in October.
HENRY FORSEY BRYAN . It live at 22, Phillips Road, Peckham—on 23rd September I called at 5, East Terrace, and saw the Thompsons, Willie Ward, and the prisoner—Thompson is the man, I believe, who was afterwards tried here as Ward—Thompson said to Mrs. Thompson "Sue, will you fetch the fowls for this gentleman to see?" and as I was on the point of leaving the room he said, pointing to Mrs. Thompson, "That is my wife"—the prisoner was present—she made no reply—I frequently went to the house from May to August—the Thompsons appeared to be living as man and wife—on 1st November I received a letter in the name of John Ward, and I came to Newgate to see the man—it was a most imploring letter, to know if I would go and see him—while here I saw Mr. Sidney Smith, the governor, and lots of questions were put to me to see if I knew the man—I did not know the writing or the name, but ho was the man I had known as John Thompson—when I ceased visiting them they called at my house on one occasion, when Mrs. Thompson was introduced as Mr. Thompson's wife, and the prisoner as Mrs. Ward—in consequence of a communication made to me I wrote to Mrs. Belfit, who then lived at 11, North Street, Nottingham—I received a red box from her.
ROBERT MAPLESON . I am chief warder of her Majesty's Gaol of Newgate—a man who was committed in the name of Ward was under my custody—he was tried at this Court for attempting the life of a police-constable on 10th October, and sentenced to penal servitude for life—I saw the last witness visit him.
ELIZA MARY ANN COLLINSON DADSON . I am the daughter of Mr. Campbell Dadson, and live at 5, Kidbrook Terrace, Blackheath—on the night of 3rd August I missed this clock, which had been stolen—there was much more valuable property stolen as well.
Cross-examined. This is only worth a few shillings.
of a message I received from another quarter, I went to 5, East Terrace, Evelina Road, Peckham, where I saw a woman whom I believe to be the prisoner—in consequence of what she said I took three boxes to the station and had them labelled for King's Cross—I have since seen one of the boxes, a large one, at Bow Street—one was a small brown box which I nailed down—the woman and the boxes went by the 5.55 train.
Cross-examined. I was in the woman's company about three minutes—she followed behind to the station—I saw her on the platform—I do not swear to her—there were other females there.
ELIZA BELFIT . I am the wife of Robert Belfit, of Great Freeman Street, Notting Hill—on 5th November I was living at 11, North Street, Nottingham—on that day Inspector Bonny called on me—prior to that Mrs. Thompson came to my house one night, between 12 and 1 o'clock, accompanied by the prisoner, who Mrs. Thompson introduced as Mrs. Ward—I could not accommodate them, and they stayed till 4 or 5 o'clock and went by an early train—I accompanied them to the station, where Mrs. Ward got two boxes from the cloak-room, one large one, which were lifted into the railway van—I have seen a box at Bow Street like the large one—she afterwards went for two other boxes, which she asked me to take to my house—one of them was a small red box—she said they belonged to her and her daughter, and that the red box was an old family relic, and would I take care of it—I took the boxes home, and. about a fortnight after Mrs. Ward came to my house again and took something out of the box—there was a paper parcel in the red box, and when Inspector Bonny came in November, I saw him open the red box and take out some plate and a table-cloth—on 25th November my daughter handed the parcel to Mrs. Bryan, I having received a letter from Mr. Bryan, and on 3rd December, in consequence of a letter I received, I sent the small red box to Mr. Bryan, at Phillips Road, Peckham—this is the box (produced).
Cross-examined. I have seen Mrs. Thompson this morning, not here—I have known she has been living at Mrs. Bryan's.
Re-examined. I knew her as living at 5, East Terrace, Evelina Road, with a person named Thompson, as his wife.
Cross-examined. My daughter has been living with me since the prisoner was taken into custody—I understood Mrs. Thompson lived with Peace, and that they were Mr. and Mrs. Thompson—I had often seen the prisoner at 5, East Terrace; she occupied the position of a lodger in the house, having two rooms upstairs and a back-kitchen, and Mr. and Mrs. Thompson occupied. the rest of the house as man and wife—there was no servant in the house to my knowledge—the prisoner did not act as their servant in my presence, and I never heard them say she was their servant.
WILLIAM BOLSOVER . I live at 4, Hazel Road, Darnall, near Sheffield, and am a miner—I knew the prisoner when she lived at Darnall—Jane Ann Peace lived with her and passed as her daughter—she at that time lived, with
Charles Frederick Peace—I married the girl on 8th January last at Hull—Charles Frederick Peace was not present—Last Whit Monday I came to London with my wife, and went to 5, East Terrace, Evelina Road, where I saw Peace living as Mr. Thompson with a woman who passed as Mm Thompson—a lad named Willie lived there—I stayed there eight or nine days and went home—the prisoner and Willie took their meals alone, and Mr. and Mrs. Thompson in another part of the house—on 12th October the prisoner came to my house at Darnall and said she had left a large box at the station, Sheffield—she said she had seen something in the paper relating to a man who was apprehended, and she supposed it was her husband—I took her in, and on the following Monday I went to Sheffield and brought her box, which was heavy—the box I have seen is the same—there were eventually two brought to my premises—I saw them searched—all the things that have been identified as found on my premises had been brought there by the prisoner—I had nothing to do with them.
Cross-examined. Peace represented that he was the father of my wife, and I had no doubt about it until these proceedings—he gave me some money on Whit Monday—I believed Peace and the prisoner to be man and wife, and my wife to be their daughter—she had lived with them from infancy—at that time Mrs. Thompson was not brought on the scene to my knowledge.
Re-examined. I knew them as living together at Darnall for perhaps two years—that would be about 1873 or 1874—Peace then went away, and I lost sight of him—his daughter informed me that he had been to Hull—I never saw him again till about 12 months ago last Easter at Hull in the street—my wife married in the name of Peace.
JOHN PINDER TWYBELL . I am an Inspector of Police at Sheffield—on Nov. 6th I assisted Phillips in searching Mr. Bolsover's house—I left Phillips, and afterwards returned to the house—I saw the prisoner, Mrs. Bolsover, Willie Ward, and Bolsover—I said to Bolsover, "We have found a large quantity of property in your house, which we have good reason to believe is stolen; there is a clock there which Mr. Phillips identifies as part of the proceeds of a burglary at Blackheath; how do you account for it being in jour house?"—he said, "I know nothing of it"—I said, "It is stolen, and you will have to account for it"—the prisoner said, "I brought it from Hull five weeks ago, a tall woman brought it to me;" that a friend had sent it to her house; she said, "I don't know her," and she said the other proper! was hers nearly two years ago—I collected all the property, and assisted in the search on Nov. 14th—some time between the 6th and 14th she said she was married at St. George's Church, Sheffield, in the name of Hannah Ward, to Charles Peace, the year before her daughter was born, who was 19 years old; that her husband had burnt the certificate, and that the two witnesses to the marriage, John Clark and Clara Clark, were dead.
Cross-examined. When I had that conversation with the prisoner the man Peace was in custody, and it was before the public that he was concerned in the burglaries, and he was committed for trial.
MR. FULTON submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury, inasmuch as the presumed marriage between the prisoner and Charles Peace had not been disproved by the prosecution, and assuming the marriage to exist, the prisoner had acted under the coercion of her husband. The learned Commissioner,
after conferring with MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS, held that the marriage must be assumed, and directed the Jury to find the prisoner
NOT GUILTY .
There were seven other indictments against the prisoner, on which a verdict of NOT GUILTY was taken.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 1879.